Change is only possible if the costly behavior that leads to a better outcome can be enforced. If it cannot be, then the people who voluntarily adhere to a "sensible" behavior will lose out, and those who act irresponsibly will benefit. Hence, most people will engage in the "irresponsible" pattern, and the behavior of the "good" people will not have a significant impact.
Sadly, the only sensible/rational thing to do is to maximize your own well-being. Since the world seems to be going to hell anyway, get what you can while you can. You won't be getting more of it when it is all gone.
All apps I've tried worked okay. Even hardware extras like bluetooth and USB storage get recognized without any problems. Maybe I simply haven't hit any apps that use native libraries, but then I think very few do.
Your argument is not very far from bullshit either, the CAPS LOCK notwithstanding.
First, there was a lot of violence and evil done post-WWII. Some of it was bona fide terrorism -- the Sekigun in Japan, the Red Brigades in Italy and the Red Army Faction in West Germany, for example. The victors did not shy from shameful behaviour either. The Soviets had the whole of East Germany to unleash their revenge upon (and that was after the occupation and the plunder that it brought was technically over), and France got large chunks of Germany post WWI, parts that got less than a generous treatment.
Second, the psychology of the terrorists (aka freedom-fighters) is quite different from that of the people of a nation that lost a war. A lot has to do with the perceived morality of the outcome. A substantial educational and propaganda effort went into reshaping the values of the people of the nations that lost the wars, especially WWII. Nothing on that scale or with similar effectiveness has happened in the Middle East. The West lost the hearts and minds despite the initial shock and awe.
Finally, the populations of all enemies in the great wars of the 20th century had some common ground - even Imperial Japan has embraced a lot of Western values since it began to modernize in the late 1800s. The situation in all those conflict areas where the drones kill is quite different. In many places you could rightfully ask even if they are states in the modern sense. It is quite a stretch to compare Afghanistan to Germany, Japan or France.
Let's not overdo it. First, "Atlas Shrugged" is poor sci-fi, not a serious work of philosophy, although it is as lengthy and as boring as the swan song of your typical bad philosopher. I have no idea why it is treated as some sort of eminent philosophical work, it isn't.
Second, Rand does not "take collectivism to extremes" to build a believable "collectivist" society. That is what Huxley, Orwell and, well, Zamyatin (a Russian guy who wrote probably the greatest dystopian novel, "We") do. Hell, even Asimov does it much better than Rand in the latest Foundation books, in which he really takes it to the top by imagining the ultimate "collectivist" society - the one-counsciousness of Gaia.
Third Rand does not "take libertarianism to extremes" either. Adam Smith does in better the "Wealth of nations", where he explains how unrestrained, laissez-faire capitalism results in monopoly and social harm.
Finally, Rand's world of individual inventors who drive progress does not make much sense either. In the real world, advancement is incremental and depends of the collective work of many people ("shoulders of giants"). The more . An individualist, a Randian "hero" would by himself be a hunter-and-gatherer, even if he's very smart.
As a post script, even her "philosophical" works are junk. For all her claims about being objective, fact-based, scientifically oriented, etc, in her philosophy she has ignored everything that modern science has to say both about the individual (psychology) and about the collective (that would be economics and parts of sociology and political science).
Have time for Ayn Rand? You'll be better served by reading something from K. Anders Ericsson or James Buchanan.
And what are those "unquantifiable losses" supposed to be?
Well, you can familiarize yourself with the full report. If you read it for the information it contains instead of cherry-picking stuff that seems to confirm your own beliefs, you'll get a pretty good idea.
Now excuse me, feeding lying trolls isn't what I enjoy doing on Sunday mornings.
I don't. But please bear your arms only when you're properly organized in a militia in order to defend yourself against an evil government, as the second amendment states you should.
I am not seriously considering the solution in the article. I think there was already an experiment that showed quite conclusively it isn't going to work
Actually, I don't believe I've heard of any other engineering solution that has a good enough probability to work.
It is more that they don't want to slow down because they are being chased by something possibly deadly.
What is this deadly thing that is chasing humanity and necessitates the environmental destruction of the past 100-150 years?
You have arbitrarily set the cost of global warming to infinity, and the cost of "fixing it" near zero, thus leading to a useless cost-benefit analysis.
No, it is you who arbitrarily sets the cost of the consequences of global warming to zero and the costs of mitigation policies to infinity. I am ready to admit the outcomes are uncertain, but I also think the risk estimates we have do necessitate a mitigation strategy of some sort.
Slashdot Mirror
and it's based on the illusionary concepts of the human reality
What other "illusionary concepts" besides reality should I be aware of?
And how am I at fault for pointing out the obvious?
How so?
Depends on your assumptions. There are number of scenarios under which this is plainly wrong.
Why water down the discussion by dragging a rather poor science fiction writer into it?
Change is only possible if the costly behavior that leads to a better outcome can be enforced. If it cannot be, then the people who voluntarily adhere to a "sensible" behavior will lose out, and those who act irresponsibly will benefit. Hence, most people will engage in the "irresponsible" pattern, and the behavior of the "good" people will not have a significant impact.
Sadly, the only sensible/rational thing to do is to maximize your own well-being. Since the world seems to be going to hell anyway, get what you can while you can. You won't be getting more of it when it is all gone.
The 7 inch screen and the lighter weight are serious advantages. The difference in resolution is academic, it does not matter in daily use.
All apps I've tried worked okay. Even hardware extras like bluetooth and USB storage get recognized without any problems. Maybe I simply haven't hit any apps that use native libraries, but then I think very few do.
Now we just need Google to consider porting Android to AMD/Intel desktops.
Android runs fine on x86. You can even download it and compile it yourself, if you're into that kind of BSDM.
W3C touts it as a web editor more than a web browser
But it is quite hard to say which function is the bigger failure.
Your argument is not very far from bullshit either, the CAPS LOCK notwithstanding.
First, there was a lot of violence and evil done post-WWII. Some of it was bona fide terrorism -- the Sekigun in Japan, the Red Brigades in Italy and the Red Army Faction in West Germany, for example. The victors did not shy from shameful behaviour either. The Soviets had the whole of East Germany to unleash their revenge upon (and that was after the occupation and the plunder that it brought was technically over), and France got large chunks of Germany post WWI, parts that got less than a generous treatment.
Second, the psychology of the terrorists (aka freedom-fighters) is quite different from that of the people of a nation that lost a war. A lot has to do with the perceived morality of the outcome. A substantial educational and propaganda effort went into reshaping the values of the people of the nations that lost the wars, especially WWII. Nothing on that scale or with similar effectiveness has happened in the Middle East. The West lost the hearts and minds despite the initial shock and awe.
Finally, the populations of all enemies in the great wars of the 20th century had some common ground - even Imperial Japan has embraced a lot of Western values since it began to modernize in the late 1800s. The situation in all those conflict areas where the drones kill is quite different. In many places you could rightfully ask even if they are states in the modern sense. It is quite a stretch to compare Afghanistan to Germany, Japan or France.
Amaya can't possibly be a reference for HTML5, it only supports XHTML 1.1 or tharabouts.
The more .
Doh.
The more complex the society, the larger the body of knowledge, the less likely are the exceptions to the rule that you can't do it on your own.
Let's not overdo it. First, "Atlas Shrugged" is poor sci-fi, not a serious work of philosophy, although it is as lengthy and as boring as the swan song of your typical bad philosopher. I have no idea why it is treated as some sort of eminent philosophical work, it isn't.
Second, Rand does not "take collectivism to extremes" to build a believable "collectivist" society. That is what Huxley, Orwell and, well, Zamyatin (a Russian guy who wrote probably the greatest dystopian novel, "We") do. Hell, even Asimov does it much better than Rand in the latest Foundation books, in which he really takes it to the top by imagining the ultimate "collectivist" society - the one-counsciousness of Gaia.
Third Rand does not "take libertarianism to extremes" either. Adam Smith does in better the "Wealth of nations", where he explains how unrestrained, laissez-faire capitalism results in monopoly and social harm.
Finally, Rand's world of individual inventors who drive progress does not make much sense either. In the real world, advancement is incremental and depends of the collective work of many people ("shoulders of giants"). The more . An individualist, a Randian "hero" would by himself be a hunter-and-gatherer, even if he's very smart.
As a post script, even her "philosophical" works are junk. For all her claims about being objective, fact-based, scientifically oriented, etc, in her philosophy she has ignored everything that modern science has to say both about the individual (psychology) and about the collective (that would be economics and parts of sociology and political science).
Have time for Ayn Rand? You'll be better served by reading something from K. Anders Ericsson or James Buchanan.
And what are those "unquantifiable losses" supposed to be?
Well, you can familiarize yourself with the full report. If you read it for the information it contains instead of cherry-picking stuff that seems to confirm your own beliefs, you'll get a pretty good idea.
Now excuse me, feeding lying trolls isn't what I enjoy doing on Sunday mornings.
Cheers, liar.
It is very likely that globally aggregated figures underestimate the damage costs because they cannot include many non-quantifiable impacts.
I don't lie, you quote selectively.
I still only see a bunch of Anonymous Cowards broadcasting from there mom basements, guys, not a well-organized militia. You should try harder.
I don't. But please bear your arms only when you're properly organized in a militia in order to defend yourself against an evil government, as the second amendment states you should.
No reason to stop with guns, but according to your list, they'd be a good place to start.
And that he managed to switch the night vision mode on ...
Way too soon. Not even a CAM release available.
they amount to a few percent of global GDP,
This is the lower bound.
dumping massive quantities of iron into the ocean and causing algal blooms is not "insurance",
Nice strawman there.
I am not seriously considering the solution in the article. I think there was already an experiment that showed quite conclusively it isn't going to work
Actually, I don't believe I've heard of any other engineering solution that has a good enough probability to work.
It is more that they don't want to slow down because they are being chased by something possibly deadly.
What is this deadly thing that is chasing humanity and necessitates the environmental destruction of the past 100-150 years?
You have arbitrarily set the cost of global warming to infinity, and the cost of "fixing it" near zero, thus leading to a useless cost-benefit analysis.
No, it is you who arbitrarily sets the cost of the consequences of global warming to zero and the costs of mitigation policies to infinity. I am ready to admit the outcomes are uncertain, but I also think the risk estimates we have do necessitate a mitigation strategy of some sort.
Unlike mine, your attitude is not constructive.