Also, what you're saying smacks of no-true-scotsman.
Um, Al Gore is not a climate scientist. This is not some sort of "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You're claiming someone is a Scotsman, we're pointing out he's actually Japanese, and you're crying "Ha! No True Scotsman fallacy!"
Either you believe in property rights or you don't. If you believe in property rights, a 100% inheritance tax (and even a 1%) is totally unacceptable.
If you believe in property rights you have the right do decide what to do with your own property, like, for example, giving it to your designed heirs.
You either believe in false dichotomies, or you don't.
When the elites start leading by example I'll get on board not before. Until then it reeks of "some animals are a little more equal." I am solidly convinced that reducing carbon emissions globally would be a good thing. You don't even need to buy into climate change to accept that, after all it can't be good manipulate the carbon cycle in closed system upon which we all depend that we barely understand.
Its a simple fact that flying first or business class has a terribly higher carbon foot print. If Obama cares so much about climate change he would set an example the new airforce one would have been a 737ER with all coach seats! Set up that way there would be plenty of room for his entourage and the press core, it would just be way less comfortable. Ah but you see sacrifices are for the rest of us to make.
The elites don't need to lead by example. They can simply pick up and move to wherever things are pleasant, while all the "little people" die off. What, you actually thought they give a damn about you? If billions of us "little people" died off, all they would do is move somewhere until the bodies were done decomposing, so they wouldn't have to deal with all that annoying stench.
I have to say, if it is public posts, what's the problem?
Is this any different to kids saying stuff out loud in the real world, being overheard, and someone reporting it to the authorities?
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - Cardinal Richelieu
Kids threatening other kids out loud is one thing. Scouring through their internet posts to find something with which you can incriminate them is another thing entirely. It's like the difference between a cop seeing you doing something illegal outside, and the police being able to track you with security footage to see if there is anything they can charge you with.
And you have the notarized deed of the formal promise they made? Do you understand the difference between a daydream and reality? And really? A UFO hoaxer? Kid's shows?
You sound like a whiny, entitled taker who just expected to sit on his ass and have the future handed to him!
Taker! Loafer!
Well, he is a baby boomer, after all. Even as old as they are now, they think the world owes them everything.
Or are you saying that the liberals just say whatever they want as long as it moves their agenda forward?
Yes, that's what liberals do. They sit at large conference tables, discussing how to destroy western culture, commit white genocide, and turn the world into a vegan-only communist dictatorship. When someone comes up with a particularly brilliant idea, such as designating Whole Foods the People's Grocery Store, they all rap their knuckles and shout "BWAHAHA!!!" in unison. The FEMA camps are only the beginning. Expect the massive die-offs to begin soon!
Seriously, though, have you considered asking your psychiatrist for new meds? The ones you are on are obviously not working.
For people born before 1990, there was this thing called "research" which took more than 5 seconds to do, thus its need to be described as an actual activity. The work you were doing was, at the time, leagues beyond what the AIs could do. We'd go to a thing called a "library" where books were actually purchased, thus the author actually getting paid. We'd look through these "books" and find the information we needed.
I'm all for progress, but a paradigm shift needs to be done in such a way that it doesn't destroy the future. There will be little purpose for authors to do the work, if you can then yank the snippets you need (likely out of context, because hey - who has time to actually read the whole paper?) without giving them any money. As someone else said, this is just Google being greedy - they could have come up with some sort of agreement with the authors that allowed them to do it via a subscription service, or such. Instead, they decided to give away someone else's work for free.
Yes, and research using only physical books and the citations in the back is what I did in graduate school. But, you know, what, I like having both print and electronic versions of books. It's a nice, new tool that helps and makes things easier. And, I can find lots of obscure things in an electronic library that would not even be available in a physical library.
Why buy the book when you already got your answer from the Google scans?
Because he didn't. He was able to read enough to realize that the book is a good discussion of the topic he was researching. You see, it actually takes time, careful reading, and detailed analysis to understand a subject. You seem to be under the impression that he wants a simple-minded, one phrase answer, when in reality he is trying to carefully do this thing known as "thinking", something your response shows you are clearly incapable of doing.
Actually, I'd be more inclined to send my kid to a place that doesn't stand for the bullshit student "activists" do all the time. I'm not paying tens of thousands a year so classes can be interrupted by a bunch of low life losers protesting whatever the most recent SJW cause it.
As far as I'm concerned, those idiots should be made to pay for the cost of the pepper spray.
So, I guess you'll be sending your kid to one of these fine universities then. They certainly don't put up with "the most recent SJW cause".
Why not? Because the current generation is going to the dogs? How many times have we heard that? The baby boomer generation, who are now the old farts, were constantly belittle for their stupidity and selfishness when they were young. You can easily see it from 1950s films. I also suggest checking here. It's number 29, entitled "Only Johnny Knows". Notice how what is said could just as easily apply to millenials, baby boomers, generation x, and so on. This nonsense is really get tiring...
If the machines existed today, they'd be purchased; regardless of the minimum wage.
Not if the machines cost more than minimum wage.
Even if the minimum wage did not go up, the cost of technology generally decreases. If people can be replaced by machines, eventually they will be replaced.
Imagine if a scientist would publish a paper that basically said: It's all good, no worries, we've got everything under control. Nobody would talk about that, and the funding would be cut. So there always has to be some kind of catastrophe lurking just around the corner, so these people will stay employed.
There's lots of atmospheric research to do, even if there was no global warming. Climate science does not have to be about doom and gloom. It's just that this is where we are. Lots and lots of other research is funded just fine without any doom and gloom scenarios. You simply don't hear about them since the research keeps trudging along as usual. You only hear about this because it is something that directly affects us all.
Anyway, you really are just like the anti-evolution crowd who claim that evolutionary scientists are afraid to debunk evolution for fear of losing their funding. You're simply applying old, tired nonsense to a new field because the conclusions personally offend you.
The sky is always falling for the doom-and-gloom crowd.
"If we leave these caves we're all going to die! Lions will eat us all!"
"Fire is dangerous! It'll kill us all!"
"Cooking meat releases chemicals that will kill us!"
"Growing plants ourselves? That's certain death!"
"If we stay in one place we'll all die!"
"Towns are evil and will destroy civilization as we know it!"
I mean, can't these people just kill themselves already instead of trying to make us all miserable?
Geez, so many straw men in such a short post! I didn't even think that was possible.
he research invokes collapsing ice sheets, violent megastorms and even the hurling of boulders by giant waves
Remember kids, if some guy on a street corner or some kooky radio preacher was sermonizing about this stuff the Atheist echo chamber in here would go off its rocker in attacking religion.
But when we slap the magic word "Global Warming" on the same thing, now it's "science approved"!! Hell, even better: Those kook whackjob Christians who predict the end of the world on a precise date at least admit they were wrong when it doesn't happen! We don't even have to have that level rationality with our predictions, we just double down or claim that magical government regulations staved off Doomsday.
If the "whackjob Christians" actually had some evidence, instead of quoting from an ancient book, people might listen to them more. Science is funny that way. It actually requires evidence. Also, simply because someone accepts AGW or biological evolution, doesn't mean they are an atheist. AGW and evolution don't conflict with non-Christian religions, or any form of Christianity that is not the whackjob fundamentalist Evangelical type of Christianity. Unfortunately, we have a lot of them in America, though they are small minority world-wide (you know, the rest of the world - that place "outside America").
When I was in school there was constant hysteria over the ozone layer. By the year 2000 we were all supposed to be blind and dying of skin cancer because the ozone layer would be mostly gone.
And then we, you know, actually did something about it by banning CFC and so on. Now, things are better. I bet this is the kind of conversation you would have with your doctor:
Doctor: You know, if you don't stop drinking, you're going to die of liver failure. [AC stops drinking] [3 years later, with no drinking:] AC: See, doc! I didn't die of liver failure! Stupid doctor! You don't know anything!
The world is a wildly dynamic and chaotic place. Environmental trends can only be extrapolated so far before they become useless. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take prudent steps to protect the environment, but all of this doomsday crap just gets tiring.
As other people have mentioned, try listening to the actual scientists. Listening to Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh argue about global warming is as useful as hearing a debate about Special Relativity between two freshman, one of whom thinks he's "proven" it wrong.
More than 40 millionaires, including members of the Rockefeller and Disney families, are asking to have their taxes raised to help address poverty and rebuild failing infrastructure.
What's preventing them from sending more money to the government now? A trivial Internet-search immediately returns a link to the government site, which explains, how donations of cash or securities can be made to any Federal government agency...
Anybody, actually wishing to pay more taxes himself, can already do that. The only reason to make noise about it is to force someone else to pay more.
So, by your rationale (if I may use such a malapropism), we should simply get rid of taxes and fund the government on a donation system. Or, we could do the sensible, civilised thing and have a progressive tax rate where people pay their fair share so we can live in a civilised society where I don't have to worry about being poisoned or have a bridge collapse on me.
Huh. You're comparing Trump to Hitler - and I'm the one making insane comments?
If the shoe fits...
Have you even seen what goes on at Trumps rallies? Or heard all the stuff he's been saying publicly for months now? It simply is fascism. It is Hitler in the early years, before he became Chancellor. It is Oswald Mosley, complete with pointing out someone he doesn't like in the audience, and having hooligans beat them up as they are dragged out.
Clinton and Obama, while certainly not the best of politicians, as also certainly not fascists as you claim. You don't like them, and you have clearly developed a burning hatred for them, but that doesn't make someone a fascist.
Except that with Clinton, you pretty much know what you're getting: more of the same. With Trump... there's no telling what he might do. He *might* make some interesting changes. He also *might* invade Mexico. Better off with Clinton. Things could be much worse, and with Trump, there's a risk they will be.
Considering how insecure he is, such as publicly rebutting Rubio during the primary debate regarding the size of his member, all Iran would need to do to destroy the U.S. during a Trump presidency would be to taunt him saying he is too much of a wuss to handle a war with Russia. And his supporters would say nonsense like "Yeah! We gotta give it to those Commie Soviets!"
I feel the best way to destroy the Trump campaign is to keep letting people hear him.
It won't change anything. At this point, his supporters will stick with him no matter what. One thing Trump did say that was true is when he said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any supporters. His base of nutters are right now making any and all excuses for him.
You can reason with - perhaps even change - an "openly fascist candidate". However, we have openly fascist politicians in power right now (including the President) or in the recent past, looking to gain more (Mrs. Clinton); that's a much bigger threat IMHO.
Yes, that's all Hitler needed. A nice little sit-down with some good coffee and cakes would have convinced Hitler that Germany didn't need to invade the rest of Europe, and that the Jews were just fine staying where they were.
Seriously, you should try saying some of your stuff out loud before you post it. Maybe you'll notice how utterly insane it all is.
With all the money Darl and his brother sucked out of that company they never need to work again. His "business model" was to start a case that could not be won, give the legal work to his brother's firm, string it out for max legal fees then take a golden parachute.
Not a nice guy.
I've got no idea why anyone other than a crony would every employ him.
Well, that's the problem with corporate Capitalism. It works great until you run out of other people's money.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, what you're saying smacks of no-true-scotsman.
Um, Al Gore is not a climate scientist. This is not some sort of "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You're claiming someone is a Scotsman, we're pointing out he's actually Japanese, and you're crying "Ha! No True Scotsman fallacy!"
Either you believe in property rights or you don't. If you believe in property rights, a 100% inheritance tax (and even a 1%) is totally unacceptable. If you believe in property rights you have the right do decide what to do with your own property, like, for example, giving it to your designed heirs.
You either believe in false dichotomies, or you don't.
When the elites start leading by example I'll get on board not before. Until then it reeks of "some animals are a little more equal." I am solidly convinced that reducing carbon emissions globally would be a good thing. You don't even need to buy into climate change to accept that, after all it can't be good manipulate the carbon cycle in closed system upon which we all depend that we barely understand.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Its a simple fact that flying first or business class has a terribly higher carbon foot print. If Obama cares so much about climate change he would set an example the new airforce one would have been a 737ER with all coach seats! Set up that way there would be plenty of room for his entourage and the press core, it would just be way less comfortable. Ah but you see sacrifices are for the rest of us to make.
The elites don't need to lead by example. They can simply pick up and move to wherever things are pleasant, while all the "little people" die off. What, you actually thought they give a damn about you? If billions of us "little people" died off, all they would do is move somewhere until the bodies were done decomposing, so they wouldn't have to deal with all that annoying stench.
I have to say, if it is public posts, what's the problem?
Is this any different to kids saying stuff out loud in the real world, being overheard, and someone reporting it to the authorities?
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - Cardinal Richelieu
Kids threatening other kids out loud is one thing. Scouring through their internet posts to find something with which you can incriminate them is another thing entirely. It's like the difference between a cop seeing you doing something illegal outside, and the police being able to track you with security footage to see if there is anything they can charge you with.
I don't understand how this drivel got modded up.
Allow me to welcome you to Slashdot.
And you have the notarized deed of the formal promise they made? Do you understand the difference between a daydream and reality? And really? A UFO hoaxer? Kid's shows?
You sound like a whiny, entitled taker who just expected to sit on his ass and have the future handed to him!
Taker! Loafer!
Well, he is a baby boomer, after all. Even as old as they are now, they think the world owes them everything.
Or are you saying that the liberals just say whatever they want as long as it moves their agenda forward?
Yes, that's what liberals do. They sit at large conference tables, discussing how to destroy western culture, commit white genocide, and turn the world into a vegan-only communist dictatorship. When someone comes up with a particularly brilliant idea, such as designating Whole Foods the People's Grocery Store, they all rap their knuckles and shout "BWAHAHA!!!" in unison. The FEMA camps are only the beginning. Expect the massive die-offs to begin soon!
Seriously, though, have you considered asking your psychiatrist for new meds? The ones you are on are obviously not working.
" I would never have known that the book existed"
For people born before 1990, there was this thing called "research" which took more than 5 seconds to do, thus its need to be described as an actual activity. The work you were doing was, at the time, leagues beyond what the AIs could do. We'd go to a thing called a "library" where books were actually purchased, thus the author actually getting paid. We'd look through these "books" and find the information we needed.
I'm all for progress, but a paradigm shift needs to be done in such a way that it doesn't destroy the future. There will be little purpose for authors to do the work, if you can then yank the snippets you need (likely out of context, because hey - who has time to actually read the whole paper?) without giving them any money. As someone else said, this is just Google being greedy - they could have come up with some sort of agreement with the authors that allowed them to do it via a subscription service, or such. Instead, they decided to give away someone else's work for free.
Yes, and research using only physical books and the citations in the back is what I did in graduate school. But, you know, what, I like having both print and electronic versions of books. It's a nice, new tool that helps and makes things easier. And, I can find lots of obscure things in an electronic library that would not even be available in a physical library.
Why buy the book when you already got your answer from the Google scans?
Because he didn't. He was able to read enough to realize that the book is a good discussion of the topic he was researching. You see, it actually takes time, careful reading, and detailed analysis to understand a subject. You seem to be under the impression that he wants a simple-minded, one phrase answer, when in reality he is trying to carefully do this thing known as "thinking", something your response shows you are clearly incapable of doing.
Actually, I'd be more inclined to send my kid to a place that doesn't stand for the bullshit student "activists" do all the time. I'm not paying tens of thousands a year so classes can be interrupted by a bunch of low life losers protesting whatever the most recent SJW cause it.
As far as I'm concerned, those idiots should be made to pay for the cost of the pepper spray.
So, I guess you'll be sending your kid to one of these fine universities then. They certainly don't put up with "the most recent SJW cause".
That's not actually a ringing endorsement.
Why not? Because the current generation is going to the dogs? How many times have we heard that? The baby boomer generation, who are now the old farts, were constantly belittle for their stupidity and selfishness when they were young. You can easily see it from 1950s films. I also suggest checking here. It's number 29, entitled "Only Johnny Knows". Notice how what is said could just as easily apply to millenials, baby boomers, generation x, and so on. This nonsense is really get tiring...
If the machines existed today, they'd be purchased; regardless of the minimum wage.
Not if the machines cost more than minimum wage.
Even if the minimum wage did not go up, the cost of technology generally decreases. If people can be replaced by machines, eventually they will be replaced.
Like a trip to hell, one-way! Or Detroit!
Which reminds me
Imagine if a scientist would publish a paper that basically said: It's all good, no worries, we've got everything under control. Nobody would talk about that, and the funding would be cut. So there always has to be some kind of catastrophe lurking just around the corner, so these people will stay employed.
There's lots of atmospheric research to do, even if there was no global warming. Climate science does not have to be about doom and gloom. It's just that this is where we are. Lots and lots of other research is funded just fine without any doom and gloom scenarios. You simply don't hear about them since the research keeps trudging along as usual. You only hear about this because it is something that directly affects us all.
Anyway, you really are just like the anti-evolution crowd who claim that evolutionary scientists are afraid to debunk evolution for fear of losing their funding. You're simply applying old, tired nonsense to a new field because the conclusions personally offend you.
The sky is always falling for the doom-and-gloom crowd.
"If we leave these caves we're all going to die! Lions will eat us all!" "Fire is dangerous! It'll kill us all!" "Cooking meat releases chemicals that will kill us!" "Growing plants ourselves? That's certain death!" "If we stay in one place we'll all die!" "Towns are evil and will destroy civilization as we know it!"
I mean, can't these people just kill themselves already instead of trying to make us all miserable?
Geez, so many straw men in such a short post! I didn't even think that was possible.
Remember kids, if some guy on a street corner or some kooky radio preacher was sermonizing about this stuff the Atheist echo chamber in here would go off its rocker in attacking religion.
But when we slap the magic word "Global Warming" on the same thing, now it's "science approved"!! Hell, even better: Those kook whackjob Christians who predict the end of the world on a precise date at least admit they were wrong when it doesn't happen! We don't even have to have that level rationality with our predictions, we just double down or claim that magical government regulations staved off Doomsday.
If the "whackjob Christians" actually had some evidence, instead of quoting from an ancient book, people might listen to them more. Science is funny that way. It actually requires evidence. Also, simply because someone accepts AGW or biological evolution, doesn't mean they are an atheist. AGW and evolution don't conflict with non-Christian religions, or any form of Christianity that is not the whackjob fundamentalist Evangelical type of Christianity. Unfortunately, we have a lot of them in America, though they are small minority world-wide (you know, the rest of the world - that place "outside America").
When I was in school there was constant hysteria over the ozone layer. By the year 2000 we were all supposed to be blind and dying of skin cancer because the ozone layer would be mostly gone.
And then we, you know, actually did something about it by banning CFC and so on. Now, things are better. I bet this is the kind of conversation you would have with your doctor:
Doctor: You know, if you don't stop drinking, you're going to die of liver failure.
[AC stops drinking] [3 years later, with no drinking:]
AC: See, doc! I didn't die of liver failure! Stupid doctor! You don't know anything!
The world is a wildly dynamic and chaotic place. Environmental trends can only be extrapolated so far before they become useless. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take prudent steps to protect the environment, but all of this doomsday crap just gets tiring.
As other people have mentioned, try listening to the actual scientists. Listening to Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh argue about global warming is as useful as hearing a debate about Special Relativity between two freshman, one of whom thinks he's "proven" it wrong.
What's preventing them from sending more money to the government now? A trivial Internet-search immediately returns a link to the government site, which explains, how donations of cash or securities can be made to any Federal government agency...
Anybody, actually wishing to pay more taxes himself, can already do that. The only reason to make noise about it is to force someone else to pay more.
So, by your rationale (if I may use such a malapropism), we should simply get rid of taxes and fund the government on a donation system. Or, we could do the sensible, civilised thing and have a progressive tax rate where people pay their fair share so we can live in a civilised society where I don't have to worry about being poisoned or have a bridge collapse on me.
Huh. You're comparing Trump to Hitler - and I'm the one making insane comments?
If the shoe fits...
Have you even seen what goes on at Trumps rallies? Or heard all the stuff he's been saying publicly for months now? It simply is fascism. It is Hitler in the early years, before he became Chancellor. It is Oswald Mosley, complete with pointing out someone he doesn't like in the audience, and having hooligans beat them up as they are dragged out.
Clinton and Obama, while certainly not the best of politicians, as also certainly not fascists as you claim. You don't like them, and you have clearly developed a burning hatred for them, but that doesn't make someone a fascist.
Except that with Clinton, you pretty much know what you're getting: more of the same. With Trump... there's no telling what he might do. He *might* make some interesting changes. He also *might* invade Mexico. Better off with Clinton. Things could be much worse, and with Trump, there's a risk they will be.
Considering how insecure he is, such as publicly rebutting Rubio during the primary debate regarding the size of his member, all Iran would need to do to destroy the U.S. during a Trump presidency would be to taunt him saying he is too much of a wuss to handle a war with Russia. And his supporters would say nonsense like "Yeah! We gotta give it to those Commie Soviets!"
I feel the best way to destroy the Trump campaign is to keep letting people hear him.
It won't change anything. At this point, his supporters will stick with him no matter what. One thing Trump did say that was true is when he said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any supporters. His base of nutters are right now making any and all excuses for him.
You can reason with - perhaps even change - an "openly fascist candidate". However, we have openly fascist politicians in power right now (including the President) or in the recent past, looking to gain more (Mrs. Clinton); that's a much bigger threat IMHO.
Yes, that's all Hitler needed. A nice little sit-down with some good coffee and cakes would have convinced Hitler that Germany didn't need to invade the rest of Europe, and that the Jews were just fine staying where they were.
Seriously, you should try saying some of your stuff out loud before you post it. Maybe you'll notice how utterly insane it all is.
I bet the establishment Republicans think they're in the Prisoner's Dilemma.
You mean, they're held hostage in a resort, with a large, balloon-like rover that captures or kills anyone who tries to escape?
So what? Americans vote based on how the candidates look anyway.
Yes, which is why Bernie Sanders massively lost all the Democratic primaries so far. I mean, who would vote for someone who looks like that?
With all the money Darl and his brother sucked out of that company they never need to work again. His "business model" was to start a case that could not be won, give the legal work to his brother's firm, string it out for max legal fees then take a golden parachute. Not a nice guy. I've got no idea why anyone other than a crony would every employ him.
Well, that's the problem with corporate Capitalism. It works great until you run out of other people's money.