If you want to reduce violence, then improving the economy would be a big step in the right direction.
This is a very easy conclusion to draw, but it's not accurate. I'd contend that improving the attitude of the people in an area is one or two steps before improving the economy. No matter how great the economy is, if it's run by people who are scammy and selfish/self-centered, it'll fail. A poor economy won't cause non-violent people to be violent (look at how people of Japanese culture behave during disasters)...however, people being non-violent is one attribute of a culture that will enable (I don't mean cause) an environment for a good economy.
In short, people have to have the attitude of "I'll produce more than I need, not be grumpy about it, not spend more than I take home, and not take someone else's".
You're joking, right? Look up the "21 foot rule" for law enforcement. Knives are more lethal at close range than firearms (believe it or not). Law enforcement personnel are -terrified- of knives.
Also, you are welcome to take whatever chance you like, but know risk before you commit to taking it. I don't know if you have a family/children, but they probably rely on your assessment of risk. Please base your decisions in reality, not your perception of reality.
It's bad because they have access to very intimate information/data (political affiliations, personal habits, associations), any of which can be construed as offensive/contrary to 'being a good citizen' -- and because this idea of 'good' can change over time. Google can share any of that without the person knowing and can have real world effects (law enforcement considering any of it 'suspicious' for example).
Consider this: Originally in the west (up until the 1960's) almost everyone was at least loosely conservative/righty/pro-liberty/anti-communist. Now, the Overton window has shifted so far left that communism/lefty-ideals are the norm and anyone who is openly conservative/righty is considered to be fascist (which is actually incorrect) and can be attacked without consequence to the attacker. Examples/video are everywhere. Imagine that Google knows all and can 'out' someone without their permission -- to law enforcement, but even private companies. It's currently happening -- companies (like banks/payment processors, social media websites) that have a lefty ideology are cancelling and blocking accounts for righty people.
Another example is this: If a health insurance company wants to know who eats 'well' versus 'poorly', it could ask (and get, for a price) Google to provide the names of people who buy junk food, don't exercise, go to the hospital, etc, a lot. The insurance company can line that up with their policy holders and even to new people as they give out quotes. Using their actuaries, they can be more accurate on their risk of 'loss' and thus more competitive than other insurance companies, and thus more profitable.
Worse things can happen. What if Google matches you to someone else's name and you are labelled in a way that you are not. You can be un-personed for something you didn't do.
Ok, so run the conversation in a loop 10 000 times to amplify the delay. You'll be into the millisecond range by then. Wouldn't that be a wide enough tolerance?
> You are asking the key question.
Actually, he's not. The correct question is "why are they pushing 'climate change' as a problem when climate always changes and the biggest driver of climate 'change' is the sun?"
The sun comes up, it gets warm. The sun goes down, it gets cold. It's been like that for a few hundred million years.
No person who has been outside more than once could question that climate changes. It does, every day, every month, every year, every decade, every century, every millennium, every eon. The actual (long) question is how much of an impact do humans have on the long-term average. And the answer is "almost zero". Did you notice how the talking points on TV/the news went from "global warming" to "climate change" over the last 15 years? It's because the science shows that their models are wrong, and that we've had a slight cooling since the 90's. Since it didn't fit with their agenda and models, they had to change the wording. It was very sneaky, but obvious when one pays attention.
Did you know that every generation has had some sort of "extinction level" issue. Once soil erosion ended up being non-existent, they went on to acid rain. That might have been a real problem, but it was solved very quickly with pollution (actual real pollution) controls, then it was the ozone layer (solved very quickly). The problem is that the problems were being solved WAY too quickly. Then came global warming (which didn't exist), so now it's climate change. What's so insidious about the "climate change" agenda is it will never be "solved". It can't. Climate always changes, so even "if we solved anthroprogenic climate change", the climate still changes, so it will then always be "provable" that climate change exists and we need to pay more carbon taxes.
Nope, not mmkay. Cite your source. NO legitimate study has ever said that CO2 is pollution. Politicians say it is so they can monetize it. Politicians and their corporate arms fund "studies" that provide conclusions in-line wiith their agenda...it's fairly obvious when one is a critical thinker.
CO2 is not pollution. You breathe it your whole life with zero side-effects. In fact, you exhale it, and our friends the plants (the earth is covered in them, even after mass deforestation) inhale it and give us back oxygen. Yes indeed, the more CO2 we have the greater plants can grow.
If CO2 was so bad, why aren't we (our political leaders) hostile toward countries who don't have a "Carbon Policy"? Why have our politicians made CO2 their profit centre?
...But services aren't taxed (I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, i'm just stating a fact)...
Clearly, you aren't from Canada. Here, we tax the snot out of everything. Services aren't taxed? HAH! 13%. On everything. Electricity, gasoline, the mechanic's labour. Everything. 13%
1. Do nothing,
2. Ask them to stop again (politely, with or without warning about going to authorities),
3. Ask them to stop again (not politely, with or without warning about going to authorities), and
4. Go straight to the authorities.
My recommendation? Go straight to the authorities. You've been polite, and you do not deserve to suffer as they benefit. Make no mistake, the only reason they are doing AirBNB is to profit. You have every right not to suffer a 'diminished quality of life' (as you, very succinctly I must say, put it) just so they can put an extra, what...$30 a day(?) in their pocket.
Strictly speaking, anyone operating an AirBNB rental is operating a business. They are providing a service/resource to those who are willing to pay. Is an expense to that business paying the people around him to allow him to do so? Maybe (we as a society seem to endorse the idea of a 'money to QoL' ratio). So, my next question is this: is Mr. Ignorant claiming that income on his income tax? I imagine not. That might be more legal leverage you have in this case. (Side note: little do most people know that if you legitimize a business, a huge array of tax incentives start rolling in (proportionally expense your Internet, heating, electricity, computers, vehicle, etc).
Indeed, we do have to deal with the consequences. Which, to date, has been nothing. I have not seen one -actual- piece of evidence that shows CO2 causes the earth to warm. It is -all- conjecture/opinion.
Oh, and you're so afraid of pollution, why aren't you railing against the 4 -very- unclean (due to no regulation) power plants being built in China/Inda every week? No, -WE- have to make our lives turn upside down (bullshit cars, bullshit products, bullshit taxes, bullshit prices) to have a very minimal effect when China/India get to sponsor our carbon neutrality, multiplied by god knows how much.
Do you even know where the money you spend on carbon neutrality goes? I bet you don't even care. I bet you don't even care that "our" industrial society has moved to China.
Pretty much my understanding is that any major study is biased by whomever funds it. Seriously, who is going to fund a multi-hundred thousand dollar study that hurts one's own cause? Who is going to fund a study where there is no (financial/political) interest? Automatic conflict of interest before anyone does anything!
It's hard for me to take statistics seriously when one side of the equation is a dollar sign.
You're not missing anything, the carbon we are releasing right now was liberated before it was sequestered...so...the earth was obviously a bad place then.
How do you know I'm not a dragon?! You insensitive clod!
Ok, well, don't believe everything you see on TV. The dinosaurs roamed when the earth was hospitable. I've never heard of proof that the period of which you speak was caused by liberated carbon dioxide...if I'm wrong, cite your source.
Ok, so 'they' said that an increase in CO2 would equal an increase in global temperature, called global warming (Al Gore's famous and patently false hockey stick diagram). Now that we haven't observed an increase in global temperature (we've seen a cooling), 'they' can't now call it 'global cooling' because that would be painfully obvious that they are a bunch of ass-hats. Instead, they call it climate change. So which is it, does CO2 warm or cool? It's agendized propaganda, plain and simple.
How about before the coal and oil was coal and oil? Where was the carbon then? And how about just before then? Keep in mind, there's no proof that oil is dinosaurs.
Liberated CO2 is not a pollutant, or detrimental to our planet. The god damned SUN is the driver of weather on this planet, not CO2.
I wish people would just stop this bullshit about carbon dioxide induced climate change being something we have to rally against. CO2 is natural, it has existed at much higher quantities, and there's nothing we can do about it. Anyone who thinks that "carbon" is detrimental is a straight up ignorant fool. ALL ANIMALS EXHALE IT ALL DAY LONG. So, -you- are polluting the earth just by living? So is every other animal. Let's go kill every human and animal to save the planet from climate change...which has and will never be proven to be caused by carbon dioxide.
Oh, by the way, as we all learned in grade 4 environmental class: plants consume CO2 and then emit clean oxygen...and they need it to survive, by the way.
Re-wilding elephants and lions in North America...seriously? Oh, and it was anthropogenic climate -change-, too, I suppose. I know, the problem back then was that Al Gore wasn't around yet to pay carbon taxes to (jeezus christ, they didn't even have money yet, that too was a big problem), so, they all died. At least now we can save the planet from...uh...nature.
Someone paid those ass-hats to come up with that? Oh, I think they're going to say we should re-wild the dinosaurs while we're at it...I mean, it was an unnatural event that extincted those guys, too, right?
If they died out because of NATURAL GOD DAMNED CHANGES in the environment, then, they deserve to be extinct on this on this continent.
These scientists, or whomever they are, are like the tooth fairy. If everyone stops believing in them, they'll stop terrorizing the children (even the 40-year-old children).
Why would -any- copy demand a citizen turn off his or her video/audio recording device if they "have nothing to hide"? It's because they don't want their asinine behaviour to be broadcasted on Youtube and entered as evidence in their/your trial. -They- want control of the evidence to ensure your conviction/their exoneration. How many times have we heard "oh, the cameras weren't working" when it benefited law enforcement? Check out the case of this man convicted and sent to jail for recording police. He was convicted by a jury (idiots, that disgusts me), but the judge stated "In our Republic, the actions of public officials taken in their public capacities are not protected from exposure. Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police."
All officials of all branches of all government must be scrutinized at all times. Without scrutiny we most certainly will fall into tyranny (assuming we already haven't).
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine there's a law that says that non-citizens/non-residents aren't supposed to have an account, no?
If you want to reduce violence, then improving the economy would be a big step in the right direction.
This is a very easy conclusion to draw, but it's not accurate. I'd contend that improving the attitude of the people in an area is one or two steps before improving the economy. No matter how great the economy is, if it's run by people who are scammy and selfish/self-centered, it'll fail. A poor economy won't cause non-violent people to be violent (look at how people of Japanese culture behave during disasters)...however, people being non-violent is one attribute of a culture that will enable (I don't mean cause) an environment for a good economy.
In short, people have to have the attitude of "I'll produce more than I need, not be grumpy about it, not spend more than I take home, and not take someone else's".
You're joking, right? Look up the "21 foot rule" for law enforcement. Knives are more lethal at close range than firearms (believe it or not). Law enforcement personnel are -terrified- of knives.
Also, you are welcome to take whatever chance you like, but know risk before you commit to taking it. I don't know if you have a family/children, but they probably rely on your assessment of risk. Please base your decisions in reality, not your perception of reality.
It's bad because they have access to very intimate information/data (political affiliations, personal habits, associations), any of which can be construed as offensive/contrary to 'being a good citizen' -- and because this idea of 'good' can change over time. Google can share any of that without the person knowing and can have real world effects (law enforcement considering any of it 'suspicious' for example).
Consider this: Originally in the west (up until the 1960's) almost everyone was at least loosely conservative/righty/pro-liberty/anti-communist. Now, the Overton window has shifted so far left that communism/lefty-ideals are the norm and anyone who is openly conservative/righty is considered to be fascist (which is actually incorrect) and can be attacked without consequence to the attacker. Examples/video are everywhere. Imagine that Google knows all and can 'out' someone without their permission -- to law enforcement, but even private companies. It's currently happening -- companies (like banks/payment processors, social media websites) that have a lefty ideology are cancelling and blocking accounts for righty people.
Another example is this: If a health insurance company wants to know who eats 'well' versus 'poorly', it could ask (and get, for a price) Google to provide the names of people who buy junk food, don't exercise, go to the hospital, etc, a lot. The insurance company can line that up with their policy holders and even to new people as they give out quotes. Using their actuaries, they can be more accurate on their risk of 'loss' and thus more competitive than other insurance companies, and thus more profitable.
Worse things can happen. What if Google matches you to someone else's name and you are labelled in a way that you are not. You can be un-personed for something you didn't do.
> ...and the technology has yet to be named.
Damn, ace trolling. They knew we couldn't resist.
WhackFact ...brought to you by the Sperm Firm.
SemenDemon
The Jizz Whiz
(I feel like I'm 14 again)
Ok, so run the conversation in a loop 10 000 times to amplify the delay. You'll be into the millisecond range by then. Wouldn't that be a wide enough tolerance?
Very well put. Not sure why you posted as AC, what you said is very insightful.
> You are asking the key question.
Actually, he's not. The correct question is "why are they pushing 'climate change' as a problem when climate always changes and the biggest driver of climate 'change' is the sun?"
The sun comes up, it gets warm. The sun goes down, it gets cold. It's been like that for a few hundred million years.
No person who has been outside more than once could question that climate changes. It does, every day, every month, every year, every decade, every century, every millennium, every eon. The actual (long) question is how much of an impact do humans have on the long-term average. And the answer is "almost zero". Did you notice how the talking points on TV/the news went from "global warming" to "climate change" over the last 15 years? It's because the science shows that their models are wrong, and that we've had a slight cooling since the 90's. Since it didn't fit with their agenda and models, they had to change the wording. It was very sneaky, but obvious when one pays attention.
Did you know that every generation has had some sort of "extinction level" issue. Once soil erosion ended up being non-existent, they went on to acid rain. That might have been a real problem, but it was solved very quickly with pollution (actual real pollution) controls, then it was the ozone layer (solved very quickly). The problem is that the problems were being solved WAY too quickly. Then came global warming (which didn't exist), so now it's climate change. What's so insidious about the "climate change" agenda is it will never be "solved". It can't. Climate always changes, so even "if we solved anthroprogenic climate change", the climate still changes, so it will then always be "provable" that climate change exists and we need to pay more carbon taxes.
I think he and the rest of the "educated" population can easily say that humans (and other living things) exhale CO2. Sorry to be the first to break it to you.
Also, pollution means contamination, not "too much". Sorry to break that to you as well.
And now that I've done my share of Internet correctin', I'm off to bed.
Nope, not mmkay. Cite your source. NO legitimate study has ever said that CO2 is pollution. Politicians say it is so they can monetize it. Politicians and their corporate arms fund "studies" that provide conclusions in-line wiith their agenda...it's fairly obvious when one is a critical thinker.
CO2 is not pollution. You breathe it your whole life with zero side-effects. In fact, you exhale it, and our friends the plants (the earth is covered in them, even after mass deforestation) inhale it and give us back oxygen. Yes indeed, the more CO2 we have the greater plants can grow.
If CO2 was so bad, why aren't we (our political leaders) hostile toward countries who don't have a "Carbon Policy"? Why have our politicians made CO2 their profit centre?
...But services aren't taxed (I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, i'm just stating a fact)...
Clearly, you aren't from Canada. Here, we tax the snot out of everything. Services aren't taxed? HAH! 13%. On everything. Electricity, gasoline, the mechanic's labour. Everything. 13%
Even new houses and used (!) cars.
So you have these options:
1. Do nothing,
2. Ask them to stop again (politely, with or without warning about going to authorities),
3. Ask them to stop again (not politely, with or without warning about going to authorities), and
4. Go straight to the authorities.
My recommendation? Go straight to the authorities. You've been polite, and you do not deserve to suffer as they benefit. Make no mistake, the only reason they are doing AirBNB is to profit. You have every right not to suffer a 'diminished quality of life' (as you, very succinctly I must say, put it) just so they can put an extra, what...$30 a day(?) in their pocket.
Strictly speaking, anyone operating an AirBNB rental is operating a business. They are providing a service/resource to those who are willing to pay. Is an expense to that business paying the people around him to allow him to do so? Maybe (we as a society seem to endorse the idea of a 'money to QoL' ratio). So, my next question is this: is Mr. Ignorant claiming that income on his income tax? I imagine not. That might be more legal leverage you have in this case. (Side note: little do most people know that if you legitimize a business, a huge array of tax incentives start rolling in (proportionally expense your Internet, heating, electricity, computers, vehicle, etc).
I wish you the best of luck in your quest.
Too bad you don't know who 'he' is...
Hah. It's assholes like me that make it so government "scientists" get laughed out of their office when they publish asshole findings. Look up "climategate" and the "scientists" at East Anglia who wrote Email messages back and fourth about "how the hell" they were "going to convince people" that global warming is real.
Indeed, we do have to deal with the consequences. Which, to date, has been nothing. I have not seen one -actual- piece of evidence that shows CO2 causes the earth to warm. It is -all- conjecture/opinion.
Oh, and you're so afraid of pollution, why aren't you railing against the 4 -very- unclean (due to no regulation) power plants being built in China/Inda every week? No, -WE- have to make our lives turn upside down (bullshit cars, bullshit products, bullshit taxes, bullshit prices) to have a very minimal effect when China/India get to sponsor our carbon neutrality, multiplied by god knows how much.
Do you even know where the money you spend on carbon neutrality goes? I bet you don't even care. I bet you don't even care that "our" industrial society has moved to China.
Pretty much my understanding is that any major study is biased by whomever funds it. Seriously, who is going to fund a multi-hundred thousand dollar study that hurts one's own cause? Who is going to fund a study where there is no (financial/political) interest? Automatic conflict of interest before anyone does anything!
It's hard for me to take statistics seriously when one side of the equation is a dollar sign.
You're not missing anything, the carbon we are releasing right now was liberated before it was sequestered...so...the earth was obviously a bad place then.
We'll survive, whatever happens.
How do you know I'm not a dragon?! You insensitive clod!
Ok, well, don't believe everything you see on TV. The dinosaurs roamed when the earth was hospitable. I've never heard of proof that the period of which you speak was caused by liberated carbon dioxide...if I'm wrong, cite your source.
Ok, so what were the carbon deposits before they were deposits? And how about before that?
Ok, so 'they' said that an increase in CO2 would equal an increase in global temperature, called global warming (Al Gore's famous and patently false hockey stick diagram). Now that we haven't observed an increase in global temperature (we've seen a cooling), 'they' can't now call it 'global cooling' because that would be painfully obvious that they are a bunch of ass-hats. Instead, they call it climate change. So which is it, does CO2 warm or cool? It's agendized propaganda, plain and simple.
How about before the coal and oil was coal and oil? Where was the carbon then? And how about just before then? Keep in mind, there's no proof that oil is dinosaurs.
Liberated CO2 is not a pollutant, or detrimental to our planet. The god damned SUN is the driver of weather on this planet, not CO2.
Anonymous Coward, cite your source. Let us vet it.
I wish people would just stop this bullshit about carbon dioxide induced climate change being something we have to rally against. CO2 is natural, it has existed at much higher quantities, and there's nothing we can do about it. Anyone who thinks that "carbon" is detrimental is a straight up ignorant fool. ALL ANIMALS EXHALE IT ALL DAY LONG. So, -you- are polluting the earth just by living? So is every other animal. Let's go kill every human and animal to save the planet from climate change...which has and will never be proven to be caused by carbon dioxide.
Oh, by the way, as we all learned in grade 4 environmental class: plants consume CO2 and then emit clean oxygen...and they need it to survive, by the way.
Re-wilding elephants and lions in North America...seriously? Oh, and it was anthropogenic climate -change-, too, I suppose. I know, the problem back then was that Al Gore wasn't around yet to pay carbon taxes to (jeezus christ, they didn't even have money yet, that too was a big problem), so, they all died. At least now we can save the planet from...uh...nature.
Someone paid those ass-hats to come up with that? Oh, I think they're going to say we should re-wild the dinosaurs while we're at it...I mean, it was an unnatural event that extincted those guys, too, right?
If they died out because of NATURAL GOD DAMNED CHANGES in the environment, then, they deserve to be extinct on this on this continent.
These scientists, or whomever they are, are like the tooth fairy. If everyone stops believing in them, they'll stop terrorizing the children (even the 40-year-old children).
Why would -any- copy demand a citizen turn off his or her video/audio recording device if they "have nothing to hide"? It's because they don't want their asinine behaviour to be broadcasted on Youtube and entered as evidence in their/your trial. -They- want control of the evidence to ensure your conviction/their exoneration. How many times have we heard "oh, the cameras weren't working" when it benefited law enforcement?
Check out the case of this man convicted and sent to jail for recording police. He was convicted by a jury (idiots, that disgusts me), but the judge stated "In our Republic, the actions of public officials taken in their public capacities are not protected from exposure. Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police."
All officials of all branches of all government must be scrutinized at all times. Without scrutiny we most certainly will fall into tyranny (assuming we already haven't).