I like LOTR a lot. But honestly, I don't think that the morals of the story really where its selling point. People just like nice special effects and see the underdog (Frodo) 'win'. The political statements (i.e. advocacy of anarchie through the restating 'power corrupts...' in a powerful way) where probably lost on all but a few.
Save from what. That is the question you are argueing. Taking my joys (and I might add liberty if backed by legislation) to save me from an illness I don't suffer actually makes me be worse of. I know you don't want to force people to do anything and that is appreciated. Reasoning like yours is however the main force between mentioned legislation and its sucess depends on wether the majority agrees with your premises. To me, this creates a situation where I need to show that other premises do exist, that are equally valid. There is a case for absolute morals, but computer games are not an appropriate topic to apply the sledge hammer of philosophy to. Warnings about games/gambling/drugs etc. are pretty alarmist considering how few people actually harm themselves with the habit.
this is bullshit. Above what is required for substaining your life every sucess is somewhat 'virtual'. In the same vein you could ask 'Did you really need that plasma tv or is it just the praise of your friends that leads you to enjoy this unsubstantial status symbol'. What is achievment? Well, the only consitant answer is: Whatever a person considers it to be. If a high level in an mmorpg makes me proud nobody can argue with that. Not you, not any doctor nor any politician. To each his own as they say. Defining a purpose for fun is also abitrary and useless. You take your opinion of the matter and try to make an universal law out of it. It doesn't work that way, chap. Fun is in the eye of the beholder. One tries to sleep with as many women as possible, the next tries to ingest every book every written and yet anothers thrill is to kick peoples teeth in. All this is 'fun' (apart from questions of legality) for them. And it still holds true: in the long run we are all dead. In the grand sheme of things, nothing matters. The only meaning that can be derived out of live it what each individual mind assigns to it. As such, no comparison of meaningfulness is valid.
yeah, only once you fought in an instance with a group composed of your friends (not e-friends mind you) against challenging adversaries (elite ones that, in the middle of battle laugh at your puny weapons and go to fetch an even bigger hammer) you will know the 'skill' in WoW. A group only 'auto-attacking' won't last 5 minutes.
actually its not only an issue of english rank. It just occured to me that the same sentence in german would also require the singular to make the sense I intended. So we're talking about my deficient general grammar rank;)
yes, all hatred is equal, right? Saying 'I won't hire blacks' is absolutly the same as 'Hey, lets go there, kill them all, then rape their corpses and burn their houses down'. No it isn't. It might not be a qualitative difference (arguable) but it certainly is a quantitative difference. Hatred in the US does get expressed 'less' in the sense of the forms it takes, therefore, hatred actually IS less.
until any of your predictions come true, I'll just see reality as what it is. The Sunnis have meanwhile spoken out in favour of the new system and said they'd want to participate even if their leveralge is minimal. The clerics have said time and time again that politics and religion should not be mixed and that they should stay out of public offices. We'll discuss this topic again when your doomsday scenario actually happens (just as with kyoto).
Yeah, it might be a gamble (as I also can't exhaustively proof that it is not changing due to our influence) when considering wether to take action. But HOW the climate is at a certain time is not.
Anyways, leaving the question of how good the current data and predictions are, Kyoto is never a rational choice because it states it self that it can't achieve *any* goal the would serve its purpose. So you are left with a 100% certainty that it will cost a huge amount of money and a certainty of 100% that it will fail to reach any climate relevant goal.
Maybe I'm just stupid (always a possiblity with/. posters;) but I see your statements in direct contradiction to each other. Anyway this might be, climate is a chaotic system and not a 'gamble'. There is no dice to roll when 'deciding' what the weather is going to be like tomorrow.
it won't make a start because its results WON'T be meassurable. Get that into your head. In 50 years, evalution of global temperature readings WILL NOT show that those billions and billions of dollars where spent at all. The IPCC say so themselves.
Meanwhile the Iraqies have at least demonstrated that they actually want a democracy, a topic that was hotly debated beforehand. This is a step and there are results, unlike from the kyoto protocol.
no i don't. Percentages don't convey magnitute. An increase from 1ppm to 2ppm is 100%. Not very epic, is it? Also, periods in the planets history have had even more CO2 ppm without humans and without an apocalypse. Have you spend any time considering what would happen if CO2 depleted entirely (due to being buried underground as plants die) and lesser volcano activity due to the earth cooling out? There is a disaster waiting to happen whos occurance could actually be supported by sound science.
you can't. The chance that 500 heads and 500 tails come up is as likely as 1000 heads in a row followed by 1000 tails in a row (which would then be outside of your expiriment). The chance for the coin flip doesn't carry over from the last try.
They wouldn't thrive very well in a 100% oxygen atmosphere either and that is the whole point. CO2 is not the devil. Especially not in quantities of 300 parts per million.
I'm loving it:).. sure, I could hang out at cato or mises.org but such circle jerking only numbens the mind. Also, my karma is pretty good, considering that I'm not a liberal and this is something that slashdot really deserves credit for. I'm pretty sure 90% of the people here woudn't agree with me on any given issue, yet I don't get modded down unfairly.
not necessarily. I'm sure while a 100% carbon athmosphere might be good for plants, it sure wouldn't suit us very well. Of course, this is not what we are talking about. I just find it important to state what CO2 actually is: Not a pollutant and certainly not bad for the eco system as such because plants thrive on it, regardless the concentration.
yes, but that wasn't the point really. Those solar cars will come at a high price for the economy, and by extention to all people participating in it. Being poor and freezing doesn't mix well.
what happens if oil did get rare? Instead of the present situation where oil companies periodically announce the discovery of new, vast oil fields? Well, the price for oil would rise (only this time, wouldn't come down) to a point where alternative fuel sources are profitable. Problem solved. The issue is time here: with the current capital structur, the switch to alternative is harder to do than in the future when there is more wealth (assumedly) and better technology to facillitate development and deployment.
what changes? That hurricans became fewer? That the coldest peroid in the 20th century lay in the 1990ies? That weather extrems are rarer at present? What DO you mean?
this is bullshit nationalism. Trade for the win. The whole 'oh no, we are reliant on oil' stems from long debunked myths of national subsidence. Guess what: if any country in trade relations with your country ceases trading it will affect you countries economy and by extension you life negativly. It hardly ever happens, though, because it is in nobodies best interesst. What do you think the middle east is going to do after they declared that they won't export any of their oil? Farm their deserts for PCs and cars? Good luck with that.
This is ridiculous. The weather can't even be predicted past 3 days. And we are should embrace a certain economic downturn on the basis of shady models that try to calculate a chaotic system with only 25% of the KNOWN variables supplied with values that could actually be observed?
Optimism and wealth are different things. People only ever notice the things they don't have available. Just think, in the seventies not every single family member had their own car. Nor cellphones, personal computers or other electronic devices (except maybe the telly). Also consider that mass tourism *started* in the seventies. Nowadays almost everyone takes their vacation in far away places, a priviledge only the super rich could afford in past times. Wealth has increased dramatically in the last 30 years. Just because everyone takes it for granted doesn't imply is doesn't exists.
if I wanted to see something really scary I'd read up on all the 'prophets' of the last 3000 years that regularly promised doom and destruction if mankind doesn't change its wicked ways. Sounds familliar, no?
Do you even realize that CO2 is the most important pillar of life? No CO2 -> No plant life -> No animal life -> No us. Also, a global temperature average of -15C.
Slashdot Mirror
I like LOTR a lot. But honestly, I don't think that the morals of the story really where its selling point. People just like nice special effects and see the underdog (Frodo) 'win'. The political statements (i.e. advocacy of anarchie through the restating 'power corrupts ...' in a powerful way) where probably lost on all but a few.
Save from what. That is the question you are argueing. Taking my joys (and I might add liberty if backed by legislation) to save me from an illness I don't suffer actually makes me be worse of. I know you don't want to force people to do anything and that is appreciated. Reasoning like yours is however the main force between mentioned legislation and its sucess depends on wether the majority agrees with your premises. To me, this creates a situation where I need to show that other premises do exist, that are equally valid. There is a case for absolute morals, but computer games are not an appropriate topic to apply the sledge hammer of philosophy to. Warnings about games/gambling/drugs etc. are pretty alarmist considering how few people actually harm themselves with the habit.
this is bullshit. Above what is required for substaining your life every sucess is somewhat 'virtual'. In the same vein you could ask 'Did you really need that plasma tv or is it just the praise of your friends that leads you to enjoy this unsubstantial status symbol'. What is achievment? Well, the only consitant answer is: Whatever a person considers it to be. If a high level in an mmorpg makes me proud nobody can argue with that. Not you, not any doctor nor any politician. To each his own as they say. Defining a purpose for fun is also abitrary and useless. You take your opinion of the matter and try to make an universal law out of it. It doesn't work that way, chap. Fun is in the eye of the beholder. One tries to sleep with as many women as possible, the next tries to ingest every book every written and yet anothers thrill is to kick peoples teeth in. All this is 'fun' (apart from questions of legality) for them. And it still holds true: in the long run we are all dead. In the grand sheme of things, nothing matters. The only meaning that can be derived out of live it what each individual mind assigns to it. As such, no comparison of meaningfulness is valid.
yeah, only once you fought in an instance with a group composed of your friends (not e-friends mind you) against challenging adversaries (elite ones that, in the middle of battle laugh at your puny weapons and go to fetch an even bigger hammer) you will know the 'skill' in WoW. A group only 'auto-attacking' won't last 5 minutes.
This post brought to you by Sony Online Entertainment.
actually its not only an issue of english rank. It just occured to me that the same sentence in german would also require the singular to make the sense I intended. So we're talking about my deficient general grammar rank ;)
You are correct. I should have used 'it'. Now it seems obvious.
yes, all hatred is equal, right? Saying 'I won't hire blacks' is absolutly the same as 'Hey, lets go there, kill them all, then rape their corpses and burn their houses down'. No it isn't. It might not be a qualitative difference (arguable) but it certainly is a quantitative difference. Hatred in the US does get expressed 'less' in the sense of the forms it takes, therefore, hatred actually IS less.
until any of your predictions come true, I'll just see reality as what it is. The Sunnis have meanwhile spoken out in favour of the new system and said they'd want to participate even if their leveralge is minimal. The clerics have said time and time again that politics and religion should not be mixed and that they should stay out of public offices. We'll discuss this topic again when your doomsday scenario actually happens (just as with kyoto).
Yeah, it might be a gamble (as I also can't exhaustively proof that it is not changing due to our influence) when considering wether to take action. But HOW the climate is at a certain time is not. Anyways, leaving the question of how good the current data and predictions are, Kyoto is never a rational choice because it states it self that it can't achieve *any* goal the would serve its purpose. So you are left with a 100% certainty that it will cost a huge amount of money and a certainty of 100% that it will fail to reach any climate relevant goal.
Maybe I'm just stupid (always a possiblity with /. posters ;) but I see your statements in direct contradiction to each other. Anyway this might be, climate is a chaotic system and not a 'gamble'. There is no dice to roll when 'deciding' what the weather is going to be like tomorrow.
No more names to call me left? I'm certain that there are dictonaries on the web that'd help you on your quest ...
it won't make a start because its results WON'T be meassurable. Get that into your head. In 50 years, evalution of global temperature readings WILL NOT show that those billions and billions of dollars where spent at all. The IPCC say so themselves.
Meanwhile the Iraqies have at least demonstrated that they actually want a democracy, a topic that was hotly debated beforehand. This is a step and there are results, unlike from the kyoto protocol.
no i don't. Percentages don't convey magnitute. An increase from 1ppm to 2ppm is 100%. Not very epic, is it? Also, periods in the planets history have had even more CO2 ppm without humans and without an apocalypse. Have you spend any time considering what would happen if CO2 depleted entirely (due to being buried underground as plants die) and lesser volcano activity due to the earth cooling out? There is a disaster waiting to happen whos occurance could actually be supported by sound science.
you can't. The chance that 500 heads and 500 tails come up is as likely as 1000 heads in a row followed by 1000 tails in a row (which would then be outside of your expiriment). The chance for the coin flip doesn't carry over from the last try.
They wouldn't thrive very well in a 100% oxygen atmosphere either and that is the whole point. CO2 is not the devil. Especially not in quantities of 300 parts per million.
I'm loving it :) .. sure, I could hang out at cato or mises.org but such circle jerking only numbens the mind. Also, my karma is pretty good, considering that I'm not a liberal and this is something that slashdot really deserves credit for. I'm pretty sure 90% of the people here woudn't agree with me on any given issue, yet I don't get modded down unfairly.
not necessarily. I'm sure while a 100% carbon athmosphere might be good for plants, it sure wouldn't suit us very well. Of course, this is not what we are talking about. I just find it important to state what CO2 actually is: Not a pollutant and certainly not bad for the eco system as such because plants thrive on it, regardless the concentration.
yes, but that wasn't the point really. Those solar cars will come at a high price for the economy, and by extention to all people participating in it. Being poor and freezing doesn't mix well.
what happens if oil did get rare? Instead of the present situation where oil companies periodically announce the discovery of new, vast oil fields? Well, the price for oil would rise (only this time, wouldn't come down) to a point where alternative fuel sources are profitable. Problem solved. The issue is time here: with the current capital structur, the switch to alternative is harder to do than in the future when there is more wealth (assumedly) and better technology to facillitate development and deployment.
yeah, because the US FORCED other nations to comply with this insane treaty. Hence they are free riding. Give me a break.
what changes? That hurricans became fewer? That the coldest peroid in the 20th century lay in the 1990ies? That weather extrems are rarer at present? What DO you mean?
this is bullshit nationalism. Trade for the win. The whole 'oh no, we are reliant on oil' stems from long debunked myths of national subsidence. Guess what: if any country in trade relations with your country ceases trading it will affect you countries economy and by extension you life negativly. It hardly ever happens, though, because it is in nobodies best interesst. What do you think the middle east is going to do after they declared that they won't export any of their oil? Farm their deserts for PCs and cars? Good luck with that.
This is ridiculous. The weather can't even be predicted past 3 days. And we are should embrace a certain economic downturn on the basis of shady models that try to calculate a chaotic system with only 25% of the KNOWN variables supplied with values that could actually be observed?
Optimism and wealth are different things. People only ever notice the things they don't have available. Just think, in the seventies not every single family member had their own car. Nor cellphones, personal computers or other electronic devices (except maybe the telly). Also consider that mass tourism *started* in the seventies. Nowadays almost everyone takes their vacation in far away places, a priviledge only the super rich could afford in past times. Wealth has increased dramatically in the last 30 years. Just because everyone takes it for granted doesn't imply is doesn't exists.
if I wanted to see something really scary I'd read up on all the 'prophets' of the last 3000 years that regularly promised doom and destruction if mankind doesn't change its wicked ways. Sounds familliar, no?
Do you even realize that CO2 is the most important pillar of life? No CO2 -> No plant life -> No animal life -> No us. Also, a global temperature average of -15C.