I think the biggest thing Mayday PAC did wrong is that they were, in the end, massive hypocrites.
Their "competition" for the best video about the effect of big money was such an enormous debacle and a clear showing that their true goal was not to get money out of politics, but to get Conservative (and even libertarian) money out of politics. Their embracing and providing cover for Tom Steyer, who openly talked about influencing elections with large amounts of his money, makes Mayday PAC a bunch of liars.
If Mayday were true to its stated vision, they would have condemned Steyer's actions. That they did not condemn him like they constantly did the Koch brothers proves that they don't really want what they say they want.
On top of this, their support for a constitutional amendment that would allow congress to restrict speech, makes them a contemptable organization.
I really respect Lessig's views on copyrights and patents. His efforts with his Mayday PAC have made me lose great amounts of respect for him.
And yeah, farmers who use excessive herbicides are dumb.
What I love is that the anti-GMO crowd is all about how bad herbicides are. Then they go on and freak out about plants that have been modified so that fewer herbicides are necessary.
For everyone that believes GMO's are EVIIIIIILLLL, if they ever want a dog or cat for a pet they should only be allowed the choice to take a wolf or a tiger home....
Actually Google using a camel to get street views in the desert is kinda nerdy.
On the other hand PETA having a cow about google using a beast of burden to ya know do something considered burdensome is bullshit that should be ignored.
This search returns pages of charts shooing increased crop yields (for states, the whole US, other countries) over time. In fact the big worry in farming in the US this year is the price of corn dropping precipitously because of a bumper crop.
It may not be in then net's best interest to have FCC regulate the internet IF their regulations are as hamfisted and full of loopholes like their previous attempts have been. So the Republicans might the right there.
However, if the FCC actually had the balls to make the internet common carrier that would be the kind of regulation that is really needed to protect the net. If the FCC did that then the Republican position is all kinds of wrong.
As for the Democrats, if they want the first example of regulations listed, then they's be wrong as well. But if they want the second kind, then they'd be in the right.
Are you fucking kidding me?!?! The fucking story is about the behavior of walruses!!! The Zoooligist is the science expert you are looking for to put context to this story, not the climatologist!!!
Shit with these kind of stories, even the experts aren't allowed to be experts!
Yeah, funny that, how one of the countries that didn't actually sign the treaty is one of the only countries that met its targets.
But shhhhh we can't say this. Natural Gas is pushing out dirty coal for power generation, but its only a good outcome and not a perfect one, so it still needs to be attacked by environmentalists.
What I really loved about the recent climate rallies was how the solution presented was hardcore socialist/communist revolution and the rooting out of capitalism. As if the solution to Climate Change was to eliminate Capitalism and everything would be fixed.
Although, if thats the case I need someone to explain to me why one of the few countries remaining on the planet with a Communist system of government is also the worst polluting country on the planet. If the marchers are correct and communism is the way to salvation, then China should be an environmental paradise, right?
When the announcement that cuts were coming I made a comment on/. about how everyone at Microsoft would be looking over their shoulder wondering whether their job would be cut.
Howling responses insisted that no, the only jobs being cut were going to be in Finland and tied to Nokia.
Now we find out that jobs are being cut in Washington, Silicon Valley, and Fargo. Hmmm, thats a long way from Finland.
The irony is that you can only really accomplish the needed sustainability if you do NOT try to accomplish the former.
Communism and to a lesser extent Socialism always attack the rich and promise the spoils to "the people". In the end the people always end up with nearly nothing (see Venezuela).
Whereas that evil vile capitalism has only ever just pulled millions upon millions of people out of poverty, worldwide, over the past 60 years.
You are joking, but really, how does the "Grant money for science is drying up" exist in the same country where we continually get "there are not enough people going into science" ?
There is a cognitive disconnect here. It even exists in private industry, where much much less funding is going into research as well.
Yeah, that's what I said. A pause in the increase. This means that the decade over decade increases are not becoming larger but staying the same. The rate of increase is not changing, but the temperature is increasing over time.
Sure the estimate of what could happen if it warms 4C by 2100 is a large number.
However, we are currently looking at increases in the historical record being around 0.14-0.18 degrees C per decade. Considering there are 8.5 decades left until 2100, the math says we could expect about 1.19-1.53 degrees warming by then if the decadal increase remains constant (ie. the "pause" in increases). These numbers are not 4.
To have an increase in temperature of 4 degrees C by 2100 a positive forcing feedback must take a dominant position it the climate. We have not yet found this forcing to exist. That of course doesn't mean that it doesn't but the models are predicting it and the actuals are not (as yet) showing it.
The thing with CO2 is that increases in temperature are related to doubling of the concentration in the atmosphere. That is to say that as CO2 increases, it takes more CO2 to continue to add on more increases in temperature as concentration goes up.
In the end it all relates to forcing. Is feedback positive and large or do negative feedback loops exist that respond to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere (increased albedo of clouds for example)? There's lots of science and studies we need to do here. What we know now is not correct (the models aren't accurate) that means we need to search for more measures to include in them.
Yes, but the corporations don't come and shoot you if you don't choose to give them your money.
Progressives always argue against BIG corporations and they always argue FOR the largest and most powerful organization on the planet being given MORE power. Their blind faith in the state is terrifying.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the biggest thing Mayday PAC did wrong is that they were, in the end, massive hypocrites.
Their "competition" for the best video about the effect of big money was such an enormous debacle and a clear showing that their true goal was not to get money out of politics, but to get Conservative (and even libertarian) money out of politics. Their embracing and providing cover for Tom Steyer, who openly talked about influencing elections with large amounts of his money, makes Mayday PAC a bunch of liars.
http://freebeacon.com/politics...
If Mayday were true to its stated vision, they would have condemned Steyer's actions. That they did not condemn him like they constantly did the Koch brothers proves that they don't really want what they say they want.
On top of this, their support for a constitutional amendment that would allow congress to restrict speech, makes them a contemptable organization.
I really respect Lessig's views on copyrights and patents. His efforts with his Mayday PAC have made me lose great amounts of respect for him.
The real point is that we need term limits for congress.
It has become obvious that if we don't get them the country will face serious, perhaps devastating hardships in the not too distant future.
It has also become obvious that the political class will never ever let us have term limits for congress.
And yeah, farmers who use excessive herbicides are dumb.
What I love is that the anti-GMO crowd is all about how bad herbicides are. Then they go on and freak out about plants that have been modified so that fewer herbicides are necessary.
Hey. I like this approach.
For everyone that believes GMO's are EVIIIIIILLLL, if they ever want a dog or cat for a pet they should only be allowed the choice to take a wolf or a tiger home....
You'll tip the boat over. Rock the boooooaaaat.
You can get everything that is in server and run it yourself on regular OS X and likely in a more flexible and customizable fashion.
Actually Google using a camel to get street views in the desert is kinda nerdy.
On the other hand PETA having a cow about google using a beast of burden to ya know do something considered burdensome is bullshit that should be ignored.
Crop yields down? Seriously.
https://www.google.com/search?...
This search returns pages of charts shooing increased crop yields (for states, the whole US, other countries) over time. In fact the big worry in farming in the US this year is the price of corn dropping precipitously because of a bumper crop.
Yep. This issue is pretty complex.
It may not be in then net's best interest to have FCC regulate the internet IF their regulations are as hamfisted and full of loopholes like their previous attempts have been. So the Republicans might the right there.
However, if the FCC actually had the balls to make the internet common carrier that would be the kind of regulation that is really needed to protect the net. If the FCC did that then the Republican position is all kinds of wrong.
As for the Democrats, if they want the first example of regulations listed, then they's be wrong as well. But if they want the second kind, then they'd be in the right.
Caveat, this it all of course IMHO.
Are you fucking kidding me?!?! The fucking story is about the behavior of walruses!!! The Zoooligist is the science expert you are looking for to put context to this story, not the climatologist!!!
Shit with these kind of stories, even the experts aren't allowed to be experts!
Yep, like I said, the solution is not perfect so it needs to be rejected.
I bet you hate nuclear power even more than natural gas...
I agree totally with your idea that nuclear should actually be replacing many types of power generation as well (even eventually natural gas).
Sooooo its something of huge mass that pulls things in like they're falling down a hole and it emits no light and therefore would appear to be black.
Why can't we call this thing a black hole again?
Yeah, funny that, how one of the countries that didn't actually sign the treaty is one of the only countries that met its targets.
But shhhhh we can't say this. Natural Gas is pushing out dirty coal for power generation, but its only a good outcome and not a perfect one, so it still needs to be attacked by environmentalists.
What I really loved about the recent climate rallies was how the solution presented was hardcore socialist/communist revolution and the rooting out of capitalism. As if the solution to Climate Change was to eliminate Capitalism and everything would be fixed.
Although, if thats the case I need someone to explain to me why one of the few countries remaining on the planet with a Communist system of government is also the worst polluting country on the planet. If the marchers are correct and communism is the way to salvation, then China should be an environmental paradise, right?
Here's a fix:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00M0...
When the announcement that cuts were coming I made a comment on /. about how everyone at Microsoft would be looking over their shoulder wondering whether their job would be cut.
Howling responses insisted that no, the only jobs being cut were going to be in Finland and tied to Nokia.
Now we find out that jobs are being cut in Washington, Silicon Valley, and Fargo. Hmmm, thats a long way from Finland.
The irony is that you can only really accomplish the needed sustainability if you do NOT try to accomplish the former.
Communism and to a lesser extent Socialism always attack the rich and promise the spoils to "the people". In the end the people always end up with nearly nothing (see Venezuela).
Whereas that evil vile capitalism has only ever just pulled millions upon millions of people out of poverty, worldwide, over the past 60 years.
Now they notice that its a million comments for Net Neutrality and a few hundred for and then screw us over by:
Giving us a watered down version of Net Neutrality "regulations" that the ISPs and Carriers can drive huge trucks through
or
They just let the mask slip and enable the fast and slow lanes exactly like the ISPs and Carriers want.
This truly will make me sick. I have no hope that the Internet will be regulated as common carrier like it should be. No hope at all.
How would SpaceX man-rate Dragon if they aren't selected by NASA given that man-rating space vehicles has always been done by NASA?
You are joking, but really, how does the "Grant money for science is drying up" exist in the same country where we continually get "there are not enough people going into science" ?
There is a cognitive disconnect here. It even exists in private industry, where much much less funding is going into research as well.
Yeah, that's what I said. A pause in the increase. This means that the decade over decade increases are not becoming larger but staying the same. The rate of increase is not changing, but the temperature is increasing over time.
Sure the estimate of what could happen if it warms 4C by 2100 is a large number.
However, we are currently looking at increases in the historical record being around 0.14-0.18 degrees C per decade. Considering there are 8.5 decades left until 2100, the math says we could expect about 1.19-1.53 degrees warming by then if the decadal increase remains constant (ie. the "pause" in increases). These numbers are not 4.
To have an increase in temperature of 4 degrees C by 2100 a positive forcing feedback must take a dominant position it the climate. We have not yet found this forcing to exist. That of course doesn't mean that it doesn't but the models are predicting it and the actuals are not (as yet) showing it.
The thing with CO2 is that increases in temperature are related to doubling of the concentration in the atmosphere. That is to say that as CO2 increases, it takes more CO2 to continue to add on more increases in temperature as concentration goes up.
In the end it all relates to forcing. Is feedback positive and large or do negative feedback loops exist that respond to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere (increased albedo of clouds for example)? There's lots of science and studies we need to do here. What we know now is not correct (the models aren't accurate) that means we need to search for more measures to include in them.
When you climb to the top of a plateau you are at the highest point AND you are no longer going up.
Both "pause in the increase in warming" and "x of the last y years are the warmest on record" can be true statements AT THE SAME TIME.
Yes, but the corporations don't come and shoot you if you don't choose to give them your money.
Progressives always argue against BIG corporations and they always argue FOR the largest and most powerful organization on the planet being given MORE power. Their blind faith in the state is terrifying.