The state is obliged to set up a court system and put a set of rules in place for the courts to work. Courts are not a Thunderdome, where two men enter and one man leaves. So even disputes between two people, where they cannot resolve the dispute outside of court, will necessarily become the concern of the State, since at least one of those people in the dispute has decided the State must become an actor.
For chrissakes, adjudication is probably one of the oldest roles of governance.
It's hard to justify the claim that publicly outing someone's sexuality or making a private sex tape available is an example of press freedom. There's no solid lemon test here, unfortunately, but certainly courts, when confronted with press freedom versus rights to privacy, there's a "public good" question that has to be asked. What good was served by releasing the Hulk Hogan video?
Oh for fucks sakes, the actual analysis hasn't even been published yet. It's always considered bad form to attack researchers based on your yet unpublished work.
Except he's not being open about the way he analyzed the data, whereas NASA has been, and is also able to demonstrate that other data sets confirm their work.
Which doesn't mean his analysis is correct. As it is no one has actually seen the full analysis, and what's more NASA has confirmation from other data sources which thus far he has not actually been able to explain away.
Getting rich requires a certain skillset. There's little or no evidence that that skill set transfers over to other areas, like governance, or science for that matter. This glorification of the rich man as some sort of Nietzschean superman is absurd.
We're not talking 500 years from now. We're talking in the next half century to 75 years.
You can keep trying to make believe this isn't a problem now, but it is. I realize you just want to throw anything in the air to get out of admitting the issue, but by the end of your post, you're just being a fucking idiot. It's like debating a five year old.
Which is little more than a recipe for fucking over future generations. Maybe you don't give a rats ass about your children and grandchildren, but I happen to care about mine, and I think, considering we are the dominant species on this planet, that we have a duty to be good stewards, and not just keeping doing bad things out of expediency.
Beyond that, it's already beginning to fuck up a lot of people, and it's only going to get worse.
The point of the pseudo-skepticism is put off that day as long as possible. There are great fortunes founded on fossil fuels, and those that have those fortunes want to maximize profits. Of course, they have a lot of witless mindless soldiers who they've convinced that climatology is really a communist fantasy, and those brainless idiots run around the intertubes with oft-repeated memes and a near total ignorance of the actual science (though some of these people are a little more capable and thus have rehearsed a somewhat more complex version of the pseudo-scientific drivel).
But make no mistake, when Saudi Arabia is creating the largest sovereign wealth fund in history, it's not because it sees a bright future for oil.
No, they're claiming that the well known and verified properties of CO2 will inevitably lead to heating of the lower atmosphere and surface of the planet, because, you know, they don't believe there's a magic heat sink that just makes all that trapped solar radiation go away.
The general consensus seems to be that Microsoft has not actually broken even on the Xbox division, and is unlikely to anytime soon. There are still people out there who actually wonder why MS even went into the business of game consoles at all, the general theory being that they could use it as another route to prop up that other great long-term failure; the Microsoft online portal. That's probably even eaten more money than Xbox, and they've ended up with Bing.
The big question at this point, given that Microsoft has yet to make a mobile platform that sufficient numbers of people are interested in to justify its existence, is will anyone give a crap when Windows 10 mobile is released?
Exactly. It's what killed Blackberry, and it will take down MS. I know Redmond is trying to push its cross-platform solutions, but I doubt anyone is going to care. Android and iOS so thoroughly dominate the market that the most MS might see from it is extra development tool sales. Why bother even compiling your app for Windows when the likelihood of a sale is so low that it probably won't justify the testing that needs to be done when porting.
I saw a similar phenomenon in the mid-90s as IBM desperately tried to keep OS/2 afloat as Windows 95 and the 32 bit Windows API gained ground. They developed a series of tools to ease porting of 32 bit Windows apps to OS/2, and despite the fact that there were still considerable similarities between the two APIs, few ever actually took advantage, and OS/2 ended its days on some embedded hardware.
It seems like a lot, but is it really? Considering the costs of developing these devices, and the amount of work Microsoft has put into developing yet another iteration of its seemingly endless family of mobile operating systems, it strikes me that shipping just a fraction of the number of phones your competitors can manage, to the point that it's likely Microsoft's "Android tax" probably generates more revenue, is not sustainable.
Blackberry is literally going down the tubes, and for of that time in its collapse in market share, it was selling somewhere in the same range Microsoft is (BB has now dropped down to something like 600,000 units per quarter, which is basically extinction level sales).
Since the trend for Windows phones is downward, even if they're making money right now, even the medium term outlook looks poor. Considering the amount of marketing that was done, if they couldn't even make a dent in the Android-iOS hegemony, then it raises the question as to why continue supporting the mobile platform at all. Surely at 2 million units per quarter the penetration is too low to make Microsoft's own software ecosystem viable, and really, that's the whole point of any mobile device nowadays.
Even MS seems to realize this, and is targeting more of its development at the major mobile platforms. I suspect within a year or two it will arrive at the same place Blackberry is, conceding that its hardware platform is finished, and likely move to push more of its software on to the dominant mobile platforms.
Slashdot Mirror
The state is obliged to set up a court system and put a set of rules in place for the courts to work. Courts are not a Thunderdome, where two men enter and one man leaves. So even disputes between two people, where they cannot resolve the dispute outside of court, will necessarily become the concern of the State, since at least one of those people in the dispute has decided the State must become an actor.
For chrissakes, adjudication is probably one of the oldest roles of governance.
It's hard to justify the claim that publicly outing someone's sexuality or making a private sex tape available is an example of press freedom. There's no solid lemon test here, unfortunately, but certainly courts, when confronted with press freedom versus rights to privacy, there's a "public good" question that has to be asked. What good was served by releasing the Hulk Hogan video?
It's actually worse than bad form. It's often one of the strongest "kook" signals.
Oh for fucks sakes, the actual analysis hasn't even been published yet. It's always considered bad form to attack researchers based on your yet unpublished work.
Except he's not being open about the way he analyzed the data, whereas NASA has been, and is also able to demonstrate that other data sets confirm their work.
Which doesn't mean his analysis is correct. As it is no one has actually seen the full analysis, and what's more NASA has confirmation from other data sources which thus far he has not actually been able to explain away.
Getting rich requires a certain skillset. There's little or no evidence that that skill set transfers over to other areas, like governance, or science for that matter. This glorification of the rich man as some sort of Nietzschean superman is absurd.
I think we need to call them sociopaths.
We're not talking 500 years from now. We're talking in the next half century to 75 years.
You can keep trying to make believe this isn't a problem now, but it is. I realize you just want to throw anything in the air to get out of admitting the issue, but by the end of your post, you're just being a fucking idiot. It's like debating a five year old.
Political clusterfucks are eternal. Every single generation sees politics in that fashion.
No, AGW is the far far greater crisis.
Which is little more than a recipe for fucking over future generations. Maybe you don't give a rats ass about your children and grandchildren, but I happen to care about mine, and I think, considering we are the dominant species on this planet, that we have a duty to be good stewards, and not just keeping doing bad things out of expediency.
Beyond that, it's already beginning to fuck up a lot of people, and it's only going to get worse.
Okay, fine, I didn't mean to leave you Libertarians out, so I'll rephrase:
It has to be wrong, because the Invisible Hand wouldn't let the wonderful substances known as oil and coal be harmful.
The point of the pseudo-skepticism is put off that day as long as possible. There are great fortunes founded on fossil fuels, and those that have those fortunes want to maximize profits. Of course, they have a lot of witless mindless soldiers who they've convinced that climatology is really a communist fantasy, and those brainless idiots run around the intertubes with oft-repeated memes and a near total ignorance of the actual science (though some of these people are a little more capable and thus have rehearsed a somewhat more complex version of the pseudo-scientific drivel).
But make no mistake, when Saudi Arabia is creating the largest sovereign wealth fund in history, it's not because it sees a bright future for oil.
It has to be wrong, because Jesus wouldn't let the wonderful substances known as oil and coal be harmful.
No, they're claiming that the well known and verified properties of CO2 will inevitably lead to heating of the lower atmosphere and surface of the planet, because, you know, they don't believe there's a magic heat sink that just makes all that trapped solar radiation go away.
So by the time this is done, it will have about the same transfer rate as a USB2 flash drive.
And yet here you are...
Look, asshole, I happen to know someone who made the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs, so don't getting all unit-Nazi around here!
Sort of like how Slashdot now pushes "celebrity news" and super sciency de=fluoridization products on its main page.
The general consensus seems to be that Microsoft has not actually broken even on the Xbox division, and is unlikely to anytime soon. There are still people out there who actually wonder why MS even went into the business of game consoles at all, the general theory being that they could use it as another route to prop up that other great long-term failure; the Microsoft online portal. That's probably even eaten more money than Xbox, and they've ended up with Bing.
Are you even vaguely aware of the history of Microsoft's mobile platforms. It's been one abandoned platform after another.
The big question at this point, given that Microsoft has yet to make a mobile platform that sufficient numbers of people are interested in to justify its existence, is will anyone give a crap when Windows 10 mobile is released?
Exactly. It's what killed Blackberry, and it will take down MS. I know Redmond is trying to push its cross-platform solutions, but I doubt anyone is going to care. Android and iOS so thoroughly dominate the market that the most MS might see from it is extra development tool sales. Why bother even compiling your app for Windows when the likelihood of a sale is so low that it probably won't justify the testing that needs to be done when porting.
I saw a similar phenomenon in the mid-90s as IBM desperately tried to keep OS/2 afloat as Windows 95 and the 32 bit Windows API gained ground. They developed a series of tools to ease porting of 32 bit Windows apps to OS/2, and despite the fact that there were still considerable similarities between the two APIs, few ever actually took advantage, and OS/2 ended its days on some embedded hardware.
It seems like a lot, but is it really? Considering the costs of developing these devices, and the amount of work Microsoft has put into developing yet another iteration of its seemingly endless family of mobile operating systems, it strikes me that shipping just a fraction of the number of phones your competitors can manage, to the point that it's likely Microsoft's "Android tax" probably generates more revenue, is not sustainable.
Blackberry is literally going down the tubes, and for of that time in its collapse in market share, it was selling somewhere in the same range Microsoft is (BB has now dropped down to something like 600,000 units per quarter, which is basically extinction level sales).
Since the trend for Windows phones is downward, even if they're making money right now, even the medium term outlook looks poor. Considering the amount of marketing that was done, if they couldn't even make a dent in the Android-iOS hegemony, then it raises the question as to why continue supporting the mobile platform at all. Surely at 2 million units per quarter the penetration is too low to make Microsoft's own software ecosystem viable, and really, that's the whole point of any mobile device nowadays.
Even MS seems to realize this, and is targeting more of its development at the major mobile platforms. I suspect within a year or two it will arrive at the same place Blackberry is, conceding that its hardware platform is finished, and likely move to push more of its software on to the dominant mobile platforms.
And not to mention that VBA still appears in a lot of places, so I imagine the libraries are at least in some level of maintenance.