It's much more like this: "Unless you're a priest or other person trained to understand religion, your religious views don't carry particular weight."
Except, it's actually about something based on known principles, facts, and science - so it's really: "Unless you understand how car engines work, you have no business telling me what's wrong with my car."
Which is true.
Unless, the problem with your car is entirely unrelated to the engine...
You should consider taking a step back from your anti-government ideology and realize that just like any large organization, sometimes things are done right and most times they are done wrong. Government is no different from any other large bureaucracy.
For anyone who is getting a degree in a field that is already their passion & hobby (e.g. someone who has invested 10000+ hours of personal time into programming and then goes for a computer science degree), it's only in the final 1 or 2 years that the coursework is even worthwhile. The rest of the time is spent underachieving because the content is so rudimentary that you can't even stay focused.
That's exactly why I changed my major to business (that and I was already working professionally doing development for a fortune 500 company in my late teens). I figured I could already talk to the technical people just fine, but it might help to be able to discuss things with those that have no clue using their own terms.
As a consequence of that choice, I've rarely had the problems that many purely tech people complain about in the workplace. If I need or want something for technical reasons, I can put it in terms that the management types can understand, support and sell to their superiors.
If you're already state-of-the-art in what you do, why the hell would you waste years and all that money to just get a piece of paper? Use that time to pick up something useful. Like you said, a lot of people don't have jobs directly related to their degrees.
The DEA won't be able to overrule the Supreme Court.
You're making the flawed assumption that the current court would be against the DEA's position. For some reason, I've got a strong feeling that Roberts, Alito and Thomas will compromise their "leave it to the states" position on this particular issue. Maybe, I'm just a cynic, though.
Citation needed. Recent studies showing no decrease in practical reaction times recently came out.
Irony, asking for citation whilst providing no citation yourself. Here's Wikipedia, another citation there.
It's not exactly a secret that marijuana use results in a diminished reaction time and loss of motor control. This is the same with alcohol or most depressants for that matter. You can take a certain amount of alcohol or other drug and remain within the safe limits for reaction time (this amount depends on the individual) but with marijuana there tends to be less of a safe zone that exists with alcohol due to the rapid rate at which marijuana is consumed (1 bong can intoxicate an individual as much as 100 ml of hard liquor in one go, plus marijuana intoxication is much faster).
I'm all in favour of decriminalisation and in some cases legalisation but we cant lie to ourselves here, marijuana is an intoxicant that has serious effects on motor skills and reactions.
Absolutely. However, people, at least in my experience, tend to drive much faster and recklessly with alcohol where they tend to drive more slowly and carefully (due to paranoia) with the mj.
Fibres from the marijuana plant produce a material stronger then cotton at a much lower cost to produce (faster growth time, higher yield per plant, able to withstand harsher environmental conditions) thus you have to oft quoted stoner conspiracy that the anti-weed movement was sponsored by America's cotton growers.
I haven't seen anyone refute this. I can imagine though that fighting the cotton growers would be about as successful as trying to kill the corn subsidies.
Yeah... cause god knows that those cotton growers couldn't just plant hemp next year instead...
Ditto the US Constitution. Read it sometime. Carefully. It gives the nation-states of the US the power to completely abolish the US, and go off on their separate routes. You are trying to make a difference where none exists.
That would be false. Read up on the Civil War. All the Southern states wanted was to secede from the Union. Only Texas has that 'right' due to the peculiar way it joined the US.
The Civil War didn't start because the southern states seceded. It started because they attacked US troops at Fort Sumter. It's arguable as to whether or not they would have been allowed to leave if they hadn't started the fight anyway. However, the US states do absolutely have the right to abolish the Constitution and thus the US without any input from the federal government. All they have to do is call a Constitutional convention and enough of them to vote to end it.
The US and EU are more alike than different. Consider that 75% of laws are now passed, not by state parliaments, but by the central EU. We have a near-identical arrangement in the US.
All laws in Europe are written and passed by state parliaments. Some parts of some of the laws are written to satisfy the recommendations of the EU (issued as EU Directives), however there is a huge degree of variance between the laws that is allowed in the directives and sometimes the laws are written outside the specification of the directive and then the country and EU negotiate - EU could fine the country some amount of money or just forget the infraction if the country offers something else in return.
So before you go off and compare US and EU, better learn something about both.
It's the same in the US. Most of the "laws" are passed by the states. Virtually everything federal is related to interstate and international issues.
We aren't as different as you think and those differences are mostly superficial.
The term "member state" when used in the context of the EU refers to so-called "nation states" as opposed to US states. There are serious cultural differences between the different nations that make up the EU, not to mention that most countries have their own language and a long history of fighting with each other (not like US states who, with a few notable exceptions, have a history of pissing contests over random border lakes and the like).
I'm always entertained by people on/. making statements about other people's countries (usually condescending, but not in this case).
The US was exactly designed to be made up of independent states with the central government just doing some refereeing between them and providing a military. This is why there's no US federal law against murder (except in certain situations outside the jurisdiction of the individual states).
As for cultural differences, you should spend some time in Utah, where you need a sponsor to hava a drink in a bar and then spend some in California, where Oakland just approved industrial marijuana farming. There are vast cultural differences between our states. Ever heard of the phrases red state/blue state? That division is about much more than what party tends to get elected.
And, we have quite a history of fighting amongst ourselves, too. Maybe not as many on battle fields as in courts, but that's only because for the entire existence of most of our states, we had a central mechanism for resolving those disputes relatively peacefully.
Yes, there are forces in the EU who want to turn it into a country like the US but it's going kind of slow since even among politicians this is opposed by a lot of people.
We continue to have that same debate here. That's what the whole Republican/Democrat v Classical Liberal/Libertarian debate is in this country. Who can make better decisions about problems, someone that spends virtually all of their time in DC or someone that is living in your town in the middle of the problem and shares your culture? The US and the EU aren't that far apart. It's where in their evolutionary history they happen to be for the most part.
This seems to contradict your previous assertion that we'd see better results if no one knew exactly what the rules were, and had to be careful not to break any rules "just in case" to avoid social scorn. I would support an argument that the US/UK system(s) of common law lead to some messy legal landscapes, but the solution to that is civil law, not lack of law.
It seems to contradict your preconceived notions about where I'm coming from and thus what you perceived my assertion to be. It's just part of the American political process, so I can't blame you for naturally trying to identify my "position."
It doesn't contradict my assertion at all. I'm saying that you never get the rules right to begin with and the inevitable product of regulation is a bureaucratic mess where the state of Louisiana can't stop the flow of oil onto it's shore because of the mess. You get a system where huge environmental disasters are created by those kind to the politicians despite their being "regulated." My position that social pressure is more effective still stands. "Regulation" makes the people that should be paying attention either corrupt or so unconcerned that they ignore their duty to society.
The concept of a "Livable wage" and the effects of poverty on dietary habits and obesity aside, how do you determine when someone's basic rights are being violated? How do you determine who's culpable, and who should "do time"?
It's ok. Everyone likes to ignore that our problem as a nation is that we're fat, lazy and ignorant because we feel entitled to everything we want in the world. Fix that, all this other shit gets in line.
Someone's rights are violated when anyone denies them their life, liberty or property. Whoever does that is the one that's culpable and thus the one that should do time, if the violation is severe enough.
You may want to check your timeline. The financial collapse came about when the regulations that were put in place as a result of the S&L failures in the 80's and 90's were lifted. While the regulations were in place, we had a relatively smooth economic picture. Take the regulations off the financial sector, and we had an incredible surge, followed by a spectacular blowout.
I'm talking about the regulations that gave Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae more power to subsidize subprime loans, which was exactly what caused the recession. When the government is backing your bad bets and actively encouraging you to make them, you tend to get people making bad bets and the nation left holding the bag if they lose while they just get richer, along with their political buddies on both sides of the political duopoly, if they win.
You're correct that regulations tend to prevent the problems that we already know might happen, and don't protect against the new ones. You are incorrect in your assertion that regulations prevent all progress. Regulation is like the speed limits and weight limits on the highway. It dictates some restraint, so you can reach your destination (e.g., make progress) without being a menace to the other people around you. You may not be able to get as much stuff to your destination as fast as you'd like, but the chances that you'll lose control and kill everyone else on the road are significantly reduced. And while you might argue that "Hey, I'd be a responsible driver/citizen," there's plenty of evidence from Wall Street that not everyone is, and they're the ones we need to regulate.
I never said they prevent all progress. In fact, I never said we should have no regulation at all. I look at the world practically. I know how things SHOULD work. Unfortunately, we live in a world where they work as they work, not how they should. If everyone gets a say in every decision, democracy, right, how many good decisions and to what level can they be made? And how long will those good decisions keep being made as problems fade from vi
To clarify, you're arguing in favor of security through obscurity? You really think corporations will be more careful of being shunned by consumers than fined or penalized by governments? I would have to argue that no amount of public shame will cause WalMart to pay livable wages to its staff, or correct its discrimination practices. That sort of change takes regulations (laws) and enforcement (lawsuits, both civil and criminal).
No. I'm arguing that codifying rules opens things up to be gamed because people know expressly what they can and can't do. It's great if you've got the smartest the universe has to offer making the rules and they get it right in the beginning. Otherwise, you end up with spaghetti law that has to constantly be patched to cover up oversights and changes in the world, which leads to system in which no one really knows what the rules are.
My real argument is that the government shouldn't even be involved in creating these artificial entities we call corporations. How many problems would be solved if the government just stayed out of it and there was no such thing as a corporation? Since that's where most of the pro-government rants seem to be targeted, it's amusing to me that there would be no corporations without the government being involved to begin with.
People have basic rights. If Walmart or whoever is violating those, someone needs to do some time. Otherwise, I don't really care. I don't even know what "livable wages" are. Seems to me, most of the people I see working at WM are your typical fat, lazy Americans. They're certainly making much more than enough to eat. And never mind what the other 95+% of the world seems to be able to live on.
Our definition of necessity is a bit warped here in the materialistic American culture. "Livable" is quite doable on those wages. The problem is we're a wanting culture and that requires money to satisfy. We'd probably be better off as a nation if that's all anyone made. Our priorities might actually get straight.
The BP fiasco was enabled through a regulatory system that is certainly broken, but the system was gutted by the last several regimes to control the US (last several iterations of the same regime? Your call). Likewise, the rolling blackouts in California several years ago, the recent collapse of the stock market, etc. were all a direct or indirect result of regulations being relaxed to "foster growth" or other nonsense. While regulations certainly hamper growth, they also hamper collapse. The point of regulation is to reduce volatility, so that we can avoid the economic whiplash that breaks the necks and backs of the citizenry.
You clearly point out the consequence of regulation. It is great for maintaining the status quo. You can't regulate progress, because you don't know where you're going. Without progress, problems don't get solved.
And, collapse is a good thing. If we'd stop jumping in and rescuing everyone, that would reduce volatility. By artificially removing risk for corporations and individuals, we're encouraging risky behavior.
Regulations are only good for solving problems we've already had. And, they always create new ones. The whole financial collapse was setup by the regulations that came out of the S&L failures in the early 90's. They always create more problems than they solve.
As far has how I would do it, since no one is really asking, I'd have a simple rule that you use proper due diligence and best practices or you get punished. For instance, with deep water drilling, I'd say we don't regulate that. If you make a stupid decision that ends up with a situation like we have in the gulf now, you lose your company, your money and your freedom for life.
Do you think the guy on that rig that said keep going after he was brought chunks of the blowout valve would have made the same decision if those were the rules? And, it wouldn't have cost us a dime in "regulation."
1. "Regulations" are the mechanism society has for enforcing a common concensus. As a society, "we" decided that cholera was bad. The solution (alongside education and convincing, of course) is regulation: all houses in area "x" must have sewer connections and must not have an outhouse. And there's a team of people to take water samples. And there are regulations on how to test the water.
"Regulations" are A mechanism that society uses to TRY to enforce a common consensus. The problem is that in practice, they're not particularly effective. When the public is screaming about an issue that there is "consensus" to solve, politicians propose "regulations" to deal with it and placate that public. After the public outcry is over and the attention gone, all that's left is the politicians and the "regulated" to decide how to divide up the cash.
I'd argue that social pressures are much more effective at enforcing "common consensus." Take blatant public profanity for instance. Sure, in many places there are laws that prevent people from cursing excessively in public, but they are rarely enforced. Still, in most public social situations, people don't. It's the fear of being marginalized that is much more of a demotivator than any regulations.
BP will take a much bigger hit from the public by loss of business than it ever will from the government enforcing "penalties" on it for the spill, which by the way was caused by the same flawed regulatory system everyone wants to "regulate" every problem with. It'd be nice if it worked, but since it's codified, you can find the loopholes. Social marginalization isn't clearly demarcated. So, people have to be much more cautious and thoughtful. "Regulation" takes any consideration beyond the explicit rules out of the picture.
2. Laws are created by congress. There's too many to talk all at once; the solution they and every other large organization in the world have picked is to make smaller groups. These groups are called "committee"s. Are you objecting to dividing into smaller groups and attacking problems in-depth? Or is your object to the word "committee"? Did you know the libertarian party has a committee?
Laws are passed by congress. They're created by lobbyists.
As for breaking things into smaller pieces and attacking them at the detail level, that's exactly what the federal system is about. 50 different states can define problems, identify/try/refine solutions and hopefully identify the best one, all in parallel. When the federal government throws the whole budget for a problem into a single solution, which had to be watered down in almost every way to placate the blue and red states enough to pass, we lose tons of time and money and end up with no real solution. Dividing into smaller groups sounds like a great idea.
Not to mention, dividing it up makes it a lot harder for the big lobbyists to game the system. Ask any criminal, the more people involved in a heist, the more likely it is that someone's going to screw the deal for everyone. There's only 535 members of congress while there's 10's of thousands of state legislators.
3. There are no "czars" in this government. Some people are more senior, and have more authority; other people are less senior and have less authority. Are you in favor of everyone having the same authority? Or do you object to the word "czar"? Heaven knows it's an objectionable word, but it's one that the media uses to describe otherwise boring titles.
There are czars in this government. It's an official title, not one just used by media.
As for whether or not it matters, I don't personally care. If Americans weren't too stupid to know what the word actually means, it wouldn't be used because of the backlash.
4. I don't understand your problem with agencies. One of the agencies, for example, is the Presidio trust (I picked
55% to 26% is a small error? Sounds like double to me.
Yes, that's right. They got the sea level of the Netherlands wrong, and therefore anthropogenic global warming doesn't exist.
I think the problem is that we're not talking about the output of a model here. We're talking about a basic fact that should be easy to determine by simply looking it up.
Sure, it most likely has no bearing on the conclusions of the report. It's just that when facts like that are screwed up, it makes it easier for the political rhetoric to crank up to challenge the not-so-straightforward conclusions.
The only people this matters to are those participating in the political debate, which seems to be most everyone on slashdot. For me, I don't really care if there's AGW or not. Since it would take political action to avoid the problems, we're screwed if there actually is AGW because politicians are guaranteed to screw it up.
For me, I live as energy efficient as possible because it makes economic sense. If the AGW supporters (for lack of a better word... most descriptions seem too politically charged for my tastes) want to really change people's behavior, they'd make the economic argument for being energy efficient. Republicans can understand cutting costs... at least in their own businesses and lives. I've converted plenty to using CFL's/LED's at home simply by pointing out the direct savings.
You'll never succeed by trying to guilt people into changing and the political approach does nothing but ensure that there is stiff opposition. That's the tragedy of the commons.
For political reasons the actual projections were toned down and made milder, largely by excluding models that projected faster or more extreme warming. Then they averaged the remaining projections.
Regardless of what your position is on this subject, we have to be concerned that political considerations have any bearing on the output of the report. We all know politicians have a great capacity for finding things where they're not (i.e. WMD's).
That's my problem with the whole debate. It's just politics. Politicians have a great tendency to generate lots of noise that drowns out facts and common sense. Which is why I'm skeptical about any "revelation" on either side of this discussion.
I choose to be energy efficient in my life because it's a cheaper way to live. I don't need any stories of AGW to convince me... just like I don't need stories of devils and demons getting me to convince me to not go around treating people badly.
I will concede that there are many that do, though... and there are just as many that will use that need of boogeymen to gain power over people.
So many unjust laws on the books it almost undermines the validity of any sane laws that are left.
I saw a blog post the other day generally about the legislative process, but it touched on having laws automatically fall off the books if they're not re-implemented. Seemed like a good idea for dealing with the crazy laws that just sit out there until some idiot decides to apply them.
Bemusingly, people that preach "government should be small" and "let the free-market take care of itself" and "businesses are more efficient at anything compared to government so get the government out" somehow seem to see no disconnect in complaining about how obama is handling the spill. shouldn't they rally for obama to get out of the way and let BP do it's thing? oh yeah, they're busy at another rally chanting "drill baby, drill".
on one hand, people want the government to act. on the other, they want to let free-enterprise "do it's thing". you can't have both.
Me?
I'm disappointed the oversight agency was in bed (turns out, literally) with whom it was overseeing. Massive failure of government.
The same company that had the resources and technology to drill that far below the sea level is now citing the fact that the reason it's hard to contain the damage is, well, it's so far below the sea level. If they saw necessary to create the tech to create a hole so far down, it's their responsibility to create the tech to plug that hole - depth perception, great depths etc. certainly didn't stop them when drilling. Massive irresponsibility of "free enterprise".
The real problem is that whenever government "regulates," it gets "in bed" with whomever it's regulating. I'm one of those "government should be small" people (mainly because I understand it's nigh impossible to effectively manage the immense complexity of modern society). Instead of all the b.s. regulations, we should have a simple law that says if you fuck it up bad enough, you'll be living in a 10x4 for the rest of your life.
I want government to be able to severely punish people that act carelessly and cause this sort of damage. Clearly, regulation doesn't prevent this sort of thing. Perhaps, if BP's CEO knew that if something like this happened, he really would be wishing he had his life back as he rotted in prison, he would have been making sure that no corners were cut.
As is, all he had to worry about was just writing a few checks, which isn't much of a deterrent for a company that's worth a quarter of a trillion dollars.
Simple, I want Obama to push for a law that would require all offshore wells to have relief wells drilled PRIOR to striking oil. If there's a blowout, the solution is already in place.
I'd rather just see criminal charges with serious prison time made an option for screw ups that have major impacts. I don't want the government prescribing "what" to do. I just want them there saying, if you screw things up, you may not see life outside of prison ever again.
Do you think the guy on the rig would have said keep going after they found chunks of the blowout valve if he knew he may likely go to prison for the rest of his life for a careless decision? He might have, but there most likely wouldn't be another after him once he was rotting in a cell.
BP cut corners A LOT, big ones too and it fucked everything up. Perhaps this is a clear argument for GREATER GOVERNMENT REGULATION.
Except there were regulations in place to prevent this to begin with...
Making something illegal doesn't stop people from doing it. It just means we can punish them when they do it. The problem here isn't that there wasn't enough regulations. The problem is that there isn't enough teeth in the punishment for those that violate them or the government bureaucrats that didn't enforce them.
Everytime government talks regulation, the big guys know that it's only about paying lip-service to the populace and as long as they divert enough of their profits to the right politicians (i.e. all of them... both parties are guilty as hell), they can go right on doing what they want while the government ensures that things are so complicated that new competition can't enter the market.
"Regulation" benefits big business and politicians, not regular people.
That parents infleuence the actions of they child is well known, simple experiment: put a baby who can crawl on a surface and let it crawl over a gap covered by a glass plate. The baby will have no reaction of its own to the height below it. If the mother shows delight then the baby will show it, and cross happily. If the mother shows horror, the baby will react in fear trying to determine what danger it is in.
You're absolutely correct. However, this effect goes away with children that have begun walking. They become aware of the danger after they have experienced all of the falling involved with learning to walk.
Your central point remains, regardless. Most kids' hang-ups are there because the parents had them and passed them on. That's why, as parents, people need to be extra conscious of what their doing and thus teaching to their kids.
As a former caffeine addict, I would *love* to see some serious studies come out describing the long term consequences to long term caffeine use. Of course, we'll never see that because there's more money behind caffeine than alcohol and tobacco, combined.
No doubt. Big coffee owns all the politicians. So, you know it's never going to happen.
Australia's legislature seems to be riding some kind of runaway jesus train lately, with all the anti-porn initiatives and net-filtering. I can't imagine the majority of Aussies are behind this stuff. How is this happening? What is the election cycle like there?
No kidding. And, to think, just a couple of years ago I was thinking about leaving the US to move there.
Good point, you are correct, but (as I'm guessing you're aware) evolution doesn't speak to creation, that's a different theory. I know that it's usually confused, though (I've been in the South myself a few times and currently live in Kentucky), so I generally start by explaining that evolution doesn't say anything about the creation of the universe, Earth, or even the first replicator. Those are covered in alternate theories... I do find the confusion you mention is prevalent.
It's actually harder than that to compare Genesis to our scientific understanding of the universe given that light is created before the sun, and so are plants. There are two creation stories in Genesis and they contradict each other on a number of points. Still if the person you're talking to isn't going to get into the details that strategy can be useful for educating them enough to not want to "fight" against reality.
You're absolutely right, for the most part. Evolution is only how things changed after it started. Creation touches on it a little, but is much more about the cause. It's a philosophical perspective. I like to say that evolution is the how, creation is the why. Of course, that usually pisses people off on both sides... lol
I like to use Song of Solomon on bible literalists; Chapter 4 uses the phrase "my sister my spouse" on several verses. Interestingly this phrase is also useful in dating the poem as it refers to a late Sumerian tradition. Their Gods marred brother to sister though this was forbidden among humans and as a result of their Gods practice (later adopted by the Pharaohs as they became "living gods") it became romantic to call your spouse "my sister" or "my brother" as the case may be.
You should check out the Sumerian creation myths, though I'll warn you it isn't exactly safe for work...:-D
Solomon, supposedly, was also the author of Ecclesiastes. I've always found it interesting that he is considered the wisest of all Biblical authors, but his works are some the best to refute much of the dogma. It's funny to watch the fundies try to pick apart their smart man... lol
Many people sincerely believe that someone in Nigeria wants to give them a million bucks, too. Many people sincerely believe that wearing magnets will cure everything from foot pain to cancer. Many people sincerely believe that the politicians they vote for will live up to campaign promises. Etc. Belief has nothing to do with whether or not something is a scam.
I think you have just disproven evolution... now we just need some explanation for this unintelligent design...
It is often considered a threat to Christianity because without a literal Adam and Eve there was no "fall" and therefor we didn't inherit a "sinful nature" from them making the need for God to sacrifice himself, as a child of himself, to himself, to save us from himself, unnecessary.
You are correct, though, that it is often literalists who take the most offense to the notion of evolution. I find that most Christians (people in general, really) are startlingly ignorant of the content of the bible and the actual mechanisms and theory of evolution.
Being someone from the deep south, I can definitely understand the threat. And, you're exactly right, it's a huge threat to the literalists that insist on treating the Bible like it's some legal document (Biblical law not withstanding). It's not so much the Adam and Eve thing that I have heard. It's usually those saying that the Bible says it was 7 days, so it was 7 days.
I usually try to show them that evolution is perfectly compatible with creation if you don't insist on the literal interpretation. First off, what is a "day" to God (I usually don't bother bringing relativity or God's mass into it, though that usually is quite entertaining). Second, Genesis 1 says that life was created first in the oceans. Then, the next day, God created the land animals and FINALLY man. The timelines and "details" match perfectly if the single week interpretation isn't insisted upon.
Of course, many still insist on being literalists. Then, I ask them to explain to me why Ecclesiastes chapter 9 doesn't say there's no heaven or hell if "the words mean what the words mean." They start losing their preference for literal interpretation at that point.
Slashdot Mirror
It's much more like this: "Unless you're a priest or other person trained to understand religion, your religious views don't carry particular weight."
Except, it's actually about something based on known principles, facts, and science - so it's really: "Unless you understand how car engines work, you have no business telling me what's wrong with my car."
Which is true.
Unless, the problem with your car is entirely unrelated to the engine...
You don't understand the difference between weather and climate?
That's an easy one... Weather is when the data doesn't support your preconceived notions about climate change, climate is when it does.
Both sides play that same game... which is why this discussion is completely tired...
You should consider taking a step back from your anti-government ideology and realize that just like any large organization, sometimes things are done right and most times they are done wrong. Government is no different from any other large bureaucracy.
FTFY
For anyone who is getting a degree in a field that is already their passion & hobby (e.g. someone who has invested 10000+ hours of personal time into programming and then goes for a computer science degree), it's only in the final 1 or 2 years that the coursework is even worthwhile. The rest of the time is spent underachieving because the content is so rudimentary that you can't even stay focused.
That's exactly why I changed my major to business (that and I was already working professionally doing development for a fortune 500 company in my late teens). I figured I could already talk to the technical people just fine, but it might help to be able to discuss things with those that have no clue using their own terms.
As a consequence of that choice, I've rarely had the problems that many purely tech people complain about in the workplace. If I need or want something for technical reasons, I can put it in terms that the management types can understand, support and sell to their superiors.
If you're already state-of-the-art in what you do, why the hell would you waste years and all that money to just get a piece of paper? Use that time to pick up something useful. Like you said, a lot of people don't have jobs directly related to their degrees.
The DEA won't be able to overrule the Supreme Court.
You're making the flawed assumption that the current court would be against the DEA's position. For some reason, I've got a strong feeling that Roberts, Alito and Thomas will compromise their "leave it to the states" position on this particular issue. Maybe, I'm just a cynic, though.
Irony, asking for citation whilst providing no citation yourself. Here's Wikipedia, another citation there. It's not exactly a secret that marijuana use results in a diminished reaction time and loss of motor control. This is the same with alcohol or most depressants for that matter. You can take a certain amount of alcohol or other drug and remain within the safe limits for reaction time (this amount depends on the individual) but with marijuana there tends to be less of a safe zone that exists with alcohol due to the rapid rate at which marijuana is consumed (1 bong can intoxicate an individual as much as 100 ml of hard liquor in one go, plus marijuana intoxication is much faster). I'm all in favour of decriminalisation and in some cases legalisation but we cant lie to ourselves here, marijuana is an intoxicant that has serious effects on motor skills and reactions.
Absolutely. However, people, at least in my experience, tend to drive much faster and recklessly with alcohol where they tend to drive more slowly and carefully (due to paranoia) with the mj.
Fibres from the marijuana plant produce a material stronger then cotton at a much lower cost to produce (faster growth time, higher yield per plant, able to withstand harsher environmental conditions) thus you have to oft quoted stoner conspiracy that the anti-weed movement was sponsored by America's cotton growers.
I haven't seen anyone refute this. I can imagine though that fighting the cotton growers would be about as successful as trying to kill the corn subsidies.
Yeah... cause god knows that those cotton growers couldn't just plant hemp next year instead...
Ditto the US Constitution. Read it sometime. Carefully. It gives the nation-states of the US the power to completely abolish the US, and go off on their separate routes. You are trying to make a difference where none exists.
That would be false. Read up on the Civil War. All the Southern states wanted was to secede from the Union. Only Texas has that 'right' due to the peculiar way it joined the US.
The Civil War didn't start because the southern states seceded. It started because they attacked US troops at Fort Sumter. It's arguable as to whether or not they would have been allowed to leave if they hadn't started the fight anyway. However, the US states do absolutely have the right to abolish the Constitution and thus the US without any input from the federal government. All they have to do is call a Constitutional convention and enough of them to vote to end it.
The US and EU are more alike than different. Consider that 75% of laws are now passed, not by state parliaments, but by the central EU. We have a near-identical arrangement in the US.
All laws in Europe are written and passed by state parliaments. Some parts of some of the laws are written to satisfy the recommendations of the EU (issued as EU Directives), however there is a huge degree of variance between the laws that is allowed in the directives and sometimes the laws are written outside the specification of the directive and then the country and EU negotiate - EU could fine the country some amount of money or just forget the infraction if the country offers something else in return.
So before you go off and compare US and EU, better learn something about both.
It's the same in the US. Most of the "laws" are passed by the states. Virtually everything federal is related to interstate and international issues.
We aren't as different as you think and those differences are mostly superficial.
The term "member state" when used in the context of the EU refers to so-called "nation states" as opposed to US states. There are serious cultural differences between the different nations that make up the EU, not to mention that most countries have their own language and a long history of fighting with each other (not like US states who, with a few notable exceptions, have a history of pissing contests over random border lakes and the like).
I'm always entertained by people on /. making statements about other people's countries (usually condescending, but not in this case).
The US was exactly designed to be made up of independent states with the central government just doing some refereeing between them and providing a military. This is why there's no US federal law against murder (except in certain situations outside the jurisdiction of the individual states).
As for cultural differences, you should spend some time in Utah, where you need a sponsor to hava a drink in a bar and then spend some in California, where Oakland just approved industrial marijuana farming. There are vast cultural differences between our states. Ever heard of the phrases red state/blue state? That division is about much more than what party tends to get elected.
And, we have quite a history of fighting amongst ourselves, too. Maybe not as many on battle fields as in courts, but that's only because for the entire existence of most of our states, we had a central mechanism for resolving those disputes relatively peacefully.
Yes, there are forces in the EU who want to turn it into a country like the US but it's going kind of slow since even among politicians this is opposed by a lot of people.
We continue to have that same debate here. That's what the whole Republican/Democrat v Classical Liberal/Libertarian debate is in this country. Who can make better decisions about problems, someone that spends virtually all of their time in DC or someone that is living in your town in the middle of the problem and shares your culture? The US and the EU aren't that far apart. It's where in their evolutionary history they happen to be for the most part.
This seems to contradict your previous assertion that we'd see better results if no one knew exactly what the rules were, and had to be careful not to break any rules "just in case" to avoid social scorn. I would support an argument that the US/UK system(s) of common law lead to some messy legal landscapes, but the solution to that is civil law, not lack of law.
It seems to contradict your preconceived notions about where I'm coming from and thus what you perceived my assertion to be. It's just part of the American political process, so I can't blame you for naturally trying to identify my "position."
It doesn't contradict my assertion at all. I'm saying that you never get the rules right to begin with and the inevitable product of regulation is a bureaucratic mess where the state of Louisiana can't stop the flow of oil onto it's shore because of the mess. You get a system where huge environmental disasters are created by those kind to the politicians despite their being "regulated." My position that social pressure is more effective still stands. "Regulation" makes the people that should be paying attention either corrupt or so unconcerned that they ignore their duty to society.
The concept of a "Livable wage" and the effects of poverty on dietary habits and obesity aside, how do you determine when someone's basic rights are being violated? How do you determine who's culpable, and who should "do time"?
It's ok. Everyone likes to ignore that our problem as a nation is that we're fat, lazy and ignorant because we feel entitled to everything we want in the world. Fix that, all this other shit gets in line.
Someone's rights are violated when anyone denies them their life, liberty or property. Whoever does that is the one that's culpable and thus the one that should do time, if the violation is severe enough.
You may want to check your timeline. The financial collapse came about when the regulations that were put in place as a result of the S&L failures in the 80's and 90's were lifted. While the regulations were in place, we had a relatively smooth economic picture. Take the regulations off the financial sector, and we had an incredible surge, followed by a spectacular blowout.
I'm talking about the regulations that gave Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae more power to subsidize subprime loans, which was exactly what caused the recession. When the government is backing your bad bets and actively encouraging you to make them, you tend to get people making bad bets and the nation left holding the bag if they lose while they just get richer, along with their political buddies on both sides of the political duopoly, if they win.
You're correct that regulations tend to prevent the problems that we already know might happen, and don't protect against the new ones. You are incorrect in your assertion that regulations prevent all progress. Regulation is like the speed limits and weight limits on the highway. It dictates some restraint, so you can reach your destination (e.g., make progress) without being a menace to the other people around you. You may not be able to get as much stuff to your destination as fast as you'd like, but the chances that you'll lose control and kill everyone else on the road are significantly reduced. And while you might argue that "Hey, I'd be a responsible driver/citizen," there's plenty of evidence from Wall Street that not everyone is, and they're the ones we need to regulate.
I never said they prevent all progress. In fact, I never said we should have no regulation at all. I look at the world practically. I know how things SHOULD work. Unfortunately, we live in a world where they work as they work, not how they should. If everyone gets a say in every decision, democracy, right, how many good decisions and to what level can they be made? And how long will those good decisions keep being made as problems fade from vi
To clarify, you're arguing in favor of security through obscurity? You really think corporations will be more careful of being shunned by consumers than fined or penalized by governments? I would have to argue that no amount of public shame will cause WalMart to pay livable wages to its staff, or correct its discrimination practices. That sort of change takes regulations (laws) and enforcement (lawsuits, both civil and criminal).
No. I'm arguing that codifying rules opens things up to be gamed because people know expressly what they can and can't do. It's great if you've got the smartest the universe has to offer making the rules and they get it right in the beginning. Otherwise, you end up with spaghetti law that has to constantly be patched to cover up oversights and changes in the world, which leads to system in which no one really knows what the rules are.
My real argument is that the government shouldn't even be involved in creating these artificial entities we call corporations. How many problems would be solved if the government just stayed out of it and there was no such thing as a corporation? Since that's where most of the pro-government rants seem to be targeted, it's amusing to me that there would be no corporations without the government being involved to begin with.
People have basic rights. If Walmart or whoever is violating those, someone needs to do some time. Otherwise, I don't really care. I don't even know what "livable wages" are. Seems to me, most of the people I see working at WM are your typical fat, lazy Americans. They're certainly making much more than enough to eat. And never mind what the other 95+% of the world seems to be able to live on.
Our definition of necessity is a bit warped here in the materialistic American culture. "Livable" is quite doable on those wages. The problem is we're a wanting culture and that requires money to satisfy. We'd probably be better off as a nation if that's all anyone made. Our priorities might actually get straight.
The BP fiasco was enabled through a regulatory system that is certainly broken, but the system was gutted by the last several regimes to control the US (last several iterations of the same regime? Your call). Likewise, the rolling blackouts in California several years ago, the recent collapse of the stock market, etc. were all a direct or indirect result of regulations being relaxed to "foster growth" or other nonsense. While regulations certainly hamper growth, they also hamper collapse. The point of regulation is to reduce volatility, so that we can avoid the economic whiplash that breaks the necks and backs of the citizenry.
You clearly point out the consequence of regulation. It is great for maintaining the status quo. You can't regulate progress, because you don't know where you're going. Without progress, problems don't get solved.
And, collapse is a good thing. If we'd stop jumping in and rescuing everyone, that would reduce volatility. By artificially removing risk for corporations and individuals, we're encouraging risky behavior.
Regulations are only good for solving problems we've already had. And, they always create new ones. The whole financial collapse was setup by the regulations that came out of the S&L failures in the early 90's. They always create more problems than they solve.
As far has how I would do it, since no one is really asking, I'd have a simple rule that you use proper due diligence and best practices or you get punished. For instance, with deep water drilling, I'd say we don't regulate that. If you make a stupid decision that ends up with a situation like we have in the gulf now, you lose your company, your money and your freedom for life.
Do you think the guy on that rig that said keep going after he was brought chunks of the blowout valve would have made the same decision if those were the rules? And, it wouldn't have cost us a dime in "regulation."
1. "Regulations" are the mechanism society has for enforcing a common concensus. As a society, "we" decided that cholera was bad. The solution (alongside education and convincing, of course) is regulation: all houses in area "x" must have sewer connections and must not have an outhouse. And there's a team of people to take water samples. And there are regulations on how to test the water.
"Regulations" are A mechanism that society uses to TRY to enforce a common consensus. The problem is that in practice, they're not particularly effective. When the public is screaming about an issue that there is "consensus" to solve, politicians propose "regulations" to deal with it and placate that public. After the public outcry is over and the attention gone, all that's left is the politicians and the "regulated" to decide how to divide up the cash.
I'd argue that social pressures are much more effective at enforcing "common consensus." Take blatant public profanity for instance. Sure, in many places there are laws that prevent people from cursing excessively in public, but they are rarely enforced. Still, in most public social situations, people don't. It's the fear of being marginalized that is much more of a demotivator than any regulations.
BP will take a much bigger hit from the public by loss of business than it ever will from the government enforcing "penalties" on it for the spill, which by the way was caused by the same flawed regulatory system everyone wants to "regulate" every problem with. It'd be nice if it worked, but since it's codified, you can find the loopholes. Social marginalization isn't clearly demarcated. So, people have to be much more cautious and thoughtful. "Regulation" takes any consideration beyond the explicit rules out of the picture.
2. Laws are created by congress. There's too many to talk all at once; the solution they and every other large organization in the world have picked is to make smaller groups. These groups are called "committee"s. Are you objecting to dividing into smaller groups and attacking problems in-depth? Or is your object to the word "committee"? Did you know the libertarian party has a committee?
Laws are passed by congress. They're created by lobbyists.
As for breaking things into smaller pieces and attacking them at the detail level, that's exactly what the federal system is about. 50 different states can define problems, identify/try/refine solutions and hopefully identify the best one, all in parallel. When the federal government throws the whole budget for a problem into a single solution, which had to be watered down in almost every way to placate the blue and red states enough to pass, we lose tons of time and money and end up with no real solution. Dividing into smaller groups sounds like a great idea.
Not to mention, dividing it up makes it a lot harder for the big lobbyists to game the system. Ask any criminal, the more people involved in a heist, the more likely it is that someone's going to screw the deal for everyone. There's only 535 members of congress while there's 10's of thousands of state legislators.
3. There are no "czars" in this government. Some people are more senior, and have more authority; other people are less senior and have less authority. Are you in favor of everyone having the same authority? Or do you object to the word "czar"? Heaven knows it's an objectionable word, but it's one that the media uses to describe otherwise boring titles.
There are czars in this government. It's an official title, not one just used by media.
As for whether or not it matters, I don't personally care. If Americans weren't too stupid to know what the word actually means, it wouldn't be used because of the backlash.
4. I don't understand your problem with agencies. One of the agencies, for example, is the Presidio trust (I picked
55% to 26% is a small error? Sounds like double to me.
Yes, that's right. They got the sea level of the Netherlands wrong, and therefore anthropogenic global warming doesn't exist.
I think the problem is that we're not talking about the output of a model here. We're talking about a basic fact that should be easy to determine by simply looking it up.
Sure, it most likely has no bearing on the conclusions of the report. It's just that when facts like that are screwed up, it makes it easier for the political rhetoric to crank up to challenge the not-so-straightforward conclusions.
The only people this matters to are those participating in the political debate, which seems to be most everyone on slashdot. For me, I don't really care if there's AGW or not. Since it would take political action to avoid the problems, we're screwed if there actually is AGW because politicians are guaranteed to screw it up.
For me, I live as energy efficient as possible because it makes economic sense. If the AGW supporters (for lack of a better word... most descriptions seem too politically charged for my tastes) want to really change people's behavior, they'd make the economic argument for being energy efficient. Republicans can understand cutting costs... at least in their own businesses and lives. I've converted plenty to using CFL's/LED's at home simply by pointing out the direct savings.
You'll never succeed by trying to guilt people into changing and the political approach does nothing but ensure that there is stiff opposition. That's the tragedy of the commons.
For political reasons the actual projections were toned down and made milder, largely by excluding models that projected faster or more extreme warming. Then they averaged the remaining projections.
Regardless of what your position is on this subject, we have to be concerned that political considerations have any bearing on the output of the report. We all know politicians have a great capacity for finding things where they're not (i.e. WMD's).
That's my problem with the whole debate. It's just politics. Politicians have a great tendency to generate lots of noise that drowns out facts and common sense. Which is why I'm skeptical about any "revelation" on either side of this discussion.
I choose to be energy efficient in my life because it's a cheaper way to live. I don't need any stories of AGW to convince me... just like I don't need stories of devils and demons getting me to convince me to not go around treating people badly.
I will concede that there are many that do, though... and there are just as many that will use that need of boogeymen to gain power over people.
So many unjust laws on the books it almost undermines the validity of any sane laws that are left.
I saw a blog post the other day generally about the legislative process, but it touched on having laws automatically fall off the books if they're not re-implemented. Seemed like a good idea for dealing with the crazy laws that just sit out there until some idiot decides to apply them.
Bemusingly, people that preach "government should be small" and "let the free-market take care of itself" and "businesses are more efficient at anything compared to government so get the government out" somehow seem to see no disconnect in complaining about how obama is handling the spill. shouldn't they rally for obama to get out of the way and let BP do it's thing? oh yeah, they're busy at another rally chanting "drill baby, drill".
on one hand, people want the government to act. on the other, they want to let free-enterprise "do it's thing". you can't have both.
Me?
I'm disappointed the oversight agency was in bed (turns out, literally) with whom it was overseeing. Massive failure of government.
The same company that had the resources and technology to drill that far below the sea level is now citing the fact that the reason it's hard to contain the damage is, well, it's so far below the sea level. If they saw necessary to create the tech to create a hole so far down, it's their responsibility to create the tech to plug that hole - depth perception, great depths etc. certainly didn't stop them when drilling. Massive irresponsibility of "free enterprise".
The real problem is that whenever government "regulates," it gets "in bed" with whomever it's regulating. I'm one of those "government should be small" people (mainly because I understand it's nigh impossible to effectively manage the immense complexity of modern society). Instead of all the b.s. regulations, we should have a simple law that says if you fuck it up bad enough, you'll be living in a 10x4 for the rest of your life.
I want government to be able to severely punish people that act carelessly and cause this sort of damage. Clearly, regulation doesn't prevent this sort of thing. Perhaps, if BP's CEO knew that if something like this happened, he really would be wishing he had his life back as he rotted in prison, he would have been making sure that no corners were cut.
As is, all he had to worry about was just writing a few checks, which isn't much of a deterrent for a company that's worth a quarter of a trillion dollars.
Simple, I want Obama to push for a law that would require all offshore wells to have relief wells drilled PRIOR to striking oil. If there's a blowout, the solution is already in place.
I'd rather just see criminal charges with serious prison time made an option for screw ups that have major impacts. I don't want the government prescribing "what" to do. I just want them there saying, if you screw things up, you may not see life outside of prison ever again.
Do you think the guy on the rig would have said keep going after they found chunks of the blowout valve if he knew he may likely go to prison for the rest of his life for a careless decision? He might have, but there most likely wouldn't be another after him once he was rotting in a cell.
BP cut corners A LOT, big ones too and it fucked everything up. Perhaps this is a clear argument for GREATER GOVERNMENT REGULATION.
Except there were regulations in place to prevent this to begin with...
Making something illegal doesn't stop people from doing it. It just means we can punish them when they do it. The problem here isn't that there wasn't enough regulations. The problem is that there isn't enough teeth in the punishment for those that violate them or the government bureaucrats that didn't enforce them.
Everytime government talks regulation, the big guys know that it's only about paying lip-service to the populace and as long as they divert enough of their profits to the right politicians (i.e. all of them... both parties are guilty as hell), they can go right on doing what they want while the government ensures that things are so complicated that new competition can't enter the market.
"Regulation" benefits big business and politicians, not regular people.
That parents infleuence the actions of they child is well known, simple experiment: put a baby who can crawl on a surface and let it crawl over a gap covered by a glass plate. The baby will have no reaction of its own to the height below it. If the mother shows delight then the baby will show it, and cross happily. If the mother shows horror, the baby will react in fear trying to determine what danger it is in.
You're absolutely correct. However, this effect goes away with children that have begun walking. They become aware of the danger after they have experienced all of the falling involved with learning to walk.
Your central point remains, regardless. Most kids' hang-ups are there because the parents had them and passed them on. That's why, as parents, people need to be extra conscious of what their doing and thus teaching to their kids.
As a former caffeine addict, I would *love* to see some serious studies come out describing the long term consequences to long term caffeine use. Of course, we'll never see that because there's more money behind caffeine than alcohol and tobacco, combined.
No doubt. Big coffee owns all the politicians. So, you know it's never going to happen.
Australia's legislature seems to be riding some kind of runaway jesus train lately, with all the anti-porn initiatives and net-filtering. I can't imagine the majority of Aussies are behind this stuff. How is this happening? What is the election cycle like there?
No kidding. And, to think, just a couple of years ago I was thinking about leaving the US to move there.
That's no longer in the plans...
What, exactly, is there to teach about intelligent deign?
Kids, things in life are really complicated, so don't bother trying to understand anything.
RECESS!
Good point, you are correct, but (as I'm guessing you're aware) evolution doesn't speak to creation, that's a different theory. I know that it's usually confused, though (I've been in the South myself a few times and currently live in Kentucky), so I generally start by explaining that evolution doesn't say anything about the creation of the universe, Earth, or even the first replicator. Those are covered in alternate theories... I do find the confusion you mention is prevalent.
It's actually harder than that to compare Genesis to our scientific understanding of the universe given that light is created before the sun, and so are plants. There are two creation stories in Genesis and they contradict each other on a number of points. Still if the person you're talking to isn't going to get into the details that strategy can be useful for educating them enough to not want to "fight" against reality.
You're absolutely right, for the most part. Evolution is only how things changed after it started. Creation touches on it a little, but is much more about the cause. It's a philosophical perspective. I like to say that evolution is the how, creation is the why. Of course, that usually pisses people off on both sides... lol
I like to use Song of Solomon on bible literalists; Chapter 4 uses the phrase "my sister my spouse" on several verses. Interestingly this phrase is also useful in dating the poem as it refers to a late Sumerian tradition. Their Gods marred brother to sister though this was forbidden among humans and as a result of their Gods practice (later adopted by the Pharaohs as they became "living gods") it became romantic to call your spouse "my sister" or "my brother" as the case may be.
You should check out the Sumerian creation myths, though I'll warn you it isn't exactly safe for work... :-D
Solomon, supposedly, was also the author of Ecclesiastes. I've always found it interesting that he is considered the wisest of all Biblical authors, but his works are some the best to refute much of the dogma. It's funny to watch the fundies try to pick apart their smart man... lol
Many people sincerely believe that someone in Nigeria wants to give them a million bucks, too. Many people sincerely believe that wearing magnets will cure everything from foot pain to cancer. Many people sincerely believe that the politicians they vote for will live up to campaign promises. Etc. Belief has nothing to do with whether or not something is a scam.
I think you have just disproven evolution... now we just need some explanation for this unintelligent design...
It is often considered a threat to Christianity because without a literal Adam and Eve there was no "fall" and therefor we didn't inherit a "sinful nature" from them making the need for God to sacrifice himself, as a child of himself, to himself, to save us from himself, unnecessary. You are correct, though, that it is often literalists who take the most offense to the notion of evolution. I find that most Christians (people in general, really) are startlingly ignorant of the content of the bible and the actual mechanisms and theory of evolution.
Being someone from the deep south, I can definitely understand the threat. And, you're exactly right, it's a huge threat to the literalists that insist on treating the Bible like it's some legal document (Biblical law not withstanding). It's not so much the Adam and Eve thing that I have heard. It's usually those saying that the Bible says it was 7 days, so it was 7 days.
I usually try to show them that evolution is perfectly compatible with creation if you don't insist on the literal interpretation. First off, what is a "day" to God (I usually don't bother bringing relativity or God's mass into it, though that usually is quite entertaining). Second, Genesis 1 says that life was created first in the oceans. Then, the next day, God created the land animals and FINALLY man. The timelines and "details" match perfectly if the single week interpretation isn't insisted upon.
Of course, many still insist on being literalists. Then, I ask them to explain to me why Ecclesiastes chapter 9 doesn't say there's no heaven or hell if "the words mean what the words mean." They start losing their preference for literal interpretation at that point.