No, you don't have to bring race into it, and sure, there are a lot of white criminals out there. This video did, however, make me think of a conversation I had recently which went something like:
"The fact that African Americans are so heavily overrepresented in police shootings is proof that the whole system is racist!"
"Well sure, they're overrepresented per capita, but that's because they tend to commit more violent crime per capita as well. What do you want the police to do; ignore black criminals?"
"They don't commit more crime per capita; they're just targeted by police more so that it looks like they do!"
At which point I shook my head and walked away. A large number of SJWs think this way, and I could totally see them trying to explain away the huge percentage of black thieves in this video as "targeting" or something equally silly.
You are correct in that there would still be an annual deficit. Current projections for 2018 show a deficit of $810 billion. That would be mean cutting defense spending in half would account for a 38% reduction in our yearly deficit.
I don't know about you, but if I could reduce my deficit by one third, that seems like a pretty good idea.
I like your logic, but I can do ya one better. Medicare and medicaid account for $1.2 trillion in spending. So if you cut healthcare spending in half you could save $600 billion per year, which would be a 74% reduction in the defecit.
I don't know about you, but if I could reduce my deficit by two thirds, that seems like a pretty good idea.
The mobile chrome browser does not have a back button. You can use the back button at the bottom of the screen, but holding that one either does nothing, or (on some roms) it kills the current foreground app.
You are moving the goalposts of your position, which was originally that there were too many people to begin with, not that the population was growing without being checked.
Not moving the goalposts even an inch; the current rate of growth should have been an obvious part of the original statement. Why in the world would you assume I was talking about the global population as if it were static?
If you really want to be a dick about it, sure, go ahead and plant the goalposts where you like. Even assuming zero growth, the situation isn't sustainable regardless of whether people live a first world or third world "life style". The only difference is that with zero growth it might be possible to sustain the population long term with the advent of new technologies, whereas with a growing population not even new technology can help us.
But to address that point, as I had already said, in developed nations, the growth rate is already starting to slow down... and this is not happening because people are dying or because people are being forced into having smaller families.
It's happening because of the first world standard of living which you were besmirching. If we could extend the same quality of life to the rest of the planet it is likely that we would see a similar reduction in population growth around the globe... after a couple generations. To say that such a solution is unlikely to come in time is a gross understatement.
I like how you say I have no idea, then go on to agree with me on every point except one.
Regulating CO2 levels is the best and by far the most important control on the climate we have in this situation
Again, nonsense.
we'll walk right into an oceanic mass extinction through ocean acidification
Maybe, maybe not. Certainly some sealife would die out. However 150 MYA the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 4 times higher than today, and the sealife of the time did just fine. Life will evolve as it always does.
and eventually into a global decrease of human cognitive power
Right, if we continue current trends, we only have 800 years to avoid that problem!
Trying to solve global warming by fiddling with anything but CO2 levels is just treating a few of the symptoms while the disease slowly but surely eats the planet alive.
Trying to force-fuck global industries into reducing CO2 output is just pretending to do something useful. Eventually our technology will move beyond the need to output massive quantities of CO2, our sequestration technology will improve to the point of being practical and economically viable, and we will be able to reverse the current trends. Until then we should focusing on figuring out what the optimal temperatures actually are, and finding practical ways to manipulate it in a reasonable timeframe.
Points #2 and #3 do not make the study flawed; they merely limit the group to which the findings apply.
Point #1 is a valid concern, but the group size us large enough for a preliminary study.
It's perfectly fine to point out that followup studies need to be done with a much larger and preferably more diverse group before we can make any definite conclusions... but that doesn't make this study inherently flawed.
Also, anecdotally, their results match what I would expect. I would definitely like to see a larger followup study, though.
Whoever wrote that is just clueless. The Ballistic Missile Defense System is a system which protects against ballistic missiles, not one which fires ballistic missiles.
You're free to speak whatever nonsense you like. I have no problem with either of your comments; I'm quite happy to let you show people what an idiot you are.
Nonsense. It's too slow and inefficient, and it requires global buy-in. Even assuming we can get everyone on board, what are you going to do if we need to heat things up in the future? Start lighting oil wells on fire and burning down forests?
We need better tools than that. Regulating CO2 levels is only "good" in the absence of other options. Nobody who was actually serious about being able to regulate the global climate would look to CO2 as the sole/default method. Plus, as a side benefit, if we can develop a good toolset for climate modification here on earth, it makes it that much easier to terraform other planets in the future.
Come on, you know that's not true. Demand always precedes supply.
You think there were people looking to buy shit before there were people making shit?
That's an interesting hypothesis.
I think you're just trying to be cute to make a point. Demand will be met, if not by one producer, then by another.
Consumption will be met, if not by one consumer, then by another.
Either way, all the money in the system comes from the people paying the bill...the consumer.
If you believe this, you don't understand what money is.
The customer is always right
That's a silly little Americanism which nobody actually belies. If the customer is enough of a fuckhead, he will be told to fuck off. It's also completely irrelevant in this case because the entire reason you're asking for the label is so you can avoid the product. By definition you are not the customer; you're a disingenuous bully looking to force others to implement a scheme which helps you further demonize their product.
We already have something like that in classifying whether meat is free range, whether eggs are from caged hens and so on.
All voluntary, feel good labels, largely implemented to justify charging a premium. It's the equivalent of putting "asbestos free!" on the packaging of your graphics card.
Why are you so opposed to declarations on goods? Do you want to run a scam operation?
Laws requiring labels are coming because companies don't want to put them on voluntarily. So much of this could have been avoided if they'd just done the right thing in the first place. So now we have to do it the hard way.
"If people don't want to do things my way, I'll MAKE them do it, the hard way!"
Spoken like a true fascist. Sure you don't want to put some labels on Jews too, just in case?
Slashdot Mirror
Are they now. Can you please post excerpts from the relevant part of the criminal code?
Oh, I see the problem. You're retarded.
Hint: the human body produces an average of around 300 BTU. That's about the same as one or two of those crappy little tealight candles.
Stop getting your science from The Matrix.
No, you don't have to bring race into it, and sure, there are a lot of white criminals out there. This video did, however, make me think of a conversation I had recently which went something like:
"The fact that African Americans are so heavily overrepresented in police shootings is proof that the whole system is racist!"
"Well sure, they're overrepresented per capita, but that's because they tend to commit more violent crime per capita as well. What do you want the police to do; ignore black criminals?"
"They don't commit more crime per capita; they're just targeted by police more so that it looks like they do!"
At which point I shook my head and walked away. A large number of SJWs think this way, and I could totally see them trying to explain away the huge percentage of black thieves in this video as "targeting" or something equally silly.
That's a pretty funny list. Hard to believe there were at least three dipshits who believed it and nodded you up.
Did you just try to suggest that piracy is free trade?
You are correct in that there would still be an annual deficit. Current projections for 2018 show a deficit of $810 billion. That would be mean cutting defense spending in half would account for a 38% reduction in our yearly deficit.
I don't know about you, but if I could reduce my deficit by one third, that seems like a pretty good idea.
I like your logic, but I can do ya one better. Medicare and medicaid account for $1.2 trillion in spending. So if you cut healthcare spending in half you could save $600 billion per year, which would be a 74% reduction in the defecit.
I don't know about you, but if I could reduce my deficit by two thirds, that seems like a pretty good idea.
The mobile chrome browser does not have a back button. You can use the back button at the bottom of the screen, but holding that one either does nothing, or (on some roms) it kills the current foreground app.
Although that strategy could explain the reported 100% FAILURE rate that the system has produced.
lol. It flagged a total of 5 people, you ignorant jackass.
You forgot GMOs.
You think making a list of things which (to you) don't appear to have changed is evidence that technology hasn't changed?
Nice. Hey, if we look back 10,000 years, people wore clothes, ate food, and had fire. Clearly our technology hasn't changed in 10,000 years.
No just no.
Yes just yes.
You are moving the goalposts of your position, which was originally that there were too many people to begin with, not that the population was growing without being checked.
Not moving the goalposts even an inch; the current rate of growth should have been an obvious part of the original statement. Why in the world would you assume I was talking about the global population as if it were static?
If you really want to be a dick about it, sure, go ahead and plant the goalposts where you like. Even assuming zero growth, the situation isn't sustainable regardless of whether people live a first world or third world "life style". The only difference is that with zero growth it might be possible to sustain the population long term with the advent of new technologies, whereas with a growing population not even new technology can help us.
But to address that point, as I had already said, in developed nations, the growth rate is already starting to slow down... and this is not happening because people are dying or because people are being forced into having smaller families.
It's happening because of the first world standard of living which you were besmirching. If we could extend the same quality of life to the rest of the planet it is likely that we would see a similar reduction in population growth around the globe ... after a couple generations. To say that such a solution is unlikely to come in time is a gross understatement.
Can't wait for him to be accused of racism for targeting so many minorities.
he could always claim he left it out as a prank for a friend, and the thief got in the way
Not any more he can't.
You clearly have no idea ... blah blah blah
I like how you say I have no idea, then go on to agree with me on every point except one.
Regulating CO2 levels is the best and by far the most important control on the climate we have in this situation
Again, nonsense.
we'll walk right into an oceanic mass extinction through ocean acidification
Maybe, maybe not. Certainly some sealife would die out. However 150 MYA the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 4 times higher than today, and the sealife of the time did just fine. Life will evolve as it always does.
and eventually into a global decrease of human cognitive power
Right, if we continue current trends, we only have 800 years to avoid that problem!
Trying to solve global warming by fiddling with anything but CO2 levels is just treating a few of the symptoms while the disease slowly but surely eats the planet alive.
Trying to force-fuck global industries into reducing CO2 output is just pretending to do something useful. Eventually our technology will move beyond the need to output massive quantities of CO2, our sequestration technology will improve to the point of being practical and economically viable, and we will be able to reverse the current trends. Until then we should focusing on figuring out what the optimal temperatures actually are, and finding practical ways to manipulate it in a reasonable timeframe.
Creimer isn't here, man.
Points #2 and #3 do not make the study flawed; they merely limit the group to which the findings apply.
Point #1 is a valid concern, but the group size us large enough for a preliminary study.
It's perfectly fine to point out that followup studies need to be done with a much larger and preferably more diverse group before we can make any definite conclusions ... but that doesn't make this study inherently flawed.
Also, anecdotally, their results match what I would expect. I would definitely like to see a larger followup study, though.
Whoever wrote that is just clueless. The Ballistic Missile Defense System is a system which protects against ballistic missiles, not one which fires ballistic missiles.
It's a newfangled cloud gadget which monitors your door and keeps out republicans.
You're free to speak whatever nonsense you like. I have no problem with either of your comments; I'm quite happy to let you show people what an idiot you are.
Nonsense. It's too slow and inefficient, and it requires global buy-in. Even assuming we can get everyone on board, what are you going to do if we need to heat things up in the future? Start lighting oil wells on fire and burning down forests?
We need better tools than that. Regulating CO2 levels is only "good" in the absence of other options. Nobody who was actually serious about being able to regulate the global climate would look to CO2 as the sole/default method. Plus, as a side benefit, if we can develop a good toolset for climate modification here on earth, it makes it that much easier to terraform other planets in the future.
So we shiuld let animals die from non-resistant bacteria in order to prevent them dying from resistant bacteria.
I like your logic. Very "To save the village we had to burn the village".
Come on, you know that's not true. Demand always precedes supply.
You think there were people looking to buy shit before there were people making shit?
That's an interesting hypothesis.
I think you're just trying to be cute to make a point. Demand will be met, if not by one producer, then by another.
Consumption will be met, if not by one consumer, then by another.
Either way, all the money in the system comes from the people paying the bill...the consumer.
If you believe this, you don't understand what money is.
The customer is always right
That's a silly little Americanism which nobody actually belies. If the customer is enough of a fuckhead, he will be told to fuck off. It's also completely irrelevant in this case because the entire reason you're asking for the label is so you can avoid the product. By definition you are not the customer; you're a disingenuous bully looking to force others to implement a scheme which helps you further demonize their product.
and the customer says, put a fucking label on it.
No, I don't.
We already have something like that in classifying whether meat is free range, whether eggs are from caged hens and so on.
All voluntary, feel good labels, largely implemented to justify charging a premium. It's the equivalent of putting "asbestos free!" on the packaging of your graphics card.
Why are you so opposed to declarations on goods? Do you want to run a scam operation?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
The producer doesn't exist without consumers
The consumers don't exist without producers.
and consumers want the label
No I don't.
Laws requiring labels are coming because companies don't want to put them on voluntarily. So much of this could have been avoided if they'd just done the right thing in the first place. So now we have to do it the hard way.
"If people don't want to do things my way, I'll MAKE them do it, the hard way!"
Spoken like a true fascist. Sure you don't want to put some labels on Jews too, just in case?