Even if you don't have a nest-egg, reevaluate what you - and your family REALLY needs. Do you need a flat screen TV? Any TV? Do you need a car? Can a bike work instead? Do you really need 2000 square feet house? Or just 1200? Do you need to live where you do? Can you move somewhere else? How much stuff does your family need? Note that this will be something that you'll have to discuss with them in depth, and you'll have to achieve consensus.
It's amazing how little you actually NEED, as opposed to how much you want. Once you differentiate between the two, a complete career change won't look nearly as daunting.
A) Do you have evidence for this? So far, this is a hypothetical scenario. B) Why forbid access to everyone then? Because the plausible course of action - forbidding access to rape pictures to potential rapists - is what thought crime and pre-crime is all about. So we're either stuck with thought crime, or we're stuck with a reduction in free speech, privacy and what is allowed between consenting adults.
Interesting approach. How did they come about though? Are you arguing that the purpose of a government changed during the course of time? What's the process for that?
Absolutely. Abusing tools is not a sign of overall intent though. And I'd argue that with your example, an overall intent to abuse the tools isn't necessary either. Incompetence leads to the same results, and is far more common than some strategic master plan.
For the story of Animal House to be true, it would require talking animals.
But the point of Animal Farm (which I suspect you're referring to, not the movie starring John Belushi) is not that talking animals exist. It is a story about human nature and how things evolve given human nature. The reason that Ayn Rand is full of shit (and certainly not interesting, insightful or poignant) is that her Objectivism - and therefore her stories illustrating objectivism - completely neglects human nature. It is an abstract construct that is completely founded on fantasy - much like Communism, I'd like to argue. Ayn Rand is the equivalent of the Anonymous GNAA trolls that post random shock stories - at least, the informational content is the same.
Since when should being difficult and unpredictable be a crime?
When being difficult and unpredictable results in death and destruction of property. And please don't get into semantics of what death and destruction actually is - I think we can assume agreement on some basic definitions. Governments create criminals as a side effect of their operation, not as main purpose. Saying governments exist to create criminals is like saying cars exist to be driven (hooray for car analogies) - it's mistaking a side effect for purpose. There are governments who do not create criminals, though they are rare and generally resort to expulsion as punishment for transgression.
Though here in California we have wonderful bond measures where people can vote themselves into debt mostly independent of politicians.
Yeah. Then again, it's not entirely surprising, considering the amount of people who consider a credit card to be extra cash. While I agree that the root cause behind stupid politicians is stupid people who elect them, I'm still wondering if there isn't a system that has procedures for accountability, rather than just voting on it.
For the point of the story to be true, it requires sophistication, organization and strategic thinking on the level of an evil genius. Ayn Rand just didn't look at what her drivel would require to actually be true.
Governments do not exist to create criminals. Governments exist to create a smooth living environment that allows large groups of people to interact in an easy and predictable fashion.
I do agree about responsibility though. They're creating the mess, they're on the hook to clean it up. I'm still a proponent of forcing politicians to pay out of their own pocket if they're creating a deficit.
Note that the House of Lords is the place where this debate is taking place, and that some Lords consider this approach insane. Considering that some senators were in office for 40+ years, I find the House of Lords to be not so much an aberration as an institutionalization of what's happening anyway.
... is arguing that this approach is insane. It's right there in the summary. This law is idiotic, but I think our wrath should be pointed in the right direction.
You're absolutely right - these questions need to be asked. However, the answers have already been given. I'd like to point you to the US constitution, the French motto and the Human Rights Declaration as places where to start to look. Laws like these are rolling back about 150 years of Enlightenment - which tells me that Enlightenment is a temporary state, and people are stupid, small minded beasts with only occasional climbs out of that state of mind.
Not this crap again. Ayn Rand hasn't gotten anything right with her objectivism theories, and she didn't get anything right with this "we want to rule innocent men" crap either. This supposes a level of sophistication, organization and strategic thinking that is just absent from any politician. I mean, they can't even think beyond the next election cycle, can't balance their own budget, and now they're supposed to be some long-term evil geniuses bent on re-creating feudalism?
No. This is basic human nature at work. Politician's are professionals, and as such, their #1 interest is to keep their job - which they do by being reelected, not by throwing people into jail. Politician's also tend to attract people who believe that they're better than everyone else, love power and/or need the public spot light. None of which has anything to do with competence, and in fact self-selects against honesty, long-term thinking and integrity. The end result is that the people who make laws are among the least qualified to do so.
That's what behind shit laws like these - that, and stupid people who keep voting these idiots back into office. Not some kind of evil genius.
I think we can excuse the original poster for a bit of hyperbole. The interesting question still remains: blacks are disproportionally represented in basketball and football, two sports where "athletic ability" is priced at a premium. Why is that?
Hey, I'm about as liberal as they come (in the traditional sense of the word), but I fully agree with you. To me, the key sentence is this:
We've been attacked before and we'll be attacked again, and what makes America special is that we keep our freedoms, rather than surrender them.
To quote Robert Wilson, head of Fermilab in the sixties: "It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending.â Without these freedoms, there is nothing special about the US.
Congratulations, you just had the epiphany that a lot of Iraqis, Afghanis, Chinese and people in other non-democratic countries had. The US lost the moral high ground to lecture others on what to do. All that's left is its military.
It was considered. For an article that deals just with solar forcing, check out http://www.springerlink.com/content/qv68245831n10271/ I have no idea why you think that it was part of their guidelines, as this is mentioned nowhere on the website. As for what mandate the IPCC has:
The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.
If you have any support for your statement, I'd like to see it.
Bjorn Lomborg doesn't understand the difference between an old-growth forest and trees planted for harvesting in a tree farm. He also doesn't understand that when measuring standards change, the different numbers can't be used in a straight comparison. He's the last one I'd turn to for insight on this matter.
I don't know how accurate the British economic impact report is, but considering that it can't be worse than anything Lomborg has brought out, I'd rather use its numbers than his.
Population is being addressed. What do you think the 1 Child policy is? Global Cooling was never considered an actual problem. Pollution/Smog is an issue, and is being addressed. The Ozone layer (which was an 80s issue, btw) is an issue and is being addressed.
I find your choice of arguments interesting, as they're either considered threatening enough to have official alert systems built around them, or have never been the issue you made it out to be. According to you, it sounds like Climate Change will be a real issue that will be addressed. To some extent, your examples give hope that we can mitigate the impact. Nice.
we tire of you because you refuse to acknowldge basic climate science and refuse to follow proper scientific methods.
I'd really like you to have this argument with the scientists who actually published papers on your three topics. I'd be curious to find out how that would turn out. And for the record - solar activity has been investigated, and found to not fully account for the changes that have been seen. All that stuff is on the IPCC site. As for your other points, they are addressed there as well. Happy reading.
Here's another approach: action A will cost $10 billion. Action B will cost $100 billion. Both result in a similar standard of living after adjustment periods. Which one should we take?
The idea is that if we are the source, and if we can stop it, it costs less to try and mitigate the change than to deal with the change. Whether it is possible to stop at this point is indeed up in the air. But I'd rather try and fail than not try at all.
Urm? This is a new one. See pretty pictures here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/. You also missed the time frame on the extreme predictions - about 50 to 100 years out. So far, what little predictions have been made have turned out to be too conservative.
Do you also ask a physicist to tell you about the black plague? You also miss the fact that changes in temperatures will also change where deserts occur. In other words, warmer temperature will not necessarily mean more arable land, and it certainly does not mean that it will be in similar places.
And if these CAPTCHAs become widespread, they'll be cracked just like the previous ones were initially... by giving free porn to people who'll crack the Captchas for the spammers.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if you don't have a nest-egg, reevaluate what you - and your family REALLY needs. Do you need a flat screen TV? Any TV? Do you need a car? Can a bike work instead? Do you really need 2000 square feet house? Or just 1200? Do you need to live where you do? Can you move somewhere else? How much stuff does your family need? Note that this will be something that you'll have to discuss with them in depth, and you'll have to achieve consensus.
It's amazing how little you actually NEED, as opposed to how much you want. Once you differentiate between the two, a complete career change won't look nearly as daunting.
A) Do you have evidence for this? So far, this is a hypothetical scenario.
B) Why forbid access to everyone then? Because the plausible course of action - forbidding access to rape pictures to potential rapists - is what thought crime and pre-crime is all about. So we're either stuck with thought crime, or we're stuck with a reduction in free speech, privacy and what is allowed between consenting adults.
Interesting approach. How did they come about though? Are you arguing that the purpose of a government changed during the course of time? What's the process for that?
Not to mention shock-insensitivity and power consumption. Write speed to me is fairly irrelevant by now.
Absolutely. Abusing tools is not a sign of overall intent though. And I'd argue that with your example, an overall intent to abuse the tools isn't necessary either. Incompetence leads to the same results, and is far more common than some strategic master plan.
Since I was opposing both Bush Jr and Sr, does it mean I'm right on everything else as well? Idiot.
But the point of Animal Farm (which I suspect you're referring to, not the movie starring John Belushi) is not that talking animals exist. It is a story about human nature and how things evolve given human nature. The reason that Ayn Rand is full of shit (and certainly not interesting, insightful or poignant) is that her Objectivism - and therefore her stories illustrating objectivism - completely neglects human nature. It is an abstract construct that is completely founded on fantasy - much like Communism, I'd like to argue. Ayn Rand is the equivalent of the Anonymous GNAA trolls that post random shock stories - at least, the informational content is the same.
When being difficult and unpredictable results in death and destruction of property. And please don't get into semantics of what death and destruction actually is - I think we can assume agreement on some basic definitions. Governments create criminals as a side effect of their operation, not as main purpose. Saying governments exist to create criminals is like saying cars exist to be driven (hooray for car analogies) - it's mistaking a side effect for purpose. There are governments who do not create criminals, though they are rare and generally resort to expulsion as punishment for transgression.
Yeah. Then again, it's not entirely surprising, considering the amount of people who consider a credit card to be extra cash. While I agree that the root cause behind stupid politicians is stupid people who elect them, I'm still wondering if there isn't a system that has procedures for accountability, rather than just voting on it.
For the point of the story to be true, it requires sophistication, organization and strategic thinking on the level of an evil genius. Ayn Rand just didn't look at what her drivel would require to actually be true.
Governments do not exist to create criminals. Governments exist to create a smooth living environment that allows large groups of people to interact in an easy and predictable fashion.
I do agree about responsibility though. They're creating the mess, they're on the hook to clean it up. I'm still a proponent of forcing politicians to pay out of their own pocket if they're creating a deficit.
Note that the House of Lords is the place where this debate is taking place, and that some Lords consider this approach insane. Considering that some senators were in office for 40+ years, I find the House of Lords to be not so much an aberration as an institutionalization of what's happening anyway.
... is arguing that this approach is insane. It's right there in the summary. This law is idiotic, but I think our wrath should be pointed in the right direction.
You're absolutely right - these questions need to be asked. However, the answers have already been given. I'd like to point you to the US constitution, the French motto and the Human Rights Declaration as places where to start to look. Laws like these are rolling back about 150 years of Enlightenment - which tells me that Enlightenment is a temporary state, and people are stupid, small minded beasts with only occasional climbs out of that state of mind.
Not this crap again. Ayn Rand hasn't gotten anything right with her objectivism theories, and she didn't get anything right with this "we want to rule innocent men" crap either. This supposes a level of sophistication, organization and strategic thinking that is just absent from any politician. I mean, they can't even think beyond the next election cycle, can't balance their own budget, and now they're supposed to be some long-term evil geniuses bent on re-creating feudalism?
No. This is basic human nature at work. Politician's are professionals, and as such, their #1 interest is to keep their job - which they do by being reelected, not by throwing people into jail. Politician's also tend to attract people who believe that they're better than everyone else, love power and/or need the public spot light. None of which has anything to do with competence, and in fact self-selects against honesty, long-term thinking and integrity. The end result is that the people who make laws are among the least qualified to do so.
That's what behind shit laws like these - that, and stupid people who keep voting these idiots back into office. Not some kind of evil genius.
I think we can excuse the original poster for a bit of hyperbole. The interesting question still remains: blacks are disproportionally represented in basketball and football, two sports where "athletic ability" is priced at a premium. Why is that?
To quote Robert Wilson, head of Fermilab in the sixties: "It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending.â
Without these freedoms, there is nothing special about the US.
Congratulations, you just had the epiphany that a lot of Iraqis, Afghanis, Chinese and people in other non-democratic countries had. The US lost the moral high ground to lecture others on what to do. All that's left is its military.
I have no idea why you think that it was part of their guidelines, as this is mentioned nowhere on the website. As for what mandate the IPCC has:
If you have any support for your statement, I'd like to see it.
Bjorn Lomborg doesn't understand the difference between an old-growth forest and trees planted for harvesting in a tree farm. He also doesn't understand that when measuring standards change, the different numbers can't be used in a straight comparison. He's the last one I'd turn to for insight on this matter.
I don't know how accurate the British economic impact report is, but considering that it can't be worse than anything Lomborg has brought out, I'd rather use its numbers than his.
Population is being addressed. What do you think the 1 Child policy is?
Global Cooling was never considered an actual problem.
Pollution/Smog is an issue, and is being addressed.
The Ozone layer (which was an 80s issue, btw) is an issue and is being addressed.
I find your choice of arguments interesting, as they're either considered threatening enough to have official alert systems built around them, or have never been the issue you made it out to be. According to you, it sounds like Climate Change will be a real issue that will be addressed. To some extent, your examples give hope that we can mitigate the impact. Nice.
I'd really like you to have this argument with the scientists who actually published papers on your three topics. I'd be curious to find out how that would turn out. And for the record - solar activity has been investigated, and found to not fully account for the changes that have been seen. All that stuff is on the IPCC site. As for your other points, they are addressed there as well. Happy reading.
Here's another approach: action A will cost $10 billion. Action B will cost $100 billion. Both result in a similar standard of living after adjustment periods. Which one should we take?
:)
The idea is that if we are the source, and if we can stop it, it costs less to try and mitigate the change than to deal with the change. Whether it is possible to stop at this point is indeed up in the air. But I'd rather try and fail than not try at all.
And btw - I'm glad to see my sig is spreading.
Urm? This is a new one. See pretty pictures here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/. You also missed the time frame on the extreme predictions - about 50 to 100 years out. So far, what little predictions have been made have turned out to be too conservative.
Do you also ask a physicist to tell you about the black plague? You also miss the fact that changes in temperatures will also change where deserts occur. In other words, warmer temperature will not necessarily mean more arable land, and it certainly does not mean that it will be in similar places.
They might not be optimal, but they sure are what we've optimized our agriculture for. Deviations from expected values will cost money.
Anti-Global-Warming religious fanatics will use this for more glib remarks about how Climate Change is a religion in.... ah, too late.
And if these CAPTCHAs become widespread, they'll be cracked just like the previous ones were initially... by giving free porn to people who'll crack the Captchas for the spammers.