The biggest time suck at my office is definitely the presence of excessive and mindless multi-taskers who burden both their computers and colleagues with their totally unnecessary and unbearably scatterbrain BS.
Nope, I don't. You specifically stated that your complaints were directed at your political adversaries who are "thinking" about the popular vote, "petitioning" to influence the electoral college, and "protest-marching" against the results. You associated me with those folks when you followed that statement immediately with "so boohoo yourself." Do you want to pretend it was a generic closing statement with no direct line to the previous statement? That's fine, but even in this most recent comment, you've made a sarcastic quip to suggest that I'm aligned with these loons in response to me explicitly stating my position. No direct argument from you, though....just a bunch of rambling BS about Obama. What a surprise... I guess we know where you stand.
and you're being civil?
Can you read? I've already told you when and why civility went out the window. I'm more concerned with helping you understand the flaws in your position, at this point. You're welcome.
It is interesting that all of these issues weren't issues when Obama won, but they are now because Trump won. That does lead to interesting conclusions.
That's not interesting. It's not even intelligible. What deluded thread of logic is does this wild tangent of an idea even represent? Actually, I take it back about the delusion. Even though you've already demonstrated your meddle, I'll give you an opportunity to explain yourself in clear language. Good luck. I'm waiting.
Saying that we need to follow the rules as they exist is not a "political bent"
First, you've demonstrated your political bent in oh so many ways that I won't bother to list them out here. You and everyone who reads your comments know exactly how you're aligned and how belligerent you are towards anyone who doesn't sing the same tune. Let's not pretend.
Second, I've already explained how the rules defined by our nation's constitution encourage faithless electors. No one is changing rules by "challenging" the constitutionality of state laws. It boggles my mind that you can't grasp this. Are you familiar with cognitive dissonance?
They are both means to changing the results of an election after it is over, done by people who just don't want to accept the result. If the laws were unconstitutional two weeks ago, they were unconstitutional four years ago, and yet the people who are in court now weren't in court four years ago. They are in court today ONLY because their candidate lost and they think they can get the results changed. THERE is the political bent you accuse me of.
Haha, ok, I take back the bit about cognitive dissonance. Good job... It really looks like you're starting to grasp it. You get a C+ for this paragraph.
Seriously, though, unconstitutional laws are almost never challenged until they are broken, enforced unfairly, or until someone is planning to break them. That's just how it works. It's also how it SHOULD work because court cases like this cost tax payers and plaintiffs a lot of money, and there are enough shitty laws to fill 20 libraries of congress. Your candidate ran on that rhetoric in case you've forgotten.
Also, those people are in court for more than just the idea that their candidate lost. They're there because the winning candidate is just as much of a loon as the losing candidate is a crook. It's a scary situation for folks to be in, and some of them have deluded themselves into thinking they know one person or the other is actually REALLY better. Others are just as crazy or crooked as the candidate they supported. I haven't decided which category you fall into, just yet...
And just in case you haven't figured out where I stand... They're both trash, and I'll repeat it: I love watching the system chew them both up. It would be neat to see it spit one of them out in
I replied using the same words you used with me. If that isn't civil, then deal with it.
OK, here's me dealing with it. The actual word "boo hoo" has very little to do with your lack of civility, and it doesn't indicate a lack of civility on my part. When you said "boo hoo," you implied that my complaint against you was based on the notion that I support efforts to foster faithless electors because I am vigorously invested (as you are) in which candidate becomes president. My perspective has nothing to do with which candidate will become president, and it shows a lack of civility that you would presume it does while attacking me. I'd be happy to help you understand other parts of your comments where you showed a lack of civility, if you want, but I'm sure you'd rather just continue behaving like a buffoon. I mean, seriously.. Ripping my 'advocating respect' line out of context like that for a sarcastic quip? Grow up kid.
If they can't keep their pledge to vote for their candidate, then they shouldn't be electors in the first place.
That's not what our founding fathers had in mind when they designed this system. They intended for electors to lose faith in their pledge if the circumstances called for it. If you can't accept that, and you don't have the gumption to suggest the system should be amended, then you never belonged in this country in the first place.
The process includes, in 26 states as I understand it, LAWS that require the electors to vote for the person that got them to the party. Taking these laws to court now is trying to subvert the process that was in place on election day and that was agreed to BY THE ELECTORS THEMSELVES.
Those laws were knowingly enacted in direct contradiction with our constitution. If you hadn't already demonstrated your meddle when you dragged this discussion into the gutter with your political bent, then we could have a meaningful conversation about federalism and states' rights. Suffice to say those electors have an obligation to honor the laws written into our constitution just like those 26 states had an obligation to advocate for a change to the electoral system rather than writing laws that contradict with it.
Tell me that changing the law after the fact isn't subverting the process.
Changing a law and challenging the constitutionality of a law are not the same thing. Since you've already demonstrated that you're incapable of understanding a simple fact like this, I really don't have much hope for continuing this conversation with you.
I'm so glad that you took the civil discourse pathway here. And if you can't detect it, that was sarcasm.
It's ironic that you joke about me being able to detect sarcasm while simultaneously failing to recognize that any hope of civil discourse went out the window when you flatly denied your obvious lack of civility after treating me like the political enemy you'd identified by checking the other guy's post history.
Sorry... That wasn't civil and this reply isn't either- Boohoo, myself? Come on, now... Believe what you want, but genuinely and truly, I'm not invested in the results of their efforts one way or the other. Each candidate is bad for the country in their own way, and in my view, it's next to impossible to determine which one is more dangerous at this point. At the same time, some aspects of the electoral college are bad for the country and an alternative or a fix is badly needed. I don't care.
I love watching stuff like this play out, and I'm only advocating respect (including possible constructive criticism) of the process our founding fathers created. You're demonstrating willful ignorance of this process to suit your political agenda. The pledge is not meaningless. The pledge exists so that electors are forced to weigh their options carefully and avoid rash decisions. The fact of the matter is that the electoral college was intentionally designed so that "faithless electors" could influence the outcome of a presidential election. They and those appealing to them are not subverting the process. They are embracing it. You're the one spinning a yarn and spreading misinformation that runs contrary to the laws of our nation. This type of garbage subverts the integrity of our current election and corrupts the way citizens who fall victim to your lies might perceive future elections.
First, look who's jumping down throats... Please keep it civil.
Second just the facts my friend... The electoral college was designed to allow electors the freedom to cast votes contrary to the pledge you've mentioned. THAT is the process. Folks trying to influence THAT process in the ways you've described happen to be exercising their constitutionally protected rights. The only thing being subverted is the typical order of electoral business. That typical order of business is not a process that's protected by our laws. It's just what you're used to. So, in truth, the only thing that's being subverted is your desire to follow the typical order of business. Boohoo...
If you must complain, I recommend you direct your complaints at the actual process rather than leveling unfounded criticism towards the law abiding citizens who wish to make use of the intended flexibility of its design.
Why would you characterize what he described as 'subverting' the process? The rules of the process were designed to allow for those scenarios. Therefore, they are following the process- not subverting it. Interestingly, the states that have introduced penalties for electors who choose to vote their conscience are the ones who are trying to subvert the process.
Re:Metal and paper, good. Petroplastics - landfill
on
Recycling Is Dying
·
· Score: 1
Clearly, I meant to say it's arguable that some types of recycling produce more carbon pollution than it sinks. Whoops.
Metal and paper, good. Petroplastics - landfill.
on
Recycling Is Dying
·
· Score: 1
Considering the tangibile evidence that our species and , indeed, the entire planet is being poisoned by endocrine disruptors contained in petro-plastics; I don't understand why we're still wasting our time recycling these things. It only serves to extend the cycle of destruction while artificially propping up the market and supporting production of new petro-plastics. It's definitely worth suffering through the additional endocrine disruptor leech from our landfills until we've trashed the entire idea and moved on to bioplastics.
It's even becoming arguable that paper recycling is a carbon sinking enterprise that produces nasty chemical byproducts. With renewable crops like pine, eucalyptus, and hemp capable of producing paper; we'll eventually gain more efficiency by dumping paper waste into the landfill, as well.
...the only quotable I've ever liked or ever will like:
Words learned by rote a parrot may rehearse; but talking is not always to converse, not more distinct from harmony divine, the constant creaking of a country sign.
I don't have to be correct. I just don't want you to be mistaken.
Hmm, have you still not read the OP and other comments in this thread? You are correct, and I'm not mistaken. Have you ever heard the expression, "Preaching to the choir..."?
You will note that I used the singular form of the word "insult". This form and usage of the word does not mean what you think it does. If you really need the English lesson to clarify your understanding, I will happily provide it. Let me know...
Great reference, wrong thread. The problem you've highlighted is exactly what this "$100,000,000" thread is about. I recommend reading the OP before commenting:
What does that amount to? A month? A week's worth of revenue? Show some teeth dammit! Revoke their charter...
Interesting commentary. Yea, I've always felt this way... Couldn't you have skipped the wall of text laced with insult and just posted the quote above....or at least just skip the lacing? You're not an AC. Show some tact.
Yea, that's pretty close to "plain evil." It's unfortunate for your argument that it's a terrible analogy. You should use a crime like profiting from market manipulation as a media mouthpiece for stock market commentary. Something like that... AT&T knew they were misrepresenting their product with doublespeak. The chorus of keyboard commandos in the ol' tubes calling them out for it made 100% sure of that. They just knew they could get away with it, and you know what... They did. 100,000,000 is nothing.
First, everything you said is completely irrelevant to anything I said. Maybe you misread a bit of condescension into my post and thought I was expressing a one-sided opinion? In truth, I was merely pointing out the obvious.
Second, we all know the superpowers of the world have been doing this kind of garbage since the beginning of time. The simple existence of a terrible precedent does not make it OK to repeat it.
Third, your bottom line and its apparent definition of "west-backed" is a little flimsy. You're treading dangerously close to relegating your opinion to the scrap heap with all of the other harebrained conspiracy theories you can read about over at infowars. Other than that, you seem to have some interesting insights.
Side note: I noticed another reply accusing you of being a paid Russian shill, but that kind of criticism is just no fun....sooo... I've enjoyed watching and rooting for "The Americans" on FX, and I've got this amusing image of you as an aging/irrelevant former sleeper who still believes and trolls the internet picking fights for Mother Russia. Please don't kill me.
It doesn't matter how long they evaded law enforcement with double-speak. They were violating the law and should be held accountable for the full magnitude of the crime they've committed. That's how justice works in this country.
Why should they lose convenience from and waste time/money on OPSEC/COMSEC when there are no broadly imposed consequences as long as they simply lie about it?
Well, in that case, perhaps you should have read the whole conversation, since I had already responded to the arguments you made.
You're insufferable in your willingness to mis-characterize my commentary. Once again, I wasn't making arguments. I was helping another poster with a misunderstanding by sharing a few scientific facts with him. You don't own the entire discussion thread just because you made an elderly post, so in that case you should mind your own business or at least pay closer attention to the contextual basis of mine.
I also think the distinction between "consumer-level products" and other products is invalid.
This is very true, but it's a straw man. I didn't draw that distinction. My post included a qualifier constraining my commentary to products whose existence amount to "basic littering" because they are intended for our wastewater systems. I can't believe you wasted 3 paragraphs of text explaining something so painfully obvious. The only thing missing is a citation about how pornography drives advanced technology development and adoption.
For example, water treatment plants could be changed to be more efficient.
Ahh, finally, something relevant... Is it realistic, though? Getting there is probably gonna require federal regulations and a lot of government spending. We'll see a lot of litter before we get anywhere close to that ideal. Maybe a tax on these companies to raise funding for these efficiency upgrades, eh? No, that's more ridiculous than a ban. Tough one, I guess... I'm sure you'll come up with something.
Why are you beating around the bush? Why are you not stating clearly what your definition actually is?
I joined this conversation specifically to address the broad accusation that folks participating in this conversation "can't articulate a single problem with them." I'm really not interested in the semantic distinction or argument for/against banning that you're focused on, but since you've asked; I think the way you're calling it a theoretical possibility is overtly dismissive and stifles rational discourse. You asked the same question twice, so I'll ask you to re-read everything up to this point. Fair's fair.
California votes to ban microbeads. I ask for evidence of harm. People get abusive and hostile.
Don't take it out on me. I'm not fear-mongering, and I'm not being evasive. I just didn't join this conversation with the intention of addressing your argument. I'll wait here while you go back to take another look at my original post in this thread.
Since you've asked, even though I don't really give a shit that they've enacted a ban, it's fair to say the ban is definitely not supported by the environmental science we've discussed.
All of that environmental science aside, it seems to me that selling plastics intended to enter our wastewater systems and likely unable to be captured by many such systems amounts to basic littering. I can't think of a good reason to allow that in consumer-level products other than to avoid inflicting economic harm on the industries that sell those products. Maybe you can help me out there...
I guess the take-home lesson from all the non-responses is that there is next to no evidence of actual harm
What we've got is evidence of a mechanism that can cause harm by concentrating compounds into our food chain that shouldn't be there. That is to say, we know compounds bind to the surface of these plastics. We know animals are consuming the plastics. We know these harmful compounds are absorbed into the animal when the plastics are consumed. If that's what you call, "next to no evidence of actual harm", then I a guess we agree.
...and no plausible way in which the ban will significantly improve the marine environment
First, you shouldn't mistake my simple recognition of the facts as tacit support for the ban. I'm happy to acknowledge more research is needed before taking a drastic step like banning the microbeads, but I don't think this perspective should impede a rational discussion about the potential impact of these beads on our enviornment and food supply.
Second, it's most definitely plausible that banning the beads could ultimately result in less of the compounds we've been discussing entering our food chain. Maybe that doesn't fit your definition of significantly improving the marine environment? Fine, I'll also agree with you on this one.
Finally, I don't agree that 'significant improvement of the marine environment' should be the singular criteria for enacting bans on pollutants.
First, they "concentrate" toxins by passing them up the food chain into continually larger organisms after the toxins were ingested by smaller ones. By the time the toxins have moved a ways up the food chain, they've been concentrated into the larger organisms. Second, it's not FUD because "the majority of animal life on this planet" resides in the ocean, by far. Also, higher concentrations of toxins inflict demonstrable harm.
Congratulations. You've misinterpreted the "the only complaint" that you saw. It's more than just man-made "pollution". It's more accurate to say they concentrate other toxins.
First of all, a number of natural toxins exist and are produced every day by organisms (e.g. cyanide) and natural phenomena like volcanic activity. Just like man-made pollutants, those natural toxins are being passed up the food chain via microbeads when they should be resting harmlessly outside the reach of our food chain.
Second, pollution exists and cannot be "undone". It's ludicrous to bring up the fantasy of "if there was no other pollution" because we've been making very large and very permanent deposits ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Currently, the only real solution to this problem is time and patience, and microbeads interfere with our ability to bide that time without inflicting harm upon the majority of animal life on this planet.
Slashdot Mirror
The biggest time suck at my office is definitely the presence of excessive and mindless multi-taskers who burden both their computers and colleagues with their totally unnecessary and unbearably scatterbrain BS.
shit... "mettle" I knew that didn't look right.
You want to put words in my mouth
Nope, I don't. You specifically stated that your complaints were directed at your political adversaries who are "thinking" about the popular vote, "petitioning" to influence the electoral college, and "protest-marching" against the results. You associated me with those folks when you followed that statement immediately with "so boohoo yourself." Do you want to pretend it was a generic closing statement with no direct line to the previous statement? That's fine, but even in this most recent comment, you've made a sarcastic quip to suggest that I'm aligned with these loons in response to me explicitly stating my position. No direct argument from you, though....just a bunch of rambling BS about Obama. What a surprise... I guess we know where you stand.
and you're being civil?
Can you read? I've already told you when and why civility went out the window. I'm more concerned with helping you understand the flaws in your position, at this point. You're welcome.
It is interesting that all of these issues weren't issues when Obama won, but they are now because Trump won. That does lead to interesting conclusions.
That's not interesting. It's not even intelligible. What deluded thread of logic is does this wild tangent of an idea even represent? Actually, I take it back about the delusion. Even though you've already demonstrated your meddle, I'll give you an opportunity to explain yourself in clear language. Good luck. I'm waiting.
Saying that we need to follow the rules as they exist is not a "political bent"
First, you've demonstrated your political bent in oh so many ways that I won't bother to list them out here. You and everyone who reads your comments know exactly how you're aligned and how belligerent you are towards anyone who doesn't sing the same tune. Let's not pretend.
Second, I've already explained how the rules defined by our nation's constitution encourage faithless electors. No one is changing rules by "challenging" the constitutionality of state laws. It boggles my mind that you can't grasp this. Are you familiar with cognitive dissonance?
They are both means to changing the results of an election after it is over, done by people who just don't want to accept the result. If the laws were unconstitutional two weeks ago, they were unconstitutional four years ago, and yet the people who are in court now weren't in court four years ago. They are in court today ONLY because their candidate lost and they think they can get the results changed. THERE is the political bent you accuse me of.
Haha, ok, I take back the bit about cognitive dissonance. Good job... It really looks like you're starting to grasp it. You get a C+ for this paragraph.
Seriously, though, unconstitutional laws are almost never challenged until they are broken, enforced unfairly, or until someone is planning to break them. That's just how it works. It's also how it SHOULD work because court cases like this cost tax payers and plaintiffs a lot of money, and there are enough shitty laws to fill 20 libraries of congress. Your candidate ran on that rhetoric in case you've forgotten.
Also, those people are in court for more than just the idea that their candidate lost. They're there because the winning candidate is just as much of a loon as the losing candidate is a crook. It's a scary situation for folks to be in, and some of them have deluded themselves into thinking they know one person or the other is actually REALLY better. Others are just as crazy or crooked as the candidate they supported. I haven't decided which category you fall into, just yet...
And just in case you haven't figured out where I stand... They're both trash, and I'll repeat it: I love watching the system chew them both up. It would be neat to see it spit one of them out in
I replied using the same words you used with me. If that isn't civil, then deal with it.
OK, here's me dealing with it. The actual word "boo hoo" has very little to do with your lack of civility, and it doesn't indicate a lack of civility on my part. When you said "boo hoo," you implied that my complaint against you was based on the notion that I support efforts to foster faithless electors because I am vigorously invested (as you are) in which candidate becomes president. My perspective has nothing to do with which candidate will become president, and it shows a lack of civility that you would presume it does while attacking me. I'd be happy to help you understand other parts of your comments where you showed a lack of civility, if you want, but I'm sure you'd rather just continue behaving like a buffoon. I mean, seriously.. Ripping my 'advocating respect' line out of context like that for a sarcastic quip? Grow up kid.
If they can't keep their pledge to vote for their candidate, then they shouldn't be electors in the first place.
That's not what our founding fathers had in mind when they designed this system. They intended for electors to lose faith in their pledge if the circumstances called for it. If you can't accept that, and you don't have the gumption to suggest the system should be amended, then you never belonged in this country in the first place.
The process includes, in 26 states as I understand it, LAWS that require the electors to vote for the person that got them to the party. Taking these laws to court now is trying to subvert the process that was in place on election day and that was agreed to BY THE ELECTORS THEMSELVES.
Those laws were knowingly enacted in direct contradiction with our constitution. If you hadn't already demonstrated your meddle when you dragged this discussion into the gutter with your political bent, then we could have a meaningful conversation about federalism and states' rights. Suffice to say those electors have an obligation to honor the laws written into our constitution just like those 26 states had an obligation to advocate for a change to the electoral system rather than writing laws that contradict with it.
Tell me that changing the law after the fact isn't subverting the process.
Changing a law and challenging the constitutionality of a law are not the same thing. Since you've already demonstrated that you're incapable of understanding a simple fact like this, I really don't have much hope for continuing this conversation with you.
I'm so glad that you took the civil discourse pathway here. And if you can't detect it, that was sarcasm.
It's ironic that you joke about me being able to detect sarcasm while simultaneously failing to recognize that any hope of civil discourse went out the window when you flatly denied your obvious lack of civility after treating me like the political enemy you'd identified by checking the other guy's post history.
Sorry... That wasn't civil and this reply isn't either- Boohoo, myself? Come on, now... Believe what you want, but genuinely and truly, I'm not invested in the results of their efforts one way or the other. Each candidate is bad for the country in their own way, and in my view, it's next to impossible to determine which one is more dangerous at this point. At the same time, some aspects of the electoral college are bad for the country and an alternative or a fix is badly needed. I don't care.
I love watching stuff like this play out, and I'm only advocating respect (including possible constructive criticism) of the process our founding fathers created. You're demonstrating willful ignorance of this process to suit your political agenda. The pledge is not meaningless. The pledge exists so that electors are forced to weigh their options carefully and avoid rash decisions. The fact of the matter is that the electoral college was intentionally designed so that "faithless electors" could influence the outcome of a presidential election. They and those appealing to them are not subverting the process. They are embracing it. You're the one spinning a yarn and spreading misinformation that runs contrary to the laws of our nation. This type of garbage subverts the integrity of our current election and corrupts the way citizens who fall victim to your lies might perceive future elections.
First, look who's jumping down throats... Please keep it civil. Second just the facts my friend... The electoral college was designed to allow electors the freedom to cast votes contrary to the pledge you've mentioned. THAT is the process. Folks trying to influence THAT process in the ways you've described happen to be exercising their constitutionally protected rights. The only thing being subverted is the typical order of electoral business. That typical order of business is not a process that's protected by our laws. It's just what you're used to. So, in truth, the only thing that's being subverted is your desire to follow the typical order of business. Boohoo... If you must complain, I recommend you direct your complaints at the actual process rather than leveling unfounded criticism towards the law abiding citizens who wish to make use of the intended flexibility of its design.
Why would you characterize what he described as 'subverting' the process? The rules of the process were designed to allow for those scenarios. Therefore, they are following the process- not subverting it. Interestingly, the states that have introduced penalties for electors who choose to vote their conscience are the ones who are trying to subvert the process.
Clearly, I meant to say it's arguable that some types of recycling produce more carbon pollution than it sinks. Whoops.
Considering the tangibile evidence that our species and , indeed, the entire planet is being poisoned by endocrine disruptors contained in petro-plastics; I don't understand why we're still wasting our time recycling these things. It only serves to extend the cycle of destruction while artificially propping up the market and supporting production of new petro-plastics. It's definitely worth suffering through the additional endocrine disruptor leech from our landfills until we've trashed the entire idea and moved on to bioplastics.
It's even becoming arguable that paper recycling is a carbon sinking enterprise that produces nasty chemical byproducts. With renewable crops like pine, eucalyptus, and hemp capable of producing paper; we'll eventually gain more efficiency by dumping paper waste into the landfill, as well.
...the only quotable I've ever liked or ever will like:
Words learned by rote a parrot may rehearse; but talking is not always to converse, not more distinct from harmony divine, the constant creaking of a country sign.
Hmm, have you still not read the OP and other comments in this thread? You are correct, and I'm not mistaken. Have you ever heard the expression, "Preaching to the choir..."?
You will note that I used the singular form of the word "insult". This form and usage of the word does not mean what you think it does. If you really need the English lesson to clarify your understanding, I will happily provide it. Let me know...
Me too. I try to keep a handle on it, but when the urge becomes unbearable, I'm ashamed to admit that I'll check the post anonymously box.
Interesting commentary. Yea, I've always felt this way... Couldn't you have skipped the wall of text laced with insult and just posted the quote above....or at least just skip the lacing? You're not an AC. Show some tact.
Yea, that's pretty close to "plain evil." It's unfortunate for your argument that it's a terrible analogy. You should use a crime like profiting from market manipulation as a media mouthpiece for stock market commentary. Something like that... AT&T knew they were misrepresenting their product with doublespeak. The chorus of keyboard commandos in the ol' tubes calling them out for it made 100% sure of that. They just knew they could get away with it, and you know what... They did. 100,000,000 is nothing.
First, everything you said is completely irrelevant to anything I said. Maybe you misread a bit of condescension into my post and thought I was expressing a one-sided opinion? In truth, I was merely pointing out the obvious.
Second, we all know the superpowers of the world have been doing this kind of garbage since the beginning of time. The simple existence of a terrible precedent does not make it OK to repeat it.
Third, your bottom line and its apparent definition of "west-backed" is a little flimsy. You're treading dangerously close to relegating your opinion to the scrap heap with all of the other harebrained conspiracy theories you can read about over at infowars. Other than that, you seem to have some interesting insights.
Side note: I noticed another reply accusing you of being a paid Russian shill, but that kind of criticism is just no fun....sooo... I've enjoyed watching and rooting for "The Americans" on FX, and I've got this amusing image of you as an aging/irrelevant former sleeper who still believes and trolls the internet picking fights for Mother Russia. Please don't kill me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It doesn't matter how long they evaded law enforcement with double-speak. They were violating the law and should be held accountable for the full magnitude of the crime they've committed. That's how justice works in this country.
Why should they lose convenience from and waste time/money on OPSEC/COMSEC when there are no broadly imposed consequences as long as they simply lie about it?
You're insufferable in your willingness to mis-characterize my commentary. Once again, I wasn't making arguments. I was helping another poster with a misunderstanding by sharing a few scientific facts with him. You don't own the entire discussion thread just because you made an elderly post, so in that case you should mind your own business or at least pay closer attention to the contextual basis of mine.
This is very true, but it's a straw man. I didn't draw that distinction. My post included a qualifier constraining my commentary to products whose existence amount to "basic littering" because they are intended for our wastewater systems. I can't believe you wasted 3 paragraphs of text explaining something so painfully obvious. The only thing missing is a citation about how pornography drives advanced technology development and adoption.
Ahh, finally, something relevant... Is it realistic, though? Getting there is probably gonna require federal regulations and a lot of government spending. We'll see a lot of litter before we get anywhere close to that ideal. Maybe a tax on these companies to raise funding for these efficiency upgrades, eh? No, that's more ridiculous than a ban. Tough one, I guess... I'm sure you'll come up with something.
I joined this conversation specifically to address the broad accusation that folks participating in this conversation "can't articulate a single problem with them." I'm really not interested in the semantic distinction or argument for/against banning that you're focused on, but since you've asked; I think the way you're calling it a theoretical possibility is overtly dismissive and stifles rational discourse. You asked the same question twice, so I'll ask you to re-read everything up to this point. Fair's fair.
Don't take it out on me. I'm not fear-mongering, and I'm not being evasive. I just didn't join this conversation with the intention of addressing your argument. I'll wait here while you go back to take another look at my original post in this thread.
Since you've asked, even though I don't really give a shit that they've enacted a ban, it's fair to say the ban is definitely not supported by the environmental science we've discussed.
All of that environmental science aside, it seems to me that selling plastics intended to enter our wastewater systems and likely unable to be captured by many such systems amounts to basic littering. I can't think of a good reason to allow that in consumer-level products other than to avoid inflicting economic harm on the industries that sell those products. Maybe you can help me out there...
What we've got is evidence of a mechanism that can cause harm by concentrating compounds into our food chain that shouldn't be there. That is to say, we know compounds bind to the surface of these plastics. We know animals are consuming the plastics. We know these harmful compounds are absorbed into the animal when the plastics are consumed. If that's what you call, "next to no evidence of actual harm", then I a guess we agree.
First, you shouldn't mistake my simple recognition of the facts as tacit support for the ban. I'm happy to acknowledge more research is needed before taking a drastic step like banning the microbeads, but I don't think this perspective should impede a rational discussion about the potential impact of these beads on our enviornment and food supply.
Second, it's most definitely plausible that banning the beads could ultimately result in less of the compounds we've been discussing entering our food chain. Maybe that doesn't fit your definition of significantly improving the marine environment? Fine, I'll also agree with you on this one.
Finally, I don't agree that 'significant improvement of the marine environment' should be the singular criteria for enacting bans on pollutants.
First, they "concentrate" toxins by passing them up the food chain into continually larger organisms after the toxins were ingested by smaller ones. By the time the toxins have moved a ways up the food chain, they've been concentrated into the larger organisms. Second, it's not FUD because "the majority of animal life on this planet" resides in the ocean, by far. Also, higher concentrations of toxins inflict demonstrable harm.
Congratulations. You've misinterpreted the "the only complaint" that you saw. It's more than just man-made "pollution". It's more accurate to say they concentrate other toxins.
First of all, a number of natural toxins exist and are produced every day by organisms (e.g. cyanide) and natural phenomena like volcanic activity. Just like man-made pollutants, those natural toxins are being passed up the food chain via microbeads when they should be resting harmlessly outside the reach of our food chain.
Second, pollution exists and cannot be "undone". It's ludicrous to bring up the fantasy of "if there was no other pollution" because we've been making very large and very permanent deposits ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Currently, the only real solution to this problem is time and patience, and microbeads interfere with our ability to bide that time without inflicting harm upon the majority of animal life on this planet.
I wonder what this patent will mean for the widely renowned social robitics pioneer who started the JIBO project on indiegogo.
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/jibo-the-world-s-first-social-robot-for-the-home