People who claim we can't influence climate should be locked up in a garage with a running engine.
I certainly hope you're being faecetious with you sig there. And making that assumption, I'm not implicating you in my statement here, but those that do sincerely hold that position. The nature of that statement is a political one and nothing to do with science or the scientific method. The scientific method is completely based on skepticism, while much of the discussion on this particular subject has been about the squelching of skepticism. Anyone that advocates the ostracism, demonization and silencing of those that have drawn a contradictory conclusion to theirs in the realm of science is not practicing true science.
Science is based upon hypothesis and the testing of those hypothesis to validate them. Unfortunately, this field has been hijacked by politics (as can be clearly seen by the fact that Al Gore, a politician, is at the head of the discussion). Science is being thrown out the window to drive a political agenda. Skeptics, what we used to call other scientists that objectively tested and confirmed or invalidated each other's hypothesis, experiments and conclusions, are treated as heretics in the same way as Galileo was by the Catholic church because he dared to challenge the "consensus" that the Earth was at the center of the universe.
What goes missing here is the fact that much of the "consensus" is not consensus. There is pretty much consensus that the planet has been warming. Anyone that disputes that is ignoring the obvious. But, that's where the consensus ends.
Gore and the politicos have hijacked the "consensus" and claim that the consensus is the temperature will rise 10C in the next 50 years, sea levels are going to rise 50 feet and natural disasters will abound from an out of control weather system. There is absolutely no consensus on that prediction. There is not even a majority of real scientists that hold that position.
Also, the whole CO2 driving the temperature increase is not being challenged near enough. Looking at the data, it's clear to see that CO2 increase follows, not leads, an increase in temperature. If there is causation (thus far only some correlation has been established), then the rise in CO2 is caused by the increase in temperature, not the other way around. Even John Houghton, who was co-chair of the IPCC and is a supporter of the idea of antropogenic global warming, admits "Carbon dioxide content and temperature correlate so closely during the last ice age is not evidence of carbon dioxide driving the temperature but rather the other way round... I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide."
For those that support the CO2 driving the increase, I've yet to see how the climate models explain how the temperature 450 million years ago was colder than it has ever been in the last half billion years, but the CO2 levels were 10 times what we have today. And for those arguing that human activity is driving the increase, why does the rate of increase vary so greatly (particularly looking at the significant decrease in rate during 1991-1993) despite the consistent growth of human CO2 producing activities. The rate should be consistently increasing if human activity were the main driver, but it hasn't been.
I'm not arguing that humanity has no impact on the climate. And, I'm not even really arguing that we are a significant impact. However, it seems that deforestation along with ever expanding cities with concrete and asphalt that absorb and radiate heat make an even better explanation than CO2, which the data suggest follows temperature rather than temperature following the CO2 increase.
When I setup my first home LAN back in the early 90's, I used the 7 deadly sins as the server names. Sloth was given to my old 286 box and wrath was the name of my blazing fast 40Mhz 486 with it's whopping 32MB of RAM.:)
There's never going to be an energy source that will be environmentally friendly enough for the people that think nuclear is too dirty now. Should coal and nuclear be replaced with solar, wind and/or wave generation, these same people will begin complaining about the negative effects of removing energy from the environment with those methods, wildlife being killed in wind/wave farms or whatever other impact can be identified.
The fact will always remain that life, regardless of humanity or other life, impacts its environment. If we want to have zero impact for our energy needs, we have to get to zero energy need. The only way to have that is for the entire of humanity to become extinct.
Of course, that won't stop other species from also becoming extinct. It also won't stop the climate from changing. That's all been going on before us and will be long after we're gone.
If it keeps you feeling morally superior, though, keep fighting the fight. We, our planet, our solar system and our little galaxy are pretty insignificant in the whole grand scheme of things. There's nothing to save. It's all going to be destroyed anyway. You're not even going to be able to delay the inevitable.
The way you talk about your employees gets me thinking about slavery.
Huh? I see nothing in the GP that suggests anything of slavery. If someone freely enters into an agreement to sell their services for an agreed upon price, how is that slavery? You might as well have called him a Nazi while you were at it.
The problem that we have is that people want to apply negative labels to everything they disagree with regardless of the fact of whether they even remotely fit or not. It's a sure sign of a weak argument and someone that's more interested in winning the discussion than actually proposing a realistic solution.
That is absolutely lying! We're talking about natural language communication here, not a programming language. Words and phrases have meaning that are not necessarily the sum of their individual parts, there is context involved that guides the necessary interpretation of both sides.
Maybe. It all depends on what the meaning of is is.
There's a lot there to discuss, but I'll just hit the high points...
I don't start my kids education nor do I drive it. They are completely self-driven. They decide when they want to start learning their ABC's, which is what they all have started to do at that age. As for the oldest that hit 7th grade at age 9, since she was about 5, we haven't done anything but grade her papers. She reads the lesson plans from the teacher books and then does the reading and other assignments. Then we give her the test. She has completely paced herself, as all of them have. That's something that "traditional" education would have not afforded them. Simply because of their age, they would be essentially confined to their peer groups.
The Catholic question is usually asked because of the number of children... usually nothing to do with the homeschool thing...
As for breadth of curriculum, you're not exactly talking about "traditional" school in your arguments there. The nice thing about homeschooling is that life is turned into a classroom. Vacations, sports, shopping, whatever is used to teach and expand. Breadth is certainly not an issue in our program.
As for the argument that students aren't forced into a grade, your experience might have been different, but essentially the system is setup that way. It might change a bit in high school, but with respect to things leading up to that point, it's about the grade level. And, sure, some kids get to "skip" grades. I was one of those kids. It actually helped me socially, though plenty of people like to make that argument against it. It's easy to do that if you didn't actually do it.
As for the smart kid's being bullied, I wasn't one of those. I saw plenty that were though. I was lucky to have an equally high EQ to go with the IQ. In fact, most people didn't realize that I was that smart at all in high school. They just saw me as another prankster party boy. I also played sports and did well at that as well as with the girls. Everyone was shocked when SAT time came around and I was just a few points shy of perfect on the math. Of course, a youngster like yourself wouldn't know about the real SAT, though. They dumbed it down before you got to it. lol
As far as my kids go, they're extremely athletic. They play a number of different musical instruments amongst them along with numerous other hobbies within the group. I suppose that my broad mindedness has influenced them. They're far from the stereotypical book worms or homeschoolers. But, you make an extremely valid point, most parents puff up their kids in dialogue. So, it's best to take it all with a grain of salt... especially the ones with the bumper stickers that say "My child is an honor student at X government school."
And, as far the kids being more used to socializing with adults than kids, that's a somewhat bogus statement to make when you're talking about 5 kids homeschooling in a house with 1 parent at home. And, their sports teams are practicing or having games 2-3 times each week. They stay over at friends or have friends over weekly. They have PLENTY of exposure to other kids.
When it comes to promoting "traditional" education over homeschooling, it actually annoys me that the biggest argument people can seem to make is socialization. I never hear an argument that says the kid gets a better education in a "traditional" environment. It seems like people think that school is really just a place to hang out, not GET AN EDUCATION. That's exactly what our homeschooling is for... to teach the kids the knowledge and skills (most important of which is how to learn, which is our ENTIRE focus) to succeed in life. Socialization happens just fine... IN AN APPROPRIATELY SOCIAL CONTEXT.
But, hey... it's not like government education is going away. It'll be around for the conceivable future. And, I'm truly grateful that it will be. My kids are going to need someone to take off their garbage and mow their lawns.
The lack of standardized curriculum is a sticking point. Beyond a doubt, traditional education offers opportunities which are nigh-impossible to get while home schooled (extracurricular, Johns Hopkins Math Program, et al), while home schooling provides a chance to tailor to individual students. Whether or not that is a good thing is up for debate, I guess. Certainly what I'm doing for a living now is not what I thought I'd want to do when I was younger.
What is certain (other than "for certain" being a grammatically incorrect construct) is that you get out of education what you put into it. It's also certain that a far higher proportion of home-schooled students are taught in religiously-charged environments which are hardly free from bias. There's a reason why home-schooled children, while often doing well at spelling bees (though it's hard to tell whether this is because those are skills autistic people -- who may have trouble with traditional education -- excel at), home-schooled children don't exactly dominate science competitions. "High-potential" students will excel no matter what situation they're thrown into, but the majority of people are average. Total range of vocabulary is pretty much the same between the two (journals of cognitive development and speech pathology cover this every few years), and having an "adult's capacity" for vocabulary (where I suspect you meant that home-schooled children tend to use allegories, metaphors, and figures of speech more prevalent in the adult population) isn't necessarily something to trumpet. Your phonotactic repetition is not representative of vocabulary size, and simply indicates that you (as collective home-schoolers) spent more time with adults than with peers in your age group.
Slashdot isn't the best place to debate the relative merits of schooling systems, but you'll find that reality is a lot more nuanced than the picture you have of it right now as you get older.
I'm a parent of 5. Of which, the oldest 4 (10, 8.75, 5, 3) are currently homeschooling and the 5th will start by the time he is 3. So, obviously I believe in homeschooling.
However, I do believe that most of your criticisms of the practice are valid. The key point I agree with is the religious approach. Those are a significant majority of homeschooling families. And, because of that, the image that many people have of homeschooling is one tied to religious dogma. Despite the fact that my wife and I have 5 kids, we are not Catholic (as is a common question we get) nor are we of any particular religious affiliation that forces us to deny scholarly wisdom.
You discuss the issue of a standardized curriculum, which I actually believe is a great argument against "traditional" education. The fact is that students are people and entirely individual. The "traditional" system is fine for teaching general things such as math and reading to the middle 80%. However, it doesn't offer enough to help to those on the bottom or enough challenge to those on top. It's not really the problem of the system, though. The cost to do that is immense if the system is expected to optimize individual performance. Those that need extra help or challenge should seek it outside of class. But, parents have been lulled into believing that the system is supposed to take care of it all. So, they don't participate in the process like they should. So, you get bored smart kids and kids on the lower end that have just given up causing disruptions that makes the whole thing less effective for everyone.
However, there are standard curriculum programs available for homeschooling. We utilize those with our children. They are offered by grade level and subject. The nice thing about that is that it allows kids strong in one subject and weak in another to continue progressing without being confined to a grade level arbitrarily by age. However, there is an issue, as you discuss, with some of the science curricula because of the religious dominance of homeschoolin
It's a 1976 Cessna 150M. The engine was overhauled a few years back and only has a bit over 300 hours on it. It has a TBO (time between overhaul) of 1800 hours. So, it should last for many more years given that.
Maintenance varies depending on the condition of the plane. I was fortunate to find one in great condition. So, it's not as big of a cost as one might be with a little less care given to it.
The annual inspection, which is required to maintain airworthiness, typically runs $300-500. You could tack on another $500-1000 for miscellaneous items that might need to be repaired throughout the year. My insurance renewal back in November was about $700 for the year.
Most people think that private planes are a big chunk of cash. The reality is that the average private plane costs much less than the average bass fishing rig. Mine was $28k, but you can find many for less than that. The great condition of mine pushed the price up.
Still, even the lower priced one's are airworthy. The FAA requires high standards of maintenance for planes to remain so. That's why you can buy planes that are decades old and they're still in great shape. And, the nice thing about them is that if you keep them maintained and flying, their value increases. I'm not saying you can expect to make money on it, but it's a hell of a lot better deal than some luxury car. And, the funny thing is, people look at it as being more special despite the fact that you've spent much less on a plane than some guy in a new 3 series BMW.
I used to think the same thing about the costs, and I ignored my dream to fly for years. Then, when I finally did the research I was shocked that I had wasted all that time on motorcycles or cars. New planes ARE expensive. But, there's no need to buy one unless you just like to spend money and have plenty of it. A new Cessna 172, which seats 4, cost upwards of $280k. You can get a 80's model in great shape for less than $50k. Or, if you've got the $280k to blow, keep half of it and buy a used DC-3 where you can take the all of your family and friends.:)
The expense is only perception. If you're really interested, check out the AOPA. Flying is in just about anyone's reach. If you can afford a Harley-Davidson, you can afford an airplane.
You make a valid point but there are two important points you may be missing. First, eating poorly and becoming obese generally leads to a shorter life and overall decreased medical costs thus saving society money. Second, in the US the culture is such that most people don't care much about the first fact and are more interested in punishing people they feel have done something wrong than optimizing the system.
Pardon me for asking, but what statistics are you using to cite your first "fact"? I find that claim quite hard to believe.
On the second point, optimizing system means reducing unnecessary demands on the system also. That means that people should share responsibility for that by doing their best to live in such a way that they minimize the amount they need from it. The growing rate of juvenile diabetes in the US is clear evidence that lifestyle choices (the vast majority are Type II, which is primarily caused by obesity) are going to drive significant demand on the system for sometime. These kids will likely live at least 40 more years with their condition and require immensely more health care than a Jack Lalane would.
There was a sociological study not that long ago. Basically you have one person divide cash into two piles, the money they get and the money their partner in the experiment gets. The second person decides if they each get the piles or if they both go home with nothing. Logically, the second person should always choose to go through with the deal because it is free money for them, even if it is not as much free money as the other person gets. Realistically, the further the first person skews the piles in their favor the less likely the second person is to go through with the deal. They are more interested in punishing what they feel is unfair or wrong than in their own financial gain.
This problem crops up whenever socialized healthcare is discussed in the US, as well as many other socialized programs. Most people are more interested in punishing others for overeating than they are in having an effective and economical solution for themselves.
Wow, that's the first time I've heard that study applied to socializing medicine. I've always heard of it being used to illustrate the immense hate of "rich" people and justify confiscatory taxes on said "rich".
I think the real argument has nothing to do with that, though. If everyone is expected to share the costs of something, everyone should share the responsibility of keeping the costs down. Poor diet and the ensuing health issues are not something that deserves sympathy. If you choose to smoke and get lung cancer, no one should feel sorry for you. If you pig out on Doritos and Big Macs and end up a diabetic because of your poor choices, why the hell should anyone else have to pay for your lifestyle?
I'm not arguing about providing care to people with something beyond their control. That's a completely different discussion. But, completely absolving people of any responsibility leads to nothing but utter destruction of the system. It's also completely unfair to those that have legitimate problems beyond their control. They end up having to wait in line (especially when you start seeing the inevitable rationing that comes from socialized medicine) for the bums that chose to live poorly and have health issues because of it.
January: Obama becomes president.
One month later: Flying cars.
What's next?
Thanksgiving: Immortality.
Christmas: Girlfriend!
Clearly, all this fuss about Obama has been well placed! He's not even in power yet and the flying cars are already on the way!:P
Now you understand why the Christians have been excited for so long about the second coming...
I wonder how many airports are out there that have a path from the runway to the road that isn't fenced off or have some other barrier to getting this craft on the road.
Virtually all airports I fly my plane into. Where I have my plane tied down, I turn into the airport and drive right out to the parking area and park beside my plane. That's typical of most general aviation airports. The ones that I know of that do have a fence also have a keypad operated gate that allows owners to drive right up to their planes.
Most people think about the airlines and big airports with Class B airspace when they hear about flying. There's about 30-40 times more airports in the US that operate in a much friendlier manner. No TSA. No baggage checks. Hop on the plane and go.
And before anyone starts demeaning it all in a classist attack, my plane gets about 20 mpg at cruise and has monthly payments of only ~ $200. Tie down fees are $25 monthly. And this is all for a plane that can take 2 people up to 300-400 miles on full tanks at about 100 knot cruise speed.
Aviation is a lot more in reach for most than most think. For those that are interested, I'd suggest taking a serious look at it. On average, it's much less of a rich man's hobby than bass fishing.
Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.
Things will have to get pretty fucking bad before the average American bothers to turn off American idol and vote -- let alone come up with the wherewithal to alter or abolish the Government.
The funny thing is, voting is all that needs to be done to have a revolution. The ENTIRE House of Representatives is up for election every 2 years. ALL budget bills must originate from the House. Control the money, control it all.
The problem is that everybody thinks that all congressmen are corrupt and should be removed from office... except theirs. And so, the same idiots get sent back to Washington. And, the dumb masses think a different body in the White House will bring "change".
If 3 men rob a bank, and the SWAT team has to storm it, and innocent people die, do you blame the SWAT team, or the bank robbers?
If the swat team accidentally shoots innocent people, then the swat team is at fault. In fact, courts have backed this up - if you're in a bank, doing legal business, and a cop shoots you while trying to stop a robbery, you're getting your medical bills paid by the city, and if you die your family will win a wrongful death suit.
If a police car smashes into your auto while chasing someone else, the city pays. You can't shoot me in a bank and say it's the bank robbers' fault. It just doesn't work that way.
US soldiers have been court martialed for collateral damage, there were some airmen from here in Springfield who were in pretty deep shit because they accidentally bombed some Canadians in Afghanistan. Nobody blamed the Taliban for the Canadian deaths.
If you're going to shoot, it is your responsibility to hit the target and ONLY the target.
Yes, Hamas are monsters. So are the people they're fighting.
Not to jump in on either side of the general discussion here, but what you describe as being "at fault" is only with respect to civil penalties. The police officers involved in those situations would likely not suffer any criminal consequences. And, the civil liabilities would be covered by the governmental organizations to which they belong.
And, in the car chase scenario, I've heard of people being killed by police cars in accidents in those situations and the chasee being criminal prosecuted for the deaths. I don't know if any of them were ever convicted, but there have definitely been prosecutions.
And Bhuddists sish to indoctrinate the world to Bhuddism...
Being Buddhist, I have to say that's false. There might be some, but that's not the general stance of Buddhism. The Dalai Lama himself has said that he believes that all major religions have the ability to create people with good hearts, which is the whole point. He actually encourages people to find the meaning in their tradition because he believes that it is easier for people to find there way in something that is familiar. All of that was stated at the beginning of his seminar on the Four Noble Truths.
And then there's OpenID or whatever it's called, which basically says "make it not just disturbingly common, but recommended!" wtf?
OpenID eliminates user authentication at various websites. It centralizes your user/password or whatever authentication to the provider of your choice, which can even be your own server. No need to share passwords anymore.
That's what conversations are for. You know, real physical human interaction. Remember that?
The nice thing about twitter is that when you talk to people you actually get to have real conversations. The social utility of twitter is that it allows people to skip the small talk when they see each other. They already know about the chit-chat stuff because they've been following each other with twitter. So, conversation time can be devoted to substantive discussion.
Sure, most of the tweeters don't really have much to say to begin with, but for those that actually do, it helps to eliminate a lot of idle chit-chat.
The pain is the lesson to not be an idiot trusting charlatans. Without that lesson, the market will never work.
And before anyone starts decry the deceptive people that took advantage of the unknowing, I've got a simple rule that I follow: If you don't understand what is going on, don't put your money on it.
Liberal economics -- not liberal politics, quite the opposite most of the time -- explicitly derives its conclusions from three assumptions: that individuals make rational decisions, that they have access to information, and that they are free to buy/sell.
Those are pretty reasonable assumptions, and, when they hold, the conclusions tend to hold.
Social psychology has shown repeated instances where rationality is seriously impaired. For example, social proof can make us all really stupid. And cognitive dissonance is a bitch. What do those words mean? When a million idiots do something stupid, you're very likely to think it's a very good idea, too. And the longer you've been doing something stupid without negative consequences, the less likely you are to stop.
Add to that the fact that those "investment vehicles" were designed to conceal information, specifically financial risk, and right here you have two out of three pillars of classic economic theory missing. Is it any wonder the whole thing went down?
Rationality hasn't been necessary. Our system is a fairly free market one when things are going well, but anytime there's a hiccup, the government steps in and bails out the irrationals. Without serious consequences (if anyone thinks the situation that we're in now is serious needs to study history), rationality never becomes necessary. In fact, we encourage irrationality. If you didn't jump in on the big money making scheme, you were going to be left out. Sure, you might lose if you get in, but the safety net is huge and has been since the New Deal. So, go ahead, jump. There'll be trillions from the government to save you.
Rationality is based on knowledge and experience. That all requires learning. And learning requires making mistakes and suffering from them.
The dirty side of the free market that most free marketeers like to play down is that there has to be pain from time to time to keep market participants honest. Downturns are essential to the function of the free market. Despite what the pro-free in good times/pro-intervention in bad times group promotes, that's the exact opposite of how it should be done (if you must have a dualistic perspective). The pain is the lesson to not be an idiot trusting charlatans. Without that lesson, the market will never work.
Regardless, the failure cannot be blamed on the free market. There's not one. There never really has been.
It also can't be blamed entirely on government involvement. Government wasn't itself that big of a contributor.
Public is public, not private. Privacy ends when you move into a public place. It might be annoying that people can do that, but so are plenty of other things people are allowed to do in public. If you want something to be private, then don't do it in public.
If you think the Bible is just poetry (which it is, at best) you shouldn't call yourself a Christian.
This AC has to be either: 1) a "true" Christian that believes the world is only 7000 years old, evolution is the word of Satan and if I'm not in church at least 4 times each week I'm going to Hell. Or 2) a troll just trying to excite those in group 1 to watch some truly absurd conversation happen.
I, by no means, would qualify under the "traditional" definition of Christian. I'm not even sure that I would choose to use that label due to the bastardization of the true meaning of the original teachings of Jesus et al by those that have been power hungry and have sought to subjigate those that disagreed with them.
However, I would consider myself a follower of Jesus. I don't view him as God as many "Christians" have turned him into. In that respect, I tend to agree with the Islamic perspective that you are worshiping the creation, not the creator. I do find that Jesus' teachings and the central theme of the Bible is one of humility, tolerance and forgiveness, despite what claims the fundamentalists would like to make.
I'm not a theologian by any means. I grew up in a Southern Baptist, almost evangelical, way too close to fundamentalist family. My parents still don't believe that evolution is fact (notice I don't say believe in evolution, as that conveys faith, which is not something scientifically required other than at the most fundamental levels of science - i.e. we have to accept that SOME level of objective reality exists). I've spent much of my life since studying the alternatives. I started with an intense rejection of Christianity around 21 because it just didn't work for me in the fundamentalist form I had learned. I studied, searched and learned about many things I was told to avoid in my youth.
In the end, I found Buddhism to be the most useful for me. I could intellectually rationalize it. It didn't teach me that I was bad or that my doubts were evil. It taught me to be humble, be tolerant of others and to forgive. And, with time, my anger and resentment that had built against Christianity began to temper. I was then able to look again at it with fresh eyes. And I was surprised to find that what I had found in Buddhism was right there in Christianity once I let go of the dogma and searched for the original meaning of the teachings.
That was my journey. And, I believe in the teachings of the Bible. No, I don't believe in all the hocus-pocus, supernatural mumbo jumbo. So, if that makes me unable to call myself a Christian, fine. For me, labels mean nothing and teachings mean nothing if you don't use them. And for those fundamentalist types, you need to go back and read Genesis chapter 3. The original sin was dividing the world into good and evil. It was judging everything as something to be desired or rejected. Perpetuation of that is what causes pain in this world.
And, when you're done reading chapter 3, go back to chapter 1. God created everything. And, when he was finished, he judged it. And, he saw that it ALL was good. Who are you to be saying anything different?
The article was generally ok, but clearly not completely understanding of what the "Long Tail" means. Of course, from what I've read (including the book itself) the interpretations and applications of the theory are rather fluid anyway.
The biggest issue I have with the article is that it seemed to be conveying that the "Long Tail" meant an end to blockbusters. It doesn't mean that at all. It just means that there's enough business in the "Long Tail" to make it profitable to sell items that weren't blockbusters given the low cost structures of Internet retailing. Amazon and iTunes both make hundreds of thousands of dollars monthly on items that only sell 2 or 3 copies. With traditional retailers, space is a limited commodity and must be devoted to items that will sell in enough volume to justify carrying them.
Now, IANAPhd, and the article quotes quite a few that seem to disagree with the idea of the "Long Tail", but it seems the evidence they discuss is rather weak. Yes, people are influenced by others in their choices. Much of this comes from the vast history of humanity and our tendency to form social groups. The Internet has yet to truly begin to change humanity in the ways that it will. The key thing with respect to the article is the definition of what our peer groups are. Despite the global nature of the Internet, most of our peer influence is local. As more and more people around the world connect and begin to actually talk to others outside their current peer groups, those peer groups will expand and change. That is going to be a key driver in generating the diversity that the "Long Tail" predicts.
The "Long Tail" is only beginning because humanity's experience with the Internet and the interconnectedness that it brings is only beginning. Just because it hasn't completely happened doesn't mean that it's not happening.
Furthermore, the monopoly level of Microsoft means that it is unrealistic for ISVs to develop for other platforms because Windows represents 80+% of the market and who can justify an the cost of development unless you can really identify a market.
Not to turn this into a different religious discussion... but, some people use Java to write their code. That helps avoid most porting issues.
Slashdot Mirror
People who claim we can't influence climate should be locked up in a garage with a running engine.
I certainly hope you're being faecetious with you sig there. And making that assumption, I'm not implicating you in my statement here, but those that do sincerely hold that position. The nature of that statement is a political one and nothing to do with science or the scientific method. The scientific method is completely based on skepticism, while much of the discussion on this particular subject has been about the squelching of skepticism. Anyone that advocates the ostracism, demonization and silencing of those that have drawn a contradictory conclusion to theirs in the realm of science is not practicing true science.
Science is based upon hypothesis and the testing of those hypothesis to validate them. Unfortunately, this field has been hijacked by politics (as can be clearly seen by the fact that Al Gore, a politician, is at the head of the discussion). Science is being thrown out the window to drive a political agenda. Skeptics, what we used to call other scientists that objectively tested and confirmed or invalidated each other's hypothesis, experiments and conclusions, are treated as heretics in the same way as Galileo was by the Catholic church because he dared to challenge the "consensus" that the Earth was at the center of the universe.
What goes missing here is the fact that much of the "consensus" is not consensus. There is pretty much consensus that the planet has been warming. Anyone that disputes that is ignoring the obvious. But, that's where the consensus ends.
Gore and the politicos have hijacked the "consensus" and claim that the consensus is the temperature will rise 10C in the next 50 years, sea levels are going to rise 50 feet and natural disasters will abound from an out of control weather system. There is absolutely no consensus on that prediction. There is not even a majority of real scientists that hold that position.
Also, the whole CO2 driving the temperature increase is not being challenged near enough. Looking at the data, it's clear to see that CO2 increase follows, not leads, an increase in temperature. If there is causation (thus far only some correlation has been established), then the rise in CO2 is caused by the increase in temperature, not the other way around. Even John Houghton, who was co-chair of the IPCC and is a supporter of the idea of antropogenic global warming, admits "Carbon dioxide content and temperature correlate so closely during the last ice age is not evidence of carbon dioxide driving the temperature but rather the other way round... I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide."
For those that support the CO2 driving the increase, I've yet to see how the climate models explain how the temperature 450 million years ago was colder than it has ever been in the last half billion years, but the CO2 levels were 10 times what we have today. And for those arguing that human activity is driving the increase, why does the rate of increase vary so greatly (particularly looking at the significant decrease in rate during 1991-1993) despite the consistent growth of human CO2 producing activities. The rate should be consistently increasing if human activity were the main driver, but it hasn't been.
I'm not arguing that humanity has no impact on the climate. And, I'm not even really arguing that we are a significant impact. However, it seems that deforestation along with ever expanding cities with concrete and asphalt that absorb and radiate heat make an even better explanation than CO2, which the data suggest follows temperature rather than temperature following the CO2 increase.
When I setup my first home LAN back in the early 90's, I used the 7 deadly sins as the server names. Sloth was given to my old 286 box and wrath was the name of my blazing fast 40Mhz 486 with it's whopping 32MB of RAM. :)
I'm not a network guy at work, but I do have over 20 devices defined with static DHCP assignments on my home network. A few of the names are:
There's more, but I'm tired of looking at the DD-WRT DHCP page.
I'm open to suggestions for a comprehensive naming strategy. I'm sure someone around here could come up with something better. :)
This brings a whole new meaning to the term...
There's never going to be an energy source that will be environmentally friendly enough for the people that think nuclear is too dirty now. Should coal and nuclear be replaced with solar, wind and/or wave generation, these same people will begin complaining about the negative effects of removing energy from the environment with those methods, wildlife being killed in wind/wave farms or whatever other impact can be identified.
The fact will always remain that life, regardless of humanity or other life, impacts its environment. If we want to have zero impact for our energy needs, we have to get to zero energy need. The only way to have that is for the entire of humanity to become extinct.
Of course, that won't stop other species from also becoming extinct. It also won't stop the climate from changing. That's all been going on before us and will be long after we're gone.
If it keeps you feeling morally superior, though, keep fighting the fight. We, our planet, our solar system and our little galaxy are pretty insignificant in the whole grand scheme of things. There's nothing to save. It's all going to be destroyed anyway. You're not even going to be able to delay the inevitable.
Have a nice day! :)
The way you talk about your employees gets me thinking about slavery.
Huh? I see nothing in the GP that suggests anything of slavery. If someone freely enters into an agreement to sell their services for an agreed upon price, how is that slavery? You might as well have called him a Nazi while you were at it.
The problem that we have is that people want to apply negative labels to everything they disagree with regardless of the fact of whether they even remotely fit or not. It's a sure sign of a weak argument and someone that's more interested in winning the discussion than actually proposing a realistic solution.
That is absolutely lying! We're talking about natural language communication here, not a programming language. Words and phrases have meaning that are not necessarily the sum of their individual parts, there is context involved that guides the necessary interpretation of both sides.
Maybe. It all depends on what the meaning of is is.
There's a lot there to discuss, but I'll just hit the high points...
I don't start my kids education nor do I drive it. They are completely self-driven. They decide when they want to start learning their ABC's, which is what they all have started to do at that age. As for the oldest that hit 7th grade at age 9, since she was about 5, we haven't done anything but grade her papers. She reads the lesson plans from the teacher books and then does the reading and other assignments. Then we give her the test. She has completely paced herself, as all of them have. That's something that "traditional" education would have not afforded them. Simply because of their age, they would be essentially confined to their peer groups.
The Catholic question is usually asked because of the number of children... usually nothing to do with the homeschool thing...
As for breadth of curriculum, you're not exactly talking about "traditional" school in your arguments there. The nice thing about homeschooling is that life is turned into a classroom. Vacations, sports, shopping, whatever is used to teach and expand. Breadth is certainly not an issue in our program.
As for the argument that students aren't forced into a grade, your experience might have been different, but essentially the system is setup that way. It might change a bit in high school, but with respect to things leading up to that point, it's about the grade level. And, sure, some kids get to "skip" grades. I was one of those kids. It actually helped me socially, though plenty of people like to make that argument against it. It's easy to do that if you didn't actually do it.
As for the smart kid's being bullied, I wasn't one of those. I saw plenty that were though. I was lucky to have an equally high EQ to go with the IQ. In fact, most people didn't realize that I was that smart at all in high school. They just saw me as another prankster party boy. I also played sports and did well at that as well as with the girls. Everyone was shocked when SAT time came around and I was just a few points shy of perfect on the math. Of course, a youngster like yourself wouldn't know about the real SAT, though. They dumbed it down before you got to it. lol
As far as my kids go, they're extremely athletic. They play a number of different musical instruments amongst them along with numerous other hobbies within the group. I suppose that my broad mindedness has influenced them. They're far from the stereotypical book worms or homeschoolers. But, you make an extremely valid point, most parents puff up their kids in dialogue. So, it's best to take it all with a grain of salt... especially the ones with the bumper stickers that say "My child is an honor student at X government school."
And, as far the kids being more used to socializing with adults than kids, that's a somewhat bogus statement to make when you're talking about 5 kids homeschooling in a house with 1 parent at home. And, their sports teams are practicing or having games 2-3 times each week. They stay over at friends or have friends over weekly. They have PLENTY of exposure to other kids.
When it comes to promoting "traditional" education over homeschooling, it actually annoys me that the biggest argument people can seem to make is socialization. I never hear an argument that says the kid gets a better education in a "traditional" environment. It seems like people think that school is really just a place to hang out, not GET AN EDUCATION. That's exactly what our homeschooling is for... to teach the kids the knowledge and skills (most important of which is how to learn, which is our ENTIRE focus) to succeed in life. Socialization happens just fine... IN AN APPROPRIATELY SOCIAL CONTEXT.
But, hey... it's not like government education is going away. It'll be around for the conceivable future. And, I'm truly grateful that it will be. My kids are going to need someone to take off their garbage and mow their lawns.
:D
The lack of standardized curriculum is a sticking point. Beyond a doubt, traditional education offers opportunities which are nigh-impossible to get while home schooled (extracurricular, Johns Hopkins Math Program, et al), while home schooling provides a chance to tailor to individual students. Whether or not that is a good thing is up for debate, I guess. Certainly what I'm doing for a living now is not what I thought I'd want to do when I was younger. What is certain (other than "for certain" being a grammatically incorrect construct) is that you get out of education what you put into it. It's also certain that a far higher proportion of home-schooled students are taught in religiously-charged environments which are hardly free from bias. There's a reason why home-schooled children, while often doing well at spelling bees (though it's hard to tell whether this is because those are skills autistic people -- who may have trouble with traditional education -- excel at), home-schooled children don't exactly dominate science competitions. "High-potential" students will excel no matter what situation they're thrown into, but the majority of people are average. Total range of vocabulary is pretty much the same between the two (journals of cognitive development and speech pathology cover this every few years), and having an "adult's capacity" for vocabulary (where I suspect you meant that home-schooled children tend to use allegories, metaphors, and figures of speech more prevalent in the adult population) isn't necessarily something to trumpet. Your phonotactic repetition is not representative of vocabulary size, and simply indicates that you (as collective home-schoolers) spent more time with adults than with peers in your age group. Slashdot isn't the best place to debate the relative merits of schooling systems, but you'll find that reality is a lot more nuanced than the picture you have of it right now as you get older.
I'm a parent of 5. Of which, the oldest 4 (10, 8.75, 5, 3) are currently homeschooling and the 5th will start by the time he is 3. So, obviously I believe in homeschooling.
However, I do believe that most of your criticisms of the practice are valid. The key point I agree with is the religious approach. Those are a significant majority of homeschooling families. And, because of that, the image that many people have of homeschooling is one tied to religious dogma. Despite the fact that my wife and I have 5 kids, we are not Catholic (as is a common question we get) nor are we of any particular religious affiliation that forces us to deny scholarly wisdom.
You discuss the issue of a standardized curriculum, which I actually believe is a great argument against "traditional" education. The fact is that students are people and entirely individual. The "traditional" system is fine for teaching general things such as math and reading to the middle 80%. However, it doesn't offer enough to help to those on the bottom or enough challenge to those on top. It's not really the problem of the system, though. The cost to do that is immense if the system is expected to optimize individual performance. Those that need extra help or challenge should seek it outside of class. But, parents have been lulled into believing that the system is supposed to take care of it all. So, they don't participate in the process like they should. So, you get bored smart kids and kids on the lower end that have just given up causing disruptions that makes the whole thing less effective for everyone.
However, there are standard curriculum programs available for homeschooling. We utilize those with our children. They are offered by grade level and subject. The nice thing about that is that it allows kids strong in one subject and weak in another to continue progressing without being confined to a grade level arbitrarily by age. However, there is an issue, as you discuss, with some of the science curricula because of the religious dominance of homeschoolin
It's a 1976 Cessna 150M. The engine was overhauled a few years back and only has a bit over 300 hours on it. It has a TBO (time between overhaul) of 1800 hours. So, it should last for many more years given that.
Maintenance varies depending on the condition of the plane. I was fortunate to find one in great condition. So, it's not as big of a cost as one might be with a little less care given to it.
The annual inspection, which is required to maintain airworthiness, typically runs $300-500. You could tack on another $500-1000 for miscellaneous items that might need to be repaired throughout the year. My insurance renewal back in November was about $700 for the year.
Most people think that private planes are a big chunk of cash. The reality is that the average private plane costs much less than the average bass fishing rig. Mine was $28k, but you can find many for less than that. The great condition of mine pushed the price up.
Still, even the lower priced one's are airworthy. The FAA requires high standards of maintenance for planes to remain so. That's why you can buy planes that are decades old and they're still in great shape. And, the nice thing about them is that if you keep them maintained and flying, their value increases. I'm not saying you can expect to make money on it, but it's a hell of a lot better deal than some luxury car. And, the funny thing is, people look at it as being more special despite the fact that you've spent much less on a plane than some guy in a new 3 series BMW.
I used to think the same thing about the costs, and I ignored my dream to fly for years. Then, when I finally did the research I was shocked that I had wasted all that time on motorcycles or cars. New planes ARE expensive. But, there's no need to buy one unless you just like to spend money and have plenty of it. A new Cessna 172, which seats 4, cost upwards of $280k. You can get a 80's model in great shape for less than $50k. Or, if you've got the $280k to blow, keep half of it and buy a used DC-3 where you can take the all of your family and friends. :)
The expense is only perception. If you're really interested, check out the AOPA. Flying is in just about anyone's reach. If you can afford a Harley-Davidson, you can afford an airplane.
You make a valid point but there are two important points you may be missing. First, eating poorly and becoming obese generally leads to a shorter life and overall decreased medical costs thus saving society money. Second, in the US the culture is such that most people don't care much about the first fact and are more interested in punishing people they feel have done something wrong than optimizing the system.
Pardon me for asking, but what statistics are you using to cite your first "fact"? I find that claim quite hard to believe.
On the second point, optimizing system means reducing unnecessary demands on the system also. That means that people should share responsibility for that by doing their best to live in such a way that they minimize the amount they need from it. The growing rate of juvenile diabetes in the US is clear evidence that lifestyle choices (the vast majority are Type II, which is primarily caused by obesity) are going to drive significant demand on the system for sometime. These kids will likely live at least 40 more years with their condition and require immensely more health care than a Jack Lalane would.
There was a sociological study not that long ago. Basically you have one person divide cash into two piles, the money they get and the money their partner in the experiment gets. The second person decides if they each get the piles or if they both go home with nothing. Logically, the second person should always choose to go through with the deal because it is free money for them, even if it is not as much free money as the other person gets. Realistically, the further the first person skews the piles in their favor the less likely the second person is to go through with the deal. They are more interested in punishing what they feel is unfair or wrong than in their own financial gain.
This problem crops up whenever socialized healthcare is discussed in the US, as well as many other socialized programs. Most people are more interested in punishing others for overeating than they are in having an effective and economical solution for themselves.
Wow, that's the first time I've heard that study applied to socializing medicine. I've always heard of it being used to illustrate the immense hate of "rich" people and justify confiscatory taxes on said "rich".
I think the real argument has nothing to do with that, though. If everyone is expected to share the costs of something, everyone should share the responsibility of keeping the costs down. Poor diet and the ensuing health issues are not something that deserves sympathy. If you choose to smoke and get lung cancer, no one should feel sorry for you. If you pig out on Doritos and Big Macs and end up a diabetic because of your poor choices, why the hell should anyone else have to pay for your lifestyle?
I'm not arguing about providing care to people with something beyond their control. That's a completely different discussion. But, completely absolving people of any responsibility leads to nothing but utter destruction of the system. It's also completely unfair to those that have legitimate problems beyond their control. They end up having to wait in line (especially when you start seeing the inevitable rationing that comes from socialized medicine) for the bums that chose to live poorly and have health issues because of it.
January: Obama becomes president. One month later: Flying cars. What's next? Thanksgiving: Immortality. Christmas: Girlfriend! Clearly, all this fuss about Obama has been well placed! He's not even in power yet and the flying cars are already on the way! :P
Now you understand why the Christians have been excited for so long about the second coming...
I wonder how many airports are out there that have a path from the runway to the road that isn't fenced off or have some other barrier to getting this craft on the road.
Virtually all airports I fly my plane into. Where I have my plane tied down, I turn into the airport and drive right out to the parking area and park beside my plane. That's typical of most general aviation airports. The ones that I know of that do have a fence also have a keypad operated gate that allows owners to drive right up to their planes.
Most people think about the airlines and big airports with Class B airspace when they hear about flying. There's about 30-40 times more airports in the US that operate in a much friendlier manner. No TSA. No baggage checks. Hop on the plane and go.
And before anyone starts demeaning it all in a classist attack, my plane gets about 20 mpg at cruise and has monthly payments of only ~ $200. Tie down fees are $25 monthly. And this is all for a plane that can take 2 people up to 300-400 miles on full tanks at about 100 knot cruise speed.
Aviation is a lot more in reach for most than most think. For those that are interested, I'd suggest taking a serious look at it. On average, it's much less of a rich man's hobby than bass fishing.
Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.
Things will have to get pretty fucking bad before the average American bothers to turn off American idol and vote -- let alone come up with the wherewithal to alter or abolish the Government.
The funny thing is, voting is all that needs to be done to have a revolution. The ENTIRE House of Representatives is up for election every 2 years. ALL budget bills must originate from the House. Control the money, control it all.
The problem is that everybody thinks that all congressmen are corrupt and should be removed from office... except theirs. And so, the same idiots get sent back to Washington. And, the dumb masses think a different body in the White House will bring "change".
If 3 men rob a bank, and the SWAT team has to storm it, and innocent people die, do you blame the SWAT team, or the bank robbers?
If the swat team accidentally shoots innocent people, then the swat team is at fault. In fact, courts have backed this up - if you're in a bank, doing legal business, and a cop shoots you while trying to stop a robbery, you're getting your medical bills paid by the city, and if you die your family will win a wrongful death suit.
If a police car smashes into your auto while chasing someone else, the city pays. You can't shoot me in a bank and say it's the bank robbers' fault. It just doesn't work that way.
US soldiers have been court martialed for collateral damage, there were some airmen from here in Springfield who were in pretty deep shit because they accidentally bombed some Canadians in Afghanistan. Nobody blamed the Taliban for the Canadian deaths.
If you're going to shoot, it is your responsibility to hit the target and ONLY the target.
Yes, Hamas are monsters. So are the people they're fighting.
Not to jump in on either side of the general discussion here, but what you describe as being "at fault" is only with respect to civil penalties. The police officers involved in those situations would likely not suffer any criminal consequences. And, the civil liabilities would be covered by the governmental organizations to which they belong.
And, in the car chase scenario, I've heard of people being killed by police cars in accidents in those situations and the chasee being criminal prosecuted for the deaths. I don't know if any of them were ever convicted, but there have definitely been prosecutions.
And Bhuddists sish to indoctrinate the world to Bhuddism...
Being Buddhist, I have to say that's false. There might be some, but that's not the general stance of Buddhism. The Dalai Lama himself has said that he believes that all major religions have the ability to create people with good hearts, which is the whole point. He actually encourages people to find the meaning in their tradition because he believes that it is easier for people to find there way in something that is familiar. All of that was stated at the beginning of his seminar on the Four Noble Truths.
And then there's OpenID or whatever it's called, which basically says "make it not just disturbingly common, but recommended!" wtf?
OpenID eliminates user authentication at various websites. It centralizes your user/password or whatever authentication to the provider of your choice, which can even be your own server. No need to share passwords anymore.
That's what conversations are for. You know, real physical human interaction. Remember that?
The nice thing about twitter is that when you talk to people you actually get to have real conversations. The social utility of twitter is that it allows people to skip the small talk when they see each other. They already know about the chit-chat stuff because they've been following each other with twitter. So, conversation time can be devoted to substantive discussion.
Sure, most of the tweeters don't really have much to say to begin with, but for those that actually do, it helps to eliminate a lot of idle chit-chat.
The pain is the lesson to not be an idiot trusting charlatans. Without that lesson, the market will never work.
And before anyone starts decry the deceptive people that took advantage of the unknowing, I've got a simple rule that I follow: If you don't understand what is going on, don't put your money on it.
Liberal economics -- not liberal politics, quite the opposite most of the time -- explicitly derives its conclusions from three assumptions: that individuals make rational decisions, that they have access to information, and that they are free to buy/sell.
Those are pretty reasonable assumptions, and, when they hold, the conclusions tend to hold.
Social psychology has shown repeated instances where rationality is seriously impaired. For example, social proof can make us all really stupid. And cognitive dissonance is a bitch. What do those words mean? When a million idiots do something stupid, you're very likely to think it's a very good idea, too. And the longer you've been doing something stupid without negative consequences, the less likely you are to stop.
Add to that the fact that those "investment vehicles" were designed to conceal information, specifically financial risk, and right here you have two out of three pillars of classic economic theory missing. Is it any wonder the whole thing went down?
Rationality hasn't been necessary. Our system is a fairly free market one when things are going well, but anytime there's a hiccup, the government steps in and bails out the irrationals. Without serious consequences (if anyone thinks the situation that we're in now is serious needs to study history), rationality never becomes necessary. In fact, we encourage irrationality. If you didn't jump in on the big money making scheme, you were going to be left out. Sure, you might lose if you get in, but the safety net is huge and has been since the New Deal. So, go ahead, jump. There'll be trillions from the government to save you.
Rationality is based on knowledge and experience. That all requires learning. And learning requires making mistakes and suffering from them.
The dirty side of the free market that most free marketeers like to play down is that there has to be pain from time to time to keep market participants honest. Downturns are essential to the function of the free market. Despite what the pro-free in good times/pro-intervention in bad times group promotes, that's the exact opposite of how it should be done (if you must have a dualistic perspective). The pain is the lesson to not be an idiot trusting charlatans. Without that lesson, the market will never work.
Regardless, the failure cannot be blamed on the free market. There's not one. There never really has been.
It also can't be blamed entirely on government involvement. Government wasn't itself that big of a contributor.
Public is public, not private. Privacy ends when you move into a public place. It might be annoying that people can do that, but so are plenty of other things people are allowed to do in public. If you want something to be private, then don't do it in public.
People are wired to see causality everywhere, even where there is none.
Wow... if one wanted, that would be a good line to start a nice CO2/global warming flame war... :)
If you think the Bible is just poetry (which it is, at best) you shouldn't call yourself a Christian.
This AC has to be either: 1) a "true" Christian that believes the world is only 7000 years old, evolution is the word of Satan and if I'm not in church at least 4 times each week I'm going to Hell. Or 2) a troll just trying to excite those in group 1 to watch some truly absurd conversation happen.
I, by no means, would qualify under the "traditional" definition of Christian. I'm not even sure that I would choose to use that label due to the bastardization of the true meaning of the original teachings of Jesus et al by those that have been power hungry and have sought to subjigate those that disagreed with them.
However, I would consider myself a follower of Jesus. I don't view him as God as many "Christians" have turned him into. In that respect, I tend to agree with the Islamic perspective that you are worshiping the creation, not the creator. I do find that Jesus' teachings and the central theme of the Bible is one of humility, tolerance and forgiveness, despite what claims the fundamentalists would like to make.
I'm not a theologian by any means. I grew up in a Southern Baptist, almost evangelical, way too close to fundamentalist family. My parents still don't believe that evolution is fact (notice I don't say believe in evolution, as that conveys faith, which is not something scientifically required other than at the most fundamental levels of science - i.e. we have to accept that SOME level of objective reality exists). I've spent much of my life since studying the alternatives. I started with an intense rejection of Christianity around 21 because it just didn't work for me in the fundamentalist form I had learned. I studied, searched and learned about many things I was told to avoid in my youth.
In the end, I found Buddhism to be the most useful for me. I could intellectually rationalize it. It didn't teach me that I was bad or that my doubts were evil. It taught me to be humble, be tolerant of others and to forgive. And, with time, my anger and resentment that had built against Christianity began to temper. I was then able to look again at it with fresh eyes. And I was surprised to find that what I had found in Buddhism was right there in Christianity once I let go of the dogma and searched for the original meaning of the teachings.
That was my journey. And, I believe in the teachings of the Bible. No, I don't believe in all the hocus-pocus, supernatural mumbo jumbo. So, if that makes me unable to call myself a Christian, fine. For me, labels mean nothing and teachings mean nothing if you don't use them. And for those fundamentalist types, you need to go back and read Genesis chapter 3. The original sin was dividing the world into good and evil. It was judging everything as something to be desired or rejected. Perpetuation of that is what causes pain in this world.
And, when you're done reading chapter 3, go back to chapter 1. God created everything. And, when he was finished, he judged it. And, he saw that it ALL was good. Who are you to be saying anything different?
The article was generally ok, but clearly not completely understanding of what the "Long Tail" means. Of course, from what I've read (including the book itself) the interpretations and applications of the theory are rather fluid anyway.
The biggest issue I have with the article is that it seemed to be conveying that the "Long Tail" meant an end to blockbusters. It doesn't mean that at all. It just means that there's enough business in the "Long Tail" to make it profitable to sell items that weren't blockbusters given the low cost structures of Internet retailing. Amazon and iTunes both make hundreds of thousands of dollars monthly on items that only sell 2 or 3 copies. With traditional retailers, space is a limited commodity and must be devoted to items that will sell in enough volume to justify carrying them.
Now, IANAPhd, and the article quotes quite a few that seem to disagree with the idea of the "Long Tail", but it seems the evidence they discuss is rather weak. Yes, people are influenced by others in their choices. Much of this comes from the vast history of humanity and our tendency to form social groups. The Internet has yet to truly begin to change humanity in the ways that it will. The key thing with respect to the article is the definition of what our peer groups are. Despite the global nature of the Internet, most of our peer influence is local. As more and more people around the world connect and begin to actually talk to others outside their current peer groups, those peer groups will expand and change. That is going to be a key driver in generating the diversity that the "Long Tail" predicts.
The "Long Tail" is only beginning because humanity's experience with the Internet and the interconnectedness that it brings is only beginning. Just because it hasn't completely happened doesn't mean that it's not happening.
Furthermore, the monopoly level of Microsoft means that it is unrealistic for ISVs to develop for other platforms because Windows represents 80+% of the market and who can justify an the cost of development unless you can really identify a market.
Not to turn this into a different religious discussion... but, some people use Java to write their code. That helps avoid most porting issues.