I didn't compare anyone to Nazi's... our government literally saw that funneling research funding through the military worked well for the Nazi's who undoubtedly produced some of the most advanced technology in the world in their day. We and the Russian's both stole their ideas along with their scientists.
Racism and sexism had reached a point where they were roughly akin to the measles in this country. Through promotion of the idea that these concepts exist, even on a subconscious level the person isn't aware of, they created an impossible to invalidate bogeyman. Anyone who isn't a straight white male is so sensitized to the idea of discrimination that they see it everywhere, they imagine privilege everywhere.
Women speak in their echo chamber and talk about how a man would get to do this or wouldn't be called out for that. Hell, even those who are straight white men are falsely led to believe they have something in common with other historical people who happened to share a skin tone. We don't agree with racism and or repressing women, we know we don't hold those kind of views but can't be certain about others... all the while initiatives both public and private provide advantage to everyone but us (thereby putting them in the fast lane and us in the slow lane for nothing but the accident of birth) on the presumption we have some magical undefined advantage.
In science men on average require 2-5x the number of citations to get the same jobs as men now. A scientist pointing this out was suspended and presumably will soon be fired. There is a supreme court candidate who may or may not be confirmed today. The fact that he has voiced net neutrality rules that run counter to the Constitution and amount to granting your carrier the authority to read and alter contracts and communications between you and others, including your attorney for instance, not even discussed. Instead we are supposed to support them on the basis of unproven allegations against a court justice in a country with a justice system which holds innocent until proven guilty in a court of law as its cornerstone. On a daily basis history is being rewritten to portray women and minorities as the key players in historical discoveries simply because the key players had the wrong genitals and skin color. Stories and media from our youth are being rewritten and re-characterized. A group that at the time was entirely focused on the importance of words redefined a cause to promote the interests of women as being the movement for gender equality, begging the question. Illegal immigrants have been flooded across our borders, not to allow them a better life, but because they potentially represent voters. Hell, in New Mexico the DMV has been outsourced so they can easily obtain ID and vote.
You cannot cure bigotry with bigotry. All you can do is alienate and breed resentment. This hatred and racism that persists and is drummed up for the purpose of gaining political support only creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. So long as people continue to believe the leaders who tell them they are weak and repressed and to blame it on someone else rather than enrich themselves and grow stronger they will be weak and repressed but by the leaders who claim they represent them. Lost entirely is the concept of philosophical charity.
We are going to have to pull CO2 out of the air and NOT put it back (or at least have it leak back at slower time scales) to get anywhere. If we could put the genie of the industrial revolution back in the bottle plant life might actually be able to keep up again.
Of course, heading back and even rolling back the industrialization of China and India is essential as well.
First of all, what limits them to their stated objective... not just today, anyone from ever using this for something other than making plants more resilient? Even making plants more resilient is an issue because plant genetics tend to get spread around.
That is certainly true enough. Most government money into research is funneled through the defense budget. It isn't just Reagan, we saw how well it worked for the Nazi's.
"A large faction seems to be really trying to pull the party WAY left (US left) and that bothers me, there are actual candidates there promoting socialism."
Socialism doesn't concern me, that is just economic. What concerns me is the rampant racism, sexism, and hate they are promoting. They are promoting a culture of paranoia and fear.
My issue with RC drones is that is lowers the bar to get people to murder other people. But lets be honest, the military is working on AI drones. Automated drone weaponry, automated defenses, attack resistant crops, etc. At what point do we become concerned that the wealthy are holding onto all the property and will soon be able to keep and maintain it without the rest of us? More importantly, they are developing the means to protect it from us without having to rely on us to be the muscle. Do you know what the greedy will do when they can have everything to themselves without consequence? They'll have everything to themselves, obviously.
"As a weapon, this one would have more negative side-effects than an atom bomb, and the explanation that they're doing this to somehow protect our crops from other countries' biological weapons doesn't pass the sniff test."
Exactly. Frankly I'd be less alarmed if they were trying to develop this as an offensive weapon. The military genetically modifying domestic plants to produce... just about anything they wish chemically, and that includes heirloom plants. Sounds like a sci-fi nightmare to me.
Consider the current political environment, with all the tensions and extremes, now throw something in to make people edgy and paranoid into common crops. Now maybe you think THAT is paranoid but conspiracy and coordinated mass effort are the bread and butter of the military. Assuming they are up to something might make you crazy, assuming they aren't makes you naive, assuming they could be and that anything that can be misused will eventually be misused is just due diligence. All it would take is one bad actor in the white house between now and ever. We the people shouldn't stand for it.
"Because it doesn't tell the most important information -- how well people are doing, how well they are meeting their targets, how wasteful they tend to be."
That would only be important if the objective were to make people stop being wasteful and correct their behavior. The objective is to reduce greenhouse gas and resolve the negative effects of climate change. The ideal solution would be one that requires no significant change in human behavior or consumption at all and further would support unlimited growth of the same.
That isn't likely to happen anytime soon but in the meantime where changes need to made to have the largest impact is what matters. I think we agree on that much at least. I don't entirely disagree with you about having metrics but entire nations aren't as meaningful in a per capita sense. It actually might make more sense to split things up into emission per square mile/km. That should start highlighting the bad apples pretty quickly.
"What we are seeing is that the more that other countries like China and India industrialize, the more their per-capita pollutants rise, and that's truly alarming. That's why I think per-capita emissions are more important. Everyone is going to want to do the things that the most-successful are doing. Everyone's going to want to increase their emissions to USA's levels."
My conclusion is just the opposite. The most successful aren't the US. China, South Korea, Singapore, all have areas with infrastructure to put the US to shame. It is far easier to head off the activities of these nations and more effective.
As for fair share, it isn't a given that is a per-capita figure either. Over population shouldn't be rewarded, it is the problem, even in the US.
Organizations? Mormons knock at the door on the regular along with Jehovah's witnesses. Other Christian churches have ongoing missionary efforts around the globe. The US government has an incredibly powerful religious right element and much of what the US does oversees is a thinly veiled pursuit of their religious agenda on behalf of both Christians and Jews. You don't think the hyper religious Texan christian presidents went to war in Babylon and tossed down our own puppet just for fun or because anybody actually believed they had WMD's do you? Or maybe you think the people fighting the holy land are armed with US weapons by accident.
"I get that it's still considered edgy to toss Christians under the bus as somehow being "oppressive, "
Edgy? To group Christians, Muslims, and Jews together and paint them all with some brush is preposterous. That said, there are Christian groups pushing an agenda to eradicate birth control and health care for women, to torture children in 'conversion therapy', to pretend there is some kind of legitimate connection (or conflict) between religion and science, to hypocritically deny homosexual couples the legal rights granted under a legal marriage contract. A couple Christian managers in my workplace actually had a mandatory gathering for thanksgiving at work and required a group prayer... that doesn't just force people who don't believe in your religion to engage in your religious ritual it creates the impression you'd advance people who share your religion and hold back or outright repress those who don't. Timothy McVeigh was part of a Christian para-military organization, there are no shortage of such in South America and in some cases even in the ruling positions, it goes on and on and on.
My step-father is a minister. I grew up in a Christian church, literally helped build it. I studied at a small Christian college in Illinois. I was also a member of the local militia group in my small town in Illinois in the 90's. While organized legally as a volunteer firefighter group, it was most definitely a christian paramilitary resistance group with full penetration of the local national guard, especially full access to the guard armory. That group was about being ready to act, not organization any kind of preemptive offense so most of us separated from it in response to Oklahoma city. Myself, I was a dumb teenager who got to shoot and blow up just about anything you could imagine on the weekends. What's your excuse?
They hand plenty to the executives but that also tends to take the form of stocks and stock gains which come from speculators rather than revenue. The magical thing about blindly pushing the concept that the stock in some way is the measure of company performance means at the top everything gets tied to the stock so the board and executives always end up with lots of it so their money is tied to the stock price.
Taking money out of the company works against their interests, announcing some new plan or expansion bumps the stock price and if it actually works it fuels EPS and holdings which just grows the stock price even more. It isn't that they aren't greedy enough to take the money and run it's that they are greedy and well educated in matters of finance and know they run with more money this way. It is usually safe to assume one thing about people at the top, they want more.
Whether or not those stats are more accurate is disputed because while they undoubtedly capture people who are missed (and the most severely unemployed) by the other metric they also capture people who aren't seeking employment. Like most things, it isn't that simple and what most people agree with at the moment has more to do with what fits their politics than reality. Parisians are as bad as sports fans.
That metric is interesting because while it is not a record low as you say, you can see the disparity grow during the Obama years and finally start caving around 2015-2016 and it also is declining. That isn't necessarily critical of Obama policies though, it could have been more an effect of the mess he inherited.
I do think people are misguided regarding recent changes though, cutting taxes on corporations is not the same thing as cutting taxes on wealthy individuals. Cutting taxes on wealthy people who already gain more than they spend wouldn't do much. Money will end up going to the wealthy in proportion but retirement accounts and small investors own huge swathes of the stock in those corporations. They don't just hand the money out to the shareholders for the most part anyway, those gains mostly come from speculation, the saved money generally gets reinvested into increased operations to turn it into even more money. That does mean employment growth which eventually means wage growth. There is nothing partisan about that any more than 2+2=4.
Ummm yes... this is a measure which attempts to actually accomplish that. "just not subsidize corporations" is a vague ideal not an actual implementation.
Amazon seems to be ready to compete on wages. Which isn't a total shock since economists have been saying there is no way companies could hold out forever with record low joblessness and continue to deny market realities which dictate a raise in wages.
As for Bernie Sanders bill, he may have had Amazon in mind but the bill remains a good idea. It makes the companies which are systematically subsidizing with tax funds reconcile the bill instead of asking taxpayers to do so.
You actually do seem to expressing sexism, you and those like you who actually do have a low opinion of the capabilities of women would do everyone a favor by burying that deep in your shame locker. The rest of us just believe a level playing field in an objective arena lets your work speak for itself and there is no reason to make any effort to consider gender in any fashion. Unless you are discussing something related to reproduction it isn't even logical to suggest you could get any sort of meaningful metric grouping people by gender or considering a disparity of gender diversity.
"There is no emotional physics or emotional mathematics, it is all the hard intellect."
You'd have to be getting up there in years to confirm fracking isn't having an impact since fracking started in 1949 and was definitely happening in Texas in the 50's.
Donald Trump is just one guy not all of Washington. The EPA is not "Donald Trumps Administration", it is the EPA. The department of highway safety is not "the Trump administration", etc. These are government agencies and the US government is the US government not Donald Trump.
As for battery shortages, batteries don't care about whether the power charging them came from a coal plant or not. There is nothing renewable about the electric cars and other portable and mobile devices requiring batteries. Most renewable installations are grid tied, the power running your solar house at night might well be coming from a coal powered plant.
"Currently my post is scored 20% flamebait and 20% overrated."
Your post is scored 5 insightful. My post is scored 2 Troll.
""Most importantly this is a LAW, it is forever"
That's not how laws work."
That is exactly how laws work, at least by default.
"There are people out there for whom merely disagreeing with them on this topic, merely contradicting their narrative is incitement. It angers them so much that they can't allow it to be discussed or visible at +2."
Yes, and your posting history over the last couple days suggests you may be one of them or you might just be trolling. They are the people modding you up and me down.
Your post contained a vague undefined reference to a "specific objective" as well as a suggestion without any logical support that a debate could not be had.
I extrapolated based on the actual underlying agenda in the story for the sake of debate and provided logical refutation as well as specific facts. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong but I logically supported my statements and someone who disagreed is welcome to refute them logically.
In any sane world your post would have been correctly moderated as a troll or flamebait because you were vague, attacked the integrity of the forum, and provided no coherent rationale or logical support for any position. What your lean or position is on the actual topic being discussed is beside the point. You added no value to the arguments of any position.
Slashdot Mirror
Systemd, Bookface, Python, Vegans
Not everything the Nazi's did was bad or wrong. People forget that there was more to Nazi Germany than racism and genocide.
I didn't compare anyone to Nazi's... our government literally saw that funneling research funding through the military worked well for the Nazi's who undoubtedly produced some of the most advanced technology in the world in their day. We and the Russian's both stole their ideas along with their scientists.
Racism and sexism had reached a point where they were roughly akin to the measles in this country. Through promotion of the idea that these concepts exist, even on a subconscious level the person isn't aware of, they created an impossible to invalidate bogeyman. Anyone who isn't a straight white male is so sensitized to the idea of discrimination that they see it everywhere, they imagine privilege everywhere.
Women speak in their echo chamber and talk about how a man would get to do this or wouldn't be called out for that. Hell, even those who are straight white men are falsely led to believe they have something in common with other historical people who happened to share a skin tone. We don't agree with racism and or repressing women, we know we don't hold those kind of views but can't be certain about others... all the while initiatives both public and private provide advantage to everyone but us (thereby putting them in the fast lane and us in the slow lane for nothing but the accident of birth) on the presumption we have some magical undefined advantage.
In science men on average require 2-5x the number of citations to get the same jobs as men now. A scientist pointing this out was suspended and presumably will soon be fired. There is a supreme court candidate who may or may not be confirmed today. The fact that he has voiced net neutrality rules that run counter to the Constitution and amount to granting your carrier the authority to read and alter contracts and communications between you and others, including your attorney for instance, not even discussed. Instead we are supposed to support them on the basis of unproven allegations against a court justice in a country with a justice system which holds innocent until proven guilty in a court of law as its cornerstone. On a daily basis history is being rewritten to portray women and minorities as the key players in historical discoveries simply because the key players had the wrong genitals and skin color. Stories and media from our youth are being rewritten and re-characterized. A group that at the time was entirely focused on the importance of words redefined a cause to promote the interests of women as being the movement for gender equality, begging the question. Illegal immigrants have been flooded across our borders, not to allow them a better life, but because they potentially represent voters. Hell, in New Mexico the DMV has been outsourced so they can easily obtain ID and vote.
You cannot cure bigotry with bigotry. All you can do is alienate and breed resentment. This hatred and racism that persists and is drummed up for the purpose of gaining political support only creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. So long as people continue to believe the leaders who tell them they are weak and repressed and to blame it on someone else rather than enrich themselves and grow stronger they will be weak and repressed but by the leaders who claim they represent them. Lost entirely is the concept of philosophical charity.
We are going to have to pull CO2 out of the air and NOT put it back (or at least have it leak back at slower time scales) to get anywhere. If we could put the genie of the industrial revolution back in the bottle plant life might actually be able to keep up again.
Of course, heading back and even rolling back the industrialization of China and India is essential as well.
We don't have a great way to make electricity portable, storing it as heat is pretty easy.
First of all, what limits them to their stated objective... not just today, anyone from ever using this for something other than making plants more resilient? Even making plants more resilient is an issue because plant genetics tend to get spread around.
That is certainly true enough. Most government money into research is funneled through the defense budget. It isn't just Reagan, we saw how well it worked for the Nazi's.
"A large faction seems to be really trying to pull the party WAY left (US left) and that bothers me, there are actual candidates there promoting socialism."
Socialism doesn't concern me, that is just economic. What concerns me is the rampant racism, sexism, and hate they are promoting. They are promoting a culture of paranoia and fear.
My issue with RC drones is that is lowers the bar to get people to murder other people. But lets be honest, the military is working on AI drones. Automated drone weaponry, automated defenses, attack resistant crops, etc. At what point do we become concerned that the wealthy are holding onto all the property and will soon be able to keep and maintain it without the rest of us? More importantly, they are developing the means to protect it from us without having to rely on us to be the muscle. Do you know what the greedy will do when they can have everything to themselves without consequence? They'll have everything to themselves, obviously.
"As a weapon, this one would have more negative side-effects than an atom bomb, and the explanation that they're doing this to somehow protect our crops from other countries' biological weapons doesn't pass the sniff test."
Exactly. Frankly I'd be less alarmed if they were trying to develop this as an offensive weapon. The military genetically modifying domestic plants to produce... just about anything they wish chemically, and that includes heirloom plants. Sounds like a sci-fi nightmare to me.
Consider the current political environment, with all the tensions and extremes, now throw something in to make people edgy and paranoid into common crops. Now maybe you think THAT is paranoid but conspiracy and coordinated mass effort are the bread and butter of the military. Assuming they are up to something might make you crazy, assuming they aren't makes you naive, assuming they could be and that anything that can be misused will eventually be misused is just due diligence. All it would take is one bad actor in the white house between now and ever. We the people shouldn't stand for it.
"Because it doesn't tell the most important information -- how well people are doing, how well they are meeting their targets, how wasteful they tend to be."
That would only be important if the objective were to make people stop being wasteful and correct their behavior. The objective is to reduce greenhouse gas and resolve the negative effects of climate change. The ideal solution would be one that requires no significant change in human behavior or consumption at all and further would support unlimited growth of the same.
That isn't likely to happen anytime soon but in the meantime where changes need to made to have the largest impact is what matters. I think we agree on that much at least. I don't entirely disagree with you about having metrics but entire nations aren't as meaningful in a per capita sense. It actually might make more sense to split things up into emission per square mile/km. That should start highlighting the bad apples pretty quickly.
"What we are seeing is that the more that other countries like China and India industrialize, the more their per-capita pollutants rise, and that's truly alarming. That's why I think per-capita emissions are more important. Everyone is going to want to do the things that the most-successful are doing. Everyone's going to want to increase their emissions to USA's levels."
My conclusion is just the opposite. The most successful aren't the US. China, South Korea, Singapore, all have areas with infrastructure to put the US to shame. It is far easier to head off the activities of these nations and more effective.
As for fair share, it isn't a given that is a per-capita figure either. Over population shouldn't be rewarded, it is the problem, even in the US.
Organizations? Mormons knock at the door on the regular along with Jehovah's witnesses. Other Christian churches have ongoing missionary efforts around the globe. The US government has an incredibly powerful religious right element and much of what the US does oversees is a thinly veiled pursuit of their religious agenda on behalf of both Christians and Jews. You don't think the hyper religious Texan christian presidents went to war in Babylon and tossed down our own puppet just for fun or because anybody actually believed they had WMD's do you? Or maybe you think the people fighting the holy land are armed with US weapons by accident.
"I get that it's still considered edgy to toss Christians under the bus as somehow being "oppressive, "
Edgy? To group Christians, Muslims, and Jews together and paint them all with some brush is preposterous. That said, there are Christian groups pushing an agenda to eradicate birth control and health care for women, to torture children in 'conversion therapy', to pretend there is some kind of legitimate connection (or conflict) between religion and science, to hypocritically deny homosexual couples the legal rights granted under a legal marriage contract. A couple Christian managers in my workplace actually had a mandatory gathering for thanksgiving at work and required a group prayer... that doesn't just force people who don't believe in your religion to engage in your religious ritual it creates the impression you'd advance people who share your religion and hold back or outright repress those who don't. Timothy McVeigh was part of a Christian para-military organization, there are no shortage of such in South America and in some cases even in the ruling positions, it goes on and on and on.
My step-father is a minister. I grew up in a Christian church, literally helped build it. I studied at a small Christian college in Illinois. I was also a member of the local militia group in my small town in Illinois in the 90's. While organized legally as a volunteer firefighter group, it was most definitely a christian paramilitary resistance group with full penetration of the local national guard, especially full access to the guard armory. That group was about being ready to act, not organization any kind of preemptive offense so most of us separated from it in response to Oklahoma city. Myself, I was a dumb teenager who got to shoot and blow up just about anything you could imagine on the weekends. What's your excuse?
They hand plenty to the executives but that also tends to take the form of stocks and stock gains which come from speculators rather than revenue. The magical thing about blindly pushing the concept that the stock in some way is the measure of company performance means at the top everything gets tied to the stock so the board and executives always end up with lots of it so their money is tied to the stock price.
Taking money out of the company works against their interests, announcing some new plan or expansion bumps the stock price and if it actually works it fuels EPS and holdings which just grows the stock price even more. It isn't that they aren't greedy enough to take the money and run it's that they are greedy and well educated in matters of finance and know they run with more money this way. It is usually safe to assume one thing about people at the top, they want more.
Whether or not those stats are more accurate is disputed because while they undoubtedly capture people who are missed (and the most severely unemployed) by the other metric they also capture people who aren't seeking employment. Like most things, it isn't that simple and what most people agree with at the moment has more to do with what fits their politics than reality. Parisians are as bad as sports fans.
That metric is interesting because while it is not a record low as you say, you can see the disparity grow during the Obama years and finally start caving around 2015-2016 and it also is declining. That isn't necessarily critical of Obama policies though, it could have been more an effect of the mess he inherited.
I do think people are misguided regarding recent changes though, cutting taxes on corporations is not the same thing as cutting taxes on wealthy individuals. Cutting taxes on wealthy people who already gain more than they spend wouldn't do much. Money will end up going to the wealthy in proportion but retirement accounts and small investors own huge swathes of the stock in those corporations. They don't just hand the money out to the shareholders for the most part anyway, those gains mostly come from speculation, the saved money generally gets reinvested into increased operations to turn it into even more money. That does mean employment growth which eventually means wage growth. There is nothing partisan about that any more than 2+2=4.
Ummm yes... this is a measure which attempts to actually accomplish that. "just not subsidize corporations" is a vague ideal not an actual implementation.
Amazon seems to be ready to compete on wages. Which isn't a total shock since economists have been saying there is no way companies could hold out forever with record low joblessness and continue to deny market realities which dictate a raise in wages.
Neither this nor Bernie Sanders proposed Bill are a raise to the minimum wage. So how is your comment relevant?
There is nothing about down syndrome that prevents them from learning skills.
A dead hairdresser's undocumented process but hardly without testing or evidence. Try actually watching the videos.
As for Bernie Sanders bill, he may have had Amazon in mind but the bill remains a good idea. It makes the companies which are systematically subsidizing with tax funds reconcile the bill instead of asking taxpayers to do so.
You actually do seem to expressing sexism, you and those like you who actually do have a low opinion of the capabilities of women would do everyone a favor by burying that deep in your shame locker. The rest of us just believe a level playing field in an objective arena lets your work speak for itself and there is no reason to make any effort to consider gender in any fashion. Unless you are discussing something related to reproduction it isn't even logical to suggest you could get any sort of meaningful metric grouping people by gender or considering a disparity of gender diversity.
"There is no emotional physics or emotional mathematics, it is all the hard intellect."
Fixed this for you.
You'd have to be getting up there in years to confirm fracking isn't having an impact since fracking started in 1949 and was definitely happening in Texas in the 50's.
Donald Trump is just one guy not all of Washington. The EPA is not "Donald Trumps Administration", it is the EPA. The department of highway safety is not "the Trump administration", etc. These are government agencies and the US government is the US government not Donald Trump.
As for battery shortages, batteries don't care about whether the power charging them came from a coal plant or not. There is nothing renewable about the electric cars and other portable and mobile devices requiring batteries. Most renewable installations are grid tied, the power running your solar house at night might well be coming from a coal powered plant.
"Governments from California to China and South Korea -- even Donald Trump's Washington"
Why this and not simply "Governments from California to China and South Korea and even the US Federal Government"
This extreme bias is persistent and spreading.
"Currently my post is scored 20% flamebait and 20% overrated."
Your post is scored 5 insightful. My post is scored 2 Troll.
""Most importantly this is a LAW, it is forever"
That's not how laws work."
That is exactly how laws work, at least by default.
"There are people out there for whom merely disagreeing with them on this topic, merely contradicting their narrative is incitement. It angers them so much that they can't allow it to be discussed or visible at +2."
Yes, and your posting history over the last couple days suggests you may be one of them or you might just be trolling. They are the people modding you up and me down.
Your post contained a vague undefined reference to a "specific objective" as well as a suggestion without any logical support that a debate could not be had.
I extrapolated based on the actual underlying agenda in the story for the sake of debate and provided logical refutation as well as specific facts. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong but I logically supported my statements and someone who disagreed is welcome to refute them logically.
In any sane world your post would have been correctly moderated as a troll or flamebait because you were vague, attacked the integrity of the forum, and provided no coherent rationale or logical support for any position. What your lean or position is on the actual topic being discussed is beside the point. You added no value to the arguments of any position.