Yes, but ocean acidification and global warming have a common cause instead of the latter causing the former. Therefore, ocean acidifcation is not an effect of global warming, and does not belong in that article as currently titled.
In all honesty, I'm more frustrated by the utter lack of positive effects. They may not outweigh the negative effects, but by not including them the article paints a false picture.
Well, my take was that having all games save data in one central location is not intuitive to an average user, hence the reference to common sense in my above post. Although a later post seems to have started going into arguments that it's proper to keep saved game files with the program, which I have to disagree with.
People responding to his post have presented good, logical, but technical reasons to have it centrally located. Most of them only apply to multi-user systems, and I have to agree that the semi above average user who at least understands the basics of a file system enough to start looking for saved game data could easily start in the program folder before looking in 'my documents\my games' for instance. Your initial reply was insulting in the first sentence, by accusing him of expecting certain behavior just because he was brainwashed. I see no way in which your post wouldn't have been better without that comment at all, and it might not have put him on the defensive.
That article should be named "Possible negative effects of rising Carbon Dioxide concentrations". It is only the negative effects, some of them are predicted but not seen, and your ocean acidification is explicitly an effect of rising CO2 concentrations, not an effect of global warming.
I missed that in the articles. Are you sure there is a possibility of trying them as adults? Not that the thought of trying them for child pornography isn't asinine anyways, but trying them as adults would be beyond belief.
I think Khyber has a point actually. Multi-user is a more advanced concept than most users actually understand. All the technical reasons why separating data is a good idea are a black box to them, and really can't be considered common sense. I don't think many of them really grasp the concept of user versus system data.
Most users are the sole user on their computer, or at least user account. Lots of people start windows, and do NOT have separate user logins even if more than one person actually runs programs. Separating user data is great for security and ease of backup, but aiming just for ease of use would lead most people to assume that each program keeps track of it's own data. Much like I don't expect my bank and my hospital to have one common database with information about me. I really don't think it is just brainwashing by programs which used to work that way.
I'd like to add a silver rule there. Assume the multi user environment may use roaming profiles. I hate software updates or temporary files in application data (firefox and acrobat reader did this at one point) as well as user data which ends up in local settings. Admittedly, windows itself makes the second mistake with.jpg backgrounds. I also hate programs which, like Microsoft Outlook, use an explicit path for their working files their temporary files, and produce an error message which confuses the hell out of a user if the local profile cache name is changed for one reason or another.
I meant the article linked by the parent comment, not the original article. I should have said 'your link' to make it clearer though. He chose a very poor article to back up his assertion that CO2 can in fact hurt plants. Guess it was a little offtopic though.
Please define "easily", "All the power we could ever want", "Inexpensively", and "tiny". Because all of those terms are subjective, and when most people try to put numbers in their place they don't appear to be accurate.
As far as California goes, that looks like a false dichotomy to me. There is no way California's economy will stop. It may slow down due to brownouts, or extra taxes to take over and run utilities non-profitably, or higher prices on energy. It could also be that solar will work out better than expected, or that when faced with the consequences of heavy handed regulation the government will back off. I'm betting on state run utilities, since California seems to be one of the states that's really big on ever growing government control.
After reading the article, it amounts to there being no evidence that CO2 actually hurts plants, but it does lead to extra starch, which they speculate may eventually be harmful even though the plants in question appeared unaffected. That's pretty weak, and the fact that it was even brought up would indicate that they were trying to prove that it is harmful, or that the reporter added his own interpretation, possibly both. The C02 emission from the soil of course has no bearing whatsoever on plant health, but the increase in fine root structure that the article mentions seems like it would good for the plant in some ways. Moreover, being alarmed that plants release more excess CO2 when they are exposed to more CO2 in the first place isn't exactly surprising.
Every single vote counting method IS a use of mathematics to measure human preferences. So by your point, every vote counting method is invalid on the face of it. Arrow's theorem is a way of proving that the mathematics themselves are inherently flawed in addition to the basic flaw you have identified. Since it doesn't worry about the human behaviour except in a superficial "Suppose some people have this set of preferences..." way, your point doesn't really invalidate arrow's theorem itself.
If you want a better example of the basic flaw with any form of group decision making, look at the Voting Paradox. This doesn't worry itself about counting method per se. It just demonstrates that even if no individual has circular preferences (i.e. A>B, B>C, and C>a), the group can nonetheless have exactly that set of preferences. If we accept that circular preferences are insane, than any attempt to determine group preferences is inherently insane.
It required some interpretation, and different punction makes it clearer.
"Why was there a boom in American science education during the space race? Because everyone wanted to go to the moon too."
Note that ice cores, dendrochronology, etc are proxies for temperature, not actual temperature records. Not that they are useless, but it makes it problematic when some papers claim that these proxies are more accurate than historical events and dispute the MWP for instance. When said papers also magnify bristlecone pine data, which the NAS reccomends avoiding, and which have caused issues with the reliability of reconstructions based upon them, it's hard to claim we have detailed temperature records.
Left wing people tend to think in group terms and fail to notice the individuals within each group, or even concede that individuals capable of agency actually exist. Your post is a prime example of this, as you pretend that whatever percentage turn to crime had no choice in the matter. Yes, viewing them as a group is useful for predictive purposes, but it does not absolve individuals of responsibility for the choices they actually make. If the percentage happens to be 5%, for instance, then in a group of 100 people living in poverty you would expect to find 5 individuals who turned to thievery. They are still thieves, and they did have other choices as evidence by the 95% who didn't.
Going the other direction, denying individual agency often leads to claiming that someone is responsible for the actions which other people take. For instance, I, as a white caucasian male, am a racist regardless of how I personally act because I am a member of a privileged group according to the commentariat of places like AmpToons. It is also used to blame the US for the actions of our enemies, by for instance counting all casualties in Iraq as the fault of the US, even when they are caused by an IED set against our troops. This sort of view is implied by "Just avoid the conditions that generate it" since someone has to make the changes to avoid those conditions.
Marriage is not really a privilege or immunity of citizens of the US, at least as referred to in that clause. If you think about it, there is nothing right now stopping a gay couple from declaring themselves married. What they do not recieve by doing so is the legal privileges currently associated with marriage, so it really falls to an equal protection issue. The best way to provide equal protection is to provide no legal privileges whatsoever. The government shouldn't be in the business of licensing marriage in the first place. At one point, they didn't.
This is slightly offtopic, but Lysander Spooner produced a pretty good argument that slavery was unconstitutional. Basically an argument based on original meaning.
It really started down this road with Wickard v. Filburn. Although with Reich, it was funny seeing Scalia try to pretend that originalism is compatible with the drug laws.
And if I decline to vote the government still taxes me. There is no way for me to leave the system voluntarily. Don't get me wrong, if I had a choice in the matter, I would voluntarily pay taxes in exchange for government services. But it really should be an explicitly signed contract for every citizen upon becoming an adult, with an option to opt out. Otherwise, it's a group of people in a geographical boundary giving powers to the government to act on everyone else within those boundaries.
I'm also willing to accept the existence of free-riders on some of those goods. The morally viable responses to someone free riding on a service are to:
1. stop providing the service. Not something I want to do with roads for instance.
2. Somehow exclude the non-contributing individuals from benefiting. Generally costs more than just allowing them to free ride, and up front checks are a problem.
3. Charge them after the fact. Police services, for instance, could check after the fact whether a particular beneficiary had in fact been part of the system, and justifiably take taxes afterwards. Easier than option 2, but rather difficult to manage.
4. Allow the free riders and stop worrying about them as an inconsequential minority. My favorite option really.
Note that the current system of compelling everyone to be obedient citizens is NOT compatible with truly equal rights, as it sets up one group (probably a large majority) as having explicit rights to control another group. If A has the right to use force against B, but the reverse isn't true, then A and B do not have equal rights.
He wasn't questioning anything you said. He just developed a mental image of a train moving with sails and described it, aka driving trains directly with wind.
Geothermal power is just nuclear power in disguise. The radioactive elements in the earth's core aren't going to run out any time soon. Geothermal isn't so much extracting heat as it is taking advantage of heat already being generated.
It would depend on the mob and the rest of your build really. Assuming you DW two weapons with defense, AC, and stamina, I think the extra mitigation and avoidance would offset the extra swings. Take for instance two Infantry assault blades. About 1.1% less chance to be parried to begin with, 66 defense and 98 stamina. That defense helps achieve uncritable if you aren't quite there, and increases you avoidance roughly 1.5%. I think this thread makes a more persuasive argument.
If you are tanking with 2H weapons and struggling with defense rating, you are doing it wrong. You have dual wield for a reason. If you don't need the extra tank stats on a weapon, by all means use a 2 hander. Otherwise, spec into dual wielding and get some defensive swords.
Personally, I found it painful watching people claim we were still in a recession in 2006, whereas the linked article points out that the last recession ended in 2001. I have no problem believing we're starting into a recession now, but the drumbeat of negative economic spin for pretty much all for GWB's presidential career, especially around any election season, makes it difficult to take media doom and gloom seriously, and easy to point out flaws in the claims last year. Taking it seriously is likely to induce an even worse economy.
You know, helping out someone less fortunate is a good thing to do (charity). Being robbed to pay for them to improve their lot is not (taxation/welfare). If I wasn't well aware of the multitude of services available to these people that many of them don't take, I'd be a lot more likely to give cash to people begging on street corners. As it is, we are treated to supposedly sympathetic cases where the individuals clearly didn't have a clue and just want to go have a drink of Hennesy. It's not that these people are doing poorly and we're doing ok that we go on about. It's the fact that you feel justified in punishing our success and rewarding their failure. It's not them, it's you.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but ocean acidification and global warming have a common cause instead of the latter causing the former. Therefore, ocean acidifcation is not an effect of global warming, and does not belong in that article as currently titled.
In all honesty, I'm more frustrated by the utter lack of positive effects. They may not outweigh the negative effects, but by not including them the article paints a false picture.
Well, my take was that having all games save data in one central location is not intuitive to an average user, hence the reference to common sense in my above post. Although a later post seems to have started going into arguments that it's proper to keep saved game files with the program, which I have to disagree with.
People responding to his post have presented good, logical, but technical reasons to have it centrally located. Most of them only apply to multi-user systems, and I have to agree that the semi above average user who at least understands the basics of a file system enough to start looking for saved game data could easily start in the program folder before looking in 'my documents\my games' for instance. Your initial reply was insulting in the first sentence, by accusing him of expecting certain behavior just because he was brainwashed. I see no way in which your post wouldn't have been better without that comment at all, and it might not have put him on the defensive.
That article should be named "Possible negative effects of rising Carbon Dioxide concentrations". It is only the negative effects, some of them are predicted but not seen, and your ocean acidification is explicitly an effect of rising CO2 concentrations, not an effect of global warming.
I missed that in the articles. Are you sure there is a possibility of trying them as adults? Not that the thought of trying them for child pornography isn't asinine anyways, but trying them as adults would be beyond belief.
I think Khyber has a point actually. Multi-user is a more advanced concept than most users actually understand. All the technical reasons why separating data is a good idea are a black box to them, and really can't be considered common sense. I don't think many of them really grasp the concept of user versus system data.
Most users are the sole user on their computer, or at least user account. Lots of people start windows, and do NOT have separate user logins even if more than one person actually runs programs. Separating user data is great for security and ease of backup, but aiming just for ease of use would lead most people to assume that each program keeps track of it's own data. Much like I don't expect my bank and my hospital to have one common database with information about me. I really don't think it is just brainwashing by programs which used to work that way.
I'd like to add a silver rule there. Assume the multi user environment may use roaming profiles. I hate software updates or temporary files in application data (firefox and acrobat reader did this at one point) as well as user data which ends up in local settings. Admittedly, windows itself makes the second mistake with .jpg backgrounds. I also hate programs which, like Microsoft Outlook, use an explicit path for their working files their temporary files, and produce an error message which confuses the hell out of a user if the local profile cache name is changed for one reason or another.
I meant the article linked by the parent comment, not the original article. I should have said 'your link' to make it clearer though. He chose a very poor article to back up his assertion that CO2 can in fact hurt plants. Guess it was a little offtopic though.
Please define "easily", "All the power we could ever want", "Inexpensively", and "tiny". Because all of those terms are subjective, and when most people try to put numbers in their place they don't appear to be accurate.
As far as California goes, that looks like a false dichotomy to me. There is no way California's economy will stop. It may slow down due to brownouts, or extra taxes to take over and run utilities non-profitably, or higher prices on energy. It could also be that solar will work out better than expected, or that when faced with the consequences of heavy handed regulation the government will back off. I'm betting on state run utilities, since California seems to be one of the states that's really big on ever growing government control.
After reading the article, it amounts to there being no evidence that CO2 actually hurts plants, but it does lead to extra starch, which they speculate may eventually be harmful even though the plants in question appeared unaffected. That's pretty weak, and the fact that it was even brought up would indicate that they were trying to prove that it is harmful, or that the reporter added his own interpretation, possibly both. The C02 emission from the soil of course has no bearing whatsoever on plant health, but the increase in fine root structure that the article mentions seems like it would good for the plant in some ways. Moreover, being alarmed that plants release more excess CO2 when they are exposed to more CO2 in the first place isn't exactly surprising.
Every single vote counting method IS a use of mathematics to measure human preferences. So by your point, every vote counting method is invalid on the face of it. Arrow's theorem is a way of proving that the mathematics themselves are inherently flawed in addition to the basic flaw you have identified. Since it doesn't worry about the human behaviour except in a superficial "Suppose some people have this set of preferences..." way, your point doesn't really invalidate arrow's theorem itself.
If you want a better example of the basic flaw with any form of group decision making, look at the Voting Paradox. This doesn't worry itself about counting method per se. It just demonstrates that even if no individual has circular preferences (i.e. A>B, B>C, and C>a), the group can nonetheless have exactly that set of preferences. If we accept that circular preferences are insane, than any attempt to determine group preferences is inherently insane.
It required some interpretation, and different punction makes it clearer. "Why was there a boom in American science education during the space race? Because everyone wanted to go to the moon too."
Note that ice cores, dendrochronology, etc are proxies for temperature, not actual temperature records. Not that they are useless, but it makes it problematic when some papers claim that these proxies are more accurate than historical events and dispute the MWP for instance. When said papers also magnify bristlecone pine data, which the NAS reccomends avoiding, and which have caused issues with the reliability of reconstructions based upon them, it's hard to claim we have detailed temperature records.
Left wing people tend to think in group terms and fail to notice the individuals within each group, or even concede that individuals capable of agency actually exist. Your post is a prime example of this, as you pretend that whatever percentage turn to crime had no choice in the matter. Yes, viewing them as a group is useful for predictive purposes, but it does not absolve individuals of responsibility for the choices they actually make. If the percentage happens to be 5%, for instance, then in a group of 100 people living in poverty you would expect to find 5 individuals who turned to thievery. They are still thieves, and they did have other choices as evidence by the 95% who didn't.
Going the other direction, denying individual agency often leads to claiming that someone is responsible for the actions which other people take. For instance, I, as a white caucasian male, am a racist regardless of how I personally act because I am a member of a privileged group according to the commentariat of places like AmpToons. It is also used to blame the US for the actions of our enemies, by for instance counting all casualties in Iraq as the fault of the US, even when they are caused by an IED set against our troops. This sort of view is implied by "Just avoid the conditions that generate it" since someone has to make the changes to avoid those conditions.
Marriage is not really a privilege or immunity of citizens of the US, at least as referred to in that clause. If you think about it, there is nothing right now stopping a gay couple from declaring themselves married. What they do not recieve by doing so is the legal privileges currently associated with marriage, so it really falls to an equal protection issue. The best way to provide equal protection is to provide no legal privileges whatsoever. The government shouldn't be in the business of licensing marriage in the first place. At one point, they didn't.
This is slightly offtopic, but Lysander Spooner produced a pretty good argument that slavery was unconstitutional. Basically an argument based on original meaning.
It really started down this road with Wickard v. Filburn. Although with Reich, it was funny seeing Scalia try to pretend that originalism is compatible with the drug laws.
True. The broken window fallacy seems to be referenced when other parts of "That which is seen, and that which is unseen" are more applicable.
And if I decline to vote the government still taxes me. There is no way for me to leave the system voluntarily. Don't get me wrong, if I had a choice in the matter, I would voluntarily pay taxes in exchange for government services. But it really should be an explicitly signed contract for every citizen upon becoming an adult, with an option to opt out. Otherwise, it's a group of people in a geographical boundary giving powers to the government to act on everyone else within those boundaries.
I'm also willing to accept the existence of free-riders on some of those goods. The morally viable responses to someone free riding on a service are to:
1. stop providing the service. Not something I want to do with roads for instance.
2. Somehow exclude the non-contributing individuals from benefiting. Generally costs more than just allowing them to free ride, and up front checks are a problem.
3. Charge them after the fact. Police services, for instance, could check after the fact whether a particular beneficiary had in fact been part of the system, and justifiably take taxes afterwards. Easier than option 2, but rather difficult to manage.
4. Allow the free riders and stop worrying about them as an inconsequential minority. My favorite option really.
Note that the current system of compelling everyone to be obedient citizens is NOT compatible with truly equal rights, as it sets up one group (probably a large majority) as having explicit rights to control another group. If A has the right to use force against B, but the reverse isn't true, then A and B do not have equal rights.
Neglected to log in before posting, but the above was posted by me.
He wasn't questioning anything you said. He just developed a mental image of a train moving with sails and described it, aka driving trains directly with wind.
Geothermal power is just nuclear power in disguise. The radioactive elements in the earth's core aren't going to run out any time soon. Geothermal isn't so much extracting heat as it is taking advantage of heat already being generated.
It would depend on the mob and the rest of your build really. Assuming you DW two weapons with defense, AC, and stamina, I think the extra mitigation and avoidance would offset the extra swings. Take for instance two Infantry assault blades. About 1.1% less chance to be parried to begin with, 66 defense and 98 stamina. That defense helps achieve uncritable if you aren't quite there, and increases you avoidance roughly 1.5%. I think this thread makes a more persuasive argument.
If you are tanking with 2H weapons and struggling with defense rating, you are doing it wrong. You have dual wield for a reason. If you don't need the extra tank stats on a weapon, by all means use a 2 hander. Otherwise, spec into dual wielding and get some defensive swords.
Personally, I found it painful watching people claim we were still in a recession in 2006, whereas the linked article points out that the last recession ended in 2001. I have no problem believing we're starting into a recession now, but the drumbeat of negative economic spin for pretty much all for GWB's presidential career, especially around any election season, makes it difficult to take media doom and gloom seriously, and easy to point out flaws in the claims last year. Taking it seriously is likely to induce an even worse economy.
You know, helping out someone less fortunate is a good thing to do (charity). Being robbed to pay for them to improve their lot is not (taxation/welfare). If I wasn't well aware of the multitude of services available to these people that many of them don't take, I'd be a lot more likely to give cash to people begging on street corners. As it is, we are treated to supposedly sympathetic cases where the individuals clearly didn't have a clue and just want to go have a drink of Hennesy. It's not that these people are doing poorly and we're doing ok that we go on about. It's the fact that you feel justified in punishing our success and rewarding their failure. It's not them, it's you.