They don't even have to "care about staying in power"; representative democracy uses voter preference as a proxy for ability, and therefore ultimately the people who are elected are those who are best at being elected and not necessarily those who are best for the role.
The beauty of democracy in practice is getting electability as strongly coupled to performance as possible, and the ugly side of ever pre-election campaign is the effort to decouple the two wherever convenient.
For what it's worth, I think geoengineering is a terrible way to solve the problem right now - like you point out, it has a low probability of a very, very bad outcome - but it's hard to engage in any discussion of, say, social solutions, when even the idea of billing someone for their CO2 output is considered utterly unacceptable.
Climate modellers are well aware of the uncertainty in their parameters. That's why in modern work, they run their model with ranges of parameters determined to be plausible based on empirical observation, and output a range of possible outcomes. Future observation and comparison with the model allows them to refine the parameter range to be more realistic.
Have you tried to walk in a US city lately? Even use public transport in one? The barrier to reducing vehicle use for the individual is enormous, so nobody can do it. Yet if everyone did it, it would suddenly become trivial.
Sometimes collective action is the only way to get over a hump.
I like how you've clearly defined "environment movement" to only count the people who are actually rabid lunatics, while ignoring the overwhelming majority of environmentalists who would be happy to see funding for alternative energy research and better climate monitoring.
Unfortunately when anyone even proposes research into another response - geo-engineering, perhaps - it's branded apocalyptic climate alarmism and shouted down. As long as there's a well-funded lobby arguing that the problem doesn't exist, it's going to be an uphill battle to even test alternatives, much less actually apply them.
Isn't the book's argument that in a situation of low knowledge, facing low-probability high-impact events, we should actively prepare by adapting our social and economic structures in such a way that they are more resilient? That sounds a lot like the kind of preparatory work climate science is arguing for.
My point is that if you're going to posit secret machinations behind an action with zero evidence, any machination consistent with that zero evidence is fair game.
I don't think you understand my point, the US government would keep monitoring your communications while you lived in China, and you'd have even fewer protections than you did while you lived in the US.
Leaving the US does nothing but make it easier for them to monitor you.
I remember Nokia launching a bit of software like this for Symbian back in its dying days; you could use it to make a mobile-friendly, self-contained version of any RSS feed you felt like pointing it at. That was in the days when mobile-optimised sites were just starting to become A Thing and few of the optimised sites were intended for 2.6-inch QVGA displays. Probably came out of them.
"Groklaw is shutting down", period, would be a much clearer way of conveying that than a lengthy and intellectually and emotionally rigorous essay outlining the (by your reckoning) fabricated reasons for its closure, and no less legally sound.
Potential for harm and usefulness in performing an armed insurrection are rather orthogonal concepts. The state restricts babies from driving, but that's not because they'd pull some bitching Jason Statham stunts and take out helicopter gunships.
I think someone should point out that there's no evidence that it's the case, and it seems unlikely given the current history of the issue. It'd be reassuring to think that this is the result of some specific hostile action against Groklaw, but I'm afraid that such acts are not necessary to get this sort of response.
Actually, no, that's not really a comparable situation. Thematically linked, but you don't need a bunch of overt monitors planted everywhere to swoop down and harass a single, known individual, so the latter doesn't have the pervasive sense of threat of the former.
How would fleeing the US help? Even the fig-leaf of privacy protection afforded to US citizens living at home is completely absent for those who live elsewhere, citizen or otherwise. As long as any component of the runs through the US, the US will continue to reap.
I think this view that you can't make a spin on someone's game idea in case it becomes financially successful is antithetical to what indie games are about.
That's not what X8675309 meant, but he was mistaken anyway; Notch handed over project management of Minecraft to Jeb, but not until after v1.0 was released.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't even have to "care about staying in power"; representative democracy uses voter preference as a proxy for ability, and therefore ultimately the people who are elected are those who are best at being elected and not necessarily those who are best for the role.
The beauty of democracy in practice is getting electability as strongly coupled to performance as possible, and the ugly side of ever pre-election campaign is the effort to decouple the two wherever convenient.
For what it's worth, I think geoengineering is a terrible way to solve the problem right now - like you point out, it has a low probability of a very, very bad outcome - but it's hard to engage in any discussion of, say, social solutions, when even the idea of billing someone for their CO2 output is considered utterly unacceptable.
Actually, methane is an important area of discussion, in particular with a view to the impact of agriculture (cows) on the climate.
I'm not sure what control we have over our water vapour production, though.
Climate modellers are well aware of the uncertainty in their parameters. That's why in modern work, they run their model with ranges of parameters determined to be plausible based on empirical observation, and output a range of possible outcomes. Future observation and comparison with the model allows them to refine the parameter range to be more realistic.
I'd love for you to demonstrate how that is true.
Have you tried to walk in a US city lately? Even use public transport in one? The barrier to reducing vehicle use for the individual is enormous, so nobody can do it. Yet if everyone did it, it would suddenly become trivial.
Sometimes collective action is the only way to get over a hump.
I like how you've clearly defined "environment movement" to only count the people who are actually rabid lunatics, while ignoring the overwhelming majority of environmentalists who would be happy to see funding for alternative energy research and better climate monitoring.
Unfortunately when anyone even proposes research into another response - geo-engineering, perhaps - it's branded apocalyptic climate alarmism and shouted down. As long as there's a well-funded lobby arguing that the problem doesn't exist, it's going to be an uphill battle to even test alternatives, much less actually apply them.
Isn't the book's argument that in a situation of low knowledge, facing low-probability high-impact events, we should actively prepare by adapting our social and economic structures in such a way that they are more resilient? That sounds a lot like the kind of preparatory work climate science is arguing for.
It's moot now: they've upgraded it to Level 3.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23776345
My point is that if you're going to posit secret machinations behind an action with zero evidence, any machination consistent with that zero evidence is fair game.
I don't think you understand my point, the US government would keep monitoring your communications while you lived in China, and you'd have even fewer protections than you did while you lived in the US.
Leaving the US does nothing but make it easier for them to monitor you.
I remember Nokia launching a bit of software like this for Symbian back in its dying days; you could use it to make a mobile-friendly, self-contained version of any RSS feed you felt like pointing it at. That was in the days when mobile-optimised sites were just starting to become A Thing and few of the optimised sites were intended for 2.6-inch QVGA displays. Probably came out of them.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/03/nokia-launches-ovi-app-wizard-will-probably-lead-to-ovi-populat/
It looks like it has since been replaced by something with a bit more flexibility:
http://xpresswebapps.nokia.com/
"Groklaw is shutting down", period, would be a much clearer way of conveying that than a lengthy and intellectually and emotionally rigorous essay outlining the (by your reckoning) fabricated reasons for its closure, and no less legally sound.
Coming out of voluntary retirement because you enjoy the work is a bit different from resigning because you think your work is impossible.
Potential for harm and usefulness in performing an armed insurrection are rather orthogonal concepts. The state restricts babies from driving, but that's not because they'd pull some bitching Jason Statham stunts and take out helicopter gunships.
There's as much evidence that it's shutting down over a secret vampire attack.
I think someone should point out that there's no evidence that it's the case, and it seems unlikely given the current history of the issue. It'd be reassuring to think that this is the result of some specific hostile action against Groklaw, but I'm afraid that such acts are not necessary to get this sort of response.
Actually, no, that's not really a comparable situation. Thematically linked, but you don't need a bunch of overt monitors planted everywhere to swoop down and harass a single, known individual, so the latter doesn't have the pervasive sense of threat of the former.
How would fleeing the US help? Even the fig-leaf of privacy protection afforded to US citizens living at home is completely absent for those who live elsewhere, citizen or otherwise. As long as any component of the runs through the US, the US will continue to reap.
Streets aren't secure or private, but if you saw the Gestapo positioned on every street corner you might suddenly feel differently about them.
I think this view that you can't make a spin on someone's game idea in case it becomes financially successful is antithetical to what indie games are about.
Minecraft will never be feature complete, because its featureset is constantly being expanded.
My bad. I am ashamed.
That's not what X8675309 meant, but he was mistaken anyway; Notch handed over project management of Minecraft to Jeb, but not until after v1.0 was released.