And I can understand why people would object to "special rights over and above those of the individuals comprising the corporation", but when the right in question really is equivalently expressible as the rights of individuals (as seems to be the case with free speech), it seems like a case of "much ado about nothing", to use a cliche that needs to die.
As opposed to investing in the stock market yourself?
Saving has become very, very simple recently. There are now "target-date" or "life cycle" funds that divide your investmetns into asset classes appropriate for your intended retirement date. Simply put your savings in the date closest to when you plan to retire, and it automatically diversifies for you and keeps your appropriate asset mix given how much time you have. They're available in most 401(k) plans (though some, *cough cough* assume an older workforce than they really have).
Or in more detail, the principle of free speech has two purposes; to make sure that good ideas or important bits of information don't end up getting supressed, and more to the point, simply to allow people to speak their minds, because society exists for the benefit of individuals, and people feel bad if they can't say what they think.
That may be *your* reason for supporting free speech, but it isn't "the" reason.
If a corporation can't say certain things, none of the individuals working for it will feel bad because they can't say what the corporation "thinks" (or rather, what it's most profitable for the corporation to say).
Forest, trees, again.
If an individual acting in service of a corporation is prohitbited from saying something because "corporations don't have rights", he certainly *will* feel bad, because he will not be able to earn income in that particular way.
Free speech is based on the assumption that the speaker has feelings.
No, it only assumes someone wants some information communicated. This is true whether a "corporation" is speaking, or an individual.
What does that have to do with my post? I was explaining the contradiction in claiming that humans but not corporations should have rights, not the current legal status of either.
I know you're trying to be funny, but I see this all the time about how, "duh, how can a corporation have rights"?
Individuals working in the service of that corporation have free speech rights, correct? So every time you see "Google's free speech rights", replace it with "the free speech rights of all individuals working for Google". Now, what's the problem?
Kinda like how the man behind the curtain is just a repairman, don't pay any attention to him?
I'm just saying, if the video is supposed to be proof of its success, they need to make it *clear* it's not getting any help, and visible supports kinda take away from that.
Oh, I caught that. I'm just talking about the general tone of your remark. If you were looking for examples of things unique to Mexico, "Fifth of May" ain't gonna cut it.
Whoa whoa whoa, I'm not saying anything about celebrating it, just that they *have* a Fifth of May. You were acting like Mexico is the only country with a Cinco de Mayo. Hey, guess what -- the UK has a Fourth of July! Funny how that works out.
Yeah, that was my thought exactly. It appalls me how movie theaters ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO put the big, distracting "exit" signs up, screwing up the movie experience, even though it's extremely rare for there to be a fire in a movie theater and it's rarer still that a fire alarm would be unable to activate the exit signs; but casinos can pull this crap. Still, I bet they have a lot of those "yeah, you can use this exit -- if you want to set off the alarm and get sued and jailed" exits.
That's fine, as long as the public's representative negotiates those conditions *before* the network is built, keeping in mind that unjustifiably burdensome conditions may mean it's never build.
However, why does the builder of the network have to be the same one sending data through it? Wouldn't it be better if one non-ISP company built it, and then leased to all users at prevailing prices? Then you don't have to worry about it being stacked in favor of one ISP's customers. (Disclaimer: I'm a newb on understanding telecom networks.)
P.S. a little research on the web shows the best CFLs have a CRI of 94 and use six phosphors, not just three. The best possible CRI is 100, from full spectrum incandescent bulbs or the sun. 94 is pretty damn good, so now I am now thinking UbuntuDupe's major beef is more along the lines of "You can't tell me what to do!"
Well, if you really want to know:
What bothers me the most is, it doesn't matter that last month I used ~230 kwh, including water heating. It doesn't matter that I drive a small car and very little (compared to the median). It doesn't matter that I live in a small apartment. It doesn't matter that if everyone followed my recreational habits, far more wildlife would be untouched by man. It doesn't matter that virtually the entire middle class "save energy" crowd lives in a far more energy-intensive, land-intensive home [1] and drives more fuel-intensive cars. When it comes time to reduce consumption...
I'm the one who has to change?
Even though that's the same kind of light I leave work to get away from? Regardless of how sensitive to light and sound I am? Regardless of how much I'd pay for offsetting the "extra" use? Regardless of the fact that I have far less *to* offset than others? Regardless of the zillion other activities that'll just make up the difference once people save energy this way?
[1] No, this isn't class warmongering. I don't care that people live with more space than me. I really don't. I can afford a home; I simply prefer not to blow that money on a crappy investment just because it's the "American Dream (tm)". What I do care about, deeply, is being scapegoated for CO2 emissions by the very people who are the biggest part of the problem, and having that used as a pretense to fuck up my final refuge in the world when far less painful solutions are available.
Shut up! SHUT UP YOU FUCKING TERRORIST! There is NO EXCUSE. EVER! for using incandescent. I don't care about your dorky little "photography" blog that doesn't get any hits. NO ONE NEEDS INCANDESCENT, FUCKTARD. The convert most of their energy to heat. That's a waste. ANYONE WHO CLAIMS TO NEED INCANDESCENT IS ASTROTURFING FOR GENERAL ELECTRIC. Everyone knows that CFL's protect the environment. It's time to get off your fucking ass and get with the program. Throw away all of your incandescents right now. THEY ARE WASTEFUL AND THEY ARE KILLING THE EARTH YOU FUCKING MORON.
You got something you think "needs" incandescent? Fine. Talk to the legislature of your jurisdiction. If they think your cause is worthy, they can grant you a permit. But PUH-FUCKIN-LEEZE, can't you fucking wait a few years to indulge, given that the EARTH is on the line??? [/what environmentalists want to say]
Yes, but here we have a zillion punchers and a zillion noses, and one puncher is expected to take the blame for all of them, while the rest of us punch twice as often and half as hard.
There is a much better way for people to make up for their CO2 emissions: assess them the abatement cost, regardless of what end it's put to. Like I suggested here. Then you've covered ALL punchers, and don't have to decide over a zillion possibe cases which one is "wasteful". Becuase you *can't know what activities are wasteful*. "Waste" implies low value per unit resource consumed, and only the user knows what the value to him is.
That's a lot better than writing millions of pages of exemptions for every possible thing some beancounter decided is wasteful.
That assumption is usually well-founded in reality. People who are "sensitive to radio waves" get sick a couple of weeks after a cell-tower is erected, even if it is never turned on. People can hear ultrasonic differences between two soundwaves, just not when they're in a double-blind test.
Then I have a serious question. Assume someone's dislike of CFLs in his home is purely psychosomatic. Assume he appears to lose energy when using them at home. Assume he refuses to accept that he can't tell the difference. Assume the effect completely stops when he doesn't know they're CFLs.
How do you ethically cancel the psychosomatic effect? (Remember, invading someone's home without telling him and stealing his lights doese not count as ethical.)
Okay, a second serious question. He's willing to pay a 300% tax on his incandescents rather than switch. What is a convincing argument against letting him pay rather than banning them?
Why should my vehicle be "taken off the road," but some college kid that drives 100 miles in his hybrid in one weekend bouncing between parties while I drive nowhere, gets to use his?
Or, more generally, what is with "environmentalists'" focus on whether you follow some hastily-thought-out rote procedure than how much you're actually *using*? It's like by doing some ordained activities, you're "part of the team". Rarely do you hear, "okay, you're driving a hybrid, but has that reduced your total consumption?" Instead, the use of a hybrid is taken as a signal that you're "one of them" and that you "care". Does that in any way help the environment? Well, we can get to that later.
They operate in some sort of static mold, where no one ever adapts to the changes they propose. As if any time you ban something, or "get these things off the road[1]", absolutely nothing else changes, except that that thing is no longer done. They act like they can know in advance what everyone's prioritization is, and if that person says you're wrong, he's evil. If he'd rather turn the heat down in winter than convert to CFL's, well, he's just a terrorist.
[1] Strictly speaking, "environmentalists" don't want SUVs "off the road". They actually want the SUVs' engines not to emit GHGs. If we got SUVs "off the road" and drove them perpetually and futilely in circles on a non-road, while burning lots of gasoline, that would be "bad" from their perspective. Yet it's not on a road! Hooray!
I'm being ridiculous, but this terminology is a microcosm of the static way in which "environmentalists" think. They think in terms of means, not ends. They look at what are the current means, leading to bad ends, and never consider the possibility that other means (like non-roads, or frequently-driven hybrids) will lead to the same ends once the current means are removed.
This is becoming the standard anti-CF meme, and I have to think that it's either people with a no experience with CFs, or very dated experience, or some sort of paid astroturfing by the incandescent lobby.
they have virtually any colour temperature you want to buy
All that glitters is not color temperature.
they start instantly. There is no real downside, unless maybe you sit in a quiet room with a bulb beside your ear and detect some humming.
How about uninstalling your car's subwoofers?
The downside is: I don't like them. Why don't you shift your attention away from second-guessing my consciousness, to solutions that attack the heart of the matter: harms from CO2 emissions?
But I'll be glad to switch, once everyone drives a car as small as mine, uses as little electricity as I do, and lives in an apartment about the size of mine. At least then the scapegoating of CO2 emissions on me would have *some* plausibility.
That doesn't mean that all people can hear it, though.
1) I didn't claim all people can hear it. I specifically excluded caddy thugs. 2) I was refuting the claim that it "makes no buzz". A buzz needs no earwise detection to be a buzz. 3) You could still verify some people can hear it through blind tests, like with the "you can't hear a CRT!" skeptics.
Of course, but how a particular thing is perceived to benefit or harm the environment varies. You can be an environmentalist and not support a ban on incandescent bulbs.
Having said all of that, anyone who walks into a store and buys an incandescent is either a) stupid, b) very stupid, or c) they live in an apartment with unmetered electricity
or d) doesn't like feeling institutionalized at home and is willing to pay the premium for it.
My electric bill, including water heating, was 230 kwh last month. What was it in your energy-efficient home?
Slashdot Mirror
And I can understand why people would object to "special rights over and above those of the individuals comprising the corporation", but when the right in question really is equivalently expressible as the rights of individuals (as seems to be the case with free speech), it seems like a case of "much ado about nothing", to use a cliche that needs to die.
As opposed to investing in the stock market yourself?
Saving has become very, very simple recently. There are now "target-date" or "life cycle" funds that divide your investmetns into asset classes appropriate for your intended retirement date. Simply put your savings in the date closest to when you plan to retire, and it automatically diversifies for you and keeps your appropriate asset mix given how much time you have. They're available in most 401(k) plans (though some, *cough cough* assume an older workforce than they really have).
Or in more detail, the principle of free speech has two purposes; to make sure that good ideas or important bits of information don't end up getting supressed, and more to the point, simply to allow people to speak their minds, because society exists for the benefit of individuals, and people feel bad if they can't say what they think.
That may be *your* reason for supporting free speech, but it isn't "the" reason.
If a corporation can't say certain things, none of the individuals working for it will feel bad because they can't say what the corporation "thinks" (or rather, what it's most profitable for the corporation to say).
Forest, trees, again.
If an individual acting in service of a corporation is prohitbited from saying something because "corporations don't have rights", he certainly *will* feel bad, because he will not be able to earn income in that particular way.
Free speech is based on the assumption that the speaker has feelings.
No, it only assumes someone wants some information communicated. This is true whether a "corporation" is speaking, or an individual.
wonder what the reactions would have been like if a "computer glitch" knocked the thing up 500 points instead of down.
... *pulls aside*
Um
You mean like what happened two weeks ago?
What does that have to do with my post? I was explaining the contradiction in claiming that humans but not corporations should have rights, not the current legal status of either.
I know you're trying to be funny, but I see this all the time about how, "duh, how can a corporation have rights"?
Individuals working in the service of that corporation have free speech rights, correct? So every time you see "Google's free speech rights", replace it with "the free speech rights of all individuals working for Google". Now, what's the problem?
Remember, a forest *is* just a bunch of trees.
Kinda like how the man behind the curtain is just a repairman, don't pay any attention to him?
I'm just saying, if the video is supposed to be proof of its success, they need to make it *clear* it's not getting any help, and visible supports kinda take away from that.
Actually, I think its stability is more due to being held up by the clearly visible cords. Remove those, then let me see him balance.
I'm just messin' with ya. Chill out. Let me buy you a taco. Too bad I can only order it from Mexico ... ;-)
Oh, I caught that. I'm just talking about the general tone of your remark. If you were looking for examples of things unique to Mexico, "Fifth of May" ain't gonna cut it.
Whoa whoa whoa, I'm not saying anything about celebrating it, just that they *have* a Fifth of May. You were acting like Mexico is the only country with a Cinco de Mayo. Hey, guess what -- the UK has a Fourth of July! Funny how that works out.
Er... hate to break it to you, but todos naciones tienes uno Cinco de Mayo. (Broken Spanish, I know.)
... well, at least those that use the Gregorian calendar, which is anyone that wants to interact with one that does.
All nations have a Cinco de Mayo
Well said. Has anyone else noticed a trend toward:
1. Split your limited content onto multiple pages to increase ad impressions
happening more often? Slate started doing it recently, even for a second page with one small paragraph.
Yeah, that was my thought exactly. It appalls me how movie theaters ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO put the big, distracting "exit" signs up, screwing up the movie experience, even though it's extremely rare for there to be a fire in a movie theater and it's rarer still that a fire alarm would be unable to activate the exit signs; but casinos can pull this crap. Still, I bet they have a lot of those "yeah, you can use this exit -- if you want to set off the alarm and get sued and jailed" exits.
That's fine, as long as the public's representative negotiates those conditions *before* the network is built, keeping in mind that unjustifiably burdensome conditions may mean it's never build.
However, why does the builder of the network have to be the same one sending data through it? Wouldn't it be better if one non-ISP company built it, and then leased to all users at prevailing prices? Then you don't have to worry about it being stacked in favor of one ISP's customers. (Disclaimer: I'm a newb on understanding telecom networks.)
I know how:
... kind of like how Srinivasa Ramanujan found patterns."
"Hm, it seems this perp is following a pattern
[long and vague digression on Ramanujan's work that conveys nothing other than "it's complicated"]
[condescending reference to the hot chick's heritage]
"So that implies that he'll strike *here* next."
[catches perp]
****
Is that about right?
P.S. a little research on the web shows the best CFLs have a CRI of 94 and use six phosphors, not just three. The best possible CRI is 100, from full spectrum incandescent bulbs or the sun. 94 is pretty damn good, so now I am now thinking UbuntuDupe's major beef is more along the lines of "You can't tell me what to do!"
...
Well, if you really want to know:
What bothers me the most is, it doesn't matter that last month I used ~230 kwh, including water heating. It doesn't matter that I drive a small car and very little (compared to the median). It doesn't matter that I live in a small apartment. It doesn't matter that if everyone followed my recreational habits, far more wildlife would be untouched by man. It doesn't matter that virtually the entire middle class "save energy" crowd lives in a far more energy-intensive, land-intensive home [1] and drives more fuel-intensive cars. When it comes time to reduce consumption
I'm the one who has to change?
Even though that's the same kind of light I leave work to get away from? Regardless of how sensitive to light and sound I am? Regardless of how much I'd pay for offsetting the "extra" use? Regardless of the fact that I have far less *to* offset than others? Regardless of the zillion other activities that'll just make up the difference once people save energy this way?
[1] No, this isn't class warmongering. I don't care that people live with more space than me. I really don't. I can afford a home; I simply prefer not to blow that money on a crappy investment just because it's the "American Dream (tm)". What I do care about, deeply, is being scapegoated for CO2 emissions by the very people who are the biggest part of the problem, and having that used as a pretense to fuck up my final refuge in the world when far less painful solutions are available.
There, that about sums it up.
Shut up! SHUT UP YOU FUCKING TERRORIST! There is NO EXCUSE. EVER! for using incandescent. I don't care about your dorky little "photography" blog that doesn't get any hits. NO ONE NEEDS INCANDESCENT, FUCKTARD. The convert most of their energy to heat. That's a waste. ANYONE WHO CLAIMS TO NEED INCANDESCENT IS ASTROTURFING FOR GENERAL ELECTRIC. Everyone knows that CFL's protect the environment. It's time to get off your fucking ass and get with the program. Throw away all of your incandescents right now. THEY ARE WASTEFUL AND THEY ARE KILLING THE EARTH YOU FUCKING MORON.
You got something you think "needs" incandescent? Fine. Talk to the legislature of your jurisdiction. If they think your cause is worthy, they can grant you a permit. But PUH-FUCKIN-LEEZE, can't you fucking wait a few years to indulge, given that the EARTH is on the line??? [/what environmentalists want to say]
The summary didn't refer to Ramanujan as "the Indian math guy" this time! Great work! (Don't ask how I remember that one.)
...
Although, it could do with one less "i"
Your right to throw a punch ends at my nose.
Yes, but here we have a zillion punchers and a zillion noses, and one puncher is expected to take the blame for all of them, while the rest of us punch twice as often and half as hard.
There is a much better way for people to make up for their CO2 emissions: assess them the abatement cost, regardless of what end it's put to. Like I suggested here. Then you've covered ALL punchers, and don't have to decide over a zillion possibe cases which one is "wasteful". Becuase you *can't know what activities are wasteful*. "Waste" implies low value per unit resource consumed, and only the user knows what the value to him is.
That's a lot better than writing millions of pages of exemptions for every possible thing some beancounter decided is wasteful.
That assumption is usually well-founded in reality. People who are "sensitive to radio waves" get sick a couple of weeks after a cell-tower is erected, even if it is never turned on. People can hear ultrasonic differences between two soundwaves, just not when they're in a double-blind test.
Then I have a serious question. Assume someone's dislike of CFLs in his home is purely psychosomatic. Assume he appears to lose energy when using them at home. Assume he refuses to accept that he can't tell the difference. Assume the effect completely stops when he doesn't know they're CFLs.
How do you ethically cancel the psychosomatic effect? (Remember, invading someone's home without telling him and stealing his lights doese not count as ethical.)
Okay, a second serious question. He's willing to pay a 300% tax on his incandescents rather than switch. What is a convincing argument against letting him pay rather than banning them?
A rare bit of common sense on this topic.
Why should my vehicle be "taken off the road," but some college kid that drives 100 miles in his hybrid in one weekend bouncing between parties while I drive nowhere, gets to use his?
Or, more generally, what is with "environmentalists'" focus on whether you follow some hastily-thought-out rote procedure than how much you're actually *using*? It's like by doing some ordained activities, you're "part of the team". Rarely do you hear, "okay, you're driving a hybrid, but has that reduced your total consumption?" Instead, the use of a hybrid is taken as a signal that you're "one of them" and that you "care". Does that in any way help the environment? Well, we can get to that later.
They operate in some sort of static mold, where no one ever adapts to the changes they propose. As if any time you ban something, or "get these things off the road[1]", absolutely nothing else changes, except that that thing is no longer done. They act like they can know in advance what everyone's prioritization is, and if that person says you're wrong, he's evil. If he'd rather turn the heat down in winter than convert to CFL's, well, he's just a terrorist.
[1] Strictly speaking, "environmentalists" don't want SUVs "off the road". They actually want the SUVs' engines not to emit GHGs. If we got SUVs "off the road" and drove them perpetually and futilely in circles on a non-road, while burning lots of gasoline, that would be "bad" from their perspective. Yet it's not on a road! Hooray!
I'm being ridiculous, but this terminology is a microcosm of the static way in which "environmentalists" think. They think in terms of means, not ends. They look at what are the current means, leading to bad ends, and never consider the possibility that other means (like non-roads, or frequently-driven hybrids) will lead to the same ends once the current means are removed.
This is becoming the standard anti-CF meme, and I have to think that it's either people with a no experience with CFs, or very dated experience, or some sort of paid astroturfing by the incandescent lobby.
or b) an honest person with a serious, sustainable, long-term plan to fix the actual problem that incandescent bans poorly attempt to solve.
Modern CFs don't flicker at all
I don't recall claiming that.
they have virtually any colour temperature you want to buy
All that glitters is not color temperature.
they start instantly. There is no real downside, unless maybe you sit in a quiet room with a bulb beside your ear and detect some humming.
How about uninstalling your car's subwoofers?
The downside is: I don't like them. Why don't you shift your attention away from second-guessing my consciousness, to solutions that attack the heart of the matter: harms from CO2 emissions?
But I'll be glad to switch, once everyone drives a car as small as mine, uses as little electricity as I do, and lives in an apartment about the size of mine. At least then the scapegoating of CO2 emissions on me would have *some* plausibility.
That doesn't mean that all people can hear it, though.
1) I didn't claim all people can hear it. I specifically excluded caddy thugs.
2) I was refuting the claim that it "makes no buzz". A buzz needs no earwise detection to be a buzz.
3) You could still verify some people can hear it through blind tests, like with the "you can't hear a CRT!" skeptics.
Of course, but how a particular thing is perceived to benefit or harm the environment varies. You can be an environmentalist and not support a ban on incandescent bulbs.
My point precisely.
Having said all of that, anyone who walks into a store and buys an incandescent is either a) stupid, b) very stupid, or c) they live in an apartment with unmetered electricity
or d) doesn't like feeling institutionalized at home and is willing to pay the premium for it.
My electric bill, including water heating, was 230 kwh last month. What was it in your energy-efficient home?