So we are all just going to pretend that the sig isn't an Argumentum Ad Hominem by even including a political label? "A liberal insulted me, so all liberals use insults." You would have gotten a very ironic F from my philosophy teacher for that one.
What I see in your post is "I don't care how many people are hurt, do what I say!"
Nah man, you're just butthurt. Go back and read it again when you calm down. It'll make more sense.
Calling something expensive doesn't make it less urgent. Humans will suffer (possibly) from the increased cost of building solar and wind plants (even though that will create a crap ton of jobs and reduce dependency on foreign energy sources.) But HUMANKIND will suffer for our shortsightedness if we delay indefinitely. And trust me, just because you don't know how soon, doesn't mean it won't be SOON. All in all, I think my point was salient. Already, in my life, glaciers here as long as humankind have just melted right a way. Assuming more adverse effects won't happen in your human lifetime is like standing in a storm shouting "It can't rain any more than it already has." You might want to meditate on that for a minute before you go around accusing people of being ignorant. Sometimes things are hard, that doesn't mean they aren't the right thing to do. You know there is a problem, put on your big boy breeches and help fix it.
First of all, bullshit: https://asknature.org/strategy... And secondly, it is really odd that you choose something like an owl wing to base your scientific musings off of, rather than the fantastic examples of us throwing enough money at something and figuring it out, such as nuclear weaponry or traveling to the moon. Money = resources. If you throw enough resources at science, you will indeed see results. The vast majority of scientific achievements have been from people who knew what they wanted to do and kept plugging away at it until they made it happen. Eureka moments are very rare in the grand scheme of things.
I agree. I mean, I am super liberal, and hate the current Idiot in cheif, and all the party line republicans that are goose stepping in his nominees, but should we really be complaining when they choose to make their systems MORE secure? That they may or may not be using them for corrupt purposes, should be a completely different topic of criticism.
You know, this perplexes the hell out of me. Why is it that we, as a society, are willing to encourage the least skilled/responsible workers TO HANDLE OUR FOOD? You might find that if you paid more, that employee might value their job enough to excel at it. You might not consider it noble, but there are a lot of skills to master, even in a subway. Customer service, inventory management, etc. The problem might not be with your workers.
We don't have to. The overpopulation question assumes that immortal people would be more likely to even want kids. In 2012, the birthrate in america was 1.88 per female. Less than that in Japan. As societies become more affluent, their breeding tends to reduce. Also, part of the "overpopulation" concern has to do with production vs consumption. If people are biologically healthy for hundreds or thousands of years, they will never retire.
And this is somehow, even worse. What you are suggesting is that Bannon wasn't a racist (i.e. knew that was wrong) and yet willfully made his website an alt-right platform. Knew it was wrong, did it anyway. Honestly, I think you are probably right. I think the terrible thing about this cabinet in the making is less that it is filled with tepid racists, but rather men who will DEMONSTRABLY do anything for personal power, even violate their own beliefs.
Respectfully, you have never been poor enough to have the proper perspective here. As a child, I remember quite well when having an extra $50 all in one lump sum at one time was an inestimable fortune. There comes a certain point where you reach total subsistence labor, no one will lend you more and you can't pay what you have borrowed, and every dime goes to keeping a roof over your head and food in your kid's mouth. Don't believe me? Take a look at the billions of people all over the world who live their entire lives like that.
Gee. I wonder if anything might drastically alter that rate when certain areas like Greenland pass some arbitrary point. Oh, lets just choose, I dunno, an average low of 33 degrees F. Nah, you're right. It will probably continue like clockwork.
It has also advanced science, medicine, and industrial systems and technologies faster than any other system yet tried. Government controlled/run economies and societies cannot match that or even come close.
Sure, if you don't count getting to the moon in 10 years (government), Polio vaccines (universities funded by the government), the internet, pretty much anything that came from the military. Basically none of those things was due to "market forces." You are arguing like someone in a cult would, not based off of actual facts.
Nah, it is totally possible. Allow me to demonstrate.
"Candidate Y says that gravity does not hold things down." - Explicit, only showing one viewpoint.
"Candidate Y says gravity doesn't hold things down, Candidate X says it does" - Implicit, implying that both statements have equal validity.
"Candidate X says gravity holds things down, Candidate Y doesn't agree. Here are the facts why candidate Y is talking out of his ass." - Bias free.
The job of the media has historically been not to parrot what each candidate says, but to do actual investigation and inform the populace about the FACTS. There is a difference between INFORMING the populace and bias.
Inferences from geological fossil data are known as a "predictions". You claim to know science, so you may be familiar with the term. Predictions are.... you guessed it, falsifiable, which is how we test geological sciences. But hey, lets not let reality get in the way of a good narrative.
There is one bright ray of hope. If the sea level gets too high, all that Manhattan property he owns will be soggy and worthless. Granted, that is going to take 100 years or so, but I am banking that the Trump dynasty will have seized total control by then.
Maybe you should talk to somebody from the Netherlands about what is or is not an obviously doomed land. In fact the using of levees dates back to before there was an America. What doomed New Orleans, was Congress putting off money to maintain the Levee system for more than a decade. As far as the national benefit of New Orleans is concerned, it is still one of our major ports situated right on the Mississippi River. Admittedly a city can be replaced over time, but at what cost? The infrastructure to house a million people doesn't spring up overnight. The buildings, the roads, the industry, the ports, all of those things have a staggering price associated with them. And let's also not forget that we're not just talking about New Orleans. We're also talking about New York. And 100 other coastal cities around the country. Assuming that we can just slowly back away from these places and not feel the tremendous crunch of resources that's bound to follow, is simply naive. And lastly, we're talking about the whole state of Louisiana and Florida, you know the place that grows the most abundant amount of the crops you eat. While the loss of US oranges, cotton,soybean, sugar and tobacco might not significantly disturb you , it's important to note that almost everywhere in the world , those crops and others are raised on Coastal floodplains. Because coastal plains have been depositing thousands of years of organic sediment that grows crops really well. If you're going to assume that kind of change is benign you need to take into account a lot more factors then just disagreeing with the elevation of a city.
I agree with you, that example is inconsistent. Depending on how pedantic one wishes to be, you can argue that having an income tax with a rate of 0% is different than not having an income tax, at least legally, but why wander down that twisty road. The truth o meter, however, is missing the forest for the trees. The real power of politifact is the articles themselves. You can read how they arrived at their conclusions and decide if you feel the same. That's how I use it. Unfortunately for conservatives, reality has a liberal bias.
Had to undo mod points to post this, but I feel it needs to be brought up. As a resident of Louisiana, I would like to offer a quick perspective. When Katrina hit, it displaced a paltry 250,000 people, and has taken 10 years to recover that population. The richest country in the world was seemingly unable to handle this overflow well, despite only being around 0.1% of the nations population. Now, can you imagine what kind of nightmarish hellscape the earth will be if 6.3 BILLION people start trying to "move a few miles inland". Considering the timescales that could be involve, it might be more like 14 billion. Even over a drawn out time frame, this will be a very dark period for humanity. Also, you might want to look more carefully at http://ngm.nationalgeographic.... , depending on your definition of "a few miles"
Yes, unless that extreme condition is heat. In order to make anything a tolerable 90f when it is 200f outside, you will have to vent heat. In space, this is done by infra red radiation, very slowly. Thankfully, space is mostly a very cold place, so the challenge is more often heating up the vessel. This is why they put radioactive material in satellites, as a heat source. Unfortunately, when you are talking about a habitable dome on earth, the question is, where do you vent the heat? Into the atmosphere that is already trapping that heat? Into the molten core of the planet? In the short term the oceans would work, but eventually they will simply evaporate (as will happen in 1 billion years anyway.) The one thing you could do is use evaporative cooling by developing a way to vent some of the earths atmosphere into space. So in short, it will literally be easier to cool the planet than to build a domed air conditioned city.
I just had the weirdest sensation of deja vu. I remember about 12 years ago being on slashdot and reading post after post of how Snopes had a clearly conservative bias. I'll let you draw your own conclusions...
I think that is a bit of a reach. While I catch your meaning, religions is used to provide instant, irrefutable answers to important questions. It is like the placebo of information. We, as humans, have a thirst to know basically all the information we can find, so we ask questions, like "Where did all this land come from?" Ask a priest, he will say God did it and it took 7 days. Whelp, that is that. Now I can FEEL like I know the answer, without any of the extremely hard work required to figure out the actual truth. Science, on the other hand, if done properly will more often lead to more questions. The engine of science is driven on the fuel of curiosity. The engine of religion is driven on authoritative answers to uncertainty. Very different things.
Slashdot Mirror
So we are all just going to pretend that the sig isn't an Argumentum Ad Hominem by even including a political label? "A liberal insulted me, so all liberals use insults." You would have gotten a very ironic F from my philosophy teacher for that one.
What I see in your post is "I don't care how many people are hurt, do what I say!" Nah man, you're just butthurt. Go back and read it again when you calm down. It'll make more sense.
Calling something expensive doesn't make it less urgent. Humans will suffer (possibly) from the increased cost of building solar and wind plants (even though that will create a crap ton of jobs and reduce dependency on foreign energy sources.) But HUMANKIND will suffer for our shortsightedness if we delay indefinitely. And trust me, just because you don't know how soon, doesn't mean it won't be SOON. All in all, I think my point was salient. Already, in my life, glaciers here as long as humankind have just melted right a way. Assuming more adverse effects won't happen in your human lifetime is like standing in a storm shouting "It can't rain any more than it already has." You might want to meditate on that for a minute before you go around accusing people of being ignorant. Sometimes things are hard, that doesn't mean they aren't the right thing to do. You know there is a problem, put on your big boy breeches and help fix it.
"Yes, but how FAST is it sinking?"
"We're not entirely sure, but we know it is because we keep drilling holes."
"Well, we better keep drilling until we know how fast, just to be safe."
First of all, bullshit: https://asknature.org/strategy... And secondly, it is really odd that you choose something like an owl wing to base your scientific musings off of, rather than the fantastic examples of us throwing enough money at something and figuring it out, such as nuclear weaponry or traveling to the moon. Money = resources. If you throw enough resources at science, you will indeed see results. The vast majority of scientific achievements have been from people who knew what they wanted to do and kept plugging away at it until they made it happen. Eureka moments are very rare in the grand scheme of things.
I agree. I mean, I am super liberal, and hate the current Idiot in cheif, and all the party line republicans that are goose stepping in his nominees, but should we really be complaining when they choose to make their systems MORE secure? That they may or may not be using them for corrupt purposes, should be a completely different topic of criticism.
You know, this perplexes the hell out of me. Why is it that we, as a society, are willing to encourage the least skilled/responsible workers TO HANDLE OUR FOOD? You might find that if you paid more, that employee might value their job enough to excel at it. You might not consider it noble, but there are a lot of skills to master, even in a subway. Customer service, inventory management, etc. The problem might not be with your workers.
We don't have to. The overpopulation question assumes that immortal people would be more likely to even want kids. In 2012, the birthrate in america was 1.88 per female. Less than that in Japan. As societies become more affluent, their breeding tends to reduce. Also, part of the "overpopulation" concern has to do with production vs consumption. If people are biologically healthy for hundreds or thousands of years, they will never retire.
And this is somehow, even worse. What you are suggesting is that Bannon wasn't a racist (i.e. knew that was wrong) and yet willfully made his website an alt-right platform. Knew it was wrong, did it anyway. Honestly, I think you are probably right. I think the terrible thing about this cabinet in the making is less that it is filled with tepid racists, but rather men who will DEMONSTRABLY do anything for personal power, even violate their own beliefs.
Respectfully, you have never been poor enough to have the proper perspective here. As a child, I remember quite well when having an extra $50 all in one lump sum at one time was an inestimable fortune. There comes a certain point where you reach total subsistence labor, no one will lend you more and you can't pay what you have borrowed, and every dime goes to keeping a roof over your head and food in your kid's mouth. Don't believe me? Take a look at the billions of people all over the world who live their entire lives like that.
Please don't feed the trolls. They are growing fat and powerful.
Gee. I wonder if anything might drastically alter that rate when certain areas like Greenland pass some arbitrary point. Oh, lets just choose, I dunno, an average low of 33 degrees F. Nah, you're right. It will probably continue like clockwork.
Looks like Slashdot has forgotten how to use the 'Flamebait' mod option.
It has also advanced science, medicine, and industrial systems and technologies faster than any other system yet tried. Government controlled/run economies and societies cannot match that or even come close.
Sure, if you don't count getting to the moon in 10 years (government), Polio vaccines (universities funded by the government), the internet, pretty much anything that came from the military. Basically none of those things was due to "market forces." You are arguing like someone in a cult would, not based off of actual facts.
I find delicious irony in the fact that you used the term lemmings to describe people who can't identify fake news: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/ind...
No need, she hasn't been charged with anything. Even though the Republicans have tried to nail her to the wall for decades.
Nah, it is totally possible. Allow me to demonstrate. "Candidate Y says that gravity does not hold things down." - Explicit, only showing one viewpoint. "Candidate Y says gravity doesn't hold things down, Candidate X says it does" - Implicit, implying that both statements have equal validity. "Candidate X says gravity holds things down, Candidate Y doesn't agree. Here are the facts why candidate Y is talking out of his ass." - Bias free. The job of the media has historically been not to parrot what each candidate says, but to do actual investigation and inform the populace about the FACTS. There is a difference between INFORMING the populace and bias.
Inferences from geological fossil data are known as a "predictions". You claim to know science, so you may be familiar with the term. Predictions are.... you guessed it, falsifiable, which is how we test geological sciences. But hey, lets not let reality get in the way of a good narrative.
There is one bright ray of hope. If the sea level gets too high, all that Manhattan property he owns will be soggy and worthless. Granted, that is going to take 100 years or so, but I am banking that the Trump dynasty will have seized total control by then.
Maybe you should talk to somebody from the Netherlands about what is or is not an obviously doomed land. In fact the using of levees dates back to before there was an America. What doomed New Orleans, was Congress putting off money to maintain the Levee system for more than a decade. As far as the national benefit of New Orleans is concerned, it is still one of our major ports situated right on the Mississippi River. Admittedly a city can be replaced over time, but at what cost? The infrastructure to house a million people doesn't spring up overnight. The buildings, the roads, the industry, the ports, all of those things have a staggering price associated with them. And let's also not forget that we're not just talking about New Orleans. We're also talking about New York. And 100 other coastal cities around the country. Assuming that we can just slowly back away from these places and not feel the tremendous crunch of resources that's bound to follow, is simply naive. And lastly, we're talking about the whole state of Louisiana and Florida, you know the place that grows the most abundant amount of the crops you eat. While the loss of US oranges, cotton ,soybean, sugar and tobacco might not significantly disturb you , it's important to note that almost everywhere in the world , those crops and others are raised on Coastal floodplains. Because coastal plains have been depositing thousands of years of organic sediment that grows crops really well. If you're going to assume that kind of change is benign you need to take into account a lot more factors then just disagreeing with the elevation of a city.
I agree with you, that example is inconsistent. Depending on how pedantic one wishes to be, you can argue that having an income tax with a rate of 0% is different than not having an income tax, at least legally, but why wander down that twisty road. The truth o meter, however, is missing the forest for the trees. The real power of politifact is the articles themselves. You can read how they arrived at their conclusions and decide if you feel the same. That's how I use it. Unfortunately for conservatives, reality has a liberal bias.
Had to undo mod points to post this, but I feel it needs to be brought up. As a resident of Louisiana, I would like to offer a quick perspective. When Katrina hit, it displaced a paltry 250,000 people, and has taken 10 years to recover that population. The richest country in the world was seemingly unable to handle this overflow well, despite only being around 0.1% of the nations population. Now, can you imagine what kind of nightmarish hellscape the earth will be if 6.3 BILLION people start trying to "move a few miles inland". Considering the timescales that could be involve, it might be more like 14 billion. Even over a drawn out time frame, this will be a very dark period for humanity. Also, you might want to look more carefully at http://ngm.nationalgeographic.... , depending on your definition of "a few miles"
Yes, unless that extreme condition is heat. In order to make anything a tolerable 90f when it is 200f outside, you will have to vent heat. In space, this is done by infra red radiation, very slowly. Thankfully, space is mostly a very cold place, so the challenge is more often heating up the vessel. This is why they put radioactive material in satellites, as a heat source. Unfortunately, when you are talking about a habitable dome on earth, the question is, where do you vent the heat? Into the atmosphere that is already trapping that heat? Into the molten core of the planet? In the short term the oceans would work, but eventually they will simply evaporate (as will happen in 1 billion years anyway.) The one thing you could do is use evaporative cooling by developing a way to vent some of the earths atmosphere into space. So in short, it will literally be easier to cool the planet than to build a domed air conditioned city.
I just had the weirdest sensation of deja vu. I remember about 12 years ago being on slashdot and reading post after post of how Snopes had a clearly conservative bias. I'll let you draw your own conclusions...
I think that is a bit of a reach. While I catch your meaning, religions is used to provide instant, irrefutable answers to important questions. It is like the placebo of information. We, as humans, have a thirst to know basically all the information we can find, so we ask questions, like "Where did all this land come from?" Ask a priest, he will say God did it and it took 7 days. Whelp, that is that. Now I can FEEL like I know the answer, without any of the extremely hard work required to figure out the actual truth. Science, on the other hand, if done properly will more often lead to more questions. The engine of science is driven on the fuel of curiosity. The engine of religion is driven on authoritative answers to uncertainty. Very different things.