And I notice you avoided the question. What would falsify AGW theory?
He did, rather succinctly, and you quoted, and responded to, his answers.
AGW is probably the most extraordinary claim in the history of extraordinary claims and the proposed solution (seizing most of the world's wealth, eliminating most of the current industrial base, etc.) is so far beyond extraordinary I doubt any human language even has the proper vocabulary for describing it properly
I think there are far more extraordinary claims out there: flat-world theory and most religious claims, to name a couple. But if Climate Change is an extraordinary claim, yours is rather extraordinary as well: that carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane don't affect the climate despite reams of planetological data - not simply Earth-based - to the contrary. Your characterization of the proposed solutions is rather hyperbolic, too. Why can't an economy run on energy derived from sources other than the burning of fossil fuels? And who would seize most of the world's wealth? Where would it go? How would it be spent once it's seized? How would a conversion to non-carbon-emitting energy eliminate most of the world's industrial base? People will still need stuff, even if it costs more.
For the fighter-heavy world of the US Military, I would think that portable holes and flying carpets would be more useful. I'd say bags of holding and haversacks would be useful, too, but in a firefight one wouldn't want a bullet accidentally blowing one of them up.
Here here! Although 1 is not quite right anymore: now everybody must buy a basic level of insurance. With the Strong Public Option, then you'd be right about 1, but as it stands it's not quite what was said.
It's sad that 3 was actually believed; I think it shows how a fear of government can be easily manipulated, especially if Government can be conflated with Liberal, and people end up trusting individuals more than their representatives (which actually sounds rather monarchical, paradoxically, but I digress). I'm really not sure what it's going to take to get the country to realize that governing doesn't have to be an enemy of liberty.
I don't think it's surprise so much as it's excitement: "We always thought they were there, and now we know they're there! Friggin' awesome!" I imagine scientists having this reaction, typically followed by chest-bumps.
I was going to link to the Militia Act of 1903, which started the legal concept you cite, but since that's not the basis upon which DC v. Heller was founded I thought it would a moot point in the discussion my joke accidentally ignited. And, using 311(2) as the criterion for "well regulated Militia" would mean that you couldn't keep and bear arms outside the age range, or if you were female (unless a member of the Guard Reserve or if you met qualifications outlined in your State's code), which is not the case in the US. I happen to agree with the dissent in DC v. Heller, but I support the judgment of the Court.
Yeah, that sounds like UPS, and Amazon.com (why not use Amazon.ca anyway?) uses USPS, which is actually quite inexpensive and relatively prompt. No, you're buying from tiny stores that only ship via UPS because... well, I don't know why but they do. Wal-Mart should also be shipping via USPS, although why not just go to a brick-and-mortar place anyway? Or their Canadian site?
I think you have those two backwards. Computing hiccups that just simply happen are those things that will happen whether its under your watch or their watch. Problems that occur because of human error are those that you should concern yourself with when exploring cloud computing. In essence, you're outsourcing your data storage and maintenance, not the computer problems. Do you trust them more than you trust yourself?
I must say that I disagree with you strongly. Any reporter that consciously puts a bias in their story has failed in their task. Few deny that there is inherent bias that comes from a reporter, but part of their job is to recognize it and work it out of their writing as best as possible. The tragedy of American news media is that networks make conscious choices of bias, making their reporting more propaganda than information (and I don't just mean FoxNews). The BBC, the CBC, NPR, the NYT, the Wall Street Journal - each of these shoot far straighter because none of them attempt to create bias, and I would trust them significantly more than anything I saw on CNN, MSNBC or FoxNews.
Yes, because they couldn't read their own websites's comments and find you that way. It's for the Presidential Library, probably to make a nifty little kiosk that lets you follow the debates on the EOP's Facebook or Myspace pages or something else rather innocuous. Then again, I suppose if you believe the government is always out to get you, then yes, having the government be able to do what amounts to copying and pasting information off the internet on their own sites would indeed be a violation of your right to privately submit comments to the government on a public website where the government can't see them.
I think a part of the supposed lack of innovation is that all the innovators go to computers or finance. I just graduated university a couple of years ago and I cannot imagine what it would have been like without word processing or internet research. It simply blows my mind. In finance, there are tools and products you can buy that were totally unimagined 30 or 40 years ago. Granted, a lot of them are bad for finance, but it took a great deal of innovation to create them. I suppose what we really have to do is make basic engineering "sexy" again, or at least sexy relative to finance or computers. Then, hopefully, the geeks will return to innovation that leads to sea changes in how things work.
To answer the last question first, I am actually a liberal that wants a balanced budget. Shocking, yes, but true, and I thought smaller government was the way most conservatives go about it. I think you and I have a different view on the integrity of Congress vs. that of the People. To me, the People at large are more susceptible to fast swings of opinion: California and its ballot system are examples of this taken to an extreme. Congress acts as something of a buffer to that, creating a body that is small enough that they can actually all talk to each other and know each other, hopefully to solve problems but often, yes, to cause mischief. No, I genuinely think that having a significantly larger Congress would create more chaos than it would solve. It would better represent the constituents, in a sense, but I don't think it would be able to do anything.
30,000:1 ratio? 10,194 Members of Congress? I can see it now, all the small government types yelling about the massive expansion of government when Congress increases in size by almost 30 times and requiring the following actions:
- Construction of a new House of Representatives
- Construction of a number of new House office buildings
- Paying all of them and their staffers
- Construction of a massive new support structure to simply SUPPORT the 30k-40k new employees suddenly imposed on the government
For some reason, I'm reading "paleoconservative" here, but I'm not sure whether you qualify. Generally, such people are better versed on the Constitution and what "free speech" means. In a nutshell, free speech is, as has been pointed out, the freedom to say whatever the hell you choose without fear of prosecution. Free speech is not "freedom to answer", as you posited. Indeed, free speech is precisely the right to call you and try to force "some stupid idea down [your] throat." That's why it's okay for hippies to march against capitalism and conservatives to march against healthcare reform. The debate may get ugly (and it usually does) but even that is free speech. Iran doesn't have such protections, so you see people getting arrested for trying to shove their (allegedly) stupid ideas down the throats of Iranian conservatives. Yes, a recording is also counted, no matter the medium of distribution, whether a speech on TV, a pre-recorded news program, political ads or, yes, robocalls.
As has also been said, you have the same rights as politicians as far as political speech is concerned. Set up a robodialer with an opt-out button to call every office in Congress (it's everything with a 202-224/225 number) to complain about this if it's such a big deal to you. You're within your rights to do so.
I dreamt last night that I was a butterfly, and I had no idea that I was me. Then, my world shifted, and I thought I woke up, finding me to be myself and not a butterfly. But perhaps I am a butterfly, and I'm just dreaming...
As someone that used to write form letters, a similar genre of writing, it sort of becomes an art in itself: how much sugar can stick to what's true without it becoming so saccharine nobody wants it? I don't know about others, but I did: a) give a fuck, and b) believe in the kernal of truth around which the letter was written. People that wrote these press releases seem to have lost touch with reality, but I have a feeling they probably took about 10 minutes to write and 2 days to proof, giving others the chance to insert their own BS.
"Reg: All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
Xerxes: Brought peace!
Reg: (very angry, he's not having a good meeting at all) What!? Oh... (scornfully) Peace, yes... shut up!"
There are certain things that are okay to hide, some things that aren't. An example I heard in my Marriage & Family class of the former was during a honeymoon between a man that almost married someone else and a woman that really didn't almost marry anyone else. She snuggled up to him on the beach and asked what he was thinking about, and he answered that he was thinking about what his life would've been like had he married the other woman. Things got cool for a few days that week. A better answer? "I am so glad I married you," the conclusion of his thought. Not a lie, but also a better answer.
I think honesty about little things is incredibly important. Dishonesty about little things ("How have you been?" "What've you been up to?") is cancerous.
Every time this comes up I point to Lord Durham's report on the Dominion of Canada government after the abolition of Royal Prerogative (i.e., the presentation of any spending bill by the majority - Her Majesty's Government - and a straight up-or-down vote on it, with any amendments by the minority that pass triggering an election). He said that this abolition was extremely detrimental to the governance of the Dominion, as earmarks (known by a different name then) were proliferating through all spending bills. Canada eventually reinstated Royal Prerogative and now has very few, if any, earmarks.
Slashdot Mirror
He did, rather succinctly, and you quoted, and responded to, his answers.
I think there are far more extraordinary claims out there: flat-world theory and most religious claims, to name a couple. But if Climate Change is an extraordinary claim, yours is rather extraordinary as well: that carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane don't affect the climate despite reams of planetological data - not simply Earth-based - to the contrary. Your characterization of the proposed solutions is rather hyperbolic, too. Why can't an economy run on energy derived from sources other than the burning of fossil fuels? And who would seize most of the world's wealth? Where would it go? How would it be spent once it's seized? How would a conversion to non-carbon-emitting energy eliminate most of the world's industrial base? People will still need stuff, even if it costs more.
...and darwin will select those without it...
Like how Adam Smith's hand sets prices?
For the fighter-heavy world of the US Military, I would think that portable holes and flying carpets would be more useful. I'd say bags of holding and haversacks would be useful, too, but in a firefight one wouldn't want a bullet accidentally blowing one of them up.
Here here! Although 1 is not quite right anymore: now everybody must buy a basic level of insurance. With the Strong Public Option, then you'd be right about 1, but as it stands it's not quite what was said.
It's sad that 3 was actually believed; I think it shows how a fear of government can be easily manipulated, especially if Government can be conflated with Liberal, and people end up trusting individuals more than their representatives (which actually sounds rather monarchical, paradoxically, but I digress). I'm really not sure what it's going to take to get the country to realize that governing doesn't have to be an enemy of liberty.
As Avatar taught us, overused clichés, when in the right hands, remind us why they became cliché in the first place.
I don't think it's surprise so much as it's excitement: "We always thought they were there, and now we know they're there! Friggin' awesome!" I imagine scientists having this reaction, typically followed by chest-bumps.
Better: quantum-vacuum powered asteroid size colonies with IR telescopes launched in opposite directions parallel to the galactic axis.
I was going to link to the Militia Act of 1903, which started the legal concept you cite, but since that's not the basis upon which DC v. Heller was founded I thought it would a moot point in the discussion my joke accidentally ignited. And, using 311(2) as the criterion for "well regulated Militia" would mean that you couldn't keep and bear arms outside the age range, or if you were female (unless a member of the Guard Reserve or if you met qualifications outlined in your State's code), which is not the case in the US. I happen to agree with the dissent in DC v. Heller, but I support the judgment of the Court.
Well, unless they show they're part of a well regulated Militia, of course. It's necessary to the security of a free State, y'know!
Yeah, that sounds like UPS, and Amazon.com (why not use Amazon.ca anyway?) uses USPS, which is actually quite inexpensive and relatively prompt. No, you're buying from tiny stores that only ship via UPS because... well, I don't know why but they do. Wal-Mart should also be shipping via USPS, although why not just go to a brick-and-mortar place anyway? Or their Canadian site?
I think you have those two backwards. Computing hiccups that just simply happen are those things that will happen whether its under your watch or their watch. Problems that occur because of human error are those that you should concern yourself with when exploring cloud computing. In essence, you're outsourcing your data storage and maintenance, not the computer problems. Do you trust them more than you trust yourself?
I must say that I disagree with you strongly. Any reporter that consciously puts a bias in their story has failed in their task. Few deny that there is inherent bias that comes from a reporter, but part of their job is to recognize it and work it out of their writing as best as possible. The tragedy of American news media is that networks make conscious choices of bias, making their reporting more propaganda than information (and I don't just mean FoxNews). The BBC, the CBC, NPR, the NYT, the Wall Street Journal - each of these shoot far straighter because none of them attempt to create bias, and I would trust them significantly more than anything I saw on CNN, MSNBC or FoxNews.
That's okay: we can just hook a thermodynamic compensator into the energy transfer matrix.
Yes, because they couldn't read their own websites's comments and find you that way. It's for the Presidential Library, probably to make a nifty little kiosk that lets you follow the debates on the EOP's Facebook or Myspace pages or something else rather innocuous. Then again, I suppose if you believe the government is always out to get you, then yes, having the government be able to do what amounts to copying and pasting information off the internet on their own sites would indeed be a violation of your right to privately submit comments to the government on a public website where the government can't see them.
I think a part of the supposed lack of innovation is that all the innovators go to computers or finance. I just graduated university a couple of years ago and I cannot imagine what it would have been like without word processing or internet research. It simply blows my mind. In finance, there are tools and products you can buy that were totally unimagined 30 or 40 years ago. Granted, a lot of them are bad for finance, but it took a great deal of innovation to create them. I suppose what we really have to do is make basic engineering "sexy" again, or at least sexy relative to finance or computers. Then, hopefully, the geeks will return to innovation that leads to sea changes in how things work.
To answer the last question first, I am actually a liberal that wants a balanced budget. Shocking, yes, but true, and I thought smaller government was the way most conservatives go about it. I think you and I have a different view on the integrity of Congress vs. that of the People. To me, the People at large are more susceptible to fast swings of opinion: California and its ballot system are examples of this taken to an extreme. Congress acts as something of a buffer to that, creating a body that is small enough that they can actually all talk to each other and know each other, hopefully to solve problems but often, yes, to cause mischief. No, I genuinely think that having a significantly larger Congress would create more chaos than it would solve. It would better represent the constituents, in a sense, but I don't think it would be able to do anything.
30,000:1 ratio? 10,194 Members of Congress? I can see it now, all the small government types yelling about the massive expansion of government when Congress increases in size by almost 30 times and requiring the following actions:
- Construction of a new House of Representatives
- Construction of a number of new House office buildings
- Paying all of them and their staffers
- Construction of a massive new support structure to simply SUPPORT the 30k-40k new employees suddenly imposed on the government
Oh my, that would be fun and expensive...
For some reason, I'm reading "paleoconservative" here, but I'm not sure whether you qualify. Generally, such people are better versed on the Constitution and what "free speech" means. In a nutshell, free speech is, as has been pointed out, the freedom to say whatever the hell you choose without fear of prosecution. Free speech is not "freedom to answer", as you posited. Indeed, free speech is precisely the right to call you and try to force "some stupid idea down [your] throat." That's why it's okay for hippies to march against capitalism and conservatives to march against healthcare reform. The debate may get ugly (and it usually does) but even that is free speech. Iran doesn't have such protections, so you see people getting arrested for trying to shove their (allegedly) stupid ideas down the throats of Iranian conservatives. Yes, a recording is also counted, no matter the medium of distribution, whether a speech on TV, a pre-recorded news program, political ads or, yes, robocalls.
As has also been said, you have the same rights as politicians as far as political speech is concerned. Set up a robodialer with an opt-out button to call every office in Congress (it's everything with a 202-224/225 number) to complain about this if it's such a big deal to you. You're within your rights to do so.
Psh, don't you realize that Wormhole X-treme is just a cover-up of the fact that Stargate is a cover-up for the real Stargate program?
I dreamt last night that I was a butterfly, and I had no idea that I was me. Then, my world shifted, and I thought I woke up, finding me to be myself and not a butterfly. But perhaps I am a butterfly, and I'm just dreaming...
As someone that used to write form letters, a similar genre of writing, it sort of becomes an art in itself: how much sugar can stick to what's true without it becoming so saccharine nobody wants it? I don't know about others, but I did: a) give a fuck, and b) believe in the kernal of truth around which the letter was written. People that wrote these press releases seem to have lost touch with reality, but I have a feeling they probably took about 10 minutes to write and 2 days to proof, giving others the chance to insert their own BS.
"Reg: All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
Xerxes: Brought peace!
Reg: (very angry, he's not having a good meeting at all) What!? Oh... (scornfully) Peace, yes... shut up!"
Wait wait. STD? Sex?
Who are you and how did you get on Slashdot!?
There are certain things that are okay to hide, some things that aren't. An example I heard in my Marriage & Family class of the former was during a honeymoon between a man that almost married someone else and a woman that really didn't almost marry anyone else. She snuggled up to him on the beach and asked what he was thinking about, and he answered that he was thinking about what his life would've been like had he married the other woman. Things got cool for a few days that week. A better answer? "I am so glad I married you," the conclusion of his thought. Not a lie, but also a better answer.
I think honesty about little things is incredibly important. Dishonesty about little things ("How have you been?" "What've you been up to?") is cancerous.
Every time this comes up I point to Lord Durham's report on the Dominion of Canada government after the abolition of Royal Prerogative (i.e., the presentation of any spending bill by the majority - Her Majesty's Government - and a straight up-or-down vote on it, with any amendments by the minority that pass triggering an election). He said that this abolition was extremely detrimental to the governance of the Dominion, as earmarks (known by a different name then) were proliferating through all spending bills. Canada eventually reinstated Royal Prerogative and now has very few, if any, earmarks.