The urge to anthropomorphize natural processes is apparently very strong
That mind contains different information processing centres that (surprise) process information in specialised ways. There is a module that sees everything as sentient, finding sentient causes and effects, and making predictions based on a model of personality. This module can be applied to/anything/, which is very cool if you think about it from a programming point of view. Since all the modules are always online (baring brain damage), you will see a person, and simultaneously model their personality and the physics of their body. (e.g., can they sit in that small chair?) You will see a higgs boson, and automagically assign some personality model to it.
If you close one eye, then you can see the entire universe as being nothing but sentience -- the very atoms conscious in some way.
Religion has something to do with moral values. Mythology in general does not concern itself with morality. Religions sprang up in the Axial age. Mythology is older. There is a great book on the topic called "The Evolution of God".
This is offtopic. We are talking about a carbon tax, not phasing out nuclear. The nuclear phase-out is to come, and I believe that that is a bad move. But that has nothing to do with the empirical fact that revenue neutral carbon taxes have negligible effects. Even Laffer agrees in his own words. (Of Laffer curve fame.)
This situation with cap-and-trade is exactly analogous with the fiascos over CFCs and acid rain. In both cases, alarmists and doomsayers said that regulation would cripple the economy, and that the environmental problems were not that bad. Republicans even relied on an anti-science movement masquerading as "real" science, in order to stonewall legislation on CFCs and acid rain. It is a tried and true tactic.
In both cases they were dead wrong. They had the science wrong, and the economics wrong. It is just madness.
is great news for us in Michigan, we need the jobs.
If you read the report, you will note that the New England area grew more than the rest of the US, and energy prices there grew less than the rest of the country. Including Michigan.
You want jobs, then you want to tax carbon. Empirical fact. Proven. Germany does this, and they grew 3% last year.
Watch the wind at crossroads link. It features a republican businessman who runs a high-tech factory. Wind will be cheaper than coal very soon -- perhaps only 5 years. The reasons are purely technical. If the USA doesn't subsidise the investment, then Europe/China will own the market. Note, the USA/still/ subsidises the oil/coal industry.
I used to think that way -- but I've been following the technology for a long time, and things are really starting to move. Here is some food for thought...
Renewable energy isn't just about the environment, or energy security -- it's also about growing the economy. Alas for the political discourse. The oil/coal lobby is well funded and very active, and the chief cronies in crony-capitalism.
Keynesian economics HAS NEVER WORKED FOR ANY COUNTRY IN ANY SITUATION
In the voice of Donald Rumsfeld, "That's a known unknown."
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence either way. Case in point -- when European economies tightened the books, every economy predictably contracted. Proof? Absolutely not.
Cut the cognitive dissonance, and enter the conversation =)
having worked for two government agencies and three private companies, I can say that the private corporations are no better, wasting more. Both government agencies ran a very tight ship.
How about passing a law that also states that insurance companies are forbidden to use that data as well. I can totally see them raking folks over the coals on insurance premiums for building in the "One meter zone".
Yes yes, the great lie of AGW. If insurance companies factor it in, then it must be because they are corrupt and evil.
You should keep clippings of stuff you write to show your kids, and teach them about the dangers of environmentalism.
Or possibly even they were pissed off he did a runner from the country whilst under investigation for a serious crime?
Rape is a serious cime. Failure to wear a condom during consensual sex with two women who later met each other and/then/ decided to sue... is not a serious crime.
And Assuage did/not/ "do a runner" on Sweden. He fronted up at the police office and told them he was leaving the country, and if there was anything he could do to help with closing the case, which was already closed. Then, later, another prosecutor opens the case and invokes an extradition treaty for "questioning".
And questions can/obviously/ be asked over the phone.
There is just a huge could of bullshit hanging over this.
Here is the problem: the people who built him up to be a hero cannot believe that he might also be a rapist. It's kind of like the persistent denial hardcore Clinton backers had over the Lewinski matter
What? Denial of Lewinski? I think Clinton backers couldn't care less where he stuck his wang.
As for Assuage potentially being a rapist... well, well, well... it is possible. It's likely bullshit. You just got to look at the unusual proceedings for that. (The case was closed and then re-opened for some mysterious reason.)
If some swedish prosecutor wants to ask him questions, then I recommend the telephone. Obviously this isn't about asking questions, is it.
The study shows that left-wingers are more apt to change their opinions when they are educated. Right-wingers are less flexible, and become more entrenched in whatever belief they previously held.
Multiple lines of research produce this result. A book was recently published on the topic called "The Republican Brain".
Well, scientists have been sidelined by a sustained multi-decade propaganda effort. Frank Luntz was the (modern) author of the war on climate science, but he comes at a long list of propagandists who have a well-oiled machine. (See Merchants of Doubt for a jumping off point on a stupendous amount of evidence for this point.)
The extensive social psychology research on belief and the transmission of information has been used by marketing and political institutions -- but not by scientists. Given the extra-ordinarily bizarre quality of the public discourse on the topic, scientists are finally warming to the idea of making use of science in science communication.
What the scientists are proposing is not really propaganda, but trying to find ways to transmit information that actually work. Frank Luntz and his cohort are going more for the Noble Lie, which/is/ really propaganda.
There's another debate--whether we can do anything about it at this point, even if it is manmade.
No, that's really the debate that we are having. The people who don't think anything should or could be done -- they mostly claim that the science is wrong. That's their debating tactic. It is also the story that they tell themselves, because they want to believe that they are good people.
So what you are saying is that we need to terminate all of these billions of pollution production devices known as mammalian organisms or deadly pollution devices poisoning the planet.
He's not saying that at all. He is saying the CO2 is a pollutant in the body, which is why it is expelled. I would add that this is try at pretty much any concentration of CO2. Same with urine.
Slashdot Mirror
The urge to anthropomorphize natural processes is apparently very strong
That mind contains different information processing centres that (surprise) process information in specialised ways. There is a module that sees everything as sentient, finding sentient causes and effects, and making predictions based on a model of personality. This module can be applied to /anything/, which is very cool if you think about it from a programming point of view. Since all the modules are always online (baring brain damage), you will see a person, and simultaneously model their personality and the physics of their body. (e.g., can they sit in that small chair?) You will see a higgs boson, and automagically assign some personality model to it.
If you close one eye, then you can see the entire universe as being nothing but sentience -- the very atoms conscious in some way.
You and the quarter might be nuked before it hits the ground. Ridiculously small probabilites still subtract from the probability you stated of 1
If nukes aren't part of your model, then they are not part of your model.
Probability is founded in set theory. Probabilities are assigned to events, which are sets of outcomes in you *defined* probability space.
It is a *model* that is *applied* to the world. In the model, 0 and 1 are real probabilities. That has nothing direct to do with the real world.
Can you give an example of some of the contradictory sources? (Sourcing them should quickly uncover what is going on.)
Religion has something to do with moral values. Mythology in general does not concern itself with morality. Religions sprang up in the Axial age. Mythology is older. There is a great book on the topic called "The Evolution of God".
It would simply mean that some very few dinosaurs lived through the extinction event.
Like all the birds, for example.
This is offtopic. We are talking about a carbon tax, not phasing out nuclear. The nuclear phase-out is to come, and I believe that that is a bad move. But that has nothing to do with the empirical fact that revenue neutral carbon taxes have negligible effects. Even Laffer agrees in his own words. (Of Laffer curve fame.)
This situation with cap-and-trade is exactly analogous with the fiascos over CFCs and acid rain. In both cases, alarmists and doomsayers said that regulation would cripple the economy, and that the environmental problems were not that bad. Republicans even relied on an anti-science movement masquerading as "real" science, in order to stonewall legislation on CFCs and acid rain. It is a tried and true tactic.
In both cases they were dead wrong. They had the science wrong, and the economics wrong. It is just madness.
is great news for us in Michigan, we need the jobs.
If you read the report, you will note that the New England area grew more than the rest of the US, and energy prices there grew less than the rest of the country. Including Michigan.
You want jobs, then you want to tax carbon. Empirical fact. Proven. Germany does this, and they grew 3% last year.
Watch the wind at crossroads link. It features a republican businessman who runs a high-tech factory. Wind will be cheaper than coal very soon -- perhaps only 5 years. The reasons are purely technical. If the USA doesn't subsidise the investment, then Europe/China will own the market. Note, the USA /still/ subsidises the oil/coal industry.
I used to think that way -- but I've been following the technology for a long time, and things are really starting to move. Here is some food for thought...
The missing link in renewable energy (cheap scalable batteries).
solar reaching price parity soon
Wind at a crossroads. The power output increases as a square of tower height -- so people are thinking about enormous off-shore towers, or towers in the great lakes.
There is really a lot more going on, including 20% of the US economy being under a revenue neutral carbon cap-and-trade for 10 years. (Bet you didn't know that.) This part of the US economy has seen the slowest growth in energy prices, and experienced more economic growth than the rest of the country. (Follow the link for reports.)
Renewable energy isn't just about the environment, or energy security -- it's also about growing the economy. Alas for the political discourse. The oil/coal lobby is well funded and very active, and the chief cronies in crony-capitalism.
Keynesian economics HAS NEVER WORKED FOR ANY COUNTRY IN ANY SITUATION
In the voice of Donald Rumsfeld, "That's a known unknown."
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence either way. Case in point -- when European economies tightened the books, every economy predictably contracted. Proof? Absolutely not.
Cut the cognitive dissonance, and enter the conversation =)
lol! Yep, no cognitive dissonance there. I take heart in the fact that solar and wind will cross the cost of coal in the next 10-15 years.
Can't survive on renewable energy, yet,
ftfy
having worked for two government agencies and three private companies, I can say that the private corporations are no better, wasting more. Both government agencies ran a very tight ship.
How about passing a law that also states that insurance companies are forbidden to use that data as well. I can totally see them raking folks over the coals on insurance premiums for building in the "One meter zone".
Yes yes, the great lie of AGW. If insurance companies factor it in, then it must be because they are corrupt and evil.
You should keep clippings of stuff you write to show your kids, and teach them about the dangers of environmentalism.
Or possibly even they were pissed off he did a runner from the country whilst under investigation for a serious crime?
Rape is a serious cime. Failure to wear a condom during consensual sex with two women who later met each other and /then/ decided to sue... is not a serious crime.
/not/ "do a runner" on Sweden. He fronted up at the police office and told them he was leaving the country, and if there was anything he could do to help with closing the case, which was already closed. Then, later, another prosecutor opens the case and invokes an extradition treaty for "questioning".
/obviously/ be asked over the phone.
And Assuage did
And questions can
There is just a huge could of bullshit hanging over this.
rape apologetics
He's accused of not wearing a condom during consensual sex.
Yep, that's RAPE!!!!!!
Here is the problem: the people who built him up to be a hero cannot believe that he might also be a rapist. It's kind of like the persistent denial hardcore Clinton backers had over the Lewinski matter
What? Denial of Lewinski? I think Clinton backers couldn't care less where he stuck his wang.
As for Assuage potentially being a rapist... well, well, well... it is possible. It's likely bullshit. You just got to look at the unusual proceedings for that. (The case was closed and then re-opened for some mysterious reason.)
If some swedish prosecutor wants to ask him questions, then I recommend the telephone. Obviously this isn't about asking questions, is it.
They want to ask him question, eh? What about skype? What the fsck is the problem? There is a could of bullshit hanging over these proceedings.
The study shows that left-wingers are more apt to change their opinions when they are educated. Right-wingers are less flexible, and become more entrenched in whatever belief they previously held.
Multiple lines of research produce this result. A book was recently published on the topic called "The Republican Brain".
We spend more on the military.
Propaganda
Well, scientists have been sidelined by a sustained multi-decade propaganda effort. Frank Luntz was the (modern) author of the war on climate science, but he comes at a long list of propagandists who have a well-oiled machine. (See Merchants of Doubt for a jumping off point on a stupendous amount of evidence for this point.)
/is/ really propaganda.
The extensive social psychology research on belief and the transmission of information has been used by marketing and political institutions -- but not by scientists. Given the extra-ordinarily bizarre quality of the public discourse on the topic, scientists are finally warming to the idea of making use of science in science communication.
What the scientists are proposing is not really propaganda, but trying to find ways to transmit information that actually work. Frank Luntz and his cohort are going more for the Noble Lie, which
Except they want to limit CO2, which is not a pollutant.
Except is /is/ a pollutant at sufficient concentrations. The exact amount is an empirical question.
There's another debate--whether we can do anything about it at this point, even if it is manmade.
No, that's really the debate that we are having. The people who don't think anything should or could be done -- they mostly claim that the science is wrong. That's their debating tactic. It is also the story that they tell themselves, because they want to believe that they are good people.
Open a biology text book once in a while, you'll find that CO2 is not a pollutant, it is an essential nutrient for plant life.
I cannot believe how pathetic this argument is. Can you have too much of a good thing? Let's see:
This is kindergarten stuff.
So what you are saying is that we need to terminate all of these billions of pollution production devices known as mammalian organisms or deadly pollution devices poisoning the planet.
He's not saying that at all. He is saying the CO2 is a pollutant in the body, which is why it is expelled. I would add that this is try at pretty much any concentration of CO2. Same with urine.
Sticking to some black-and-white notion that CO2 is or is not a pollutant in all circumstances at all concentrations is -- kinda daft. It's the kinda of idiocy committed by people so incompetent that they don't know they are incompetent, and therefore has false beliefs about how much they know.