If the threat of bad whether justifies a travel ban, just think of the other threats that can be used to justify such a ban or even worse. It's just a bad precedent. There needs to be a concrete threat to safety and infrastructure, while that may not be most efficient or ideal, it's a free country and it stays free until no other options exist. It's hard to say we live in a free country when the government can take such drastic measures on a whim.
It's also hard to say you live in a free country when you expect the government to bail out your sorry ass whenever you do something stupid like try to drive 500 miles in blizzard. (And yes, I grew up in update NY and central NH and I do know what I'm talking about...)
If only they could translate what my 18 month old is saying!
When my younger son was about a year old, I asked his (2 year) older brother what he was saying. I figured that maybe being close in age he could remember or something. Older son looked at me like I was from Mars and said "I don't know!" and went back to his blocks.
In the industry paid-for response TruthLand they admit that it was due to fracking, but claim that the particular well in question was not properly protected with a concrete barrier. They claim that it should not happen elsewhere if the wells are constructed properly and steps are taken to avoid contamination.
Fortunately, that doesn't cost anything. And even if it did, the nice people in the fossil fuel industry are always willing to pay extra for public health.
But the net is hugely negative. 1/3 of the world's people are close enough to a coast that they will have to do something when sea levels rise.
So why don't people move now before they're underwater?
Um, because a lot of them are not in 'merica?
Have a look at Bangladesh some time. Most of the country is near sea level and the people have nowhere to go except... India (which they broke away from rather violently.)
Also, you have failed to show that human brains are usefully non-deterministic (they may have non-deterministic random noise, but random noise is not useful).
(Slashdot's Keynesian group think shows through strong in the moderation here.)
Situations where the tax loss is smaller than the cost saving are rares. Most of the time, austerity just kills the economy without any benefit.
I challenge your assersion of that claim.
Additionally I submit that government spending causes the players in the economy to act in a way that benefits them the most in receiving that government spending while supressing their drive to be purely efficient and productive. In the end, we end up with a bunch of players chasing the freebies from the government just because they're free rather than being productive and sustainable.
But you probably won't believe this until this spending kills the host, as the GGP post called it.
I don't know about groupthink, unless you call empirical evidence "groupthink". Herbert Hoover's response to the great depression, Europe's current austerity programs, Japan's "lost decade", Kansas' economic explosion under Brownback: all of these are evidence - from multiple cultures, time periods and scales - that your theory doesn't work in real life.
Let me guess: Your response will be a variant of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy...
I think there are serious questions about accountability, undue influence and private priorities that can be raised without touching how he made his money:
Research by Devi Sridhar at Oxford University warns that philanthropic interventions are ‘radically skewing public health programmes towards issues of the greatest concern to wealthy donors’. ‘Issues,’ she writes, ‘which are not necessarily top priority for people in the recipient country.’
I guess I see your point, replying to a comment that we've never had economic disaster due to climate change. But aren't most of your examples irrelevant, given that they occurred prior to the industrial revolution, and therefore had nothing to do with man-made climate change? If anything, those examples point out that climate disasters are a regular occurrence, regardless of human activity. I'm not sure that's the point you were trying to make.
People get shot all the time, so I guess it doesn't matter if I take a M-16 down to my local mall and start shooting people?
Ummm -- that patent troll was a typo - is not natural - many here identify any non-practicing patent related entity as patent trolls.
Take your head out of your own arse and realize that your mistake is and was your's not mine. I can admit the twit of the week nomintation is now undeserved because of an honest error, can you admit that you did not correct your mistake until you were called out on it?
Sorry, you get twit of the week for not being able to figure the typo out from the original context...which was pretty bloody obvious.
Not to mention they gave the same prize to Arafat, but not to Gandhi.
Well Kissinger got the nobel peace price. What a joke, the greatest mass murder in modern history right after Stalin. Kissinger should be rotting in a prison alongside his prize.
"Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize."
-- Tom Lehrer,
I've been on Slashdot for many years now and I'm just starting to finally get tired of the general level of complete idiocy of most posters here. Am I getting old or is the internet population at large just getting dumber? Not sure.
Speaking as a fellow old fart, I think we are getting smarter - or at least more knowledgeable. Having to pass on this knowledge to ignorant young punks with more energy than us is what makes us grumpy old men.
I predict it will be DNA and/or RNA similar to that on Earth. And I'm a Jesus freaky Christian, so I'm asserting God put it there and Jesus is Lord.
Of course, if nothing's found there, ignore me. Otherwise, if it's truly alien DNA, I will be very shocked. Alien DNA would definitely screw with my Christian belief system. Especially if we didn't even have the same nutrients in common.
There was some survey done in the UK a few years back where the researcher went around and asked a bunch of people in various disciplines how often they used double-blind experimental designs. The results were kind of depressing. Physics was the worst at about 0.5% or something. Medical stuff was around one third. Oddly enough, the highest rate was for... ESP researchers.
What do they expect to find on such a distant clump of rock and why is it they thought it to be a good investment to go snap a few slefies around it rather then use that money to go where things really ought to be interesting like Io and Europa?
All of science is based on the idea that something for which there is no evidence probably doesn't exist. Maybe gravity is actually based on the actions of invisible fairies, but unless and until you have *evidence* of the existence of such fairies the broader scientific community is going to say you're nuts. Similarly claiming the mind has it's roots in magic/soul/etc. Unless and until you have evidence that there is something outside normal physics involved, the default assumption is that there is not. Occam's Razor is not without it's flaws, but it is extremely efficient in trimming out the vast bulk of magical thinking from the scientific community.
Physical laws are - by their very definition - non-material. Ideas like the holographic universe suggest the primacy of information over matter. We should proceed cautiously, but pure materialism seems pretty obviously wrong to me. There are even suggestions (e.g. the small variations in the gravitational constant over time) that physical laws may be "habits". I have no idea what this implies, but it suggests we should look at non-material processes.
So the fuel just built up everywhere and then when something happens to ignite it, be it lightening or a cigarette, the little fires have a greater probability of becoming bigger fires. Time means more fuel, greater risk. Tick tick tick. So then after awhile we get these huge fires. What do those smart intellectuals do? Do they review their suggestions of the past? Take into account the bureaucratic BS that contributed to these fires? No! First, they smoke a bowl and later.... they say "Let's help that farmer who lost his ranch. Let's help those people who lost there homes. Let's explain to them that it is all mankind's fault." They then go on to explain BS like carbon foot prints and how that is why fires are worse. It is also why flooding is worse or droughts or pretty much anything, and the only way to fix it is to accept global collectivism. Yup, only with global collectivism can we prevent forest fires.
Leaving aside your rabid ad hominem remarks about collectivism, your claim that increased fires are due to increased fire load has in fact been studied and discounted. In other words, those of us in the "reality-based community" (i.e. "libtards") are a lot more self-critical than you. Which is why we do science and you do politics.
While I agree with the history, I don't think the remedy needs to be anything like that drastic. We just need the willpower to go nuclear. If we have enough 4th generation nukes, we would produce very little waste (and that short lived) and we could synthesise carbon fuels from the carbon dissolved in sea water (the Navy is very interested in this and is funding it). So no changes to the car infrastructure, no changes in electricity consumption, cleaner air and less lethal power production (Nuclear has the lowest death / TWHr ratio of all power sources by about two orders of magnitude.)
Slashdot Mirror
If the threat of bad whether justifies a travel ban, just think of the other threats that can be used to justify such a ban or even worse. It's just a bad precedent. There needs to be a concrete threat to safety and infrastructure, while that may not be most efficient or ideal, it's a free country and it stays free until no other options exist. It's hard to say we live in a free country when the government can take such drastic measures on a whim.
It's also hard to say you live in a free country when you expect the government to bail out your sorry ass whenever you do something stupid like try to drive 500 miles in blizzard. (And yes, I grew up in update NY and central NH and I do know what I'm talking about...)
We are having record highs in the Puget Sound area. Highs in the upper 50s and even into the 60s.
Yeah, I've been biking in sandals all winter. About 10F warmer than usual except for a week or two (one of which I was out of town!)
If only they could translate what my 18 month old is saying!
When my younger son was about a year old, I asked his (2 year) older brother what he was saying. I figured that maybe being close in age he could remember or something. Older son looked at me like I was from Mars and said "I don't know!" and went back to his blocks.
In the industry paid-for response TruthLand they admit that it was due to fracking, but claim that the particular well in question was not properly protected with a concrete barrier. They claim that it should not happen elsewhere if the wells are constructed properly and steps are taken to avoid contamination.
Fortunately, that doesn't cost anything. And even if it did, the nice people in the fossil fuel industry are always willing to pay extra for public health.
So why don't people move now before they're underwater?
Um, because a lot of them are not in 'merica?
Have a look at Bangladesh some time. Most of the country is near sea level and the people have nowhere to go except... India (which they broke away from rather violently.)
Also, you have failed to show that human brains are usefully non-deterministic (they may have non-deterministic random noise, but random noise is not useful).
Oh, really?
Makemake?? This one was 3D printed?
I thought it was a Hawaiian fish.
(Slashdot's Keynesian group think shows through strong in the moderation here.)
Situations where the tax loss is smaller than the cost saving are rares. Most of the time, austerity just kills the economy without any benefit.
I challenge your assersion of that claim.
Additionally I submit that government spending causes the players in the economy to act in a way that benefits them the most in receiving that government spending while supressing their drive to be purely efficient and productive. In the end, we end up with a bunch of players chasing the freebies from the government just because they're free rather than being productive and sustainable.
But you probably won't believe this until this spending kills the host, as the GGP post called it.
I don't know about groupthink, unless you call empirical evidence "groupthink". Herbert Hoover's response to the great depression, Europe's current austerity programs, Japan's "lost decade", Kansas' economic explosion under Brownback: all of these are evidence - from multiple cultures, time periods and scales - that your theory doesn't work in real life.
Let me guess: Your response will be a variant of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy...
I think there are serious questions about accountability, undue influence and private priorities that can be raised without touching how he made his money:
I guess I see your point, replying to a comment that we've never had economic disaster due to climate change. But aren't most of your examples irrelevant, given that they occurred prior to the industrial revolution, and therefore had nothing to do with man-made climate change? If anything, those examples point out that climate disasters are a regular occurrence, regardless of human activity. I'm not sure that's the point you were trying to make.
People get shot all the time, so I guess it doesn't matter if I take a M-16 down to my local mall and start shooting people?
Ummm -- that patent troll was a typo - is not natural - many here identify any non-practicing patent related entity as patent trolls.
Take your head out of your own arse and realize that your mistake is and was your's not mine. I can admit the twit of the week nomintation is now undeserved because of an honest error, can you admit that you did not correct your mistake until you were called out on it?
Sorry, you get twit of the week for not being able to figure the typo out from the original context...which was pretty bloody obvious.
Not to mention they gave the same prize to Arafat, but not to Gandhi.
Well Kissinger got the nobel peace price. What a joke, the greatest mass murder in modern history right after Stalin.
Kissinger should be rotting in a prison alongside his prize.
"Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize."
-- Tom Lehrer,
Awesome find! Thanks!
LOL, marijuana is just as "deadly" as potato chips. That will make it easy to remember. :-)
Really? Even with that short term memory loss?!
And we can't ignore the fact that pot leads to the munchies which leads to excessive consumption of... ...potato chips!
It's helpful if you read the fucking article
Who let you in here?
It rains a lot in the hot tropics. More heat, more evaporation, heat rises, cools, rain falls. Pretty simple, really.
Um, you do know that most of the world's deserts are on the Tropics of Capricorn and Cancer?
Why is this marked +1 informative? It should be +1 funny.
Learn about meta-humour, grasshopper...
Now - where can we find the layman's textbooks on manmade global warming?
You could start here.
I've been on Slashdot for many years now and I'm just starting to finally get tired of the general level of complete idiocy of most posters here. Am I getting old or is the internet population at large just getting dumber? Not sure.
Speaking as a fellow old fart, I think we are getting smarter - or at least more knowledgeable. Having to pass on this knowledge to ignorant young punks with more energy than us is what makes us grumpy old men.
That would assume that editors read the summaries. With your user id, you HAVE to know that isn't the case.
Even worse, when have the editors ever been concerned about inadvertently triggering tasteless jokes?
I predict it will be DNA and/or RNA similar to that on Earth. And I'm a Jesus freaky Christian, so I'm asserting God put it there and Jesus is Lord.
Of course, if nothing's found there, ignore me. Otherwise, if it's truly alien DNA, I will be very shocked. Alien DNA would definitely screw with my Christian belief system. Especially if we didn't even have the same nutrients in common.
Why? It didn't bother C. S. Lewis.
There was some survey done in the UK a few years back where the researcher went around and asked a bunch of people in various disciplines how often they used double-blind experimental designs. The results were kind of depressing. Physics was the worst at about 0.5% or something. Medical stuff was around one third. Oddly enough, the highest rate was for... ESP researchers.
So this sort of thing seems pretty widespread.
What do they expect to find on such a distant clump of rock and why is it they thought it to be a good investment to go snap a few slefies around it rather then use that money to go where things really ought to be interesting like Io and Europa?
Please return your 4-digit ID.
Second the motion.
All of science is based on the idea that something for which there is no evidence probably doesn't exist. Maybe gravity is actually based on the actions of invisible fairies, but unless and until you have *evidence* of the existence of such fairies the broader scientific community is going to say you're nuts. Similarly claiming the mind has it's roots in magic/soul/etc. Unless and until you have evidence that there is something outside normal physics involved, the default assumption is that there is not. Occam's Razor is not without it's flaws, but it is extremely efficient in trimming out the vast bulk of magical thinking from the scientific community.
Physical laws are - by their very definition - non-material. Ideas like the holographic universe suggest the primacy of information over matter. We should proceed cautiously, but pure materialism seems pretty obviously wrong to me. There are even suggestions (e.g. the small variations in the gravitational constant over time) that physical laws may be "habits". I have no idea what this implies, but it suggests we should look at non-material processes.
So the fuel just built up everywhere and then when something happens to ignite it, be it lightening or a cigarette, the little fires have a greater probability of becoming bigger fires. Time means more fuel, greater risk. Tick tick tick. So then after awhile we get these huge fires. What do those smart intellectuals do? Do they review their suggestions of the past? Take into account the bureaucratic BS that contributed to these fires? No! First, they smoke a bowl and later .... they say "Let's help that farmer who lost his ranch. Let's help those people who lost there homes. Let's explain to them that it is all mankind's fault." They then go on to explain BS like carbon foot prints and how that is why fires are worse. It is also why flooding is worse or droughts or pretty much anything, and the only way to fix it is to accept global collectivism. Yup, only with global collectivism can we prevent forest fires.
Leaving aside your rabid ad hominem remarks about collectivism, your claim that increased fires are due to increased fire load has in fact been studied and discounted . In other words, those of us in the "reality-based community" (i.e. "libtards") are a lot more self-critical than you. Which is why we do science and you do politics.
While I agree with the history, I don't think the remedy needs to be anything like that drastic. We just need the willpower to go nuclear. If we have enough 4th generation nukes, we would produce very little waste (and that short lived) and we could synthesise carbon fuels from the carbon dissolved in sea water (the Navy is very interested in this and is funding it). So no changes to the car infrastructure, no changes in electricity consumption, cleaner air and less lethal power production (Nuclear has the lowest death / TWHr ratio of all power sources by about two orders of magnitude.)