There is nothing suicidal or homicidal about recognizing that an environment has surpassed it's capacity to support a particular species. I like humans. I just recognize that there are limits to the environment they can live in. On a smaller scale, I make the same judgement on my home. It is great having 4 people in my 4 bedroom house. When friends have been in need, we have had 7 people in my 4 bedroom house and everything was still fine. If it gets to the point that I have 327 people in my 4 bedroom house, you can be sure that I will say that the number of humans has exceeded the capacity of my home to support them.
I don't say we have too many humans because I don't think humans are worthy. I say we have too many of any animal tends to lead to catastrophic problems with far more suffering than if the population didn't exceed capacity to begin with. Humans biggest asset is our ability to think. We ignore this asset in regards to population at our own peril.
If my life depended on it? Then definitely a Microsoft Rocket. Why? Because I might actually be able to afford the Microsoft Rocket, so I would have some chance of survival. The NASA Rocket would be completely out of my price range, so I would be dead without even taking a chance.
Well, he could always propose sending 1 rocket as the primary and 9 up as backups. Then he could match the price in the database while rationalizing every dollar spent as increased safety.
Unless the insurance companies stipulate that they send up 3 units on three separate rockets (still cheaper) before they pay out. A good analyst would look at the numbers and point out that just planning to send up three units still comes out cheaper, and if none fail, you have 3 times the capacity, or two units for redundancy. If 2 out of 3 fail, you are still better off than sending one up at 10x the price.
And yet few want to talk about the root problem here. Too many humans. If we had 1/10 of the human population on earth, there would be far less need to cram animals together, and thus less need for the antibiotics in farming.
That is how a lot of the anti-gun politics work. You create situations where guns become dangerous. Outlaw situations where they save lives, and then decry the evil of guns because they are dangerous.
Exactly. It is like buying clothing. Some people can get by without a jacket, but most people will own a shirt and a jacket. Many will own multiples of both in various styles.
No one uses the label of "Denier" for someone that is going through grief. Your argument is like the child that stands around saying "Bitch", "Ass", "Cock", and when their parents reprimand them, they claim they are just listing animals. Words have meaning that is based on context. When used as an ad hominem, as it was done in the previous post, it means is a way to discredit anything said by the person by declaring him evil. The specific language that is used is clearly an attempt to parallel climate change "Deniers" to Holocaust "Deniers". If you cannot see the fallacy that was used as well as the method of its use, then the poster was entirely successful in tricking you.
As a parent, I have more fear that my child will be seriously harmed by these laws than I am that my child might be harmed by a pedophile. Interestingly enough, if my next door neighbor had been convicted of being a cannibal that particularly enjoyed the taste of children, they wouldn't need to tell me that they were a danger. On the other hand, if they got caught streaking through a bar, they would need to notify me about how much of a danger they were to my child.
I am probably in the minority with this, but I don't feel that being a corporation should give a free pass on these kinds of things. Corporations are creations of the government. Government uses them to skirt rules that prevent them from performing actions directly. As corporations gain more and more power, the line between corporation and government blurs.
The key to getting people to switch is to offer multi-platform support. If you get access to both the Linux and Windows version when you buy a game, many people would consider running Linux if that is the only game they play. If you only get the single platform version, buying the Linux version creates the risk that if you must revert to Windows, you lose your favorite game. This means that people who would rather purchase the Linux version get pushed back to Windows as a safety net before Linux gets a chance.
The reason that tablets suck for gaming is that the touch interface is only good for a few specific types of games and the screens are too small. With more and more tablets supporting HDMI and bluetooth controllers starting to be supported, that could change.
That is a little like saying if you ban Hondas, fewer people will get run over by Hondas. It is intellectually did honest unless you don't mind kids being needed by other means.
No. He stole every word. OK, to be fair, since it is Sci-Fi, he probably made up a few words so that it would sound a little alien. But by and far, every word in his book was stolen from other people. He just feels justified because he stole them one word at a time.
No, you really don't. You only need bazookas if you intend to fight a symmetric war. If the intent is to make it not worth starting a fight, a handgun will frequently do.
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing suicidal or homicidal about recognizing that an environment has surpassed it's capacity to support a particular species. I like humans. I just recognize that there are limits to the environment they can live in. On a smaller scale, I make the same judgement on my home. It is great having 4 people in my 4 bedroom house. When friends have been in need, we have had 7 people in my 4 bedroom house and everything was still fine. If it gets to the point that I have 327 people in my 4 bedroom house, you can be sure that I will say that the number of humans has exceeded the capacity of my home to support them.
I don't say we have too many humans because I don't think humans are worthy. I say we have too many of any animal tends to lead to catastrophic problems with far more suffering than if the population didn't exceed capacity to begin with. Humans biggest asset is our ability to think. We ignore this asset in regards to population at our own peril.
Your splitting hair to try and rephrase the same point.
Your use of the word 'natural' is a marketing term, and has no bearing on the discussion of 'natural selection'.
If my life depended on it? Then definitely a Microsoft Rocket. Why? Because I might actually be able to afford the Microsoft Rocket, so I would have some chance of survival. The NASA Rocket would be completely out of my price range, so I would be dead without even taking a chance.
Well, he could always propose sending 1 rocket as the primary and 9 up as backups. Then he could match the price in the database while rationalizing every dollar spent as increased safety.
Unless the insurance companies stipulate that they send up 3 units on three separate rockets (still cheaper) before they pay out. A good analyst would look at the numbers and point out that just planning to send up three units still comes out cheaper, and if none fail, you have 3 times the capacity, or two units for redundancy. If 2 out of 3 fail, you are still better off than sending one up at 10x the price.
And yet few want to talk about the root problem here. Too many humans. If we had 1/10 of the human population on earth, there would be far less need to cram animals together, and thus less need for the antibiotics in farming.
That is how a lot of the anti-gun politics work. You create situations where guns become dangerous. Outlaw situations where they save lives, and then decry the evil of guns because they are dangerous.
Exactly. It is like buying clothing. Some people can get by without a jacket, but most people will own a shirt and a jacket. Many will own multiples of both in various styles.
No one uses the label of "Denier" for someone that is going through grief. Your argument is like the child that stands around saying "Bitch", "Ass", "Cock", and when their parents reprimand them, they claim they are just listing animals. Words have meaning that is based on context. When used as an ad hominem, as it was done in the previous post, it means is a way to discredit anything said by the person by declaring him evil. The specific language that is used is clearly an attempt to parallel climate change "Deniers" to Holocaust "Deniers". If you cannot see the fallacy that was used as well as the method of its use, then the poster was entirely successful in tricking you.
It is a clear attempt to put those that question climate change into the same category as those who would deny the Holocaust.
As a parent, I have more fear that my child will be seriously harmed by these laws than I am that my child might be harmed by a pedophile. Interestingly enough, if my next door neighbor had been convicted of being a cannibal that particularly enjoyed the taste of children, they wouldn't need to tell me that they were a danger. On the other hand, if they got caught streaking through a bar, they would need to notify me about how much of a danger they were to my child.
I am probably in the minority with this, but I don't feel that being a corporation should give a free pass on these kinds of things. Corporations are creations of the government. Government uses them to skirt rules that prevent them from performing actions directly. As corporations gain more and more power, the line between corporation and government blurs.
If you don't see the failure in your logic, there is nothing left to say.
That would be the 'Denier' label. It is a reference to Holocaust 'Deniers'.
The key to getting people to switch is to offer multi-platform support. If you get access to both the Linux and Windows version when you buy a game, many people would consider running Linux if that is the only game they play. If you only get the single platform version, buying the Linux version creates the risk that if you must revert to Windows, you lose your favorite game. This means that people who would rather purchase the Linux version get pushed back to Windows as a safety net before Linux gets a chance.
The reason that tablets suck for gaming is that the touch interface is only good for a few specific types of games and the screens are too small. With more and more tablets supporting HDMI and bluetooth controllers starting to be supported, that could change.
That is a little like saying if you ban Hondas, fewer people will get run over by Hondas. It is intellectually did honest unless you don't mind kids being needed by other means.
No. He stole every word. OK, to be fair, since it is Sci-Fi, he probably made up a few words so that it would sound a little alien. But by and far, every word in his book was stolen from other people. He just feels justified because he stole them one word at a time.
I second that. I have yet to meet a person over the age of ~5 that has not committed an act of "Piracy".
I hate it when the bugs are not in my code.
Tablet auto correct problem. It should have said "Godwin".
Why would you expect anyone to talked what you have to say seriously when you jump straight to Goodwining the discussion?
No, you really don't. You only need bazookas if you intend to fight a symmetric war. If the intent is to make it not worth starting a fight, a handgun will frequently do.
Given just how stupid someone must be to not know that guns get used for non-lethal purposes all of the time, it is amazing how often this gets asked.