After actually RTFA'ing the whole thing, and not just the first paragraph, it looks like this might be also a lot about the story of a drug abuser falling prey to some subtle secondary effects of his drug of choice. If he was as keen on experimenting with bath salts and other psychotropic drugs as he seems to be, I fully would expect him to lose it at some point. Who knows if he actually committed the murder - but there's all kinds of other lessons in here.
Sounds a lot like what people think a libertarian paradise should look like: low regulation, freedom to do almost anything you want on your property, etc. Little did they mention that it means having to keep a personal standing army around, negotiating with other local power brokers, securing health care through direct, personal efforts, and all kinds of other fun stuff that makes dealing with the IRS a happy fun time walk in the park.
To me, this sounds like it's some local payback for McAfee having failed to do much negotiating with local power brokers. If you want to be your own island, it means you also do your own foreign policy. As a result, I have little compassion for McAfee, or little interest in the story. It pretty much just confirm what I always suspected was going to happen to assholes with money pursuing their liberal fantasy.
Ambassador Stevens was referring to Benghazi, not "a different embassy" as you claim.
Again, Benghazi, not "a different embassy", as you claim.
Actually, you partisan hack, there is no mention of Benghazi in CBS's time line. Just as an FYI, the embassy is in Tripoli, and the consulate is in Benghazi. Since you clearly don't understand the difference, I question how you can have any opinion at all on how diplomacy was conducted in Libya, it's purpose, and the logic behind the security assessments. There were indeed very specific requests for increased security detail, but your CBS article isn't the source for that. A much better source is here: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/email-shows-state-department-rejecting-request-of-security-team-at-us-embassy-in-libya/ It's clear that the security was focused on the embassy, not the consulate. The consulate had always been exposed, and was purposefully set up in such a way by Stevens himself. He understood that you can't conduct diplomacy and outreach programs if you're always hiding behind concrete barriers and massive guns.
There were security issues, but those were standard failures where small problems snowballed into 4 dead people. By the way, those four dead people in Libya are less than die every day in Afghanistan across all NATO forces. So congratulations on latching on to a small issue that crept up in an unstable country. If that's the worst Obama did, he did one hell of a job. It's too bad you're so blinded by partisan hatred that you are incapable of looking at the issue rationally.
Yeah, Obama totally said that it was all Hillary's fault. Actually, wrong - he explicitly took responsibility for the incident in Benghazi. You can watch the last presidential debate for a very public announcement on that.
Citation or get the fuck out. As in, primary source citation. Fox news doesn't count. Furthermore, here's a little test for you. Imagine, you get a phone call from a friend whose toilet just exploded and is flooding the entire first floor. Friend lives about 2-3 miles away. Now, time how long it takes to grab all your tools, brief a few more friends about the situation, load them in 2-3 cars, and then drive over to your friend's place. Now, imagine that instead of just staring at an exploded toilet, you're looking at getting shot while driving there, while being there, and there might be an unknown number of friendlies hurt, dead or shooting back at the enemy.
You're a fucking moron if you think that that doesn't add 10-15 minutes to any trip.
An nearby annex with military forces that takes 45 minutes to show up.
Yes, because everyone always has everything in a running car that is needed to deal with a forceful incursion, and everyone is always immediately clear who is doing what to whom. And no traffic jams. Ever.
People who think that the CIA team should have been there in 15 minutes and who think that troops should have been there in two hours would have sent in unprepared troops who are more likely to shoot at the own team than at the enemy.
Fucking morons. Logistics and operational due diligence decides wars. Not Rambo.
I'm going to call bullshit on every single one of your claims, and ask for citations. One that I know is incorrect is happiness, because I saw the study. I'm just giving you a chance to show that you aren't just talking out of your ass. And as for your request to look them up - you have two problems. Number one, it is up to the claimant to support the claim with data. You make a claim, you provide the data. Two, they directly contradict the studies I've read.
That's also consistent with my observations "on the ground", having lived in both places,
Note that I'm not saying that one system or the other is better. But your statements are totally wrong and you don't know what you're talking about.
Yes, because the TWO German schools had nothing to do with every other german school out there. Again, you use statistics, but you have no idea what they mean.
Germany has a three-tiered system.
Correct. Hauptschule, which is basically for people who are functionally retarded. Realschule, which is for people who have no interest in school, and are directed to vocational schools. Gymnasium/Oberstufe, which is preparation for University.
The majority of Germans attends secondary schools that are 10 years or less.
[Citation needed]. Not to mention that it is not clear what you mean by secondary school. Anything above kindergarten? If so, you're wrong. Yes, you can drop out after grade 10, but that is a distinct minority reserved for people with IQ less than 80 (approximately, but they are legally retarded) or permanent trouble makers better off learning a trade. The majority of Germans finish high school.
Average length of schooling in Germany (10.2 years) is lower than in the US (12 years);
[Citation Needed] The majority of Germans finish high school, which is 13 years of post-Kindergarten schooling. Granted, that's my own personal experience, but what do I know. I'm only from there.
Vectors are covered only in grades 11 and 12 in Germany, and in many cases only if you choose mathematics as one of your specialties (most people don't), so the great majority of Germans never get to see any linear algebra.
Incorrect. If you specialize in math, you get Linear Algebra. That's the entire point of the specialization. As for great majority... I don't know about you, but the schools I went to had solid attendance in their maths specializations. Again, I'd like to corroborate my anecdote with your data source.
Note that I'm not saying that one system or the other is better. But your statements are totally wrong and you don't know what you're talking about.
That's quite hilarious. I feel like I'm talking to someone who picked up a sets of statistics from about 60 years ago, and thinks it still applies today.
Note though that on Nov 5th, Florida was a very weak win for Romney (a bit above 50%). Heck, the probabilities for Florida kept changing until the election was over. It turned to blue (with a whopping 50.6%) only in the afternoon of Nov 6. As someone else said, it's pretty easy to figure out what's going to happen the day before or the day of an election.It's much harder to do so 2 months in advance - and he was very close to the actual result even that far in advance. The other important bit: he called out Romney's lack of momentum long before anyone else, based on actual statistics.
So no, Nate doesn't just get attention because he is right on the day of the election. It's because he is right months in advance, and correctly identifies subtle trends that escape pretty much every talking head out there.
Ah, now I understand your metrics. Your problem is two-fold: you equate a degree with knowing stuff and being educated, and you think that only a university can make someone a productive member of society.
Keep in mind that Germans who graduate high school not only are between 1 and 3 years older than their American counterparts, but they leave high school with far more knowledge - on average. The average German high schooler has been exposed to Linear Algebra. The average American high schooler apparently doesn't know algebra. Also keep in mind that there is much less an emphasis on having to go to university to get a good job and become a productive member of society. Technical schools and apprenticeships provide better job skills than universities do, and Germans leave high school with a much larger body of knowledge. As a result, there's less of a need to go to university to finish your education.
I said it before, I'll say it again: metrics aren't the end of the story, merely the beginning. If you blindly repeat them without understanding their context, you are as blind as before.
Wow, this is a new one. Don't help people - it will be boring! Talk about a first-world problem.... You must have thought the middle ages were the best of all times. I'm sure you also think that you'd be part of the elite, thanks to your pluck and hard work.
And I also don't think I ever heard that lying and cheating being a good thing. Things have changed, indeed.
Just to throw a bit of rain on the parade: you can't just say "Free school for everyone!" without doing everything else that Germany is doing. #1: University is for the brainiacs. Technical school is for mechanics and electricians. Apprenticeship is for the ones who need a job now, can hold on to a wrench and are willing to learn. #2 Heavily subsidized child care. You can go to school and raise a family. #3 Subsidized or communitized housing. #4 Schools that are generally ok, but where there is little stratification. You won't get a Harvard/Stanford/MIT/Berkeley, but you also won't get University of Phoenix.
I love the German system to death, but you can't just import the tuition system into the US, and think that everything will work out the same. You need to import the attitude and the attendant support systems as well.
Just because these are standard lies from people who are peddling ideology over facts... 1) He signed the act to close it after being inaugurated. Unfortunately, closing it requires money, which Congress killed, and relocating prisoners, which Congress and local officials objected to. The only thing that Gitmo shows is that the US is not a dictatorship, and the US President has a lot less powers than people think. 2) The alternative was killings done through troops on the ground. Where exactly is the difference? 3) Now Osama bin Laden was a leader of an opposing military force, as opposed to a terrorist at the top of the US most wanted list? Plus, would you rather have some FBI agents make their way to the compound to arrest him? How much more are you going to twist yourself into a pretzel to make bin Laden's death a negative? 4) The US used airpower and missile strikes to make Libya comply with UN security resolutions on civilian extermination. You're right though, Bush wouldn't have thought about that. He would have just invaded Libya. 5) The troop surge was demanded by military command, and generally regarded as necessary to make Afghanistan into a bit less of a mess. Now suddenly that's a bad thing? Where were you when Bush invaded Afghanistan to begin with?
The only thing interesting about your post is the amount of twisting you're doing to turn anything Obama did into a negative. If he'd achieve perfect employment, global peace, end world hunger and walk on water, I'm sure you'd be muttering about slavery, lost profits in the armament industry, overpopulation and being a false prophet. Get over it.
Ownership is defined as what you can hold in both hands while running at full tilt. From that perspective, you might want to be careful. There have been plenty of instances where the lowly masses had enough of the current definition of ownership, and decided to change it. Plenty of kings, princes and other wealthy people were suddenly wishing that they could ride their jewels to safety.
Not maybe, that's exactly the plan. Notice the trajectory here: 1) Tesla Roadster: Take a standard chassis, turn it into an electric car, sell as a high-performance roadster to people with ludicrous money lying around. The goal: to have a car prove the key technology: the battery and the engine. 2) Model S/X: Take the proven technology of the Roadster, put it into a sexy car that causes rich people to open their wallets, and sell it at a nice markup in the luxury segment. The goal: to work out the kinks in their manufacturing equipment and their supply chain. 3) Take their proven technology and manufacturing capability to create an electric for everybody.
In essence, Musk is doing a slow ramp-up that allows him to have customers subsidize the development of their final car. The 5k downpayment for a Model S is just as brilliant: it's free money for Tesla to build out their manufacturing capability. I love the Model S as a car, but it's the business model and the man at the top that makes think that Tesla is going to be the game changer for electric cars. The comparisons to Steve Jobs are not unwarranted.
Well, it is pitched at the people who are looking at a BMW 5 series and think that it isn't advanced enough. As a result, 78K is expensive, but still within budget range.
As for the fate of the Fiskers.... they seem to be badly engineered. From what I saw in reviews, there are all kinds of engineering issues that range from how it drives to how the electrical system holds up even under normal driving. That said, I don't think I would want to submerge any of these fully electric cars. I did put down 5k to be in line for one of these babies, but I will also leave money aside to have a rock-solid gasoline-powered car that will handle the situations that the Tesla shouldn't. No need to pull all eggs in one basket.
Could you clarify who "you guys" is? Recently, I feel like I'm being lumped into a whole lot of different, frequently orthogonal, categories.
Just a hint: in this case, you guys is Bloomberg Businessweek. In other words, is starting to seep into the bastions of business and corporate bottomline that maybe, just maybe, this entire Climate Change should be something of concern to businesses.
Yes, they got it wrong, but give them a few years. They are just starting paying attention, so you can't really blame them for not understanding what's been rehashed in scientific circles for the last.... 30 years or so. I expect that in another 30 years or so, they might understand the problem and stop offering simple causations and simple solutions.
Ahem - for someone whose sig is "your thin skin doesn't make me a troll", you have remarkably thin skin yourself. The OPs post wasn't about tolerance, it was about context. The context here is that freedom of speech isn't nearly as important a concept to the Chinese as to us, and that the context in China therefore isn't "we like to be evil, therefore we censor", but rather "we value stability over free speech, therefore we censor".
Now, is free speech more important stability? That's an entirely different question, as is whether free speech is a similar right as no being abused.
Finally, you also have remarkably thin skin when it comes to generalizations. They're called generalizations for a reason, and they're a fine way to operate in this world - as long as you are aware that you are making generalizations. Not every posts needs to delve deeply into the subtleties of Chinese thought. Otherwise, every post would be about 200 pages long.
I appreciate the context that you bring - but geez, lay off the hyperbole.
Upon close examination, many or all of the assumptions are wrong;
You make two fundamental mistakes (piled high and deep, indeed): you assume that all things are equally wrong, and you assume that science is the search for truth.
Since you can't get the goal of science or the scientific method right, I would suggest you start from scratch with your analysis.
No. You're falling into a trivial "all views are equal" trap. I think that views that are unprovable, rely on arbitrary axioms, arbitrary authorities and arbitrary texts, and purport to divide the world into good and evil should get zero support from the state and large social structures. If you want to believe that some bearded guy flew DC-10s into volcanoes to save the Earth (to mix a few things together), that's your prerogative. But don't try to use that crap to decide whether we need levees to protect against floods or whether bicycle lanes are better investments than nuclear power plants.
And if you have a problem with this approach - feel free to update your beliefs to have a rational basis. Don't force them onto others because it makes you feel better.
What - did the regulator just find out that his industry is a natural monopoly, has a few very entrenched players facing almost no competition, and who are protected by near infinite barriers to entry? And did I mention that the service provided has morphed into a requirement on the order of electricity and roads?
Welcome to market pricing when the market is not competitive and has highly inelastic demand. And if he tries to "get a fair shake", watch the telecoms pull out their infrastructure build-up costs from 30 years ago to justify pricing now. I expect that after the telecoms are done with their studies on their profit margins, they will lose $2000 on every byte they transmit.
This is so doomed to fail.... I need to grab my popcorn.
Slashdot Mirror
After actually RTFA'ing the whole thing, and not just the first paragraph, it looks like this might be also a lot about the story of a drug abuser falling prey to some subtle secondary effects of his drug of choice. If he was as keen on experimenting with bath salts and other psychotropic drugs as he seems to be, I fully would expect him to lose it at some point. Who knows if he actually committed the murder - but there's all kinds of other lessons in here.
Sounds a lot like what people think a libertarian paradise should look like: low regulation, freedom to do almost anything you want on your property, etc. Little did they mention that it means having to keep a personal standing army around, negotiating with other local power brokers, securing health care through direct, personal efforts, and all kinds of other fun stuff that makes dealing with the IRS a happy fun time walk in the park.
To me, this sounds like it's some local payback for McAfee having failed to do much negotiating with local power brokers. If you want to be your own island, it means you also do your own foreign policy. As a result, I have little compassion for McAfee, or little interest in the story. It pretty much just confirm what I always suspected was going to happen to assholes with money pursuing their liberal fantasy.
Ambassador Stevens was referring to Benghazi, not "a different embassy" as you claim.
Again, Benghazi, not "a different embassy", as you claim.
Actually, you partisan hack, there is no mention of Benghazi in CBS's time line. Just as an FYI, the embassy is in Tripoli, and the consulate is in Benghazi. Since you clearly don't understand the difference, I question how you can have any opinion at all on how diplomacy was conducted in Libya, it's purpose, and the logic behind the security assessments. There were indeed very specific requests for increased security detail, but your CBS article isn't the source for that. A much better source is here: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/email-shows-state-department-rejecting-request-of-security-team-at-us-embassy-in-libya/ It's clear that the security was focused on the embassy, not the consulate. The consulate had always been exposed, and was purposefully set up in such a way by Stevens himself. He understood that you can't conduct diplomacy and outreach programs if you're always hiding behind concrete barriers and massive guns.
There were security issues, but those were standard failures where small problems snowballed into 4 dead people. By the way, those four dead people in Libya are less than die every day in Afghanistan across all NATO forces. So congratulations on latching on to a small issue that crept up in an unstable country. If that's the worst Obama did, he did one hell of a job. It's too bad you're so blinded by partisan hatred that you are incapable of looking at the issue rationally.
Or whomever else it can stop at short of Obama.
Yeah, Obama totally said that it was all Hillary's fault. Actually, wrong - he explicitly took responsibility for the incident in Benghazi. You can watch the last presidential debate for a very public announcement on that.
Citation or get the fuck out. As in, primary source citation. Fox news doesn't count. Furthermore, here's a little test for you. Imagine, you get a phone call from a friend whose toilet just exploded and is flooding the entire first floor. Friend lives about 2-3 miles away. Now, time how long it takes to grab all your tools, brief a few more friends about the situation, load them in 2-3 cars, and then drive over to your friend's place. Now, imagine that instead of just staring at an exploded toilet, you're looking at getting shot while driving there, while being there, and there might be an unknown number of friendlies hurt, dead or shooting back at the enemy.
You're a fucking moron if you think that that doesn't add 10-15 minutes to any trip.
An nearby annex with military forces that takes 45 minutes to show up.
Yes, because everyone always has everything in a running car that is needed to deal with a forceful incursion, and everyone is always immediately clear who is doing what to whom. And no traffic jams. Ever.
People who think that the CIA team should have been there in 15 minutes and who think that troops should have been there in two hours would have sent in unprepared troops who are more likely to shoot at the own team than at the enemy.
Fucking morons. Logistics and operational due diligence decides wars. Not Rambo.
I'm going to call bullshit on every single one of your claims, and ask for citations. One that I know is incorrect is happiness, because I saw the study. I'm just giving you a chance to show that you aren't just talking out of your ass. And as for your request to look them up - you have two problems. Number one, it is up to the claimant to support the claim with data. You make a claim, you provide the data. Two, they directly contradict the studies I've read.
That's also consistent with my observations "on the ground", having lived in both places,
Funny. I was going to say the same thing.
Note that I'm not saying that one system or the other is better. But your statements are totally wrong and you don't know what you're talking about.
Yes, because the TWO German schools had nothing to do with every other german school out there. Again, you use statistics, but you have no idea what they mean.
Germany has a three-tiered system.
Correct. Hauptschule, which is basically for people who are functionally retarded. Realschule, which is for people who have no interest in school, and are directed to vocational schools. Gymnasium/Oberstufe, which is preparation for University.
The majority of Germans attends secondary schools that are 10 years or less.
[Citation needed]. Not to mention that it is not clear what you mean by secondary school. Anything above kindergarten? If so, you're wrong. Yes, you can drop out after grade 10, but that is a distinct minority reserved for people with IQ less than 80 (approximately, but they are legally retarded) or permanent trouble makers better off learning a trade. The majority of Germans finish high school.
Average length of schooling in Germany (10.2 years) is lower than in the US (12 years);
[Citation Needed] The majority of Germans finish high school, which is 13 years of post-Kindergarten schooling. Granted, that's my own personal experience, but what do I know. I'm only from there.
Vectors are covered only in grades 11 and 12 in Germany, and in many cases only if you choose mathematics as one of your specialties (most people don't), so the great majority of Germans never get to see any linear algebra.
Incorrect. If you specialize in math, you get Linear Algebra. That's the entire point of the specialization. As for great majority... I don't know about you, but the schools I went to had solid attendance in their maths specializations. Again, I'd like to corroborate my anecdote with your data source.
Note that I'm not saying that one system or the other is better. But your statements are totally wrong and you don't know what you're talking about.
That's quite hilarious. I feel like I'm talking to someone who picked up a sets of statistics from about 60 years ago, and thinks it still applies today.
Note though that on Nov 5th, Florida was a very weak win for Romney (a bit above 50%). Heck, the probabilities for Florida kept changing until the election was over. It turned to blue (with a whopping 50.6%) only in the afternoon of Nov 6. As someone else said, it's pretty easy to figure out what's going to happen the day before or the day of an election.It's much harder to do so 2 months in advance - and he was very close to the actual result even that far in advance. The other important bit: he called out Romney's lack of momentum long before anyone else, based on actual statistics.
So no, Nate doesn't just get attention because he is right on the day of the election. It's because he is right months in advance, and correctly identifies subtle trends that escape pretty much every talking head out there.
Ah, now I understand your metrics. Your problem is two-fold: you equate a degree with knowing stuff and being educated, and you think that only a university can make someone a productive member of society.
Keep in mind that Germans who graduate high school not only are between 1 and 3 years older than their American counterparts, but they leave high school with far more knowledge - on average. The average German high schooler has been exposed to Linear Algebra. The average American high schooler apparently doesn't know algebra. Also keep in mind that there is much less an emphasis on having to go to university to get a good job and become a productive member of society. Technical schools and apprenticeships provide better job skills than universities do, and Germans leave high school with a much larger body of knowledge. As a result, there's less of a need to go to university to finish your education.
I said it before, I'll say it again: metrics aren't the end of the story, merely the beginning. If you blindly repeat them without understanding their context, you are as blind as before.
Live by the KPI, die by the KPI. I'm curious to know what those better outcomes are, how you measure them and how you compare them to others.
Wow, this is a new one. Don't help people - it will be boring! Talk about a first-world problem.... You must have thought the middle ages were the best of all times. I'm sure you also think that you'd be part of the elite, thanks to your pluck and hard work.
And I also don't think I ever heard that lying and cheating being a good thing. Things have changed, indeed.
Just to throw a bit of rain on the parade: you can't just say "Free school for everyone!" without doing everything else that Germany is doing.
#1: University is for the brainiacs. Technical school is for mechanics and electricians. Apprenticeship is for the ones who need a job now, can hold on to a wrench and are willing to learn.
#2 Heavily subsidized child care. You can go to school and raise a family.
#3 Subsidized or communitized housing.
#4 Schools that are generally ok, but where there is little stratification. You won't get a Harvard/Stanford/MIT/Berkeley, but you also won't get University of Phoenix.
I love the German system to death, but you can't just import the tuition system into the US, and think that everything will work out the same. You need to import the attitude and the attendant support systems as well.
Can I buy Nokia's burning corpse already?
Just because these are standard lies from people who are peddling ideology over facts...
1) He signed the act to close it after being inaugurated. Unfortunately, closing it requires money, which Congress killed, and relocating prisoners, which Congress and local officials objected to. The only thing that Gitmo shows is that the US is not a dictatorship, and the US President has a lot less powers than people think.
2) The alternative was killings done through troops on the ground. Where exactly is the difference?
3) Now Osama bin Laden was a leader of an opposing military force, as opposed to a terrorist at the top of the US most wanted list? Plus, would you rather have some FBI agents make their way to the compound to arrest him? How much more are you going to twist yourself into a pretzel to make bin Laden's death a negative?
4) The US used airpower and missile strikes to make Libya comply with UN security resolutions on civilian extermination. You're right though, Bush wouldn't have thought about that. He would have just invaded Libya.
5) The troop surge was demanded by military command, and generally regarded as necessary to make Afghanistan into a bit less of a mess. Now suddenly that's a bad thing? Where were you when Bush invaded Afghanistan to begin with?
The only thing interesting about your post is the amount of twisting you're doing to turn anything Obama did into a negative. If he'd achieve perfect employment, global peace, end world hunger and walk on water, I'm sure you'd be muttering about slavery, lost profits in the armament industry, overpopulation and being a false prophet. Get over it.
A Toyota Hilux, on the other hand, just needs to dry off a bit before driving off. God's indestructible vehicle for all purposes.
Ownership is defined as what you can hold in both hands while running at full tilt. From that perspective, you might want to be careful. There have been plenty of instances where the lowly masses had enough of the current definition of ownership, and decided to change it. Plenty of kings, princes and other wealthy people were suddenly wishing that they could ride their jewels to safety.
Maybe next time!
Not maybe, that's exactly the plan. Notice the trajectory here:
1) Tesla Roadster: Take a standard chassis, turn it into an electric car, sell as a high-performance roadster to people with ludicrous money lying around. The goal: to have a car prove the key technology: the battery and the engine.
2) Model S/X: Take the proven technology of the Roadster, put it into a sexy car that causes rich people to open their wallets, and sell it at a nice markup in the luxury segment. The goal: to work out the kinks in their manufacturing equipment and their supply chain.
3) Take their proven technology and manufacturing capability to create an electric for everybody.
In essence, Musk is doing a slow ramp-up that allows him to have customers subsidize the development of their final car. The 5k downpayment for a Model S is just as brilliant: it's free money for Tesla to build out their manufacturing capability. I love the Model S as a car, but it's the business model and the man at the top that makes think that Tesla is going to be the game changer for electric cars. The comparisons to Steve Jobs are not unwarranted.
Well, it is pitched at the people who are looking at a BMW 5 series and think that it isn't advanced enough. As a result, 78K is expensive, but still within budget range.
As for the fate of the Fiskers.... they seem to be badly engineered. From what I saw in reviews, there are all kinds of engineering issues that range from how it drives to how the electrical system holds up even under normal driving. That said, I don't think I would want to submerge any of these fully electric cars. I did put down 5k to be in line for one of these babies, but I will also leave money aside to have a rock-solid gasoline-powered car that will handle the situations that the Tesla shouldn't. No need to pull all eggs in one basket.
Could you clarify who "you guys" is? Recently, I feel like I'm being lumped into a whole lot of different, frequently orthogonal, categories.
Just a hint: in this case, you guys is Bloomberg Businessweek. In other words, is starting to seep into the bastions of business and corporate bottomline that maybe, just maybe, this entire Climate Change should be something of concern to businesses.
Yes, they got it wrong, but give them a few years. They are just starting paying attention, so you can't really blame them for not understanding what's been rehashed in scientific circles for the last.... 30 years or so. I expect that in another 30 years or so, they might understand the problem and stop offering simple causations and simple solutions.
Ahem - for someone whose sig is "your thin skin doesn't make me a troll", you have remarkably thin skin yourself. The OPs post wasn't about tolerance, it was about context. The context here is that freedom of speech isn't nearly as important a concept to the Chinese as to us, and that the context in China therefore isn't "we like to be evil, therefore we censor", but rather "we value stability over free speech, therefore we censor".
Now, is free speech more important stability? That's an entirely different question, as is whether free speech is a similar right as no being abused.
Finally, you also have remarkably thin skin when it comes to generalizations. They're called generalizations for a reason, and they're a fine way to operate in this world - as long as you are aware that you are making generalizations. Not every posts needs to delve deeply into the subtleties of Chinese thought. Otherwise, every post would be about 200 pages long.
I appreciate the context that you bring - but geez, lay off the hyperbole.
Upon close examination, many or all of the assumptions are wrong;
You make two fundamental mistakes (piled high and deep, indeed): you assume that all things are equally wrong, and you assume that science is the search for truth.
Since you can't get the goal of science or the scientific method right, I would suggest you start from scratch with your analysis.
No. You're falling into a trivial "all views are equal" trap. I think that views that are unprovable, rely on arbitrary axioms, arbitrary authorities and arbitrary texts, and purport to divide the world into good and evil should get zero support from the state and large social structures. If you want to believe that some bearded guy flew DC-10s into volcanoes to save the Earth (to mix a few things together), that's your prerogative. But don't try to use that crap to decide whether we need levees to protect against floods or whether bicycle lanes are better investments than nuclear power plants.
And if you have a problem with this approach - feel free to update your beliefs to have a rational basis. Don't force them onto others because it makes you feel better.
You need to adjust your tinfoil hat. It's cutting off the circulation to your brain.
What - did the regulator just find out that his industry is a natural monopoly, has a few very entrenched players facing almost no competition, and who are protected by near infinite barriers to entry? And did I mention that the service provided has morphed into a requirement on the order of electricity and roads?
Welcome to market pricing when the market is not competitive and has highly inelastic demand. And if he tries to "get a fair shake", watch the telecoms pull out their infrastructure build-up costs from 30 years ago to justify pricing now. I expect that after the telecoms are done with their studies on their profit margins, they will lose $2000 on every byte they transmit.
This is so doomed to fail.... I need to grab my popcorn.