I don't think you'll find a conservative around who doesn't wish that there were cheap, environmentally friendly sources of high-density portable energy available.
Well then, you think wrong.
People who own rights to deposits of expensive, non-environmentally-friendly sources of high-density portable energy do not wish to find cheap, environmentally-friendly alternatives... until they've extracted their profit. Many of those people (and organizations) are conservative.
Until Mr. Fusion hits the big time, we'll have to make do with what we have.
Poppycock. We can choose to make do with some subset of what we have, under conditions we establish as most beneficial/least harmful. You don't have to drive a used Pinto just because you don't have a Lamborghini.
Why? Because your Business Ethics professor wishes it to be true that morality applies to corporations, a non-thinking, non-acting entity? There can be a moral code associated with a group (such as a tribe, or a corporation), but morality can only be applied to the actions of a thinking individual. As such, corporations cannot be held to a moral code; only the individuals affiliated with the corporation can. Sure, the corp could support moral actions while discouraging immoral actions, but it's not the same thing.
The distinction is important because of selection for amoral individuals in business. Corporations tend to reward behavior that increases profit, regardless of morality. So there tends to be a higher proportion of immoral individuals at the top of corporations than among the general population or even among just the employees of that corporation.
In the extreme, a corporation can be so riddled with amoral (or immoral) decision-makers that if you could apply morality to the corporation, you would have to consider the corporation amoral. Unfortunately, it seems that many corporations fall into this category.
You obviously were so eager to continue to expound on your point that you didn't bother to try to understand mine.
- yes, because nobody faces any risk, it's all removed by government guarantees.
No, this was not the case when the problem germinated. The problem is that the *individuals* stood to gain from the decisions, while *their organizations* and *the public* stood to take the risk.
It has nothing to do with government assuming the risk -- that's an ancillary issue.
This is a fundamental problem with libertarian free markets.
Greenspan provided some of those very incentives. He was only 'free market' in his speeches. In reality he was very much a Keynesian charlatan
And now you have again confirmed that you really have no idea of what you're talking about. You're conflating regulatory environments with monetary policy. They are distinct from one another.
That way there will be less moral hazard and less risky behavior in everything - from banks gambling to oil companies gambling to military gambling to people gambling, etc.
Horseshit. This is the same failure in logic that allowed the banks to screw the economy a couple years ago. Greenspan has admitted that his failure to really think this through was problematic.
The issue is that in an unregulated environment, banks are not the decision makers, employees/officers are the decision makers. So instead of banks acting in their (and the economy's) best interests, they act in the best interests of the individuals making the decisions. So we get situations where bonuses are chased to the detriment of the bank, and the economy as a whole. The problem is the union of Tragedy of the Commons and individuals making decisions for large groups of people.
This same problem can be extrapolated to many different situations, from fishing limits (a classic Tragedy of the Commons example) to military profiteering.
To sum up:
It's all about moral hazard and perceived notion that risk is going to be taken care of by the government.
No, that's not the case (although socialized risk is a problem). It's about "I'm gonna get mine, who cares about the general fallout".
Yeah because "single payer" sure has worked for the School system.
The US School system is not single-payer. Are you retarded?
Amtrak? Let's fund Amtrak the same amount, per user, that we fund drivers via highway construction and maintenance, law enforcement, etc. It's hard to bitch about Amtrak when your driving ass is subsidized by thousands of dollars of public funds.
The USPS? Their problem is not that it's a single entity. Their problem is that technology has made them obsolete. This is totally tangential to your argument.
The SSI Retirement system? Not in debt. It will have trouble meeting future obligations, but that's largely because we've robbed SSI to cut taxes for the wealthy.
the solution is to create a system like Food Stamps for the Poor, but for healthcare. Everyone buys their own food and health with their own money - except for the bottom ~5% who lack the money.
Haha. Only the bottom 5% lack the money to purchase health insurance? You're loony if you think that's the case.
Sidenote: Why'd you change your username again, Commodore_64Love? Karma too low from your trolling?
something awful is more than slightly involved also, under the name goons, but that's another story altogether
Not only is it another story altogether, but it's not quite accurate.
It'd be more accurate to say that some of the people who self-describe as SA forum goons are also participants in anonymous (small-a on purpose) actions.
Since when is when someone says something you do agree with you make death threats been a sign of being good?
I doubt the veracity of his statement of receiving death threats. If he had received a credible death threat, I'm sure he would have gotten the police involved. Generally when that happens, you are advised to not talk about it. Publicity re: the death threat can escalate the perpetrator's actions. Or at least I was advised that way by the police when I had death threats made against me in the 90s, due to some protesting I'd done.
Funny but I have seen those actions in old news reels from the 30s and from old news stories from the 60s.
Funny but I've seen these tactics used in person in the 80s and 90s to good effect. I've seen videos of them being used to good effect in the 60s.
The purpose is publicity for what is going on, to make people aware of a problem. If heckling a presentation makes the news... then success.
Anonymous is a gang of bullies. People often see bullies and thugs as heroes if they themselves do not ones being bullied. There are people that think the KKK are a bunch of brave freedom fighters.
So what? HBGary is a bunch of bullies too. Even worse, they are a bunch of bullies acting on behest of a part of the legitimate government. You think one bully is better because they wear executive collars beneath their tailored suits? You side with one bully, someone else sides with a different bully. Get used to it, it's how power struggles work. Once it comes down to actual conflict, both sides are bullies, attempting to assert their will through force.
Anonymous is no differn't right down to hiding their faces. And their fans do not like they people they are abusing.
Anonymous are those peoples brave Knights in white sheets.
Really? Anonymous is the same as the KKK? Fuck off, man, that's as bad as a invoking Godwin's law. While we're making inapt comparisons, let's compare you to a jack-booted Nazi. After all, you're just toeing the line of the fascist overlords.
That's because us left-wingers get tired of trying to use reason to pierce the stupidity of some of the awfully ignorant people on slashdot. It's just gets exhausting, disproving the same old canards time and time again because some college-age noob just finished reading the Fountainhead.
There are libertarians on slashdot who have good logical abilities and are educated; I agree with some of what they have to say, and disagree with most of it, largely because we have fundamental differences in the foundations of our arguments. Those libertarians I enjoy having discussions with.
But it's neither my responsibility, nor any fun, to disabuse all the idiots (and those who mod them up) who are ignorant, have no logic skills, and are likely suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. Some of these people are supposedly libertarians; some are right-wing Republicans; some fit into other categories.
What I find is that the longer people have been interested in politics, economics, and related issues, the more likely they are to be able to have an honest discussion that is useful to everyone participating. But there is a steady stream of those like the example I mentioned above, and it's just exhausting to deal with them all. So we (generalizing here, but I'm not the only liberal who feels the same way here on slashdot) let their posts stand without argument.
This is compounded by the fact that many of the so-called libertarians on slashdot are full of shit. They know their arguments don't hold water, but they purposely repeating their misinformation for some reason -- be it trolling, ulterior motives (astroturfing happens quite a bit here, IMO), or something else. And this is a crying shame, because there are libertarians here who are intelligent, serious, and open to good discussion. More than once a libertarian here has convinced me to re-evaluate something I'd taken as a given, and I eventually changed my stance on that issue. But they are often drowned out by the idiots, and it's just not worth getting into a discussion with someone who wants an argument.
If the young liberals wanted real news then CNN and MSNBC would have more viewers -- instead you can add CNN and MSNBC together and they still have less viewers than Fox News.
If young liberals wanted liberal-slanted news, then CNN would not be the place for them. CNN is right-wing, just less so than Fox News.
Right. There has never been an agreement between people with disagreements. And more to the point, there never should be. The proper organization of society is that the strong should fuck the weak, and if you don't like that, then you must be the weak, so bend over. Or in other words, you are an authoritarian. Congratulations!
I did not say I support that. But in reality, it is what happens. In other words, your reading comprehension skills suck. Congratulations!
Translation: the mere idea of democracy is completely dead, we are all fucked, and everyone should give up, bend over, and take whatever the powers-that-be want to shove up our asses. Right? Right? That is what you are advocating, right? Because you are an authoritarian, right? Or are you a totalitarian?
No. That is not what I'm advocating. Stop using a false dochotomy to establish a strawman. It just shows that you are a prime example of the type of person I'd *hate* to see having direct input into legislation.
What I'm advocating is to NOT waste time on a piss-poor approximation of some unobtainable ideal that has zero chance of success. There are near countless other ways to participate and effect change in our political system, methods that *have* an impact and *are* attainable.
You sir, are either a grade A asshole, or a grade A idiot, for assuming that because I feel your idea is stupid, I must therefore be authoritarian or totalitarian.
What? The author of that paragraph is a loony if they think renaming "direct democracy" to "collaborative governance" is anything other than a rename.
Direct democracy is *exactly* what this metagovernment thing is. Consensus will never be attained; instead we will have majority rule among those choosing to participate on a singular item. To believe consensus is achievable among groups with directly opposed interests is nonsense idealism.
The metagovernment concept literally is direct democracy, except its scope is so broad that *only* vested interests will bother to weigh in on most topics.
My personal opinion: it's a stupid idea, and anyone working on it is wasting their time because (1) direct democracy is a stupid way to run a society and (2) the entrenched powers that be will NEVER allow it to come to fruition.
Lots of seasonal variations in food sources for hunter/gatherer peoples.
There could be seasonal migrations of prey, in additional to the seasonal variations in plant-based foods gathered. Nuts, berries, roots -- all of these may vary on a seasonal basis.
Yes. These submissions link to articles that we can cite when attempting to convince our PHBs or CxOs that yes, we do indeed need to budget for the ipv6 migration, and no, we can't wait a couple years to get the ball rolling.
Just wait until "ipv6 conversion specialists" are charging you $450 an hour to make sure your business is not floundering because you ignored the problem until it was an emergency.
There are *many* 6 year old Cisco routers and switches out there that are still covered under support contracts that won't be getting IPv6 support as they have been End-of-Life'd
Wait... if they are EOLed, how are they under support contracts?
Isn't that kind of like an anti-tautology?
Maybe I'm way off base here*, in which case please do enlighten me... but does EOLing mean that no support is offered?
*3rd-party support being the only exception I can think of.
There have been analogs at other sites that have been explored and have been discovered to have been tombs.
Here's a nice article that explains a lot, with mention of these tombs, and tombs like them, near the end. The pictures help make it obvious that these could not be naturally occurring.
Pendant tombs (including crescent, teardrop, and keyhole tombs) are a pretty well-known phenomenon.
The fact is, Kim and his wife made several mistakes that led to his death.
It's not hubris to recognize that others made mistakes. It's not hubris to attempt to learn from their mistakes. Let these people's deaths be learning examples for the rest of us.
There is no reason I should feel saddened at pointless death. It doesn't make me any less human to not give a flying fuck about that dude. I didn't know him, no one I care about knew him personally. At the very least the publicity surrounding his death had the useful purpose of teaching people to respect the wilderness. Seriously, who the fuck takes secondary or tertiary passes in remote Oregon or Washington State in late November without adequate survival and signaling equipment? Who ignores warnings that the road may be impassable?
Jack London's "To Build a Fire" should be required reading. There's more than one important lesson to be learned from that story.
On Earth you can take baby steps, in space it's all one big hale-marry.
Hruh? I could see using hale-Mary (I prefer healthy women myself, you see). I could see using hail-marry (some marriages are certain like an icestorm in some respects).
You could even say "Hairy-male", which at least makes some sense, if you're into bears.
But hale-marry? What's that supposed to mean?
*FYI, in case you're not aware, the term is "Hail Mary" and it refers to a prayer... because you need a prayer for it to work.
Slashdot Mirror
Broken window fallacy. You haz it.
Well then, you think wrong.
People who own rights to deposits of expensive, non-environmentally-friendly sources of high-density portable energy do not wish to find cheap, environmentally-friendly alternatives... until they've extracted their profit. Many of those people (and organizations) are conservative.
Poppycock. We can choose to make do with some subset of what we have, under conditions we establish as most beneficial/least harmful. You don't have to drive a used Pinto just because you don't have a Lamborghini.
No. Virginity is a state that, once abrogated, cannot be regained. Peace is a state that can be regained.
Bad analogy, regardless of your viewpoint.
If you think a single thinking person controls the actions of large corporations, you need to check back into the asylum.
Why? Because your Business Ethics professor wishes it to be true that morality applies to corporations, a non-thinking, non-acting entity? There can be a moral code associated with a group (such as a tribe, or a corporation), but morality can only be applied to the actions of a thinking individual. As such, corporations cannot be held to a moral code; only the individuals affiliated with the corporation can. Sure, the corp could support moral actions while discouraging immoral actions, but it's not the same thing.
The distinction is important because of selection for amoral individuals in business. Corporations tend to reward behavior that increases profit, regardless of morality. So there tends to be a higher proportion of immoral individuals at the top of corporations than among the general population or even among just the employees of that corporation.
In the extreme, a corporation can be so riddled with amoral (or immoral) decision-makers that if you could apply morality to the corporation, you would have to consider the corporation amoral. Unfortunately, it seems that many corporations fall into this category.
No, this was not the case when the problem germinated. The problem is that the *individuals* stood to gain from the decisions, while *their organizations* and *the public* stood to take the risk.
It has nothing to do with government assuming the risk -- that's an ancillary issue.
This is a fundamental problem with libertarian free markets.
And now you have again confirmed that you really have no idea of what you're talking about. You're conflating regulatory environments with monetary policy. They are distinct from one another.
Horseshit. This is the same failure in logic that allowed the banks to screw the economy a couple years ago. Greenspan has admitted that his failure to really think this through was problematic.
The issue is that in an unregulated environment, banks are not the decision makers, employees/officers are the decision makers. So instead of banks acting in their (and the economy's) best interests, they act in the best interests of the individuals making the decisions. So we get situations where bonuses are chased to the detriment of the bank, and the economy as a whole. The problem is the union of Tragedy of the Commons and individuals making decisions for large groups of people.
This same problem can be extrapolated to many different situations, from fishing limits (a classic Tragedy of the Commons example) to military profiteering.
To sum up:
No, that's not the case (although socialized risk is a problem). It's about "I'm gonna get mine, who cares about the general fallout".
The US School system is not single-payer. Are you retarded?
Amtrak? Let's fund Amtrak the same amount, per user, that we fund drivers via highway construction and maintenance, law enforcement, etc. It's hard to bitch about Amtrak when your driving ass is subsidized by thousands of dollars of public funds.
The USPS? Their problem is not that it's a single entity. Their problem is that technology has made them obsolete. This is totally tangential to your argument.
The SSI Retirement system? Not in debt. It will have trouble meeting future obligations, but that's largely because we've robbed SSI to cut taxes for the wealthy.
Haha. Only the bottom 5% lack the money to purchase health insurance? You're loony if you think that's the case.
Sidenote: Why'd you change your username again, Commodore_64Love? Karma too low from your trolling?
Not only is it another story altogether, but it's not quite accurate.
It'd be more accurate to say that some of the people who self-describe as SA forum goons are also participants in anonymous (small-a on purpose) actions.
I doubt the veracity of his statement of receiving death threats. If he had received a credible death threat, I'm sure he would have gotten the police involved. Generally when that happens, you are advised to not talk about it. Publicity re: the death threat can escalate the perpetrator's actions. Or at least I was advised that way by the police when I had death threats made against me in the 90s, due to some protesting I'd done.
Funny but I've seen these tactics used in person in the 80s and 90s to good effect. I've seen videos of them being used to good effect in the 60s.
The purpose is publicity for what is going on, to make people aware of a problem. If heckling a presentation makes the news... then success.
So what? HBGary is a bunch of bullies too. Even worse, they are a bunch of bullies acting on behest of a part of the legitimate government. You think one bully is better because they wear executive collars beneath their tailored suits? You side with one bully, someone else sides with a different bully. Get used to it, it's how power struggles work. Once it comes down to actual conflict, both sides are bullies, attempting to assert their will through force.
Really? Anonymous is the same as the KKK? Fuck off, man, that's as bad as a invoking Godwin's law. While we're making inapt comparisons, let's compare you to a jack-booted Nazi. After all, you're just toeing the line of the fascist overlords.
That's because us left-wingers get tired of trying to use reason to pierce the stupidity of some of the awfully ignorant people on slashdot. It's just gets exhausting, disproving the same old canards time and time again because some college-age noob just finished reading the Fountainhead.
There are libertarians on slashdot who have good logical abilities and are educated; I agree with some of what they have to say, and disagree with most of it, largely because we have fundamental differences in the foundations of our arguments. Those libertarians I enjoy having discussions with.
But it's neither my responsibility, nor any fun, to disabuse all the idiots (and those who mod them up) who are ignorant, have no logic skills, and are likely suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. Some of these people are supposedly libertarians; some are right-wing Republicans; some fit into other categories.
What I find is that the longer people have been interested in politics, economics, and related issues, the more likely they are to be able to have an honest discussion that is useful to everyone participating. But there is a steady stream of those like the example I mentioned above, and it's just exhausting to deal with them all. So we (generalizing here, but I'm not the only liberal who feels the same way here on slashdot) let their posts stand without argument.
This is compounded by the fact that many of the so-called libertarians on slashdot are full of shit. They know their arguments don't hold water, but they purposely repeating their misinformation for some reason -- be it trolling, ulterior motives (astroturfing happens quite a bit here, IMO), or something else. And this is a crying shame, because there are libertarians here who are intelligent, serious, and open to good discussion. More than once a libertarian here has convinced me to re-evaluate something I'd taken as a given, and I eventually changed my stance on that issue. But they are often drowned out by the idiots, and it's just not worth getting into a discussion with someone who wants an argument.
If young liberals wanted liberal-slanted news, then CNN would not be the place for them. CNN is right-wing, just less so than Fox News.
I did not say I support that. But in reality, it is what happens. In other words, your reading comprehension skills suck. Congratulations!
No. That is not what I'm advocating. Stop using a false dochotomy to establish a strawman. It just shows that you are a prime example of the type of person I'd *hate* to see having direct input into legislation.
What I'm advocating is to NOT waste time on a piss-poor approximation of some unobtainable ideal that has zero chance of success. There are near countless other ways to participate and effect change in our political system, methods that *have* an impact and *are* attainable.
You sir, are either a grade A asshole, or a grade A idiot, for assuming that because I feel your idea is stupid, I must therefore be authoritarian or totalitarian.
Emmanuel Kant was a real pissant.
Should've used Hobbes.
What? The author of that paragraph is a loony if they think renaming "direct democracy" to "collaborative governance" is anything other than a rename.
Direct democracy is *exactly* what this metagovernment thing is. Consensus will never be attained; instead we will have majority rule among those choosing to participate on a singular item. To believe consensus is achievable among groups with directly opposed interests is nonsense idealism.
The metagovernment concept literally is direct democracy, except its scope is so broad that *only* vested interests will bother to weigh in on most topics.
My personal opinion: it's a stupid idea, and anyone working on it is wasting their time because (1) direct democracy is a stupid way to run a society and (2) the entrenched powers that be will NEVER allow it to come to fruition.
Lots of seasonal variations in food sources for hunter/gatherer peoples.
There could be seasonal migrations of prey, in additional to the seasonal variations in plant-based foods gathered. Nuts, berries, roots -- all of these may vary on a seasonal basis.
Yes. These submissions link to articles that we can cite when attempting to convince our PHBs or CxOs that yes, we do indeed need to budget for the ipv6 migration, and no, we can't wait a couple years to get the ball rolling.
Just wait until "ipv6 conversion specialists" are charging you $450 an hour to make sure your business is not floundering because you ignored the problem until it was an emergency.
Wait... if they are EOLed, how are they under support contracts?
Isn't that kind of like an anti-tautology?
Maybe I'm way off base here*, in which case please do enlighten me... but does EOLing mean that no support is offered?
*3rd-party support being the only exception I can think of.
Have you ever plumbed the depths of usenet? Or /b/?
I don't think having people gouging out their eyes with grapefruit spoons is the best way to handle this.
Dammit, the new slashcode ate my link.
No more a tags?
http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/200904/desktop.archeology.htm
There's the link.
Get some knowledge, bro.
There have been analogs at other sites that have been explored and have been discovered to have been tombs.
Here's a nice article that explains a lot, with mention of these tombs, and tombs like them, near the end. The pictures help make it obvious that these could not be naturally occurring.
Pendant tombs (including crescent, teardrop, and keyhole tombs) are a pretty well-known phenomenon.
Her face was very expensive to get fixed after trying to explain it?
What, was it her abusive husband's car?
Oh boo fucking hoo.
The fact is, Kim and his wife made several mistakes that led to his death.
It's not hubris to recognize that others made mistakes. It's not hubris to attempt to learn from their mistakes. Let these people's deaths be learning examples for the rest of us.
There is no reason I should feel saddened at pointless death. It doesn't make me any less human to not give a flying fuck about that dude. I didn't know him, no one I care about knew him personally. At the very least the publicity surrounding his death had the useful purpose of teaching people to respect the wilderness. Seriously, who the fuck takes secondary or tertiary passes in remote Oregon or Washington State in late November without adequate survival and signaling equipment? Who ignores warnings that the road may be impassable?
Jack London's "To Build a Fire" should be required reading. There's more than one important lesson to be learned from that story.
Hruh? I could see using hale-Mary (I prefer healthy women myself, you see).
I could see using hail-marry (some marriages are certain like an icestorm in some respects).
You could even say "Hairy-male", which at least makes some sense, if you're into bears.
But hale-marry? What's that supposed to mean?
*FYI, in case you're not aware, the term is "Hail Mary" and it refers to a prayer... because you need a prayer for it to work.
I assume you are referring to free oxygen (O2). All DNA- or RNA-based life requires oxygen (it's part of ribose, and deoxyribose).