The march of technology is almost solely reliant on greed.
Yeah, like those money-grubbing OSS developers...
Actually, I think you're not wrong, but you're misusing the word "greed." Greedy doesn't mean "wants to make money," it means "wants to make money at the expense of any other considerations, and to hell with everyone else." That doesn't foster innovation or even success.
What motive would anyone have for trying to convert you to a false belief in climate change? Is there some massive influential industry that would profit from reduced CO2 emissions? Are weathermen trying to sell you something? What happens if we follow their advice and they turn out to be wrong?
Now try this:
What motive would anyone have for trying to convince you that climate change is false, or not a problem? Is there some massive influential industry that would see its profits hurt by effort to reduce CO2 emissions? Are oilmen trying to sell you something? What happens if we follow their advice and they turn out to be wrong?
You say you've "done your own investigation," but unless you're a climatologist yourself any investigation you're realistically capable of is limited in scope. You say you've read all the evidence, but I'm pretty sure you haven't, unless that's all you've been doing for most of your adult life. The degree of scientific knowledge the human race has achieved outstripped the capacity of any one individual to completely understand long ago. Yes, this is an Appeal to Authority, but this is the real world here, not an afterschool debate team. We appeal to authority all the time. Every time you get on a plane, you trust that the engineers and pilots and mechanics and air traffic controllers all know what they're doing. You can't personally check every aspect of their work. You trust surgeons to operate on you. You trust structural engineers to build bridges and buildings. You trust physicists to, I don't know, not destroy the fabric of space-time. (Why aren't you a physics skeptic? They can't even show you a sample of the dark matter that they claim a quarter of the universe is made of!) Now, maybe one of those fields does happen to be your area of expertise, but unless your name is Buckaroo Banzai it's just one. This trust occurs even among scientists -- but it's not blind faith, it's confidence in the problem-solving and self-correcting capacities of the scientific method. What do you suppose the purpose of peer review is?
It's unfortunate, but nobody has time to learn everything. If 95% of the scientists who devote their lives to studying a particular complex discipline come to agree with each other, sure, there's a chance they're all wrong, but there's a much greater chance that they're right. And if they're wrong, at least we'll have erred on the side of caution. It's a hell of a lot harder to take stuff out of the atmosphere than to put stuff into it.
It's part and parcel of "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers," one of said Powers being "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
"Necessary" and "proper" are of course open to debate, but you fail Civics if you think this isn't under Congress' Constitutional purview.
RTFA. Soundexchange is a nonprofit authorized by 17 USC 114 (g) (3) to collect royalties on behalf of sound recording copyright owners, on an opt-out basis. With that privilege come certain restrictions on how it may spend the royalties it collects. Hiring lobbying firms and PR flacks is not on the list of approved expenditures. This is no more a First Amendment violation than a Department of Defense contractor NDA is.
"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
And he was talking about the Depression, not the prospect of war.
A lot of the comments there throw around the word "hypocrisy" just like you did, but as the man said, "You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means." Hypocrisy means promoting one course of action while practicing its opposite. Now, it's possible Matt Damon drives a Hummer fueled with the blood of Christian babies, I really have no idea. But lacking any supporting evidence, the charge of hypocrisy is utterly unfounded.
Furthermore, what obligates one to silence one's voice just because people are listening? There are millions of blowhard assholes loudly voicing their uninformed opinions in roadhouse bars every night of the week, and no one ever tells them their point of view is invalid due to their lack of academic or professional credentials. But every time Sean Penn opens his mouth it's all "You're just an actor, what do you know?" Those same critics would never say "You're just a steelworker, what do you know?" Ironically, this is the very Harrison-Bergeron-esque promotion of mediocrity that said critics fervently believe themselves to be in opposition to.
P.S. I think Lewis Black is hilarious, even when he's off-base.
Why is pushing a turbine necessarily less efficient than pushing around a bunch of atmospheric air doing nothing in particular? I get that TANSTAAFL, but this seems more akin to cogeneration -- harnessing what would otherwise be waste energy to do something useful. Even automotive ICEs have had a mechanism to bleed waste heat into the passenger compartment in cold weather almost since their inception. Obviously I'm no physicist, but I don't get why this scheme has to increase drag on the vehicles, provided the inertia of the turbines isn't significantly greater than the inertia of the mass of the atmosphere. Once you overcome the static friction of getting the turbine going, that is.
You don't want computer programs written by someone who hasn't studied and practiced programming, so why would you want laws written by someone who hasn't studied and practiced law? There's more to politics than kissing babies, making speeches, and playing golf with lobbyists.
P.S.: "Union leaders"? I take it you're not talking about the United States.
Who are you to define what "should" motivate people as human beings? Money IS the defined system of value - and there is no other measurable or accurate system of value.
Accurate? Using that standard, Donald Trump and Vince McMahon are more valuable to humanity than Mahatma Gandhi and Albert Einstein. Just because other metrics of value aren't as easily quantifiable doesn't mean they're invalid. How much money did you pay to fall in love? How much money would you betray your country for? How much to give up your child?
Listen, when YOU have a job that involves risking your life on a regular basis, THEN you can comment.
Ah, the old "you can't complain about the food unless you're a chef" chestnut. Pay attention, idiot: When it's my money paying for the food, or when I have to wait two hours for it while it gets cold because some jerkoff like you thinks it might be a bomb, I have every right to comment.
when the police get a possible bomb called in, they have to take it seriously
Absolutely. And "taking it seriously" means evaluating the possibility that the thing even is a bomb before evacuating the populace. Otherwise the city can be paralyzed by anyone able to make a phone call -- "Hello, 911? There's a suspicious looking beercan in the gutter, I think it's a bomb!"
why don't you outline what changes should be made to bomb-squad policy in order to avoid these incidents in the future?
Ooh, I'll take a crack at that one. How about emulating the bomb squad policy of EVERY OTHER CITY these "infernal devices" were placed in?
New sound "card" for Mac mini? Yes: http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/firewave /
New TV tuners for Mac mini? Yes: http://www.elgato.com/
Additional USB ports for Mac mini? Yes: Any one of a thousand USB hubs on the market.
Okay, the graphics are not upgradeable, but please show me the PC video card that will fit in your "equivalent" PC with the MIni's form factor.
What the fuck are you talking about? Where do you get the idea that morality can only be the product of a fearmongering religion? Morality is simply optimal game theory strategies codified down for all the people who can't figure those strategies out for themselves. The disincentives for amorality are concrete enough without having to invoke some afterlife punishment.
You also seem to be conflating "rational" with "economic," as if anything not in one's best economic interests is by definition irrational. That is an incorrect idea.
It would be better for the environment to own one big Truck/SUV. Than it would be to own a smaller truck, and a electric car.
IE it is currently cheaper (thus more resource conservative) and better for the global environment... to drive your truck to work every day, than to leave it sit, and have a second electric car just for commuting.
What resources does a vehicle use when it's sitting in a garage with the engine off? Or are you just talking about the resources used to build the thing, in which case where are your numbers? Is the production cost of a small electric car greater than the savings vs. a big truck over its lifetime? Of course the answer will be different depending on how often the truck is needed, but there's a break-even point somewhere on that graph.
As an aside, in my city there are at least two "car-share" programs for people who have occasional need of a car but not often enough to warrant buying their own and not infrequently enough for normal car rental to make economic sense. The idea is that you pay a monthly membership fee for access to a fleet of vehicles kept parked in certain lots all over the city, then a small amount per hour/mile travelled. (from citycarshare.org: $10/mo + $4/hr + 44/mi) This model would make sense with trucks for suburban people who need to sometimes haul stuff. Everyone gets access to a truck when they need it, and there are far fewer empty trucks on the road.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, like those money-grubbing OSS developers...
Actually, I think you're not wrong, but you're misusing the word "greed." Greedy doesn't mean "wants to make money," it means "wants to make money at the expense of any other considerations, and to hell with everyone else." That doesn't foster innovation or even success.
No, but after going through childbirth her father probably should be.
The one L lama, he's a priest
The two L llama, that's a beast
And I will bet a silk pyjama
There isn't any three L lllama
Now try this:
What motive would anyone have for trying to convince you that climate change is false, or not a problem? Is there some massive influential industry that would see its profits hurt by effort to reduce CO2 emissions? Are oilmen trying to sell you something? What happens if we follow their advice and they turn out to be wrong?
You say you've "done your own investigation," but unless you're a climatologist yourself any investigation you're realistically capable of is limited in scope. You say you've read all the evidence, but I'm pretty sure you haven't, unless that's all you've been doing for most of your adult life. The degree of scientific knowledge the human race has achieved outstripped the capacity of any one individual to completely understand long ago. Yes, this is an Appeal to Authority, but this is the real world here, not an afterschool debate team. We appeal to authority all the time. Every time you get on a plane, you trust that the engineers and pilots and mechanics and air traffic controllers all know what they're doing. You can't personally check every aspect of their work. You trust surgeons to operate on you. You trust structural engineers to build bridges and buildings. You trust physicists to, I don't know, not destroy the fabric of space-time. (Why aren't you a physics skeptic? They can't even show you a sample of the dark matter that they claim a quarter of the universe is made of!) Now, maybe one of those fields does happen to be your area of expertise, but unless your name is Buckaroo Banzai it's just one. This trust occurs even among scientists -- but it's not blind faith, it's confidence in the problem-solving and self-correcting capacities of the scientific method. What do you suppose the purpose of peer review is?
It's unfortunate, but nobody has time to learn everything. If 95% of the scientists who devote their lives to studying a particular complex discipline come to agree with each other, sure, there's a chance they're all wrong, but there's a much greater chance that they're right. And if they're wrong, at least we'll have erred on the side of caution. It's a hell of a lot harder to take stuff out of the atmosphere than to put stuff into it.
"Necessary" and "proper" are of course open to debate, but you fail Civics if you think this isn't under Congress' Constitutional purview.
RTFA. Soundexchange is a nonprofit authorized by 17 USC 114 (g) (3) to collect royalties on behalf of sound recording copyright owners, on an opt-out basis. With that privilege come certain restrictions on how it may spend the royalties it collects. Hiring lobbying firms and PR flacks is not on the list of approved expenditures. This is no more a First Amendment violation than a Department of Defense contractor NDA is.
I think you misspelled "Berzerk."
It was 1933, in FDR's first inaugural address.
"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
And he was talking about the Depression, not the prospect of war.
Laugh away.
A real-time version of Civilization would take a really long time to play.
No, it's "all legal," not "all good." Significant distinction.
Except, for , y'know, DRIVING THEM AROUND.
Idiot.
Furthermore, what obligates one to silence one's voice just because people are listening? There are millions of blowhard assholes loudly voicing their uninformed opinions in roadhouse bars every night of the week, and no one ever tells them their point of view is invalid due to their lack of academic or professional credentials. But every time Sean Penn opens his mouth it's all "You're just an actor, what do you know?" Those same critics would never say "You're just a steelworker, what do you know?" Ironically, this is the very Harrison-Bergeron-esque promotion of mediocrity that said critics fervently believe themselves to be in opposition to.
P.S. I think Lewis Black is hilarious, even when he's off-base.
Why is pushing a turbine necessarily less efficient than pushing around a bunch of atmospheric air doing nothing in particular? I get that TANSTAAFL, but this seems more akin to cogeneration -- harnessing what would otherwise be waste energy to do something useful. Even automotive ICEs have had a mechanism to bleed waste heat into the passenger compartment in cold weather almost since their inception. Obviously I'm no physicist, but I don't get why this scheme has to increase drag on the vehicles, provided the inertia of the turbines isn't significantly greater than the inertia of the mass of the atmosphere. Once you overcome the static friction of getting the turbine going, that is.
P.S.: "Union leaders"? I take it you're not talking about the United States.
Accurate? Using that standard, Donald Trump and Vince McMahon are more valuable to humanity than Mahatma Gandhi and Albert Einstein. Just because other metrics of value aren't as easily quantifiable doesn't mean they're invalid. How much money did you pay to fall in love? How much money would you betray your country for? How much to give up your child?
Yeah, me neither. You're not very good at it.
Listen, when YOU have a job that involves risking your life on a regular basis, THEN you can comment.
Ah, the old "you can't complain about the food unless you're a chef" chestnut. Pay attention, idiot: When it's my money paying for the food, or when I have to wait two hours for it while it gets cold because some jerkoff like you thinks it might be a bomb, I have every right to comment.
Absolutely. And "taking it seriously" means evaluating the possibility that the thing even is a bomb before evacuating the populace. Otherwise the city can be paralyzed by anyone able to make a phone call -- "Hello, 911? There's a suspicious looking beercan in the gutter, I think it's a bomb!"
why don't you outline what changes should be made to bomb-squad policy in order to avoid these incidents in the future?
Ooh, I'll take a crack at that one. How about emulating the bomb squad policy of EVERY OTHER CITY these "infernal devices" were placed in?
New sound "card" for Mac mini? Yes: http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/firewave /
New TV tuners for Mac mini? Yes: http://www.elgato.com/
Additional USB ports for Mac mini? Yes: Any one of a thousand USB hubs on the market.
Okay, the graphics are not upgradeable, but please show me the PC video card that will fit in your "equivalent" PC with the MIni's form factor.
What the fuck are you talking about? Where do you get the idea that morality can only be the product of a fearmongering religion? Morality is simply optimal game theory strategies codified down for all the people who can't figure those strategies out for themselves. The disincentives for amorality are concrete enough without having to invoke some afterlife punishment. You also seem to be conflating "rational" with "economic," as if anything not in one's best economic interests is by definition irrational. That is an incorrect idea.
Yeah, obviously, because there's no way for a binary to check what processor features are available. Oh, wait...
Bonjour/Zeroconf/mDNS already provides this, albeit with .local rather than .here
More than in the cab of an F-150.
What resources does a vehicle use when it's sitting in a garage with the engine off? Or are you just talking about the resources used to build the thing, in which case where are your numbers? Is the production cost of a small electric car greater than the savings vs. a big truck over its lifetime? Of course the answer will be different depending on how often the truck is needed, but there's a break-even point somewhere on that graph.
As an aside, in my city there are at least two "car-share" programs for people who have occasional need of a car but not often enough to warrant buying their own and not infrequently enough for normal car rental to make economic sense. The idea is that you pay a monthly membership fee for access to a fleet of vehicles kept parked in certain lots all over the city, then a small amount per hour/mile travelled. (from citycarshare.org: $10/mo + $4/hr + 44/mi) This model would make sense with trucks for suburban people who need to sometimes haul stuff. Everyone gets access to a truck when they need it, and there are far fewer empty trucks on the road.
"Morally corrupt" is not a name.