What he is referring to is that Pine forest soil is acidic. Furthermore, pine trees prefer sandy soil - which also doesn't work for growing food stuff.
One species of tree or bush growing in a specific area is often an indication that it will be very difficult to grow anything else in there.
Absolutely. I find it very disturbing that this idea went beyond "that's just stupid". But we have the power to change it without resorting to violence. If people get elected who keep advancing the same nonsense, I think that no amount of guns is going to change the problem, because the problem is with the voting public then.
You're proclaiming. Duh. What, you thought teaching how a program works is anything but declarative statements, with exactly zero impact on anything outside of that program?
I think the idea that climate changes in general, and food issues specifically, will lead to war is pretty well accepted. Almost every war ever was started over natural resources (WW 1 being a fairly large exception), and quite a few were started over food resources (part of Hitler's goal in WW2 was to get access to more arable land in Eastern Europe).
What I do find a bit surprising is that strong correlation between variables is deemed a causal link. It's not. A causal link is a mechanism that ties two events together. These are variables that are tied together by some fairly fluffy socioeconomic theories. To some extent, they're not wrong - it's pretty easy to see that if someone's hungry, they're more likely to club their neighbor over the head for some food than if they're not. But I think they're trying a bit hard with their paper.
As much as the conclusions of the committee disturb me, I find the violence directed at these senators for merely discussing the idea to be even more disturbing. What, we can't discuss things anymore?
They might be nuanced considerations, but the considerations lead to some really, really stupid consequences. The VC blog has some more level-headed analysis of their proposal.
The end result is still that the proposed limitations on free speech will lead to some serious abuses. Not to mention that I find it strangely disturbing that a human being of 20 years, 11 months and 360 days is described as a child.
It's not complete crazy talk, and, unlike some others, find it an idea that should be discussed in the open. And then the idea should be shot into itty, bitty little philosophical pieces.
That's what I thought: R&D here includes spending on DHS, DoD and VA, and those are the places where the R&D budget was actually increased. DARPA doesn't have a $40 billion budget, so I can only assume that the R&D is actually funding for research into better drones, better x-ray scanners and anything else that falls under "research" and "development" for corporations bidding on federal defense and health care dollars.
I'll conclude from this that Republicans love their military, and Clinton actually tried to cash in on the peace dividend.
For fuck's sake - you didn't just use eye witness testimony as evidence that one person's account of an event is somehow related to truth? Besides the umpteen studies that show that eye witness testimony is largely unreliable - especially single witness testimony - let me demonstrate how the exchange continues: Opposing lawyer: Please describe what you saw on the night of October 1, 2011. Witness #2: That man [points at defendant] was getting drunk at my party and passed out at 10PM.
or Opposing lawyer: Is it true that you need glasses for driving? Witness #1: Yes Opposing lawyer: From where you were sitting, you were therefore not able to clearly see the defendant as he entered the bar.
or Opposing lawyer: What color was the jacket the defendant was wearing when he entered the bar? Witness #1: Blue. Opposing lawyer: It was actually red. Motion to dismiss testimony of witness as unreliable.
The cult of the statistic is dumb. It needs to go away.
What actually needs to happen is that people - specifically, you - need to learn more about statistics, because it is clear that people - specifically, you - have no idea what they mean, how they work and how they can and should be used in daily life.
Because this is an economic practice that only works when you're a developing country with a consumer base that foreign companies are drooling over to get access to. This practice will die once the Chinese market matures, because foreign companies will either be there already, or will have decided against entering it.
If you're not a massive minority, why are 8 out of 9 republican presidential candidates opposing pretty much everything science and economics has taught us in the last 100 years? And the only reason Huntsman is going with Science is because a) the other candidates have already locked up the socially conservative/insane vote, and b) it's his only chance to stand out from the crowd and get somehow back into contention.
I'd love to vote for a fiscal conservative. It's too bad that there are none anywhere in power.
The two links that I can read and that aren't some fringe blogs are completely unrelated to your statement that scientists will study what is popular and receiving grant funding. Furthermore, they also do not support your implied statement that scientists will produce the result demanded by the grant givers, which is the far more damaging claim. The first claim is nothing but basic employment. If you want to have a job, you look to people who are willing to pay you for doing it.
Man, there's a reason why I didn't become a scientist. Either I would have gotten ridiculed for studying the mating habits of dung beetles, because "who cares about THAT???", or I would have gotten raked over the coals for studying fish stock in the Atlantic, because "I'm just doing it for the grant money."
Quite frankly, the only thing that this line of reasoning tells me is that there's an awful lot of projecting going on.
Completely, utterly, 100% wrong. You know why? Because you have no idea WHY anecdote A happened. This means that you cannot possibly use the anecdote to come to any conclusion. At best, you can say that "hey, I should look at this more." And even that's a stretch, because often you can't even be sure that it actually did happen, and wasn't the complete result of someone's imagination.
Anecdotes are fun stories you tell at parties to entertain people. Data is what you use when you actually want to make a sound decision.
All I hear here is that you want really fast bandwidth, but you aren't willing to pay for it.
Wow, I think we have a record for complete lack of reading comprehension. Is this one of those cases where evidence that contradicts someone's world view actually ends up reinforcing it?
I can pay for really fast bandwidth, but no one is offering to sell me really fast bandwidth that doesn't come with restrictions that turn really fast bandwidth into barely dial-up. It also has nothing to do with net neutrality, and all with a complete lack of competition. Which is why ATT can get away with providing my complex with a complete ass-tastic Internet connection which cannot support anything resembling modern speeds.
As for the rest...
If you really live in Silicon Valley, then you have the option of getting a direct connection to the internet, bypassing the broadband ISPs altogether.
Yes, of course, I could live in a server room. Or I could pay to have Level 3 lay fiber to my apartment, and then turn my living room into a data center.
These are all means to access the internet. They have have costs and capabilities. And you have desires which these fill to varying degrees.
You're either a really patient troll, or just blind and deaf.
There are probably a lot of parallel paths. Composite technology was well-known, but was until recently not able to support the requirements for aircraft weighing and transporting several tons. While I don't expect this kind of electric technology to replace the jet turbines of commercial airliners (it'd be like running a cruise ship off of a bank of batteries), there might be some things that migrate up into the regional propeller aircraft.
Here, we have an apples to apples comparison - access to the internet.
Of course, just like all things with 4 wheels,an engine and at least one seat are cars, competing in the same exact market for the same exact dollars.
And you whine because the plan you choose to consider caps your internet consumption.
And now you a) further extend the market by not requiring an engine and b) assume I'm only interested in consumption. All of which are wrong, and some more wrong than others.
Further, you only have internet difficulties because you choose to live too far from civilization.
Yes, Silicon Valley is really far away from civilization.
Obviously, you chose to whine about it rather than accept that your choices have restricted your choices
When in doubt, persist. I think your shovel should be hitting molten rock by now. Do you always look at go-karts when you're shopping for a family sedan?
Either pay more for what you want, or pay less and get less.
I'd love to. Except I can't, because either the products you mentioned come with drawbacks that disqualify them from consideration - and I'm talking features, not price - or they do not exist where I live.
Oh, right, you meant competition in the way that a Ferrari competes with Yugo. Sorry. I was under the mistaken assumption you actually had the slightest idea what you're talking about. Once you actually learn to compare apples to apples when talking about competition, we will continue this conversation.
In theory, yes they do. In practice, there are small segments of land where for some reason, Comcast doesn't go. My suspicion is that since they're mostly low-income housings, Comcast doesn't think it will recoup the investment of digging up the sidewalk to run the cable.
And history will be reading in 50 years about why we got rid of many of them once the entire world economy finally shits itself for good.
Wow. I always knew that libertarians are like the communists of yore, but I didn't expect that they would just wholesale rip off the communist manifesto.
Just for shits and giggles: how would you ensure that something like this emphatically won't happen? No, you can't use the government for this, because that will be an expansion of government.
Slashdot Mirror
What he is referring to is that Pine forest soil is acidic. Furthermore, pine trees prefer sandy soil - which also doesn't work for growing food stuff.
One species of tree or bush growing in a specific area is often an indication that it will be very difficult to grow anything else in there.
Absolutely. I find it very disturbing that this idea went beyond "that's just stupid". But we have the power to change it without resorting to violence. If people get elected who keep advancing the same nonsense, I think that no amount of guns is going to change the problem, because the problem is with the voting public then.
You're proclaiming. Duh. What, you thought teaching how a program works is anything but declarative statements, with exactly zero impact on anything outside of that program?
Wow. I didn't realize that voting the idiots out was not an option anymore.
Holy fuck this place has become violent. And by this, I mean Slashdot as a microcosm of the US.
I wasn't talking about speech, I was talking about discussion. Speech without intent for discussion is either a proclamation or mental masturbation.
I think the idea that climate changes in general, and food issues specifically, will lead to war is pretty well accepted. Almost every war ever was started over natural resources (WW 1 being a fairly large exception), and quite a few were started over food resources (part of Hitler's goal in WW2 was to get access to more arable land in Eastern Europe).
What I do find a bit surprising is that strong correlation between variables is deemed a causal link. It's not. A causal link is a mechanism that ties two events together. These are variables that are tied together by some fairly fluffy socioeconomic theories. To some extent, they're not wrong - it's pretty easy to see that if someone's hungry, they're more likely to club their neighbor over the head for some food than if they're not. But I think they're trying a bit hard with their paper.
How is making empty threats of violence a discussion?
As much as the conclusions of the committee disturb me, I find the violence directed at these senators for merely discussing the idea to be even more disturbing. What, we can't discuss things anymore?
They might be nuanced considerations, but the considerations lead to some really, really stupid consequences. The VC blog has some more level-headed analysis of their proposal.
The end result is still that the proposed limitations on free speech will lead to some serious abuses. Not to mention that I find it strangely disturbing that a human being of 20 years, 11 months and 360 days is described as a child.
It's not complete crazy talk, and, unlike some others, find it an idea that should be discussed in the open. And then the idea should be shot into itty, bitty little philosophical pieces.
It's called confirmation bias.
That's what I thought: R&D here includes spending on DHS, DoD and VA, and those are the places where the R&D budget was actually increased. DARPA doesn't have a $40 billion budget, so I can only assume that the R&D is actually funding for research into better drones, better x-ray scanners and anything else that falls under "research" and "development" for corporations bidding on federal defense and health care dollars.
I'll conclude from this that Republicans love their military, and Clinton actually tried to cash in on the peace dividend.
For fuck's sake - you didn't just use eye witness testimony as evidence that one person's account of an event is somehow related to truth? Besides the umpteen studies that show that eye witness testimony is largely unreliable - especially single witness testimony - let me demonstrate how the exchange continues:
Opposing lawyer: Please describe what you saw on the night of October 1, 2011.
Witness #2: That man [points at defendant] was getting drunk at my party and passed out at 10PM.
or
Opposing lawyer: Is it true that you need glasses for driving?
Witness #1: Yes
Opposing lawyer: From where you were sitting, you were therefore not able to clearly see the defendant as he entered the bar.
or
Opposing lawyer: What color was the jacket the defendant was wearing when he entered the bar?
Witness #1: Blue.
Opposing lawyer: It was actually red. Motion to dismiss testimony of witness as unreliable.
The cult of the statistic is dumb. It needs to go away.
What actually needs to happen is that people - specifically, you - need to learn more about statistics, because it is clear that people - specifically, you - have no idea what they mean, how they work and how they can and should be used in daily life.
Because this is an economic practice that only works when you're a developing country with a consumer base that foreign companies are drooling over to get access to. This practice will die once the Chinese market matures, because foreign companies will either be there already, or will have decided against entering it.
If you're not a massive minority, why are 8 out of 9 republican presidential candidates opposing pretty much everything science and economics has taught us in the last 100 years? And the only reason Huntsman is going with Science is because a) the other candidates have already locked up the socially conservative/insane vote, and b) it's his only chance to stand out from the crowd and get somehow back into contention.
I'd love to vote for a fiscal conservative. It's too bad that there are none anywhere in power.
Ugh. Someone mod this guy up. This is a surprisingly key concept that is completely missing from American debates.
The two links that I can read and that aren't some fringe blogs are completely unrelated to your statement that scientists will study what is popular and receiving grant funding. Furthermore, they also do not support your implied statement that scientists will produce the result demanded by the grant givers, which is the far more damaging claim. The first claim is nothing but basic employment. If you want to have a job, you look to people who are willing to pay you for doing it.
Man, there's a reason why I didn't become a scientist. Either I would have gotten ridiculed for studying the mating habits of dung beetles, because "who cares about THAT???", or I would have gotten raked over the coals for studying fish stock in the Atlantic, because "I'm just doing it for the grant money."
Quite frankly, the only thing that this line of reasoning tells me is that there's an awful lot of projecting going on.
Anecdotes are evidence.
Completely, utterly, 100% wrong. You know why? Because you have no idea WHY anecdote A happened. This means that you cannot possibly use the anecdote to come to any conclusion. At best, you can say that "hey, I should look at this more." And even that's a stretch, because often you can't even be sure that it actually did happen, and wasn't the complete result of someone's imagination.
Anecdotes are fun stories you tell at parties to entertain people. Data is what you use when you actually want to make a sound decision.
All I hear here is that you want really fast bandwidth, but you aren't willing to pay for it.
Wow, I think we have a record for complete lack of reading comprehension. Is this one of those cases where evidence that contradicts someone's world view actually ends up reinforcing it?
I can pay for really fast bandwidth, but no one is offering to sell me really fast bandwidth that doesn't come with restrictions that turn really fast bandwidth into barely dial-up. It also has nothing to do with net neutrality, and all with a complete lack of competition. Which is why ATT can get away with providing my complex with a complete ass-tastic Internet connection which cannot support anything resembling modern speeds.
As for the rest...
If you really live in Silicon Valley, then you have the option of getting a direct connection to the internet, bypassing the broadband ISPs altogether.
Yes, of course, I could live in a server room. Or I could pay to have Level 3 lay fiber to my apartment, and then turn my living room into a data center.
These are all means to access the internet. They have have costs and capabilities. And you have desires which these fill to varying degrees.
You're either a really patient troll, or just blind and deaf.
There are probably a lot of parallel paths. Composite technology was well-known, but was until recently not able to support the requirements for aircraft weighing and transporting several tons. While I don't expect this kind of electric technology to replace the jet turbines of commercial airliners (it'd be like running a cruise ship off of a bank of batteries), there might be some things that migrate up into the regional propeller aircraft.
Here, we have an apples to apples comparison - access to the internet.
Of course, just like all things with 4 wheels,an engine and at least one seat are cars, competing in the same exact market for the same exact dollars.
And you whine because the plan you choose to consider caps your internet consumption.
And now you a) further extend the market by not requiring an engine and b) assume I'm only interested in consumption. All of which are wrong, and some more wrong than others.
Further, you only have internet difficulties because you choose to live too far from civilization.
Yes, Silicon Valley is really far away from civilization.
Obviously, you chose to whine about it rather than accept that your choices have restricted your choices
When in doubt, persist. I think your shovel should be hitting molten rock by now. Do you always look at go-karts when you're shopping for a family sedan?
Either pay more for what you want, or pay less and get less.
I'd love to. Except I can't, because either the products you mentioned come with drawbacks that disqualify them from consideration - and I'm talking features, not price - or they do not exist where I live.
Oh, right, you meant competition in the way that a Ferrari competes with Yugo. Sorry. I was under the mistaken assumption you actually had the slightest idea what you're talking about. Once you actually learn to compare apples to apples when talking about competition, we will continue this conversation.
In theory, yes they do. In practice, there are small segments of land where for some reason, Comcast doesn't go. My suspicion is that since they're mostly low-income housings, Comcast doesn't think it will recoup the investment of digging up the sidewalk to run the cable.
And history will be reading in 50 years about why we got rid of many of them once the entire world economy finally shits itself for good.
Wow. I always knew that libertarians are like the communists of yore, but I didn't expect that they would just wholesale rip off the communist manifesto.
Just for shits and giggles: how would you ensure that something like this emphatically won't happen? No, you can't use the government for this, because that will be an expansion of government.