And you have conveniently missed the point. Building in the area around New Orleans may have occurred before we really knew the extent of what could happen (the truth is that we did know, and I have to wonder why you try to make it appear otherwise).
Now that we do know for certain, rebuilding there is simply tossing good money after bad.
A port is not the same thing as a city. Living there is completely avoidable, while doing business there may not be.
And more to the point, if we required businesses to pay exorbitant fees to use such dangerous areas, few people would complain. If we did the same for homeowners, the howling would be unbearable.
Except it IS my money, as I'm a taxpayer. I would certainly prefer they do the job right one time, for one cost, rather than implementing stopgap measures that will cost more in the long run.
That being said, if I had my way they wouldn't rebuild in such an unstable location at ll.
"First, completely building over everything would cost significatnly more in both time and money than just pumping out the city"
Doing the job correctly often costs more than doing it half-assed. This shouldn't be an issue.
"If you just build over the water, then you will have a city built upon an inherintly unstable foundation i.e"
Which is the situation they have currently.
Finally, I think that many of the people in the city itself would highly object, simply because of all the history that would be destroyed by doing that to the city.
to be able to easily identify those people who have the kind of experience and training an employer would need.
The fact that they don't work that way isn't a failure of certifications, it's a failure of schools that turn out credentialed graduates without proper training, and a failure of people in hiring to hold those schools accountable by not hiring their graduates.
I think the implication others have made that I somehow support print sources over blogs is ludicrous. I apply the same standard to print journalists as I do to blogs.
"Reputation can be built a variety of ways. Not the least of which is by consistently sharing a valid and intelligent opinion.:-)"
"There is such a thing as thinking for yourself, you know. Not every piece of information has to be handed down from an authority."
And when exactly did I say I needed "information... handed down from an authority"?
"If you aren't able to identify credible sources in weblogs, then how do you do it for other media? "
What does this mean exactly? I look it up when it is provided, and generally dismiss the article if there is no documentation.
"That everybody who can get a job writing a newspaper column is credible"
I never claimed that, YOU did. Stop putting up straw men.
"Why can't you do that for weblogs as well?"
Because I don't have time to wade through endless crap to discern what is credible and what isn't.
How about you address my point now, which is that without the ability to verify the veracity of a piece of information, it cannot be considered credible?
Is your point that non-verifiable information from an unknown source IS credible?
I think in this case I would draw a distinction between an editorial and an information piece ( which I thought was implied, but apparently not).
"The purpose of an editorial is to provide an intelligent opinion."
And this is where you trip. Without the ability to verify the credibility of a source (including editorials, and the people who write them) the information is still worthless.
The fact that it's an editorial is only relevant when it is explicitly demonstrated to be an editorial, and therefore an opinion. In such cases I would agree with you, but who would pay attention to an opinion piece by someone who isn't qualified to give an opinion?
Just having an opinion on something doesn't make it a valid, or useful, opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
And you have conveniently missed the point. Building in the area around New Orleans may have occurred before we really knew the extent of what could happen (the truth is that we did know, and I have to wonder why you try to make it appear otherwise).
Now that we do know for certain, rebuilding there is simply tossing good money after bad.
A port is not the same thing as a city. Living there is completely avoidable, while doing business there may not be.
And more to the point, if we required businesses to pay exorbitant fees to use such dangerous areas, few people would complain. If we did the same for homeowners, the howling would be unbearable.
"but I can't think of any natural disasters ever to hit Arizona,"
Drought, you asstalker. (reminds me of Ace Ventura)
You did. Quote from the end of your first post:: "Just a crazy right wing idea."
No, he said his IDEA was right wing. READ the post please.
No one is proposing that they move, rather that they pay for the higher costs of inhabiting a more dangerous area.
And not a marginally higher cost, but one that accurately reflects the danger that they may face.
That's wonderful especially when you consider that IR is also a fraction as useful as wifi.
Except it IS my money, as I'm a taxpayer. I would certainly prefer they do the job right one time, for one cost, rather than implementing stopgap measures that will cost more in the long run.
That being said, if I had my way they wouldn't rebuild in such an unstable location at ll.
If the citizens of New Orleans choose to live there, then things like this should be state priorities, not federal ones.
If they really thought they needed it, they would have found the funding.
"First, completely building over everything would cost significatnly more in both time and money than just pumping out the city" Doing the job correctly often costs more than doing it half-assed. This shouldn't be an issue. "If you just build over the water, then you will have a city built upon an inherintly unstable foundation i.e" Which is the situation they have currently. Finally, I think that many of the people in the city itself would highly object, simply because of all the history that would be destroyed by doing that to the city.
"But seriously, you picked Michigan over New Orleans? That's always a poor choice."
He said it was in the summer. Prison is a better choice than New Orleans in the summer.
"I think that this is global warming begining to show its ugly face."
Of course you do, because that's what you want to see.
Regardless of what you want, hurricanes have hit the area before, this was just bad luck.
Enchanted uru. The enchanted part is (as I recall, not the biggest Thor fan) what makes it harder than adamantium.
Perhaps you should be mute.
to be able to easily identify those people who have the kind of experience and training an employer would need.
The fact that they don't work that way isn't a failure of certifications, it's a failure of schools that turn out credentialed graduates without proper training, and a failure of people in hiring to hold those schools accountable by not hiring their graduates.
Certifications, when done correctly make sense.
I agree with everything you say.
:-)"
I think the implication others have made that I somehow support print sources over blogs is ludicrous. I apply the same standard to print journalists as I do to blogs.
"Reputation can be built a variety of ways. Not the least of which is by consistently sharing a valid and intelligent opinion.
Agreed.
"There is such a thing as thinking for yourself, you know. Not every piece of information has to be handed down from an authority."
And when exactly did I say I needed "information... handed down from an authority"?
"If you aren't able to identify credible sources in weblogs, then how do you do it for other media? "
What does this mean exactly? I look it up when it is provided, and generally dismiss the article if there is no documentation.
"That everybody who can get a job writing a newspaper column is credible"
I never claimed that, YOU did. Stop putting up straw men.
"Why can't you do that for weblogs as well?"
Because I don't have time to wade through endless crap to discern what is credible and what isn't.
How about you address my point now, which is that without the ability to verify the veracity of a piece of information, it cannot be considered credible?
Is your point that non-verifiable information from an unknown source IS credible?
Without research, how can you declare it FUD like you did?
Right, like here in Florida where housing costs have dropped..
What's that? Huge price increases? What kind of free market economy is this?
I think in this case I would draw a distinction between an editorial and an information piece ( which I thought was implied, but apparently not).
"The purpose of an editorial is to provide an intelligent opinion."
And this is where you trip. Without the ability to verify the credibility of a source (including editorials, and the people who write them) the information is still worthless.
The fact that it's an editorial is only relevant when it is explicitly demonstrated to be an editorial, and therefore an opinion. In such cases I would agree with you, but who would pay attention to an opinion piece by someone who isn't qualified to give an opinion?
Just having an opinion on something doesn't make it a valid, or useful, opinion.
"The problem is that blogging has a stigma attached to it."
No, I think the problem is that blogging deserves the stigma attached to it.
Without the ability to identify credible sources (yes, I know it is sometimes possible with blogs) a piece of information is essentially worthless.
"We are going to oxidize all of the available fossil fuel on earth back into CO2. This is an inescapable fact, not a theory."
No, this is neither a fact or a theory, it's some dude running his mouth and trying to sound like an authority.
We may use MOST of the fossil fuel available, but there is no doubt that some of it will either be impossible to reach, or far too expensive.
"That global climate change is occuring is a forgone conclusion"
Well, it's nice to see you are keeping an open mind...
Ok so double them. Or triple them. It's still insignifcant.
Not more dude, better.
The closer we get to consistently incapacitating instead of killing the better.
Not demanding it, which is what statements like this appear to be.