The regulation costs an estimated $9.6 billion a year and may result in $6 million a year health cost savings. It's easy to have a knee-jerk reaction to mercury and lead because we all know they are bad things but concentration matters and the concentration just isn't there in this case.
It's easy to get upset by many of Trumps cuts, and some of them are politically targeted for sure but he does have to drum up support from constituents. What you have to remember about most of those cuts is that those things aren't being cut because of the idea it is a bad idea to help whoever those programs benefit, they are being cut because the federal budget isn't the place that sort of help should be coming from or the right place to fund it. Don't just shoe horn an agenda and spending in any way you can get it, do it correctly and fund these things at the state level or privately.
You should still oppose a measure in a Bureau of land management bill that feeds starving babies or cut one that exists, even if you don't want babies to starve.
It is definitely better than fraking. Fraking definitely destablizes the ground. Here in DFW the ground regularly shifts and destroys foundations on homes because of fraking. I've in a number geologically diverse areas of the country, a few locations in florida, illinois, deleware, nevada, new mexico and visited most states in the union and I've never heard of ground shifting as much as it does here. People here just think it's normal, it barely even impacts the sale price on homes. People just think paying for foundation repair every 15yrs or so is normal. It's crazy.
Suddenly everything coming out of an executive agency is labeled as "the trump administration" doing this or that where in the past you'd see "The EPA has completed a."
I mean, his data does show women are being hired into positions with fewer citations particularly since the mid 2000's but with a massive and dramatic disparity shifting in around 2015.
Sexism fired him, I don't see anything sexist in his presented material. On the contrary, he is attacking a persistent agenda distracting from physics and that lacks sound logical support.
"Most places it's not just enough to declare you are female, you have to actually live as a female. Shave your beard, wear women's clothing, change your name etc."
Literally impossible because you refuse to do it? You can't stand losing the debates? Literal means something and literally impossible is the only condition I can think of that is literally impossible statistically.
It is to overcome a specific obstacle which is assumed and not proven. A measure like this is wrong, the state has no business dictating to shareholders (who can be men or women without prejudice) who they want on their board of directors. It is also extremely sexist, they aren't requiring gender diversity they are specifically attacking males in favor of females.
Most importantly this is a LAW, it is forever, and it has encoded sexism in law. The logic being used to justify it doesn't allow room for the possibility your "specific obstacle" will ever be behind us.
Surgery? Why would we toss surgery in there at all. That movement advocates that one defines their own gender identity just as one defines their own racial identity already.
The simplest solution is for the requisite number of existing board members to start identifying as women.
"No matter how many times you say there are good/bad people on both sides it doesn't change the fact that fascist violence is meaningfully different to anti fascist violence. Fascists want a genocide and anti fascists want to stop them doing a genocide"
Genocide is bad only in that it justifies large scale violence. Advocating large scale violence for some other reason is just as bad.
Perhaps it was unintentional and just the first example that came to mind. But it did sound like you were singling out Muslims when your statements and logical argument applies equally well to the people they are in a state of holy war with, Christians and Jews. Religion is dangerous because assuming "God" means "God" can't come back and revise the rules to something more sensible as humanity and society grows and matures.
Learn it, love it, share it. The great thing is that if another doesn't deserve it, it won't matter, your argument will stronger along with theirs and what you are willing to concede will become more compelling.
Currently you are doing the opposite and assuming the worst argument and intentions of others.
I know people have played fast an loose and redefined OS and MS certainly wasn't much of an OS but nobody disputed it as an OS plus a bunch of tools at the time. The debates of what an OS is where more along the lines of whether the shell or C library really counted since you really only needed the kernel and at the time anyone using a computer had to write their programs. A program loader was actually quite fancy.
It's only later when GNU realized the Linux OS got all the glory that a serious argument was made to include all sorts of userspace nonsense. It was around this time that GNU folks started making a fuss about statically linked code as well to improve their argument. But regardless of where you feel about those issues, they weren't a factor when Linux hit the scene let alone DOS. You can't denounce it ex post facto.
If your are talking about a decent operating system that is an entirely different discussion but it seems like a rather strange claim that as crappy as MS-DOS was, it ran the crappy ibm computers everyone had at work and could run on the much less expensive ibm pc compatible they could run at home. That is without question the reason for the early explosion of home computer technology which allowed an explosion in people with computing skills and familiarity. I'm not sure how you could deny that fueled the explosion of computer technology on the whole.
BSD contained superior technology (along with every other Unix, *nix, AmigaOS, and even MacOS) but BSD to this day hasn't achieved widespread adoption. There are few minor bits cross shared with Linux code and some added to MacOS which gave it a big helping hand to catch up but hardly fueled anything notable or new in technology.
I guess you could argue the case that MS incorporated BSD code in the network stack during the early days of the internet reaching actual homes but I that isn't really because MS couldn't have gotten the job done otherwise, BSD code just had great terms for a greedy thief.
Maybe you are a Russian reverse engineering ASM but for most, even most who understand ASM (or are willing to spend 15 minutes for a crash course) reading something like ASM with no context or hint at the higher level objective of the code is not really a reasonable challenge for casual learning.
I mean I guess someone at MS might be nostalgic but what is the point here? DOS 6.22+Win3.11 is also obsolete but might at least provide something useful to the freedos people or someone else who wants to revitalize some old software or something. DOS sucked compared to everything else out, I know MS pretended otherwise when they were selling it over superior alternatives but nothing in their system is built off DOS except a partial compatability layer now so why pretend? Hell Minix is just a simple OS made to teach you how to write a minimal OS and it blows DOS away.
The only killer function of DOS was coming on the systems you had at work and being able to run on their clones.
The US is a country, the per country statistics define what a country's emissions are. How is that misleading? Per capita not only is a red herring to distract you from the actual bottom line but also from the impact measures would have. The US has a dramatically smaller population, any sort of measure to curb emissions would have a smaller impact. There are lot more homes in China than the US, switching them to solar water heating is going to have a much more substantial impact.
Of course we both know that isn't true, because China has a few highly developed areas that emit most of the pollution. Solar water heaters only help where you've actually developed your nation enough to benefit from them. If you only counted the people in areas developed to US equivalent level or above your per capita statistics wouldn't be likely to favor China at all and if you pretend China is not continuing to expand the developed portion of its nation while failing to improve the greenhouse gas factor you'd also be willfully misleading.
In conclusion, accounting for the full logical argument improvements in China would almost certainly have a stronger immediate impact and impact over time than changes in the US. That isn't to say the US isn't exporting emissions to China or that China's emissions justify the US ignoring the problem. That is more than I care to get into, I'm just saying the per capita statistics are being brought up for political expediency in making an oversimplified argument to avoid admitting fault or paying for improvements in China.
"people who complain about having to cite their sources are people who don't know what the hell they're talking about and most likely can't cite any sources because they are just regurgitating something they read"
You mean like this one? This is an informal message forum, asking for sources is akin to asking for sources at a dinner party. To not have sources is not the same as being wrong and having sources has little to no relationship with knowing what you are talking about. For that matter the veracity of information has no direct connection to the authority of the source at all. A completed fabricated statistic may well be correct. A logical argument supported by one may well be correct. Someone who wants to outlaw dihydrogen monoxide may well be correct about the best way to handle the EPA for all the wrong reasons or after a climatologist or organic chem expert converts their argument through a filter of logical charity into the strongest argument they can make it.
In any case, good luck with asking others to verify information for you and with the faulty conclusions that comes from trusting information or not based on their ability to pull a citation out of memory in a setting where academic citations aren't merited. Unlike providing a contrary source or failing to find support for their claim calling for them to provide a source adds nothing legitimate. I will continue to make sure people know you are being contrary with random comments simply because you don't like them and that you in turn... aren't citing any sources.
Which would be fine but you didn't disregard it, instead you created the impression the information wasn't true. Your demand of sources (his work) created the impression you'd done your due diligence (your own work) and could not replicate his conclusion. This is nothing but a cheap trick to make his well known already now well sourced information look false.
If you are a professor in school you don't have the time and you need people to prove they haven't stolen work. In the real world the last thing you should be judging information by when critically assessing it is the sources being provided by one trying to persuade you. You have to do your own legwork.
No it isn't. You aren't a professor and he isn't your student. This isn't a court and you aren't a judge. He is expressing information and has done whatever assessment meets his standards to verify it, the obligation to perform critical analysis of information before you accept it is on you, not the source which is him/her/it/them/other in this case.
Have you ever heard the phrase "the bottom line" China's bottom line is bigger than the US, it wouldn't matter if five people lived in the US and produced 1/4 the CO2 output of billions of Chinese, per capita the US would be way worse but China would still be polluting 4x more than the US.
I would agree but in the context of a technical argument it also seems irrelevant. If the person is correct, technically, how positive or poor their attitude is really doesn't matter, they are still correct. If they are incorrect, again, how positive or poor their attitude is still doesn't matter. If these silly side issues are becoming so disruptive they are actually starting to interfere with progress that is on literally everyone who engages on non-technical commentary in a comment or does anything other than simply skim over it seeking the signal hiding within the noise.
But I would disagree with the idea that snark can be positive even when used as a means to a positive result. To be snarky is to behave poorly, it is to have lost control and reduced oneself. Snark is a way to attempt to manipulate and demean. Not that you should crucify someone for letting a bit of passion creep in but one should strive to correct oneself if that person should find themselves being snarky.
The objective of any argument or debate should be to fight it with all you've got short and to lose if you are wrong. Somewhere along the way integrity has gone by the wayside and people simply want to win, even if they are wrong, worse some confuse winning the debate with being right.
"But if the kids today are "different" why are they using one of the most well defined & villified terms in human history? Why not rally around some other term?"
Because the kids today are just like the kids of any other time. They give society and their elders the finger, they shock and awe, they do whatever upsets mother and gets a rise out of dad. They think are smarter and know better than others, they lack the experience it takes for actual death and suffering to become real. This has always been the case in my lifetime and somehow I doubt it has ever been different. What do you think the Salem witch trials were all about?
Slashdot Mirror
The regulation costs an estimated $9.6 billion a year and may result in $6 million a year health cost savings. It's easy to have a knee-jerk reaction to mercury and lead because we all know they are bad things but concentration matters and the concentration just isn't there in this case.
It's easy to get upset by many of Trumps cuts, and some of them are politically targeted for sure but he does have to drum up support from constituents. What you have to remember about most of those cuts is that those things aren't being cut because of the idea it is a bad idea to help whoever those programs benefit, they are being cut because the federal budget isn't the place that sort of help should be coming from or the right place to fund it. Don't just shoe horn an agenda and spending in any way you can get it, do it correctly and fund these things at the state level or privately.
You should still oppose a measure in a Bureau of land management bill that feeds starving babies or cut one that exists, even if you don't want babies to starve.
It is definitely better than fraking. Fraking definitely destablizes the ground. Here in DFW the ground regularly shifts and destroys foundations on homes because of fraking. I've in a number geologically diverse areas of the country, a few locations in florida, illinois, deleware, nevada, new mexico and visited most states in the union and I've never heard of ground shifting as much as it does here. People here just think it's normal, it barely even impacts the sale price on homes. People just think paying for foundation repair every 15yrs or so is normal. It's crazy.
Suddenly everything coming out of an executive agency is labeled as "the trump administration" doing this or that where in the past you'd see "The EPA has completed a."
I mean, his data does show women are being hired into positions with fewer citations particularly since the mid 2000's but with a massive and dramatic disparity shifting in around 2015.
Sexism fired him, I don't see anything sexist in his presented material. On the contrary, he is attacking a persistent agenda distracting from physics and that lacks sound logical support.
"Most places it's not just enough to declare you are female, you have to actually live as a female. Shave your beard, wear women's clothing, change your name etc."
According to whom? I have yet to see that law.
Literally impossible because you refuse to do it? You can't stand losing the debates? Literal means something and literally impossible is the only condition I can think of that is literally impossible statistically.
It is to overcome a specific obstacle which is assumed and not proven. A measure like this is wrong, the state has no business dictating to shareholders (who can be men or women without prejudice) who they want on their board of directors. It is also extremely sexist, they aren't requiring gender diversity they are specifically attacking males in favor of females.
Most importantly this is a LAW, it is forever, and it has encoded sexism in law. The logic being used to justify it doesn't allow room for the possibility your "specific obstacle" will ever be behind us.
I didn't hear a requirement for all female boards to add men or for white people in the racial mix.
Surgery? Why would we toss surgery in there at all. That movement advocates that one defines their own gender identity just as one defines their own racial identity already.
The simplest solution is for the requisite number of existing board members to start identifying as women.
"No matter how many times you say there are good/bad people on both sides it doesn't change the fact that fascist violence is meaningfully different to anti fascist violence. Fascists want a genocide and anti fascists want to stop them doing a genocide"
Genocide is bad only in that it justifies large scale violence. Advocating large scale violence for some other reason is just as bad.
Perhaps it was unintentional and just the first example that came to mind. But it did sound like you were singling out Muslims when your statements and logical argument applies equally well to the people they are in a state of holy war with, Christians and Jews. Religion is dangerous because assuming "God" means "God" can't come back and revise the rules to something more sensible as humanity and society grows and matures.
https://www.google.com/search?q=philosophical+principle+of+charity&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS810US810&oq=philosophical+principle+of+&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.10845j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Learn it, love it, share it. The great thing is that if another doesn't deserve it, it won't matter, your argument will stronger along with theirs and what you are willing to concede will become more compelling.
Currently you are doing the opposite and assuming the worst argument and intentions of others.
I'm not a shareholder, therefore independent and won't do it for free.
Tesla doesn't need more stock roller coaster games right now, it needs management.
I know people have played fast an loose and redefined OS and MS certainly wasn't much of an OS but nobody disputed it as an OS plus a bunch of tools at the time. The debates of what an OS is where more along the lines of whether the shell or C library really counted since you really only needed the kernel and at the time anyone using a computer had to write their programs. A program loader was actually quite fancy.
It's only later when GNU realized the Linux OS got all the glory that a serious argument was made to include all sorts of userspace nonsense. It was around this time that GNU folks started making a fuss about statically linked code as well to improve their argument. But regardless of where you feel about those issues, they weren't a factor when Linux hit the scene let alone DOS. You can't denounce it ex post facto.
If your are talking about a decent operating system that is an entirely different discussion but it seems like a rather strange claim that as crappy as MS-DOS was, it ran the crappy ibm computers everyone had at work and could run on the much less expensive ibm pc compatible they could run at home. That is without question the reason for the early explosion of home computer technology which allowed an explosion in people with computing skills and familiarity. I'm not sure how you could deny that fueled the explosion of computer technology on the whole.
BSD contained superior technology (along with every other Unix, *nix, AmigaOS, and even MacOS) but BSD to this day hasn't achieved widespread adoption. There are few minor bits cross shared with Linux code and some added to MacOS which gave it a big helping hand to catch up but hardly fueled anything notable or new in technology.
I guess you could argue the case that MS incorporated BSD code in the network stack during the early days of the internet reaching actual homes but I that isn't really because MS couldn't have gotten the job done otherwise, BSD code just had great terms for a greedy thief.
Maybe you are a Russian reverse engineering ASM but for most, even most who understand ASM (or are willing to spend 15 minutes for a crash course) reading something like ASM with no context or hint at the higher level objective of the code is not really a reasonable challenge for casual learning.
I mean I guess someone at MS might be nostalgic but what is the point here? DOS 6.22+Win3.11 is also obsolete but might at least provide something useful to the freedos people or someone else who wants to revitalize some old software or something. DOS sucked compared to everything else out, I know MS pretended otherwise when they were selling it over superior alternatives but nothing in their system is built off DOS except a partial compatability layer now so why pretend? Hell Minix is just a simple OS made to teach you how to write a minimal OS and it blows DOS away.
The only killer function of DOS was coming on the systems you had at work and being able to run on their clones.
The US is a country, the per country statistics define what a country's emissions are. How is that misleading? Per capita not only is a red herring to distract you from the actual bottom line but also from the impact measures would have. The US has a dramatically smaller population, any sort of measure to curb emissions would have a smaller impact. There are lot more homes in China than the US, switching them to solar water heating is going to have a much more substantial impact.
Of course we both know that isn't true, because China has a few highly developed areas that emit most of the pollution. Solar water heaters only help where you've actually developed your nation enough to benefit from them. If you only counted the people in areas developed to US equivalent level or above your per capita statistics wouldn't be likely to favor China at all and if you pretend China is not continuing to expand the developed portion of its nation while failing to improve the greenhouse gas factor you'd also be willfully misleading.
In conclusion, accounting for the full logical argument improvements in China would almost certainly have a stronger immediate impact and impact over time than changes in the US. That isn't to say the US isn't exporting emissions to China or that China's emissions justify the US ignoring the problem. That is more than I care to get into, I'm just saying the per capita statistics are being brought up for political expediency in making an oversimplified argument to avoid admitting fault or paying for improvements in China.
"people who complain about having to cite their sources are people who don't know what the hell they're talking about and most likely can't cite any sources because they are just regurgitating something they read"
You mean like this one? This is an informal message forum, asking for sources is akin to asking for sources at a dinner party. To not have sources is not the same as being wrong and having sources has little to no relationship with knowing what you are talking about. For that matter the veracity of information has no direct connection to the authority of the source at all. A completed fabricated statistic may well be correct. A logical argument supported by one may well be correct. Someone who wants to outlaw dihydrogen monoxide may well be correct about the best way to handle the EPA for all the wrong reasons or after a climatologist or organic chem expert converts their argument through a filter of logical charity into the strongest argument they can make it.
In any case, good luck with asking others to verify information for you and with the faulty conclusions that comes from trusting information or not based on their ability to pull a citation out of memory in a setting where academic citations aren't merited. Unlike providing a contrary source or failing to find support for their claim calling for them to provide a source adds nothing legitimate. I will continue to make sure people know you are being contrary with random comments simply because you don't like them and that you in turn... aren't citing any sources.
Which would be fine but you didn't disregard it, instead you created the impression the information wasn't true. Your demand of sources (his work) created the impression you'd done your due diligence (your own work) and could not replicate his conclusion. This is nothing but a cheap trick to make his well known already now well sourced information look false.
If you are a professor in school you don't have the time and you need people to prove they haven't stolen work. In the real world the last thing you should be judging information by when critically assessing it is the sources being provided by one trying to persuade you. You have to do your own legwork.
No it isn't. You aren't a professor and he isn't your student. This isn't a court and you aren't a judge. He is expressing information and has done whatever assessment meets his standards to verify it, the obligation to perform critical analysis of information before you accept it is on you, not the source which is him/her/it/them/other in this case.
That is a good point.
Have you ever heard the phrase "the bottom line" China's bottom line is bigger than the US, it wouldn't matter if five people lived in the US and produced 1/4 the CO2 output of billions of Chinese, per capita the US would be way worse but China would still be polluting 4x more than the US.
I would agree but in the context of a technical argument it also seems irrelevant. If the person is correct, technically, how positive or poor their attitude is really doesn't matter, they are still correct. If they are incorrect, again, how positive or poor their attitude is still doesn't matter. If these silly side issues are becoming so disruptive they are actually starting to interfere with progress that is on literally everyone who engages on non-technical commentary in a comment or does anything other than simply skim over it seeking the signal hiding within the noise.
But I would disagree with the idea that snark can be positive even when used as a means to a positive result. To be snarky is to behave poorly, it is to have lost control and reduced oneself. Snark is a way to attempt to manipulate and demean. Not that you should crucify someone for letting a bit of passion creep in but one should strive to correct oneself if that person should find themselves being snarky.
The objective of any argument or debate should be to fight it with all you've got short and to lose if you are wrong. Somewhere along the way integrity has gone by the wayside and people simply want to win, even if they are wrong, worse some confuse winning the debate with being right.
"But if the kids today are "different" why are they using one of the most well defined & villified terms in human history? Why not rally around some other term?"
Because the kids today are just like the kids of any other time. They give society and their elders the finger, they shock and awe, they do whatever upsets mother and gets a rise out of dad. They think are smarter and know better than others, they lack the experience it takes for actual death and suffering to become real. This has always been the case in my lifetime and somehow I doubt it has ever been different. What do you think the Salem witch trials were all about?