Capitalism would have destroyed the entire economic system in the last few years.
What we've had to an ever increasing degree over the few decades, accelerated over the last dozen or so years, is "Crony Capitalism" where those within government choose winners and losers in the economy through regulations, taxes, government grants/loans, and legislation to favor those politically "connected" and/or those who "pay to play" whether monetarily or through other means. That's the problem with a government that regulates nearly everything; there will always be those who will find a way to exert influence or control over that government power in order to prevent competition and better their own interests.
This has been a growing problem in the US over the past 80 years or more as government has grown in sheer size, power, scope, and reach. History clearly shows that the more power and control there is to corrupt in government, the more likely it is to occur, and the more damage corruption inflicts on society.
The only way to keep corruption and "Crony Capitalism" in check is to limit the size, scope, power, and reach of the central national government, and delegate as much of the business of the domestic governing of the citizens as possible/practical to those authorities as close and "local" as possible, i.e. State City, County, and other local government bodies.
So unfettered capitalism would have the peasant workers killed for being unproductive while a few super-rich got richer and richer and more and more inbred and stupid.
That's Anarchy, not Capitalism. Capitalism only works under relatively fair and evenly-enforced Rule of Law. It's precisely because the current US government gives little more than lip-service to the Rule of Law that the US is suffering under Crony Capitalism.
After all, you say "capitalism has allowed the US to provide more humanitarian assistance"... a) that has no place in a capitalist system - charity is a socialist concept...
For having "no place in a capitalist system", Capitalism has still and yet provided far more humanitarian assistance both domestically and around the world, including even to those who are not friends, than Socialism or Communism has. The plain facts debunk your claim.
the US is technically poorer that most places, the only reason you're not the recipient of humanitarian aid is because you've received it in the form of debt (so it doesn't count as aid). if you had any chance of paying off the national debt, then maybe you'd have a point. Chances are, China is going to be paying your way for you for some time.
Now, here we have some common ground. I deplore what US Progressive members of both political parties have done in putting the country into such dire economic straights in pursuit of their own Progressive ideology, power, and wealth.
Realistically, the US has only one hope of avoiding economic collapse: Allow the private sector to create enough wealth by drastically reducing the government's size and spending, slashing taxes, drastically reducing entitlement spending, drastically reducing regulatory burdens, reforming the Federal Reserve system, and in other ways once again free the mightiest wealth and prosperity generating economic juggernaut the planet has ever known...US citizens pursuing their own enlightened self-interest in a fair but moderately-regulated & taxed Capitalist economy.
Face it, capitalism is not and never was a system that has been put into practice in a pure form, just like socialism nor communism have never been implemented in a way true to their ideals.
Capitalism even in the "impure" form in which it was practiced in the US up to approximately 60 years ago still far outstripped any other system ever invented for improving conditions for the poorest in society, which is something Socialism and Communism have never come close to equaling in the many, many attempts at making those systems work throughout history. Socialism and Communism only work well in small tight-knit groups, and a lot of very dark history shows clearly that they do not scale well.
Rejecting the parts of the economy that work to improve the well-being of a group (like you do when rejecting social policies) will only make that group worse off.
Government social policies are not "parts of the economy" by definition. Neither has it been established that government social programs actually help the people it's meant to help over the long run. Since the inception of government entitlements and the war on poverty from the time of FDR and then Johnson to the present day, the ranks of the poor in the US have steadily increased. It can be argued that just the opposite occurs, with the Native Americans who reside on Reservations being a case study in the failure of government run "social programs" and the dysfunction inflicted on a group of people by being made dependent on government for their basic needs.
Capitalism is the worst system ever invented. Except for every other system ever invented.
Capitalism is the only system ever created where wealth is a renewable resource for everyone as long as they are willing to work and/or come up with an idea, skill, or invention that's useful to someone else.
Where Socialism, Fascism, and Communism are systems that require people to act against their natural tendencies (working harder and going further than required in a system where everyone is rewarded and punished equally and where incentive and thinking out of the box are not survival traits), Capitalism instead leverages self-interest and the desire for people to better their lot to improve things for everyone and create wealth & prosperity where there previously was little or none.
Capitalism has raised more people from poverty than any other system ever created.
Capitalism has allowed more people to live in more relative freedom and at a higher standard of living than any other system ever invented.
Capitalism has allowed the US to provide more humanitarian assistance to those in need around the world than any other system or country in history.
For these reasons and many more, "Progressivism", Socialism, Communism, and Fascism are doomed to failure and to taking their rightful places on the junk heap of failed ideologies.
Someone needs to go and burn down the Capital building already.
I've been puzzled from the beginning as to why the OWS protesters aren't in front of the Capitol and the White House. They're the ones ultimately responsible for Wall Street corruption, because it necessarily requires a corrupt government in order to exist and grow.
For corruption to flourish in the private sector requires a corrupt government, for only with a corrupt government can the corrupt businesses and individuals be protected from the People and Justice.
There's no plausible mechanism for magma currents to influence climate. It's like saying ocean currents in Europa affect Earth's climate. Climate models do a decent job of simulating climate (benchmarked against past climate) and are getting more sophisticated all the time. It's not hocus pocus, they are based on physical laws. If something has a negligible effect on energy balance, it probably does not affect climate.
Look, I just pulled "magma currents" out of the air as an example of some area of understanding that's not very advanced that could in some unknown fashion affect global climate patterns. Maybe it doesn't. Has anyone published a paper that rules out magma currents as having any global climate? That's my point. We're not even sure at this point what to include or exclude in climate models.
IMHO, there's simply not enough data yet, and humans simply haven't learned enough yet, to be able to make global climate predictions with enough certainty that makes condemning large numbers of people to severely-curtailed standards of living, suffering & possible starvation, economic upheavals, and even death because of such calculations, a sane choice.
Magma currents affect climate? That's a new one on me.
That's the point. It would be a "new one" to everyone, including scientists. They don't know. Is there proof magma currents don't affect the global climate? Either directly or indirectly? Global climate science has barely even reached "abacus" levels of sophistication, never mind "UNIVAC" levels of knowledge & expertise.
Climate models are far from perfect but they're better than you can do without them.
You're kidding here, right? I mean, you're not saying we should make major changes in both the nation's and the entire world's economic and energy systems, necessarily causing immense disruptions and wild price swings in both energy and food costs, possibly destabilize governments (some with nukes), and cause suffering and even starvation for large numbers...
All this based on the results of a model that's "better than you can do without them"!?!?
Really?
No more certainty than that?
That's just scary if you see nothing wrong with this picture, man. Seriously.
Hansen's 1988 projections for scenario B (which was closest to actual CO2 rise in the atmosphere) are a bit above current temperatures but he used a climate sensitivity of 4 when the actual value appears to be about 3. If he had used 3 his projections would have been even closer to current temperatures.
!988 projections. What, only 23 years? And there's still adjustments and fudge factors to adjust? That just makes my point that the study of the global climate system is still in it's very early infancy.
I just think it unwise in the extreme to take steps that may well cause massive global economic shifts and starvation and other suffering for many based only on what little progress we've made in climate science. I mean, not too many years ago, there wasn't any such thing as a "climate scientist" as they exist today.
Too much suffering and even death to risk on such little data or the extremely limited knowledge and understanding we currently possess in the area of global climate science, particularly when there won't be any do-overs for a screw-up.
That's just my view from what I've been able learn.
If it ultimately saves CO2, consider this computer's carbon footprint an "investment."
At this point in the state of Man's understanding of the Earth's climate system, we're not capable of anything approaching accurate medium to long term modeling, so we're not even sure there's a problem, whether we caused it or not, to solve...nor that limiting carbon in the way it's been implemented is the solution if there were.
Heck, we're still attempting to accurately model WW2 battles and their environment and physics in FPS's, and we have a far better grasp of both the variables involved and the algorithms necessary, and are modeling something far, far less complicated and at a tiny fraction of the scales involved in mid and long term global climate prediction. There are so many other areas that affect global climate like mantle magma currents, our own oceans, solar science, and many more where our knowledge and understanding of those fields are still in their infancy, that it's impossible for me to see how it's possible to create a global climate model with any meaningful & useful degree of mid to long term accuracy.
It matters little how powerful a computer you have if you don't know what should go in and what operations to perform.
Garbage in, garbage out...particularly when the software is all pre-pre-alpha to begin with.
Unless you have a falcon or hawk weighing several thousand pounds, I don't think they will have any luck no matter how well you train them. Predator drones have around 80 ft wingspan and weigh thousands of pounds.
The MQ-9 Reaper uses a 900shp turboprop engine to cruise at 172-195mph with a max speed rating of 300mph. Wingspan 66ft. Max takeoff weight 10,500lbs. Operational altitude 25,000ft, service ceiling 50,000ft. Internal payload 800lbs, external payload 3,000lbs for a combined 3,800lbs payload.
To bring one down without using ECM (electronic counter-measures) of some sort (or attacking/disrupting the operator and/or one of the control links) you'd need an A/A gun at a minimum, military A/A missile system, or some kind of homebrew R/C nose-camera equipped rocket-drone with an explosive/fragmenting warhead.
It's easier and safer to toss out any politician that's OK with using drones for surveillance of US citizens domestically. Not to say I think them being thrown out any time soon is likely. Or if they would even allow the vote outcome to stand if they were all voted out as nearly simultaneously as possible.
By that argument, manufacturing processes - which no one seems to have an issue with - should also not be patentable. Yet they are.
Maybe a second look should be taken regarding the copyright of manufacturing processes as well, at least as far as what's patentable in that area and other parameters of such a filing. For that matter, both patents and copyright could do with a serious re-working on the whole.
Just because something (like manufacturing process patents) exists presently doesn't indicate that it's good for our society and shouldn't be changed or abolished.
Slavery shouldn't have existed, yet it did...until it was abolished. WW2 internment camps holding US citizens not charged with any crime nor given due process shouldn't have existed until they were abol...
To the extent developers feel otherwise, I haven't seen a calm, and rationale counter-argument.
You mean nobody has mentioned to you that software shouldn't be patentable simply because software should be protected by copyright since it's a set of instructions that in essence are no different than a book?
Why can't a book be patented instead of copyrighted? If you take the same book of instructions and call it "software" it magically becomes patentable? Why is a book of instructions for building a house not patentable, but a program that provides the same instructions for building the same house patentable?
Maybe we would be better served by an "Occupy the Patent Office" movement. Or an "Occupy Congress" movement. Or both.
No problem, happy I happened to know a little bit about the A-10 to pass along. I live about 2 miles from a major Guard base that's home to a squadron of A10s (A-10As and A-10Cs). Spent more than one or two evenings sharing adult beverages with A-10 pilots, many of whom saw action.
They love the A-10, not only for it's awesome firepower, but more importantly the aircraft's toughness. I was regaled with many a story (and quite a few pics) about pilots returning to base and being totally amazed by the amount of battle damage their aircraft sustained and still got them home.
The aircraft is designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator, and half of one wing missing.(!!) From some of the after-action battle-damage pics I saw, it well exceeds design spec in practice. It appeared in some pics like they were brought home by only 2/3rds of an aircraft!
The cynic in me suspects that more military personnel would "do their duty" than join the revolution, but then again, the spring uprisings in the Middle East are probably a better indication than my cynicism:)
I would have to agree that the chances of most or even over a quarter of the US military going over to the civilians would be small. Still, that's a sizable chunk of the mightiest military on the planet, nothing to sneeze at. Heck, even that small portion could likely thrash a large number of other country's military forces. Plenty enough to cause horrendous destruction and loss of life in an all-out civil war. The US would never be the same.
More than likely a foreign military would be called in to quell any domestic US rebellion. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there aren't secret agreements already in place for just this contingency. I mean, those in power are extremely unlikely to ever halt their ambition for ever-more power, never mind surrendering any of the power they've gained over the past 100 years, and they have to have thought of what will eventually happen and what they would have to do to survive with their power intact.
In your false dichotomy, yes, that's correct. But you have defined liberal and conservative in a very strange and extreme way. I mean, if conservatives really believed that people can rule themselves, why are there so many of them running for President?
There's no false dichotomy here.
America is an idea that a free people can rule themselves through free and fair elections, choosing those who will represent their interests in a democratic republic. These ideas are laid out in the Declaration and the Constitution.
Progressives do not believe men can rule themselves, and reject the ideas laid out above. The very name "Progressive" speaks to this, as it's the Constitution and a free people under a democratic republic that they feel they must "progress" past and around to achieve their goal of a Utopian society. They believe that people are too stupid to govern themselves and must be ruled over by a king or other form of elite class (like Progressive "intellectuals").
Why are there so many of them advocating laws that prevent people from making choices that they disagree with?
This is a disingenuous argument, as all government restricts choices available. It is how all government functions. The default is anarchy which is total freedom. It is by restricting certain choices and actions that order is maintained and the will of the people through their government (or just the will of those in the government under less-free systems) is exercised.
This is why government power must be kept to the minimum necessary to maintain a healthy, sane, and free society, so as to allow for the fewest and least onerous restrictions on people's freedoms and available choices. The larger and more powerful government becomes, the more restrictions on freedom and the fewer choices available to it's citizens there are.
But how many people do you know who have something like the 30mm chain gun in an Apache helicopter, or the 20mm Vulcan minigun in the nose of an A-10 Warthog?
The A-10 uses a GAU-8 Avenger 30mm autocannon (the A/A 49E-6 Gun System), not a 20mm Vulcan.
How about the family members that are posted at the local National Guard base with it's armory and squadron of A-10s?
If it got to the point that the US government employed the US military to attack US citizens, you can be guaranteed that a not-insignificant portion of those military personnel and military assets will go over to the side of the citizens. There would most definitely be a very nasty fight. Chances would be quite good that the government would end up using nukes domestically.
You do realise that you've had three years to breed before you can drive?
You're assuming that I meant only driving deaths. There's plenty to die from between birth and being old enough to breed. Sounds more like you're desperately trying to find anything you can refute in my post, even if you have to stretch assumptions to do it.
How about instead of trying to toddler-proof the world, we teach little Johnny and little Sally how to be responsible
There's no such thing as a responsible five year old.
Being responsible is a skill that is taught and is developed over time, starting in childhood. You can't keep a person in a bubble-wrap lined cocoon from birth to age of majority and then suddenly expect that person to magically become responsible. If it isn't beginning to be taught at toddler-hood and continued through to adulthood, that person will not be as responsible as someone who was taught responsibility starting as a child.
You would do away with Billy's bicycle helmet, depriving the world of a first class physicist when his tire slips and he gets brain damage from the fall.
I wouldn't be "doing away" with anything. That's the whole point. If Billy was taught how to be responsible, he'd choose to wear a helmet of his own volition, because that's the responsible thing to do.
If stupidity was fatal, you'd be dead by now.
Nice ad-hom. Did your parents have any kids that lived? If so, I bet they regret that!
"YouTube reserves the right to remove Content without prior notice."
AKA They can delete your shit whenever they feel like it. No explanation needed. Their reasons for deleting your content (various agreements with other corporations) has nothing to do with their agreement with you.
Having never uploaded anything to YT, I wasn't aware of this portion of their TOS.
Now that I *am* aware of it, I'll be certain to never upload anything to YT in the future, and will encourage others to do the same.
Seems to me there's a business opportunity for someone willing to set up a video hosting service in a country that thumbs it's nose at US/EU laws and takedown demands from large media corporations.
No. The Terms of Service that apply to you are entirely public. There is a separate, private, secret agreement they have with UMG that basically allows them carte blanche to delete your video, though (or at least, that's what's alleged and supported by their filing).
Well, if that secret agreement results in MY video being deleted/removed, it most certainly DOES apply to me!
If you don't believe this, fine. Anyone want to make an agreement with me that all of TheSpoom's wealth and assets are to be forfeited to us if he makes another/. post? Apparently he's OK with such an agreement.
This is capitalism - it's one of the bad parts about it.
No, this isn't the fault of capitalism.This is the result of a screwed up legal system if the courts don't slap down such a secret agreement about a third party's content when such third party has no chance for an informed decision, i.e. to be informed of such terms and conditions before they agree or disagree prior to uploading content.
...The one you read and agreed to before uploading content to YouTube, and then there's the "secret" TOS you aren't allowed to read and agree to before uploading content to YouTube, yet you are held to both?
Methinks YouTube will have some 'splainin' to do to a judge as to how that's OK when all others must disclose their entire TOS.
Funny you mention "religion" and "totalitarian" together in the same sentence, as most of the worst totalitarian socialist/communist regimes of the past 100 years are/were atheist/anti-religion.
Statists, whether they be communist or socialist, always seek to weaken/eliminate religion so as to weaken morals and the sense of right & wrong, as religion that teaches love and kindness to others causes people to start to rebel against State orders to carry out mass murders, wars of aggression, pogroms, torture, and ethnic cleansings.
For Socialism/Communism to work, the State must take the place of God as the central moral/societal authority. Religion should balance the power of the State and vice-versa so that neither gains total control. History teaches that both religion and the State tend to remove freedom and cause death & suffering if allowed to assume total control over a society.
Religion not only provides a moral framework within a society and moderates extreme & destructive behaviors among the citizens, it also serves to moderate the tendency of the State to abuse it's power over it's citizens. The State serves to prevent religion from abusing it's power over it's believers. It's a form of check-and-balance that is essential for free, just, tolerant, and kind society.
BS. It's worked for all of human history up till this past century.
Personal responsibility is a synonym for government irresponsibility.
Since governments are made up of what you call "stupid" people, then the government will necessarily become stupid and irresponsible. Or do you plan on instituting separate branches of the human species, a la H. G. Wells' "The Time Machine" with "Morlock" government rulers and "Eloi" common citizens?
It is far safer to toddler-proof the world, to ensure that people don't fuck each other up, to leave no room for the possibility of accidents to happen, than to just have the freedom to drive.
The world cannot be toddler-proofed. Nor will people ever stop "fucking each other up" no matter what anyone does. Human nature is what it is and will remain thus as long as humans are human.
Besides, as a conservative, you'll naturally get used to a new system, and after a few years, become clingy to it.
You being a liberal/progressive, I'm shocked that you've allowed yourself to remain capable of forming any independent thought, although I'm sure you're working hard to eliminate any remaining remnants of "bad-think" that haven't been predigested, edited, and approved by your masters for your consumption.
This is one of the largest differences between conservatives and liberal/progressives. Liberal/progressives believe men cannot rule themselves and must be ruled by a totalitarian central authority. Conservatives believe that men, guided by a moral framework like religion among it's citizens, can rule themselves without a king or the equivalent. Any form of government that lacks any moral framework will treat those it rules with all the cruelty that humanity is capable of.
No, the point is to remove the car from your life, so you aren't personally responsible for the safety of others.
Removal of personal responsibility and the consequences for failing to uphold those responsibilities has already resulted over the last several decades in causing or contributing heavily to the current social problems we are experiencing. It has resulted in preventing Darwin Award winners from dying before they breed, thus steadily reducing the overall competence of the population.
You'll get over it once you get used to the new bus system.
Bus systems (and other forms of public transport) work in countries and in areas of relatively-small size and high population density. Many European countries would fit nicely with room to spare inside of a mid-sized US State. A national public transportation system just does not scale to a country the size of the US.
As to the idea of attempting to force the US population into cities and/or giant city-sized mega-skyscraper urban habitats, it would not end well. It would require abolishing nearly all Constitutional rights and instituting a socialist or communist police-state government. It would result in a massive US civil war which would then almost certainly result in the domestic use of nuclear weapons at some point. This would be a huge negative for the entire planet, not just Americans.
How about instead of trying to toddler-proof the world, we teach little Johnny and little Sally how to be responsible, that there *will be* consequences for irresponsibility, and allowing those who insist on being a Darwin Award contender to reap what they sow? We'd be a far better species for it.
Well, duh! That's pretty much all you've done this entire thread, ignore facts! I'm wondering if you're getting enough oxygen through that extremely strong reality-distortion field.
Whom did I call what in my post? Or are you lacking any logical points or issues of fact to post in opposition, and must resort to a straw-man argument?
If you had an argument, I'm confident you'd have used that instead of going for ad homs, so I'm going to feel free to ignore you now.
That's OK. I understand you must attempt to save face. Whatever it takes to make you feel better about yourself, I guess. I don't blame you, though. With your poor grasp on the facts and little ability to express a cogent position, I'd avoid arguing with me, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Capitalism would have destroyed the entire economic system in the last few years.
What we've had to an ever increasing degree over the few decades, accelerated over the last dozen or so years, is "Crony Capitalism" where those within government choose winners and losers in the economy through regulations, taxes, government grants/loans, and legislation to favor those politically "connected" and/or those who "pay to play" whether monetarily or through other means. That's the problem with a government that regulates nearly everything; there will always be those who will find a way to exert influence or control over that government power in order to prevent competition and better their own interests.
This has been a growing problem in the US over the past 80 years or more as government has grown in sheer size, power, scope, and reach. History clearly shows that the more power and control there is to corrupt in government, the more likely it is to occur, and the more damage corruption inflicts on society.
The only way to keep corruption and "Crony Capitalism" in check is to limit the size, scope, power, and reach of the central national government, and delegate as much of the business of the domestic governing of the citizens as possible/practical to those authorities as close and "local" as possible, i.e. State City, County, and other local government bodies.
So unfettered capitalism would have the peasant workers killed for being unproductive while a few super-rich got richer and richer and more and more inbred and stupid.
That's Anarchy, not Capitalism. Capitalism only works under relatively fair and evenly-enforced Rule of Law. It's precisely because the current US government gives little more than lip-service to the Rule of Law that the US is suffering under Crony Capitalism.
After all, you say "capitalism has allowed the US to provide more humanitarian assistance"... a) that has no place in a capitalist system - charity is a socialist concept...
For having "no place in a capitalist system", Capitalism has still and yet provided far more humanitarian assistance both domestically and around the world, including even to those who are not friends, than Socialism or Communism has. The plain facts debunk your claim.
the US is technically poorer that most places, the only reason you're not the recipient of humanitarian aid is because you've received it in the form of debt (so it doesn't count as aid). if you had any chance of paying off the national debt, then maybe you'd have a point. Chances are, China is going to be paying your way for you for some time.
Now, here we have some common ground. I deplore what US Progressive members of both political parties have done in putting the country into such dire economic straights in pursuit of their own Progressive ideology, power, and wealth.
Realistically, the US has only one hope of avoiding economic collapse: Allow the private sector to create enough wealth by drastically reducing the government's size and spending, slashing taxes, drastically reducing entitlement spending, drastically reducing regulatory burdens, reforming the Federal Reserve system, and in other ways once again free the mightiest wealth and prosperity generating economic juggernaut the planet has ever known...US citizens pursuing their own enlightened self-interest in a fair but moderately-regulated & taxed Capitalist economy.
Strat
Face it, capitalism is not and never was a system that has been put into practice in a pure form, just like socialism nor communism have never been implemented in a way true to their ideals.
Capitalism even in the "impure" form in which it was practiced in the US up to approximately 60 years ago still far outstripped any other system ever invented for improving conditions for the poorest in society, which is something Socialism and Communism have never come close to equaling in the many, many attempts at making those systems work throughout history. Socialism and Communism only work well in small tight-knit groups, and a lot of very dark history shows clearly that they do not scale well.
Rejecting the parts of the economy that work to improve the well-being of a group (like you do when rejecting social policies) will only make that group worse off.
Government social policies are not "parts of the economy" by definition. Neither has it been established that government social programs actually help the people it's meant to help over the long run. Since the inception of government entitlements and the war on poverty from the time of FDR and then Johnson to the present day, the ranks of the poor in the US have steadily increased. It can be argued that just the opposite occurs, with the Native Americans who reside on Reservations being a case study in the failure of government run "social programs" and the dysfunction inflicted on a group of people by being made dependent on government for their basic needs.
Strat
The problem with Capitalism is it's broken.
Capitalism is the worst system ever invented. Except for every other system ever invented.
Capitalism is the only system ever created where wealth is a renewable resource for everyone as long as they are willing to work and/or come up with an idea, skill, or invention that's useful to someone else.
Where Socialism, Fascism, and Communism are systems that require people to act against their natural tendencies (working harder and going further than required in a system where everyone is rewarded and punished equally and where incentive and thinking out of the box are not survival traits), Capitalism instead leverages self-interest and the desire for people to better their lot to improve things for everyone and create wealth & prosperity where there previously was little or none.
Capitalism has raised more people from poverty than any other system ever created.
Capitalism has allowed more people to live in more relative freedom and at a higher standard of living than any other system ever invented.
Capitalism has allowed the US to provide more humanitarian assistance to those in need around the world than any other system or country in history.
For these reasons and many more, "Progressivism", Socialism, Communism, and Fascism are doomed to failure and to taking their rightful places on the junk heap of failed ideologies.
Strat
Someone needs to go and burn down the Capital building already.
I've been puzzled from the beginning as to why the OWS protesters aren't in front of the Capitol and the White House. They're the ones ultimately responsible for Wall Street corruption, because it necessarily requires a corrupt government in order to exist and grow.
For corruption to flourish in the private sector requires a corrupt government, for only with a corrupt government can the corrupt businesses and individuals be protected from the People and Justice.
Strat
Has anyone published a paper that rules out magma currents as having any effect on global climate?
Oops.
There's no plausible mechanism for magma currents to influence climate. It's like saying ocean currents in Europa affect Earth's climate. Climate models do a decent job of simulating climate (benchmarked against past climate) and are getting more sophisticated all the time. It's not hocus pocus, they are based on physical laws. If something has a negligible effect on energy balance, it probably does not affect climate.
Look, I just pulled "magma currents" out of the air as an example of some area of understanding that's not very advanced that could in some unknown fashion affect global climate patterns. Maybe it doesn't. Has anyone published a paper that rules out magma currents as having any global climate? That's my point. We're not even sure at this point what to include or exclude in climate models.
IMHO, there's simply not enough data yet, and humans simply haven't learned enough yet, to be able to make global climate predictions with enough certainty that makes condemning large numbers of people to severely-curtailed standards of living, suffering & possible starvation, economic upheavals, and even death because of such calculations, a sane choice.
Strat
Magma currents affect climate? That's a new one on me.
That's the point. It would be a "new one" to everyone, including scientists. They don't know. Is there proof magma currents don't affect the global climate? Either directly or indirectly? Global climate science has barely even reached "abacus" levels of sophistication, never mind "UNIVAC" levels of knowledge & expertise.
Climate models are far from perfect but they're better than you can do without them.
You're kidding here, right? I mean, you're not saying we should make major changes in both the nation's and the entire world's economic and energy systems, necessarily causing immense disruptions and wild price swings in both energy and food costs, possibly destabilize governments (some with nukes), and cause suffering and even starvation for large numbers...
All this based on the results of a model that's "better than you can do without them"!?!?
Really?
No more certainty than that?
That's just scary if you see nothing wrong with this picture, man. Seriously.
Hansen's 1988 projections for scenario B (which was closest to actual CO2 rise in the atmosphere) are a bit above current temperatures but he used a climate sensitivity of 4 when the actual value appears to be about 3. If he had used 3 his projections would have been even closer to current temperatures.
!988 projections. What, only 23 years? And there's still adjustments and fudge factors to adjust? That just makes my point that the study of the global climate system is still in it's very early infancy.
I just think it unwise in the extreme to take steps that may well cause massive global economic shifts and starvation and other suffering for many based only on what little progress we've made in climate science. I mean, not too many years ago, there wasn't any such thing as a "climate scientist" as they exist today.
Too much suffering and even death to risk on such little data or the extremely limited knowledge and understanding we currently possess in the area of global climate science, particularly when there won't be any do-overs for a screw-up.
That's just my view from what I've been able learn.
Strat
If it ultimately saves CO2, consider this computer's carbon footprint an "investment."
At this point in the state of Man's understanding of the Earth's climate system, we're not capable of anything approaching accurate medium to long term modeling, so we're not even sure there's a problem, whether we caused it or not, to solve...nor that limiting carbon in the way it's been implemented is the solution if there were.
Heck, we're still attempting to accurately model WW2 battles and their environment and physics in FPS's, and we have a far better grasp of both the variables involved and the algorithms necessary, and are modeling something far, far less complicated and at a tiny fraction of the scales involved in mid and long term global climate prediction. There are so many other areas that affect global climate like mantle magma currents, our own oceans, solar science, and many more where our knowledge and understanding of those fields are still in their infancy, that it's impossible for me to see how it's possible to create a global climate model with any meaningful & useful degree of mid to long term accuracy.
It matters little how powerful a computer you have if you don't know what should go in and what operations to perform.
Garbage in, garbage out...particularly when the software is all pre-pre-alpha to begin with.
Strat
Unless you have a falcon or hawk weighing several thousand pounds, I don't think they will have any luck no matter how well you train them. Predator drones have around 80 ft wingspan and weigh thousands of pounds.
The MQ-9 Reaper uses a 900shp turboprop engine to cruise at 172-195mph with a max speed rating of 300mph. Wingspan 66ft. Max takeoff weight 10,500lbs. Operational altitude 25,000ft, service ceiling 50,000ft. Internal payload 800lbs, external payload 3,000lbs for a combined 3,800lbs payload.
To bring one down without using ECM (electronic counter-measures) of some sort (or attacking/disrupting the operator and/or one of the control links) you'd need an A/A gun at a minimum, military A/A missile system, or some kind of homebrew R/C nose-camera equipped rocket-drone with an explosive/fragmenting warhead.
It's easier and safer to toss out any politician that's OK with using drones for surveillance of US citizens domestically. Not to say I think them being thrown out any time soon is likely. Or if they would even allow the vote outcome to stand if they were all voted out as nearly simultaneously as possible.
Strat
By that argument, manufacturing processes - which no one seems to have an issue with - should also not be patentable. Yet they are.
Maybe a second look should be taken regarding the copyright of manufacturing processes as well, at least as far as what's patentable in that area and other parameters of such a filing. For that matter, both patents and copyright could do with a serious re-working on the whole.
Just because something (like manufacturing process patents) exists presently doesn't indicate that it's good for our society and shouldn't be changed or abolished.
Slavery shouldn't have existed, yet it did...until it was abolished. WW2 internment camps holding US citizens not charged with any crime nor given due process shouldn't have existed until they were abol...
Oh, wait.
Never mind.
Strat
To the extent developers feel otherwise, I haven't seen a calm, and rationale counter-argument.
You mean nobody has mentioned to you that software shouldn't be patentable simply because software should be protected by copyright since it's a set of instructions that in essence are no different than a book?
Why can't a book be patented instead of copyrighted? If you take the same book of instructions and call it "software" it magically becomes patentable? Why is a book of instructions for building a house not patentable, but a program that provides the same instructions for building the same house patentable?
Maybe we would be better served by an "Occupy the Patent Office" movement. Or an "Occupy Congress" movement. Or both.
Strat
I stand corrected -- thanks for the education.
No problem, happy I happened to know a little bit about the A-10 to pass along. I live about 2 miles from a major Guard base that's home to a squadron of A10s (A-10As and A-10Cs). Spent more than one or two evenings sharing adult beverages with A-10 pilots, many of whom saw action.
They love the A-10, not only for it's awesome firepower, but more importantly the aircraft's toughness. I was regaled with many a story (and quite a few pics) about pilots returning to base and being totally amazed by the amount of battle damage their aircraft sustained and still got them home.
The aircraft is designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator, and half of one wing missing.(!!) From some of the after-action battle-damage pics I saw, it well exceeds design spec in practice. It appeared in some pics like they were brought home by only 2/3rds of an aircraft!
The cynic in me suspects that more military personnel would "do their duty" than join the revolution, but then again, the spring uprisings in the Middle East are probably a better indication than my cynicism :)
I would have to agree that the chances of most or even over a quarter of the US military going over to the civilians would be small. Still, that's a sizable chunk of the mightiest military on the planet, nothing to sneeze at. Heck, even that small portion could likely thrash a large number of other country's military forces. Plenty enough to cause horrendous destruction and loss of life in an all-out civil war. The US would never be the same.
More than likely a foreign military would be called in to quell any domestic US rebellion. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there aren't secret agreements already in place for just this contingency. I mean, those in power are extremely unlikely to ever halt their ambition for ever-more power, never mind surrendering any of the power they've gained over the past 100 years, and they have to have thought of what will eventually happen and what they would have to do to survive with their power intact.
Strat
In your false dichotomy, yes, that's correct. But you have defined liberal and conservative in a very strange and extreme way. I mean, if conservatives really believed that people can rule themselves, why are there so many of them running for President?
There's no false dichotomy here.
America is an idea that a free people can rule themselves through free and fair elections, choosing those who will represent their interests in a democratic republic. These ideas are laid out in the Declaration and the Constitution.
Progressives do not believe men can rule themselves, and reject the ideas laid out above. The very name "Progressive" speaks to this, as it's the Constitution and a free people under a democratic republic that they feel they must "progress" past and around to achieve their goal of a Utopian society. They believe that people are too stupid to govern themselves and must be ruled over by a king or other form of elite class (like Progressive "intellectuals").
Why are there so many of them advocating laws that prevent people from making choices that they disagree with?
This is a disingenuous argument, as all government restricts choices available. It is how all government functions. The default is anarchy which is total freedom. It is by restricting certain choices and actions that order is maintained and the will of the people through their government (or just the will of those in the government under less-free systems) is exercised.
This is why government power must be kept to the minimum necessary to maintain a healthy, sane, and free society, so as to allow for the fewest and least onerous restrictions on people's freedoms and available choices. The larger and more powerful government becomes, the more restrictions on freedom and the fewer choices available to it's citizens there are.
Strat
But how many people do you know who have something like the 30mm chain gun in an Apache helicopter, or the 20mm Vulcan minigun in the nose of an A-10 Warthog?
The A-10 uses a GAU-8 Avenger 30mm autocannon (the A/A 49E-6 Gun System), not a 20mm Vulcan.
How about the family members that are posted at the local National Guard base with it's armory and squadron of A-10s?
If it got to the point that the US government employed the US military to attack US citizens, you can be guaranteed that a not-insignificant portion of those military personnel and military assets will go over to the side of the citizens. There would most definitely be a very nasty fight. Chances would be quite good that the government would end up using nukes domestically.
Strat
You do realise that you've had three years to breed before you can drive?
You're assuming that I meant only driving deaths. There's plenty to die from between birth and being old enough to breed. Sounds more like you're desperately trying to find anything you can refute in my post, even if you have to stretch assumptions to do it.
Being responsible is a skill that is taught and is developed over time, starting in childhood. You can't keep a person in a bubble-wrap lined cocoon from birth to age of majority and then suddenly expect that person to magically become responsible. If it isn't beginning to be taught at toddler-hood and continued through to adulthood, that person will not be as responsible as someone who was taught responsibility starting as a child.
You would do away with Billy's bicycle helmet, depriving the world of a first class physicist when his tire slips and he gets brain damage from the fall.
I wouldn't be "doing away" with anything. That's the whole point. If Billy was taught how to be responsible, he'd choose to wear a helmet of his own volition, because that's the responsible thing to do.
If stupidity was fatal, you'd be dead by now.
Nice ad-hom. Did your parents have any kids that lived? If so, I bet they regret that!
Strat
"YouTube reserves the right to remove Content without prior notice."
AKA They can delete your shit whenever they feel like it. No explanation needed. Their reasons for deleting your content (various agreements with other corporations) has nothing to do with their agreement with you.
Having never uploaded anything to YT, I wasn't aware of this portion of their TOS.
Now that I *am* aware of it, I'll be certain to never upload anything to YT in the future, and will encourage others to do the same.
Seems to me there's a business opportunity for someone willing to set up a video hosting service in a country that thumbs it's nose at US/EU laws and takedown demands from large media corporations.
Strat
No. The Terms of Service that apply to you are entirely public. There is a separate, private, secret agreement they have with UMG that basically allows them carte blanche to delete your video, though (or at least, that's what's alleged and supported by their filing).
Well, if that secret agreement results in MY video being deleted/removed, it most certainly DOES apply to me!
If you don't believe this, fine. Anyone want to make an agreement with me that all of TheSpoom's wealth and assets are to be forfeited to us if he makes another /. post? Apparently he's OK with such an agreement.
Strat
This is capitalism - it's one of the bad parts about it.
No, this isn't the fault of capitalism.This is the result of a screwed up legal system if the courts don't slap down such a secret agreement about a third party's content when such third party has no chance for an informed decision, i.e. to be informed of such terms and conditions before they agree or disagree prior to uploading content.
Strat
...The one you read and agreed to before uploading content to YouTube, and then there's the "secret" TOS you aren't allowed to read and agree to before uploading content to YouTube, yet you are held to both?
Methinks YouTube will have some 'splainin' to do to a judge as to how that's OK when all others must disclose their entire TOS.
Strat
So really, conservatives just want to be able to choose the authority they submit to.
So really, liberal/progressives want no choice in the authority they submit to?
You choose...or a choice will be made for you.
Strat
Oh, and religion is totalitarian bullshit...
Funny you mention "religion" and "totalitarian" together in the same sentence, as most of the worst totalitarian socialist/communist regimes of the past 100 years are/were atheist/anti-religion.
Statists, whether they be communist or socialist, always seek to weaken/eliminate religion so as to weaken morals and the sense of right & wrong, as religion that teaches love and kindness to others causes people to start to rebel against State orders to carry out mass murders, wars of aggression, pogroms, torture, and ethnic cleansings.
For Socialism/Communism to work, the State must take the place of God as the central moral/societal authority. Religion should balance the power of the State and vice-versa so that neither gains total control. History teaches that both religion and the State tend to remove freedom and cause death & suffering if allowed to assume total control over a society.
Religion not only provides a moral framework within a society and moderates extreme & destructive behaviors among the citizens, it also serves to moderate the tendency of the State to abuse it's power over it's citizens. The State serves to prevent religion from abusing it's power over it's believers. It's a form of check-and-balance that is essential for free, just, tolerant, and kind society.
Strat
Because that doesn't work.
BS. It's worked for all of human history up till this past century.
Personal responsibility is a synonym for government irresponsibility.
Since governments are made up of what you call "stupid" people, then the government will necessarily become stupid and irresponsible. Or do you plan on instituting separate branches of the human species, a la H. G. Wells' "The Time Machine" with "Morlock" government rulers and "Eloi" common citizens?
It is far safer to toddler-proof the world, to ensure that people don't fuck each other up, to leave no room for the possibility of accidents to happen, than to just have the freedom to drive.
The world cannot be toddler-proofed. Nor will people ever stop "fucking each other up" no matter what anyone does. Human nature is what it is and will remain thus as long as humans are human.
Besides, as a conservative, you'll naturally get used to a new system, and after a few years, become clingy to it.
You being a liberal/progressive, I'm shocked that you've allowed yourself to remain capable of forming any independent thought, although I'm sure you're working hard to eliminate any remaining remnants of "bad-think" that haven't been predigested, edited, and approved by your masters for your consumption.
This is one of the largest differences between conservatives and liberal/progressives. Liberal/progressives believe men cannot rule themselves and must be ruled by a totalitarian central authority. Conservatives believe that men, guided by a moral framework like religion among it's citizens, can rule themselves without a king or the equivalent. Any form of government that lacks any moral framework will treat those it rules with all the cruelty that humanity is capable of.
Strat
No, the point is to remove the car from your life, so you aren't personally responsible for the safety of others.
Removal of personal responsibility and the consequences for failing to uphold those responsibilities has already resulted over the last several decades in causing or contributing heavily to the current social problems we are experiencing. It has resulted in preventing Darwin Award winners from dying before they breed, thus steadily reducing the overall competence of the population.
You'll get over it once you get used to the new bus system.
Bus systems (and other forms of public transport) work in countries and in areas of relatively-small size and high population density. Many European countries would fit nicely with room to spare inside of a mid-sized US State. A national public transportation system just does not scale to a country the size of the US.
As to the idea of attempting to force the US population into cities and/or giant city-sized mega-skyscraper urban habitats, it would not end well. It would require abolishing nearly all Constitutional rights and instituting a socialist or communist police-state government. It would result in a massive US civil war which would then almost certainly result in the domestic use of nuclear weapons at some point. This would be a huge negative for the entire planet, not just Americans.
How about instead of trying to toddler-proof the world, we teach little Johnny and little Sally how to be responsible, that there *will be* consequences for irresponsibility, and allowing those who insist on being a Darwin Award contender to reap what they sow? We'd be a far better species for it.
Strat
brandishing them menacingly
{citation needed}
In other words, "pics or it didn't happen".
I'm going to ignore the fact...
Well, duh! That's pretty much all you've done this entire thread, ignore facts! I'm wondering if you're getting enough oxygen through that extremely strong reality-distortion field.
Strat
Hey, nice name calling.
"Name calling"? WTF!?!?
Whom did I call what in my post? Or are you lacking any logical points or issues of fact to post in opposition, and must resort to a straw-man argument?
If you had an argument, I'm confident you'd have used that instead of going for ad homs, so I'm going to feel free to ignore you now.
That's OK. I understand you must attempt to save face. Whatever it takes to make you feel better about yourself, I guess. I don't blame you, though. With your poor grasp on the facts and little ability to express a cogent position, I'd avoid arguing with me, too.
Strat