How do you propose to do a double-blind study on smoking?
I don't propose doing any at all. The answer is considered settled. And doing one would be unethical (you expect fatalities in the smoking group).
Moreover, any study can only establish probabilities, not certainty, and there's been plenty of other studies done.
How many "studies" have been done on climate disruption? There have been "plenty" of studies done, yet people complain there isn't proof. So I pull out "gravity is just a theory" and "smoking isn't proven" as the two examples of similar wording applied to non-controversial topics.
You haven't contradicted me. You've agreed with me in a very disagreeable manner. Why? Not the agree part, it's obvious I'm right, but why do you feel the need to do so so disagreeably?
Depends on the grease. Runny grease that's liquid at tap-water temperature isn't an issue. It won't harm your pipes, or any other pipes getting to the treatment plants. It's the thick grease that you have to use hot water to wash down. That'll congeal in pipes (yours or others) as it cools and not wash away, catching other debris (especailly "flushable wipes" that aren't flushable any more than a cotton towel), and eventually forming a pretty formidable clog.
You're continuing to change the subject further and further away from the original post I was responding to.
You asserted that reducing pollution for yourself (because that's all you control) is a bad thing. A religion (as if religions are assumed evil, an assumption I didn't touch). That you had so many assumptions *does* mean that there's lots in there to "argue" about before finding out what you actually mean. I can control my personal emissions, and vote in a manner to indirectly affect others. I *should* (as a matter of cost/benefit) minimize my emissions, at least until everyone grazing at the public area can come to an agreement.
Kyoto wasn't a cost/benefit analysis.
Yes, it was. That you don't like some of their assumptions (it was a weighted cost/benefit analysis - and because you appear to object to the weighting so much, you assert it is the opposite of what it actually was) doesn't change that it is a cost benefit analysis. Whether weighted, or poorly done doesn't change it from being what it was.
You just like to insult religion and climate change at the same time. I can't change your opinion, but you'll never change anyone else's either. Your argument is inconsistent. Kyoto *was* a cost/benefit anaysis, which you say is explicitly OK. They just used weighting and poor assumptions.
Your arguemet is that 2+2=4 isn't addition if you actually had 1 and 6 to add, but didn't see the missing items and assumed the 1 was too small, so you added another to make it more realistic. What's funnier is your argument is that 3+4=7 is wrong if the actual numbers were 1 and 6. Sometimes you do the best you can with the numbers available.
The tragedy of the commons assumes common property - buying your own area is trying to solve it by privatization.
The tragedy of the commons "prime example" assumes private property (the ranchers have their own "private" grazing) and public property - the part that is shared by all. The air within a factory is private. You can make it as bad as you like, so long as you don't exhaust it (or kill your workers - but OSHA doesn't matter in this example).
You can't have the Prime Example without private and public land both. The ranchers in the example do not keep their flock on the "public" land 100% of the time.
And if he had been honest at his trial, he would have been found innocent then. But he lied, and the jury could tell he was lying. So the prosecution's case made sense, and the jury convicted him.
There was nothing in the Wiki page about "lies" on the stand. And how could the prosecution's case have made sense when a re-examination of the evidence found the fire was "not arson" and a regular house fire.
So, yes Texas most likely killed a man who didn't willingly kill his family. But he isn't the poster child of wrongful conviction you may think he is.
So he was an innocent man who deserved to die because he lied? I'm not sure perjury is a capital offense.
When you use heat recovery properly, you don't need to raise the temperature of the water. You run the incoming water through the cooling area of the system until it's nearing 100C, then the energy needed is not to raise the temperature, but just phase-change it.
If I had 200 gallons to live on for a month, I doubt I'd be taking 40 gallon baths or long showers. Having lived places with severe water shortages (a farm with a broken water pump, waiting on a part), you get used to military-style showers. 10-15 seconds of wet, 5 minutes of soaping up/washing. 2-3 minutes of rinsing off. 8 gallons or under.
Dishwashing by hand is most efficiently done with a 3-sink system, not hand washing. Scrape, soap-sink, wash-sink, rinse-sink. 2-5 gallons per sink, 6-15 gallons to wash an unlimited number of dishes. Not as good as the newest dishwashers, but better than running-water washing.
When you don't ever have to conserve, you don't learn how. Extrapolatin wasteful practices in times of crisis doesn't work, and kinda makes you look dumb. Some people live off less water in a year than I use in a day. I don't conserve all the time, but I at least know how. You are arguing from a position of ignorance. Also, I use grey water. It's "easy" these days to get a bathroom sink that feeds the toilet (with a minimum filter to prevent problems if you pour grease into your bathroom sink, or have solid waste in there, such as vomiting chunkies into the bathroom sink). So your toilet is "free" so long as you use your bathroom sink enough. I personally have water recovery from my roof (yes, I don't live in CO, where the rain belongs to the State, and not the property owner). I only use it for grey water, but with some changes to make it potable, I could just about go off-grid for water. Except I use the grey water for the lawn and such.
Yes, and so many are anti-conservation because they confuse conservation with socialism. If you have to use resources responsibly, then the communists have already won.
Water is a good insulator of nuclear problems, so why not sink the nuke plant in the middle of the ocean, and have it generate power, and thus clean water, and pump it back to land.
Oil is not free because it isn't renewable. Solar is considered renewable (it isn't, but lasts long enough and isn't diminished by use that it can be considered such).
Also, I wonder if anyone's ever done a study to see if there is a correlation between politeness and threat of danger.
Politeness on whose side? There are studies showing that muggers become less polite (rather than asking for your wallet, they are more likely to shoot you and take it, in case you are armed). But I have no idea if the corpse of the mugged person was more or less polite than the living person was.
The solution to "the tragedy of the commons" isn't "as little as possible" grazing -- everyone goes hungry
No, in the tragedy of the commons, you can "buy" your own area to graze. Like you can pay to clean your exhaust before China causes Californian smog.
while the sacred, off-limits
No, that's not how it's working. China, India and Africa are grazing unrestrained. It's just that Africa only owns one goat, so no matter how much they graze in the common area, nobody would notice, and China has documentation of other's previous over-grazing, and finds it unfair that they are asked to graze less at peak than England or the USA did.
grass grows long and the commons grazing area becomes a wilderness.
That extension of the analogy only works if - the USA doesn't pollute, thus the air is perfectly clean at every location in the world. As that's obviously not true, so is your interpretation of the analogy.
Rather than adhering to dogmatic prohibitions, the solution is to make rational tradeoffs to maximize the benefit for people.
That's what Kyoto was. How did you like Kyoto? If there is no international agreement on grazing rights, definitions of over grazing and the like, then it'll remain a tragedy of the commons indefinitely, and the world will be polluted until the most tolerant person can no longer tolerate it. And based on the levels of pollution in some areas, that's pretty bad (bordering uninhabitable).
Why can't we use reason to choose what we do rather than environmental dogma?
Because it's a situation of "tragedy of the commons" and people need incentives to act for the greater good, when self-interest benefits them to abuse it. Pollution is an externality. The more they pollute, the more they save, as reducing pollution costs money. It's the traditional "grazing" scenario, but with the air being over-grazed by pollution. Pumping the smallest amount of pollution possible into the air is a good thing, until there's some sharing of the air that prevents an increase of pollutants.
What you advocate is "fuck you, my neighbor over-grazed the common area, so I'm going to do it twice as bad". That's as much or more "a religion" than understanding that it's a tragedy of the commons, and doing what you can (pull your own sheep out of the common area until an agreement is reached on how to graze) is reasonable and responsible, even if you wish to dismiss it as a religion.
Fiction is some kind of evidence. It's not very compelling, but it's evidence, if for nothing more than some author has some opinion (as it's presumed that things spoken by the author, not words in a character's mouth, are the author's words). Much like the 10,000 times I've heard "An armed society is a polite society." So many take that as "proof" that the statement is true, despite it occurring in "Beyond This Horizon", a fiction work.
It's still never been proven that smoking "causes" cancer. A scientific double-blind study has never been done. There is no doubt, but it isn't "proven".
Just like people talk about the "theory of evolution" being "just a theory" But then, so is gravity, why isn't there any debate over that one?
how does that work? I've seen lots of complaints that it checks location often. But I've seen no assertions that it sends it back "home".Spyware that sends nothing to anyone.
I must be old. Old version, the ISPs pay CDNs to improve service to their customers and lower their costs spent on upstream providers. And ISPs thought that was a good thing. Now, you abuse your monopoly and customers to "monetize" the service you promise to provide. Charge multiple times for the same bit because your business plan sucks. I'm too old for this. And not psychopathic enough.
They also make the assumption that a MacBook-looking computer must be a MacBook, even when it isn't stated in the video. If I wanted to make my pen look cool, I'd put a 100W USB 3.0 port into a chassis that others would assume would be something different. That the technical details are so light on the kickstarter page indicates they know they are perhaps a little questionable. It's a small hot-glue gun with good marketing. How could something that simple not work?
Slashdot Mirror
The tracking starts before the brain is notified. The eye "knows" to look at unusual events, even without asking the brain for permission.
Because they'll give it generators that don't work with sea water near them, and we'll have another Fukushima?
How do you propose to do a double-blind study on smoking?
I don't propose doing any at all. The answer is considered settled. And doing one would be unethical (you expect fatalities in the smoking group).
Moreover, any study can only establish probabilities, not certainty, and there's been plenty of other studies done.
How many "studies" have been done on climate disruption? There have been "plenty" of studies done, yet people complain there isn't proof. So I pull out "gravity is just a theory" and "smoking isn't proven" as the two examples of similar wording applied to non-controversial topics.
You haven't contradicted me. You've agreed with me in a very disagreeable manner. Why? Not the agree part, it's obvious I'm right, but why do you feel the need to do so so disagreeably?
Depends on the grease. Runny grease that's liquid at tap-water temperature isn't an issue. It won't harm your pipes, or any other pipes getting to the treatment plants. It's the thick grease that you have to use hot water to wash down. That'll congeal in pipes (yours or others) as it cools and not wash away, catching other debris (especailly "flushable wipes" that aren't flushable any more than a cotton towel), and eventually forming a pretty formidable clog.
You're continuing to change the subject further and further away from the original post I was responding to.
You asserted that reducing pollution for yourself (because that's all you control) is a bad thing. A religion (as if religions are assumed evil, an assumption I didn't touch). That you had so many assumptions *does* mean that there's lots in there to "argue" about before finding out what you actually mean. I can control my personal emissions, and vote in a manner to indirectly affect others. I *should* (as a matter of cost/benefit) minimize my emissions, at least until everyone grazing at the public area can come to an agreement.
Kyoto wasn't a cost/benefit analysis.
Yes, it was. That you don't like some of their assumptions (it was a weighted cost/benefit analysis - and because you appear to object to the weighting so much, you assert it is the opposite of what it actually was) doesn't change that it is a cost benefit analysis. Whether weighted, or poorly done doesn't change it from being what it was.
You just like to insult religion and climate change at the same time. I can't change your opinion, but you'll never change anyone else's either. Your argument is inconsistent. Kyoto *was* a cost/benefit anaysis, which you say is explicitly OK. They just used weighting and poor assumptions.
Your arguemet is that 2+2=4 isn't addition if you actually had 1 and 6 to add, but didn't see the missing items and assumed the 1 was too small, so you added another to make it more realistic. What's funnier is your argument is that 3+4=7 is wrong if the actual numbers were 1 and 6. Sometimes you do the best you can with the numbers available.
It's called "estimation" not "religion".
The tragedy of the commons assumes common property - buying your own area is trying to solve it by privatization.
The tragedy of the commons "prime example" assumes private property (the ranchers have their own "private" grazing) and public property - the part that is shared by all. The air within a factory is private. You can make it as bad as you like, so long as you don't exhaust it (or kill your workers - but OSHA doesn't matter in this example).
You can't have the Prime Example without private and public land both. The ranchers in the example do not keep their flock on the "public" land 100% of the time.
I beleive that having the highest incarceration rate is evidence we are not doing a good job of it.
And if he had been honest at his trial, he would have been found innocent then. But he lied, and the jury could tell he was lying. So the prosecution's case made sense, and the jury convicted him.
There was nothing in the Wiki page about "lies" on the stand. And how could the prosecution's case have made sense when a re-examination of the evidence found the fire was "not arson" and a regular house fire.
So, yes Texas most likely killed a man who didn't willingly kill his family. But he isn't the poster child of wrongful conviction you may think he is.
So he was an innocent man who deserved to die because he lied? I'm not sure perjury is a capital offense.
When you use heat recovery properly, you don't need to raise the temperature of the water. You run the incoming water through the cooling area of the system until it's nearing 100C, then the energy needed is not to raise the temperature, but just phase-change it.
If I had 200 gallons to live on for a month, I doubt I'd be taking 40 gallon baths or long showers. Having lived places with severe water shortages (a farm with a broken water pump, waiting on a part), you get used to military-style showers. 10-15 seconds of wet, 5 minutes of soaping up/washing. 2-3 minutes of rinsing off. 8 gallons or under.
Dishwashing by hand is most efficiently done with a 3-sink system, not hand washing. Scrape, soap-sink, wash-sink, rinse-sink. 2-5 gallons per sink, 6-15 gallons to wash an unlimited number of dishes. Not as good as the newest dishwashers, but better than running-water washing.
When you don't ever have to conserve, you don't learn how. Extrapolatin wasteful practices in times of crisis doesn't work, and kinda makes you look dumb. Some people live off less water in a year than I use in a day. I don't conserve all the time, but I at least know how. You are arguing from a position of ignorance. Also, I use grey water. It's "easy" these days to get a bathroom sink that feeds the toilet (with a minimum filter to prevent problems if you pour grease into your bathroom sink, or have solid waste in there, such as vomiting chunkies into the bathroom sink). So your toilet is "free" so long as you use your bathroom sink enough. I personally have water recovery from my roof (yes, I don't live in CO, where the rain belongs to the State, and not the property owner). I only use it for grey water, but with some changes to make it potable, I could just about go off-grid for water. Except I use the grey water for the lawn and such.
No, those numbers are total payments. How would Florida get 432% returned if it didn't include the SS?
Yes, and so many are anti-conservation because they confuse conservation with socialism. If you have to use resources responsibly, then the communists have already won.
Water is a good insulator of nuclear problems, so why not sink the nuke plant in the middle of the ocean, and have it generate power, and thus clean water, and pump it back to land.
Oil is not free because it isn't renewable. Solar is considered renewable (it isn't, but lasts long enough and isn't diminished by use that it can be considered such).
So where's the water come from? The same nearby rivers that the local towns pull drinking water from? Or do the frackers have windtraps?
Also, I wonder if anyone's ever done a study to see if there is a correlation between politeness and threat of danger.
Politeness on whose side? There are studies showing that muggers become less polite (rather than asking for your wallet, they are more likely to shoot you and take it, in case you are armed). But I have no idea if the corpse of the mugged person was more or less polite than the living person was.
The solution to "the tragedy of the commons" isn't "as little as possible" grazing -- everyone goes hungry
No, in the tragedy of the commons, you can "buy" your own area to graze. Like you can pay to clean your exhaust before China causes Californian smog.
while the sacred, off-limits
No, that's not how it's working. China, India and Africa are grazing unrestrained. It's just that Africa only owns one goat, so no matter how much they graze in the common area, nobody would notice, and China has documentation of other's previous over-grazing, and finds it unfair that they are asked to graze less at peak than England or the USA did.
grass grows long and the commons grazing area becomes a wilderness.
That extension of the analogy only works if - the USA doesn't pollute, thus the air is perfectly clean at every location in the world. As that's obviously not true, so is your interpretation of the analogy.
Rather than adhering to dogmatic prohibitions, the solution is to make rational tradeoffs to maximize the benefit for people.
That's what Kyoto was. How did you like Kyoto? If there is no international agreement on grazing rights, definitions of over grazing and the like, then it'll remain a tragedy of the commons indefinitely, and the world will be polluted until the most tolerant person can no longer tolerate it. And based on the levels of pollution in some areas, that's pretty bad (bordering uninhabitable).
Yes, but only by definition. That's a different issue.
Why can't we use reason to choose what we do rather than environmental dogma?
Because it's a situation of "tragedy of the commons" and people need incentives to act for the greater good, when self-interest benefits them to abuse it. Pollution is an externality. The more they pollute, the more they save, as reducing pollution costs money. It's the traditional "grazing" scenario, but with the air being over-grazed by pollution. Pumping the smallest amount of pollution possible into the air is a good thing, until there's some sharing of the air that prevents an increase of pollutants.
What you advocate is "fuck you, my neighbor over-grazed the common area, so I'm going to do it twice as bad". That's as much or more "a religion" than understanding that it's a tragedy of the commons, and doing what you can (pull your own sheep out of the common area until an agreement is reached on how to graze) is reasonable and responsible, even if you wish to dismiss it as a religion.
Believing in the tragedy of the commons is a religion? I thought it was basic logic.
Fiction is some kind of evidence. It's not very compelling, but it's evidence, if for nothing more than some author has some opinion (as it's presumed that things spoken by the author, not words in a character's mouth, are the author's words). Much like the 10,000 times I've heard "An armed society is a polite society." So many take that as "proof" that the statement is true, despite it occurring in "Beyond This Horizon", a fiction work.
It's still never been proven that smoking "causes" cancer. A scientific double-blind study has never been done. There is no doubt, but it isn't "proven".
Just like people talk about the "theory of evolution" being "just a theory" But then, so is gravity, why isn't there any debate over that one?
how does that work? I've seen lots of complaints that it checks location often. But I've seen no assertions that it sends it back "home".Spyware that sends nothing to anyone.
I must be old. Old version, the ISPs pay CDNs to improve service to their customers and lower their costs spent on upstream providers. And ISPs thought that was a good thing. Now, you abuse your monopoly and customers to "monetize" the service you promise to provide. Charge multiple times for the same bit because your business plan sucks. I'm too old for this. And not psychopathic enough.
They also make the assumption that a MacBook-looking computer must be a MacBook, even when it isn't stated in the video. If I wanted to make my pen look cool, I'd put a 100W USB 3.0 port into a chassis that others would assume would be something different. That the technical details are so light on the kickstarter page indicates they know they are perhaps a little questionable. It's a small hot-glue gun with good marketing. How could something that simple not work?