You misunderstood his comment. From his perspective as a German, the attention to detail in OSM is lacking. I mean, in that example, there is no mention of where the nearest trash can is or where the stop signs are located.
I wish I was kidding. Germans are a unique breed when it comes to detail and rules.
If you want to actually impress me, stop citing Wikipedia as an authority. Step 2, gain some reading comprehension. Your quote explicitly refers to various definitions, without actually mentioning what those are and what the justifications for them are. Furthermore, if you'd read what I said, it explicitly refers to republics being possible that aren't democracies. As for democracies not being republics - I tend to argue that the English form of government is not really a monarchy, as the official head of state is a figure head, with the actual head of the state being elected.
And if you'd actually read the discussions around the founding of the nation, you'd realize that the term "republic" was used anytime they referred to something that wasn't a monarchy, and that their warnings against democracies were done in the context of a direct democracy.
You failed to pick the one nit that you could have, and miserably failed on all your other nitpicks. And again, I'm not surprised.
That has been tried as well. Specifically, the German head of government is the President, but is exactly what you described:a powerless proclamator and mediator. Do you know why no one talks about the president, and why pretty much no one outside (and often even inside) of Germany can barely tell you who the current president is, nevermind who the previous ones were? That's because the actual power figure is the Chancellor, and therefore everyone pays attention to that person.
Finally, the screed of "move things to the local level" is an empty statement: how local is local enough? Should the city government be responsible for maintaining the highway that runs through its boundaries? What about the neighborhood watch? Just like there are economies of scale in companies, so there are economies of scale in governments. Sometimes, things need to be done on the largest possible. The only question is what falls there - and very little of a discussion involving economies of scale is actually taking place.
I was going to post something about how a republic is not a different form of government when compared to democracy, but then I saw your sig, and.... well, I'm not surprised. For some reason, libertarians like clockwork get this wrong, and there is nothing that can be done to convince them otherwise. *shrug*
There's no reason a constitutional republic would be better than a constitutional democracy.
For the civics-impaired people: that's because a constitutional republic contains all sets of constitutional democracies. A republic merely requires that the head of state is not an inherited position. It is NOT a form of government that is different from a democracy. If you absolutely want, you can argue that a direct democracy could in theory function without a direct leader, but a government like that has never existed, will never exist, and will fall apart even if it is tried with siamese twins.
Thank you, captain obvious. I hope I don't have to explain to you the difference between legality and legitimacy, and what blind acceptance of laws leads to.
Funny. Somehow, I'm convinced that your love of the Supreme Court as final arbitrator of all that is good and right goes out the window as soon as you disagree with them.
I notice your complete absence of any rational argument, and a mere appeal to authority forming the entirety of your position. Pretty funny, considering your normal stance regarding government and authority.
A corporation is a legal construct. That's it. People acting within the scope and on behalf of a corporation get privileges individuals do not have. Furthermore, people not acting on behalf of a corporation do not lose any of their existing rights and privileges, even if they might be employed by one. As a result, the concept of free speech for a corporation is utter nonsense, with negative effects that were predicted in its entirety the moment the ruling passed, and with absolutely no upside.
While most do. Most consider the sun a "minor" contributor instead of a major contributor.
Yep. The point being they DO include the sun in their analysis.
And the paper you cited shows data that puts the sun in a range where most other papers have put it: 25%-56%. Most that I've seen put it around 20%-30%. Not sure what you were trying to say. Even with that paper, odds are that the sun is not the major contributor to the temperature increase.
And guess who found the error? Other scientists. Climatologists. Not one of the skeptics actually figured out that that particular bit of information was wrong.
It's really trivial to look at past errors and say "see, these guys know nothing". I'll be much more impressed if you'd actually come up with some science of your own that makes some sort of verifiable prediction. In the meantime, you're nothing but a Monday morning quarterback.
For a scientist, you have a remarkable lack of understanding how scientific work is done, what peer review is, what references mean and what statistical analysis is. I'm pretty sure you're lying about your status as a scientist, which means you're probably lying about a whole lot of other things as well.
Alleging a cause is not the same as proving it is the cause conclusively!
We have a mechanism, lab experiments supporting the mechanism, and real world data matching the predictions generated from the mechanism. That's called science. It's been reproduced by different people, different groups using different methods from all over the world. At this point, yelling correlation is not causation just means you don't know what's going on.
Besides CO2 hasn't caused temperature to deviate in the REAL ACTUAL ATMOSPHERE as noted above thus the CAGW claims of "CO2 driving Temperature" are falsified by Nature.
As opposed to the fake unreal atmosphere everybody has been working with so far? I'm sure you have a link to support that theory? Maybe even a peer-reviewed paper of sorts? Just one?
Then why do corporations have free speech? Should a rock have free speech? What about a tax haven?
The Supreme Court clearly considers them people under some specific circumstances. I'm glad you understand they aren't actually people - but they still have rights that make sense only when we're talking about actual people.
There's nothing about climate science that is inherently conservative or liberal, and no reason that conservatives should be upset about it
Actually, if your science doesn't upset conservatives, it is because it doesn't change the world enough. Conservatives, by definition, oppose change. Nothing inherently bad about it, as if we'd go chasing every new fad, we wouldn't go anywhere either.
But any scientific discovery that either implies change is required, or results in a technological advance that changes the world, will be strongly and vehemently opposed by conservatives. That is their nature.
It is, however, more correct than a random Joe's gut feeling on the matter. Not only more correct, but correct more often. Furthermore, argument from authority is NOT a fallacy when there is an actual authority in the subject matter. It is a weak argument, yes, as it is easily countered. It is, however, NOT a fallacy.
The Google camera app allows you to automatically upload all pictures you take. They don't get posted, but they're in your G+ account. Good luck, copper.
If we can't even figure out how to deal with people who are merely assholes in a conversation, we're fucking doomed. The silencing gun is the official admission by people that they cannot and will not participate in a discussion that isn't following their script.
This isn't even about potential abuse. This is about a technology that has no other function than to abuse.
I pointed out that we have the largest economy in the world
No, you did not. You specifically said GDP per capita.
Granted, we could be more efficient, but stop bitching that US uses more energy than Afghanistan,
No one referred to Afghanistan. You are the first one.
because we produce more and live better lives than most countries that use less.
Well, you learned your lesson, because you at least included the weasel word "most". By a lot of metrics though, life in the US is worse than life in quite a few countries that use less. Specifically, life in European commie pinko countries like Germany or Sweden. Hell, France has a better life.
The left doesn't want to produce more and right doesn't want to tax it.
Yeah... I'm not even going to touch that one. To some extent, it's kinda funny to see conservatives having to contort themselves when faced with facts, but it's depressing that you vote.
Unlike Americans, Europeans actually like to travel to foreign countries, and do so frequently. While 2881 km is not an unrealistic roadtrip, it happens about as often as people traveling from Norway to Portugal - i.e., for vacation time. And train travel beats the crap out of both flying and driving. At least in Europe. In the US, I shudder every time I have to go somewhere that is more than 100 miles away. It's either being stuck in traffic or flying.
I will not be forced to live in a walk-in closet in a controlled compact city, to be taxed and poisoned to death.
No one is forcing you to live anywhere. What you are whining about is that you can't afford a giant (and yes, 2500 square feet and above is giant) house in the middle of the city, and instead want to be able to afford driving from the suburbs to work in a space and gas wasting oil burner.
What I find untenable is that you're asking others to subsidize your life style. And make no mistake, cheap gas, suburban sprawl and roads to everywhere, including the suburbs, requires money that comes from everyone else.
People who "focus their lives in the urban centres" (centers in the USA, btw) are, by and large, some of the most spiritually and emotionally empty, uninformed sheep I have ever met in my life.
So to top it off, you are insulting the people who are paying for your ability to live in the suburbs. Nice.
Slashdot Mirror
You misunderstood his comment. From his perspective as a German, the attention to detail in OSM is lacking. I mean, in that example, there is no mention of where the nearest trash can is or where the stop signs are located.
I wish I was kidding. Germans are a unique breed when it comes to detail and rules.
If you want to actually impress me, stop citing Wikipedia as an authority. Step 2, gain some reading comprehension. Your quote explicitly refers to various definitions, without actually mentioning what those are and what the justifications for them are. Furthermore, if you'd read what I said, it explicitly refers to republics being possible that aren't democracies. As for democracies not being republics - I tend to argue that the English form of government is not really a monarchy, as the official head of state is a figure head, with the actual head of the state being elected.
And if you'd actually read the discussions around the founding of the nation, you'd realize that the term "republic" was used anytime they referred to something that wasn't a monarchy, and that their warnings against democracies were done in the context of a direct democracy.
You failed to pick the one nit that you could have, and miserably failed on all your other nitpicks. And again, I'm not surprised.
That has been tried as well. Specifically, the German head of government is the President, but is exactly what you described :a powerless proclamator and mediator. Do you know why no one talks about the president, and why pretty much no one outside (and often even inside) of Germany can barely tell you who the current president is, nevermind who the previous ones were? That's because the actual power figure is the Chancellor, and therefore everyone pays attention to that person.
Finally, the screed of "move things to the local level" is an empty statement: how local is local enough? Should the city government be responsible for maintaining the highway that runs through its boundaries? What about the neighborhood watch? Just like there are economies of scale in companies, so there are economies of scale in governments. Sometimes, things need to be done on the largest possible. The only question is what falls there - and very little of a discussion involving economies of scale is actually taking place.
I was going to post something about how a republic is not a different form of government when compared to democracy, but then I saw your sig, and.... well, I'm not surprised. For some reason, libertarians like clockwork get this wrong, and there is nothing that can be done to convince them otherwise. *shrug*
There's no reason a constitutional republic would be better than a constitutional democracy.
For the civics-impaired people: that's because a constitutional republic contains all sets of constitutional democracies. A republic merely requires that the head of state is not an inherited position. It is NOT a form of government that is different from a democracy. If you absolutely want, you can argue that a direct democracy could in theory function without a direct leader, but a government like that has never existed, will never exist, and will fall apart even if it is tried with siamese twins.
Thank you, captain obvious. I hope I don't have to explain to you the difference between legality and legitimacy, and what blind acceptance of laws leads to.
Funny. Somehow, I'm convinced that your love of the Supreme Court as final arbitrator of all that is good and right goes out the window as soon as you disagree with them.
I notice your complete absence of any rational argument, and a mere appeal to authority forming the entirety of your position. Pretty funny, considering your normal stance regarding government and authority.
The null hypothesis is not "nothing happens", but "the fluctuations we're seeing are the result of random processes". Now try again.
A corporation is a legal construct. That's it. People acting within the scope and on behalf of a corporation get privileges individuals do not have. Furthermore, people not acting on behalf of a corporation do not lose any of their existing rights and privileges, even if they might be employed by one. As a result, the concept of free speech for a corporation is utter nonsense, with negative effects that were predicted in its entirety the moment the ruling passed, and with absolutely no upside.
While most do. Most consider the sun a "minor" contributor instead of a major contributor.
Yep. The point being they DO include the sun in their analysis.
And the paper you cited shows data that puts the sun in a range where most other papers have put it: 25%-56%. Most that I've seen put it around 20%-30%. Not sure what you were trying to say. Even with that paper, odds are that the sun is not the major contributor to the temperature increase.
And if you had read up how the models work, they ALL include the sun. And I'm sure you have a link for that paper, right?
And guess who found the error? Other scientists. Climatologists. Not one of the skeptics actually figured out that that particular bit of information was wrong.
It's really trivial to look at past errors and say "see, these guys know nothing". I'll be much more impressed if you'd actually come up with some science of your own that makes some sort of verifiable prediction. In the meantime, you're nothing but a Monday morning quarterback.
For a scientist, you have a remarkable lack of understanding how scientific work is done, what peer review is, what references mean and what statistical analysis is. I'm pretty sure you're lying about your status as a scientist, which means you're probably lying about a whole lot of other things as well.
Alleging a cause is not the same as proving it is the cause conclusively!
We have a mechanism, lab experiments supporting the mechanism, and real world data matching the predictions generated from the mechanism. That's called science. It's been reproduced by different people, different groups using different methods from all over the world. At this point, yelling correlation is not causation just means you don't know what's going on.
Besides CO2 hasn't caused temperature to deviate in the REAL ACTUAL ATMOSPHERE as noted above thus the CAGW claims of "CO2 driving Temperature" are falsified by Nature.
As opposed to the fake unreal atmosphere everybody has been working with so far? I'm sure you have a link to support that theory? Maybe even a peer-reviewed paper of sorts? Just one?
No? I thought so. You're a fucking moron.
Then why do corporations have free speech? Should a rock have free speech? What about a tax haven?
The Supreme Court clearly considers them people under some specific circumstances. I'm glad you understand they aren't actually people - but they still have rights that make sense only when we're talking about actual people.
There's nothing about climate science that is inherently conservative or liberal, and no reason that conservatives should be upset about it
Actually, if your science doesn't upset conservatives, it is because it doesn't change the world enough. Conservatives, by definition, oppose change. Nothing inherently bad about it, as if we'd go chasing every new fad, we wouldn't go anywhere either.
But any scientific discovery that either implies change is required, or results in a technological advance that changes the world, will be strongly and vehemently opposed by conservatives. That is their nature.
It is, however, more correct than a random Joe's gut feeling on the matter. Not only more correct, but correct more often. Furthermore, argument from authority is NOT a fallacy when there is an actual authority in the subject matter. It is a weak argument, yes, as it is easily countered. It is, however, NOT a fallacy.
Screw 3G. What about upping that 250 GB limit for their UVerse to something serious - like 1TB?
The Google camera app allows you to automatically upload all pictures you take. They don't get posted, but they're in your G+ account. Good luck, copper.
If we can't even figure out how to deal with people who are merely assholes in a conversation, we're fucking doomed. The silencing gun is the official admission by people that they cannot and will not participate in a discussion that isn't following their script.
This isn't even about potential abuse. This is about a technology that has no other function than to abuse.
Steel? Masonry? Stone? Cement? Transparent aluminum? There are more building materials than just wood, you know....
Unfortunately, what would happen is that everyone would agree to the lowest common denominator of censorship: censor everything everywhere.
I pointed out that we have the largest economy in the world
No, you did not. You specifically said GDP per capita.
Granted, we could be more efficient, but stop bitching that US uses more energy than Afghanistan,
No one referred to Afghanistan. You are the first one.
because we produce more and live better lives than most countries that use less.
Well, you learned your lesson, because you at least included the weasel word "most". By a lot of metrics though, life in the US is worse than life in quite a few countries that use less. Specifically, life in European commie pinko countries like Germany or Sweden. Hell, France has a better life.
The left doesn't want to produce more and right doesn't want to tax it.
Yeah... I'm not even going to touch that one. To some extent, it's kinda funny to see conservatives having to contort themselves when faced with facts, but it's depressing that you vote.
Unlike Americans, Europeans actually like to travel to foreign countries, and do so frequently. While 2881 km is not an unrealistic roadtrip, it happens about as often as people traveling from Norway to Portugal - i.e., for vacation time. And train travel beats the crap out of both flying and driving. At least in Europe. In the US, I shudder every time I have to go somewhere that is more than 100 miles away. It's either being stuck in traffic or flying.
I will not be forced to live in a walk-in closet in a controlled compact city, to be taxed and poisoned to death.
No one is forcing you to live anywhere. What you are whining about is that you can't afford a giant (and yes, 2500 square feet and above is giant) house in the middle of the city, and instead want to be able to afford driving from the suburbs to work in a space and gas wasting oil burner.
What I find untenable is that you're asking others to subsidize your life style. And make no mistake, cheap gas, suburban sprawl and roads to everywhere, including the suburbs, requires money that comes from everyone else.
People who "focus their lives in the urban centres" (centers in the USA, btw) are, by and large, some of the most spiritually and emotionally empty, uninformed sheep I have ever met in my life.
So to top it off, you are insulting the people who are paying for your ability to live in the suburbs. Nice.