If I put an egg into a blender, I'm pretty sure it'd have a hard time forming a chicken too.
That's because you're not being creative enough. Make the resulting goo into something a chicken will eat, and feed it to a pregnant hen. Bam, a blended egg turns into a chicken.
With apologies to some smart physicist that made some quip about life, entropy, and irreversibility, thereby giving me that idea...
When you impair efficient economic activity via aggression (e.g. by coercing others into reducing CO2 emissions without substantial evidence of harm) you inevitably create a wealth of opportunities for commerce related to working around or repairing the damage....Aggression can sometimes bring wealth to those who employ it, but only at an even greater expense to others. It can never result in a net improvement for all involved.
*sigh* This is what I hate about many libertarians' handling of global warming -- and I say that *as* a libertarian.
Look at your post: Why do you consider it aggression to make people reduce CO2 usage, but not aggression to dump enough CO2 into the atmosphere that sea levels rise, displacing millions from their property? Why do you consider it "breaking a window" to made businesses have to retool for greener tech, but you don't consider it "breaking a window" for a dinosaur industry to dump toxic crap (like coal, while also causes GHG) into everyone's lungs just so workers in that industry can keep their jobs?
Yes, I know you said "without sufficient evidence", but I suspect your definition of "evidence" includes proving that *my* specific CO2 molecules were responsible for the warming of *that* specific plot of land. Well, the harms of CO2 don't work that way, and they don't need to. If your (version of) libertarianism can't handle cases like this, that's a problem with your philosophy, not the evidence.
Now, with that said, it's true that most proposals deviate far from the most efficient, easiest option, which is to simply price in (via limited permits or taxes) the cost of fossil fuel externalities, and then letting the market work its magic of finding the new pareto-optimum, given this new constraint. But that still doesn't justify your lop-sided handling of the issues.
How many people compliment a black guy on speaking English?
How about the gentleman who's now the vice president, way way back in '07:
Joe Biden is set to launch his second run for the presidency today but it will likely be overshadowed by some candid comments made in an interview with Jason Horowitz of the New York Observer.
Most noteworthy is what he says about Barack Obama: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."
Neither of the principles you state are, as such, strictly necessary to meet those principles.
Yeah, it doesn't seem like the FCC means the same thing the average geek does by "net neutrality". The summary's quote talks about keeping the internet free of additional fees for heavy usage. Er, well, that's nice to have, but the right to hog your ISP's pipes to the detriment of other uses with impunity is not really what net neutrality is all about.
If networks want to prioritize users that don't download as much when they are at full capacity, fine. If they want to let traffic pick between low latency or high average transfer rate, fine. What becomes not fine and not neutral is when they want to charge more just because certain kinds of transfers are more valued (i.e. have a higher "consumer surplus") and thereby take more money "just because they can".
Except that isn't what comcast was caught doing. To use your freeway analogy, it's more like Comcast put up a big sign that said "Trucks use this exit" except instead of an exit, it was a cliff
No: Lrn2metaphor. If you have no problem with someone explaining that "he's like a crusader, but... for the Muslim side", then you should have no problem with the term "Muslim crusader" either.
I agree with MindlessAutomata. GP was just linking to barely-related shit and does not deserve the upmodding.
Furthermore, it's either trivial or false. To the extent that complex non-linear systems necessarily exhibit emergent behavior, that behavior is not necessarily something we consider interesting. It could just be emergence of cryptographically-secure random noise, or of waves -- not the kind of thing that makes you want share with others or see what else you can get.
What we're interested in here is emergent behavior that is also interesting, not just the kind of emergent behavior that is inherent to complex non-linear systems. Like when[1] a guard gets so hungry that he leaves his post, which makes another guard chase after to arrest him, which makes the citizens notice there isn't enough law enforcement and start looting stores en masse. Emergence doesn't guarantee cool stuff like that.
[1]I don't know if this is a real example, but I remember it being on Wikipedia near Oblivion's release as something that happened in playtesting.
"Yes! We did it! We did it! After years of searching, billions of dollars invested, and being subject to endless ridicule, we finally achieved our mission! We now have incontrovertible proof of intraterrestrial life!"
"Um... dude... I think the goal is to find extraterrestrial life."
What if you made up a quote like "Today, Reuters announced they were declaring bankrupcy" and licensed it from the AP. Could you then attribute that quote to the AP? Do you think their system should allow that?
Quick! Someone do this before the AP fixes its software! I bet they'll spend the next year or two sorting through the fallout of such an attribution...
And when a guy stands in the driveway of a GM plant screaming that alien technology is being used to make Corvettes, does that mean it's true because GM refuses to answer questions from him or reporters and then kicks him off the property? Of course not.
A fair comparison would be some guy posting on a website -- *off* the property of GM -- all of his proof that GM bought technology from aliens: photos of their meetings, pictures of the related prototypes, and so on.
And then to complete the analogy, GM sues to censor it and throws a gold-plated hissy-fit about "That is *confidential* information", and "There is no *proof* we have been secretly accepting bribes in the form of technology to let alien creatures conduct their covert activities undisturbed in our southern Flint plant."
As for GM's guards? Most likely, if they were told to escort some guy off their property, their response would be, "*snort* Yeah, I'll start giving a shit about this site's security, just as soon as you restore my pension."
LOL! Yeah, it's like offering a million dollars in reward for someone who can figure out how to break all existing encryption, when you would suddenly be able to help yourself to a lot more than a million dollars. Who would ever do something so stupid?
Okay, I agree Asperger's should be a valid legal defense for crimes. But at the same time, is justice really being dealt to Aspies? How many of them are convicted merely because juries think they "act weird", don't make eye contact, etc., and make an unjusitied inference that the defendant is guilty?
Slashdot Mirror
Google: What's the difference? You're their all-time best-seller.
Microsoft: Yeah? Well, I had sex with your wife!
Google: Did you mean: I had sex with your comatose wife ?
Oh, tell me about it. I remember the days of Beverly Hills 90210 when some teenagers were 30!
Why isn't the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture protecting the Gundams?
I've played a ton of Alpha Centauri but very little Civilization. Do the Mag Tubes correspond to railroads?
If I put an egg into a blender, I'm pretty sure it'd have a hard time forming a chicken too.
That's because you're not being creative enough. Make the resulting goo into something a chicken will eat, and feed it to a pregnant hen. Bam, a blended egg turns into a chicken.
With apologies to some smart physicist that made some quip about life, entropy, and irreversibility, thereby giving me that idea...
But mastodon hurted Thag's girl! Bad mastodon! Only Thag allowed hurt Thag's girl!
When you impair efficient economic activity via aggression (e.g. by coercing others into reducing CO2 emissions without substantial evidence of harm) you inevitably create a wealth of opportunities for commerce related to working around or repairing the damage. ...Aggression can sometimes bring wealth to those who employ it, but only at an even greater expense to others. It can never result in a net improvement for all involved.
*sigh* This is what I hate about many libertarians' handling of global warming -- and I say that *as* a libertarian.
Look at your post: Why do you consider it aggression to make people reduce CO2 usage, but not aggression to dump enough CO2 into the atmosphere that sea levels rise, displacing millions from their property? Why do you consider it "breaking a window" to made businesses have to retool for greener tech, but you don't consider it "breaking a window" for a dinosaur industry to dump toxic crap (like coal, while also causes GHG) into everyone's lungs just so workers in that industry can keep their jobs?
Yes, I know you said "without sufficient evidence", but I suspect your definition of "evidence" includes proving that *my* specific CO2 molecules were responsible for the warming of *that* specific plot of land. Well, the harms of CO2 don't work that way, and they don't need to. If your (version of) libertarianism can't handle cases like this, that's a problem with your philosophy, not the evidence.
Now, with that said, it's true that most proposals deviate far from the most efficient, easiest option, which is to simply price in (via limited permits or taxes) the cost of fossil fuel externalities, and then letting the market work its magic of finding the new pareto-optimum, given this new constraint. But that still doesn't justify your lop-sided handling of the issues.
How many people compliment a black guy on speaking English?
How about the gentleman who's now the vice president, way way back in '07:
Joe Biden is set to launch his second run for the presidency today but it will likely be overshadowed by some candid comments made in an interview with Jason Horowitz of the New York Observer.
Most noteworthy is what he says about Barack Obama: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."
Neither of the principles you state are, as such, strictly necessary to meet those principles.
Yeah, it doesn't seem like the FCC means the same thing the average geek does by "net neutrality". The summary's quote talks about keeping the internet free of additional fees for heavy usage. Er, well, that's nice to have, but the right to hog your ISP's pipes to the detriment of other uses with impunity is not really what net neutrality is all about.
If networks want to prioritize users that don't download as much when they are at full capacity, fine. If they want to let traffic pick between low latency or high average transfer rate, fine. What becomes not fine and not neutral is when they want to charge more just because certain kinds of transfers are more valued (i.e. have a higher "consumer surplus") and thereby take more money "just because they can".
LOL! Yeah, exactly. And they get bonus points for the first part:
The MTA told the Stamford Advocate that without a license, the iPhone application might provide inaccurate information.
Uh huh. If you don't give the MTA money, that causes your data to be inaccurate. Thanks for your concern, MTA, but we'll take our chances...
You're worried that people watching a Michael Moore movie wouldn't think about fat people? I think you can rest easy on that one.
My fingers know the password to my sperm bank.
She may not be Elle McPhereson, but she's still a model. The same way a radio host is a public figure, even if they're not Howard Stern.
Great! Because I think RobotRunAmok's wife's voiceovers on the news make her sound like *such* a slutty skank! Now I can say so with impunity!
Except that isn't what comcast was caught doing. To use your freeway analogy, it's more like Comcast put up a big sign that said "Trucks use this exit" except instead of an exit, it was a cliff
Please don't give me any ideas...
A muslin crusader is a contradiction in terms, since to be a crusader you have to be carring the cross as a christian.
Well, yes and no.
Yes: The term he wanted was mujahid.
No: Lrn2metaphor. If you have no problem with someone explaining that "he's like a crusader, but ... for the Muslim side", then you should have no problem with the term "Muslim crusader" either.
I agree with MindlessAutomata. GP was just linking to barely-related shit and does not deserve the upmodding.
Furthermore, it's either trivial or false. To the extent that complex non-linear systems necessarily exhibit emergent behavior, that behavior is not necessarily something we consider interesting. It could just be emergence of cryptographically-secure random noise, or of waves -- not the kind of thing that makes you want share with others or see what else you can get.
What we're interested in here is emergent behavior that is also interesting, not just the kind of emergent behavior that is inherent to complex non-linear systems. Like when[1] a guard gets so hungry that he leaves his post, which makes another guard chase after to arrest him, which makes the citizens notice there isn't enough law enforcement and start looting stores en masse. Emergence doesn't guarantee cool stuff like that.
[1]I don't know if this is a real example, but I remember it being on Wikipedia near Oblivion's release as something that happened in playtesting.
If I were Freud I'd say you want to sleep with your mother too, but I'm not.
You're not Freud, or you're not sleeping with his mother?
"Yes! We did it! We did it! After years of searching, billions of dollars invested, and being subject to endless ridicule, we finally achieved our mission! We now have incontrovertible proof of intraterrestrial life!"
"Um ... dude ... I think the goal is to find extraterrestrial life."
Rule #1: Never trust user input.
Taking a hint from xkcd, someone should try:
(Oops, I just infringed copyright on this.)
What if you made up a quote like "Today, Reuters announced they were declaring bankrupcy" and licensed it from the AP. Could you then attribute that quote to the AP? Do you think their system should allow that?
Quick! Someone do this before the AP fixes its software! I bet they'll spend the next year or two sorting through the fallout of such an attribution...
turnitin intends to catch running a paper through a theosaurus
What good would it to do to run a paper through a reptile god?
Unless you mean thesaurus ;-)
And when a guy stands in the driveway of a GM plant screaming that alien technology is being used to make Corvettes, does that mean it's true because GM refuses to answer questions from him or reporters and then kicks him off the property? Of course not.
A fair comparison would be some guy posting on a website -- *off* the property of GM -- all of his proof that GM bought technology from aliens: photos of their meetings, pictures of the related prototypes, and so on.
And then to complete the analogy, GM sues to censor it and throws a gold-plated hissy-fit about "That is *confidential* information", and "There is no *proof* we have been secretly accepting bribes in the form of technology to let alien creatures conduct their covert activities undisturbed in our southern Flint plant."
As for GM's guards? Most likely, if they were told to escort some guy off their property, their response would be, "*snort* Yeah, I'll start giving a shit about this site's security, just as soon as you restore my pension."
Argh! That should say, "Okay, I agree Asperger's NOT should be a valid legal defense for crimes."
LOL! Yeah, it's like offering a million dollars in reward for someone who can figure out how to break all existing encryption, when you would suddenly be able to help yourself to a lot more than a million dollars. Who would ever do something so stupid?
Oh, wait...
Okay, I agree Asperger's should be a valid legal defense for crimes. But at the same time, is justice really being dealt to Aspies? How many of them are convicted merely because juries think they "act weird", don't make eye contact, etc., and make an unjusitied inference that the defendant is guilty?