 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Why does it feel like the near future is going to suck hard? Let's see:
- The climate is going so bad that in 50 to 100 years we will most probably
be totally screwed, if not even sooner. And humanity is doing little to help
this, even though it's a very well known problem.
- There's little question anymore that the global economy is going to crash
hard in the very near future. We are most probably facing an economic crisis
which will rival or even surpass the big one in the 1920's. At least here in
Finland there have already been prospects of Finland going back to the old
currency (Finnish marks) if the euro plummets. And what's worse, rather than
trying to do something about it, apparently the big money institutions are
doing all this *on purpose*.
- We are going to run out of oil in the near fugure. We know this, and we
know that when it happens, the economy will collapse even harder. The
economic crisis of the 1920's will be child's play in comparison. Yet we
are not doing anything about it.
- One of the most influential countries in the world (a country that
heavily influences the economy and politics of the rest of the world),
namely the United States, seems to be going down hard in politics,
science and education. It's showing troubling signs of turning into a
theocracy-like totalitarian state in the near future. The very basics
of constituational freedoms in the US have been eroded one by one during
the last decade, and it seems to only be spiraling down. (Just as one
example, seems like most of the presidential candidates are religious
nutjobs who want to make it legal for states to outlaw same-sex
relationships, abortions, the teaching of evolution, and so on.)
- European countries have also been steadily going downwards in terms of
freedom, democracy and the wellbeing of its citizens, also mostly for
religious reasons. However, in this case the religion is not Christianity
but naive multiculturalism. A revolution (to either direction of the
political spectrum) is inevitable in the near future.
- Large companies, especially those ones having intellectual properties,
and especially the American ones, are slowly trying to take over the world.
The SOPA is just one of the latest and most egregious attempts at controlling
and even shutting down the internet. These companies have even gone so far
as to demand a foreign country to extradit one of that country's citizens
because he *linked* to copyrighted material. That's right: He didn't even
*distribute* copyrighted material, he simply *linked* to it, and now the
property owners are demanding a foreign country to extradit this person so
that he can be put in jail in the United States. This is how bold and
egregious these companies have become about copyright.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_O%27Dwyer)
Sometimes I'm glad I don't have children. I don't have to worry about
them growing in a world that is plummeting fast into total chaos.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 06:18:52 -0500, Warp wrote:
> - The climate is going so bad that in 50 to 100 years we will most
> probably be totally screwed, if not even sooner. And humanity is doing
> little to help this, even though it's a very well known problem.
You seem to have forgotten that any problems there are in the world can
just be wished away. Nobody has to do anything, just pray hard enough
and the problem will be solved.
That's what works here in the US. I guess the rest of the world just
hasn't caught up with us. *Faith* is the one true solution to any
problem, not hard work or study/evaluation of alternative solutions.
Just wait and the problem will solve itself.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/28/2011 1:59 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 06:18:52 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> - The climate is going so bad that in 50 to 100 years we will most
>> probably be totally screwed, if not even sooner. And humanity is doing
>> little to help this, even though it's a very well known problem.
>
> You seem to have forgotten that any problems there are in the world can
> just be wished away. Nobody has to do anything, just pray hard enough
> and the problem will be solved.
>
> That's what works here in the US. I guess the rest of the world just
> hasn't caught up with us. *Faith* is the one true solution to any
> problem, not hard work or study/evaluation of alternative solutions.
>
> Just wait and the problem will solve itself.
>
> Jim
Largest growing denominations in the US are the "I don't feel like
telling you what my religion is", and, atheist. The people that most
strongly agree with corporate personhood, big oil, and the non-existence
of climate change are currently doing a damn fine job of looking like
the circus clowns, all trying to jam into a clown car, and the biggest
worry is that the unpredictability of voters will mean that, with no
sane alternative, they will vote for the insane one, just to get rid of
the one that has been blocked, challenged, lied about, lied too, etc.,
since before he even got in office.
So.. Its really a case of, "Is it too little awareness, too late.", or
worse, "With the ship sinking, will the population decide that the best
solution is to drill holes in the bottom, to let the water out." One
almost hopes that its neither, but would very much prefer the first
option, since at least *something* might be salvaged, even if its late
starting, where as the last option... well, we are a species that, as
the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series points out, have to put
instructions on a box of damn toothpicks.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/28/2011 6:18 AM, Warp wrote:
> Why does it feel like the near future is going to suck hard? Let's see:
>
> - The climate is going so bad that in 50 to 100 years we will most probably
> be totally screwed, if not even sooner. And humanity is doing little to help
> this, even though it's a very well known problem.
I see no *conclusive* evidence that the world's climate will behave any
differently in the next fifty years than it has in the previous fifty.
The doom-and-gloom predictors have oscillated between "global warming"
and "impending ice age" at least three times in the past century alone.
> - There's little question anymore that the global economy is going to crash
> hard in the very near future. We are most probably facing an economic crisis
> which will rival or even surpass the big one in the 1920's. At least here in
> Finland there have already been prospects of Finland going back to the old
> currency (Finnish marks) if the euro plummets. And what's worse, rather than
> trying to do something about it, apparently the big money institutions are
> doing all this *on purpose*.
The odd thing is that the very people who predicted that this is exactly
what would happen are still being denounced as cranks.
> - We are going to run out of oil in the near fugure.
In spite of having more identified reserves than at any point in history.
> - One of the most influential countries in the world (a country that
> heavily influences the economy and politics of the rest of the world),
> namely the United States, seems to be going down hard in politics,
> science and education. It's showing troubling signs of turning into a
> theocracy-like totalitarian state in the near future.
This is a false appearance created by heavily biased news institutions.
We are farther away from a theocracy than at any other time in our
history.
> The very basics
> of constituational freedoms in the US have been eroded one by one during
> the last decade, and it seems to only be spiraling down. (Just as one
> example, seems like most of the presidential candidates are religious
> nutjobs who want to make it legal for states to outlaw same-sex
> relationships, abortions, the teaching of evolution, and so on.)
Actually, the totalitarian states of the century past were all creatures
of socialism (whether of a nationalistic or Marxist flavor has made no
real difference). While the right has been guilty of eroding our
Constitutional rights, the left has been historically worse. The news
does not report this because they are heavily left-leaning.
> - European countries have also been steadily going downwards in terms of
> freedom, democracy and the well being of its citizens, also mostly for
> religious reasons. However, in this case the religion is not Christianity
> but naive multiculturalism. A revolution (to either direction of the
> political spectrum) is inevitable in the near future.
With the odd exception that in most of Europe, one particular religous
group has not been tasked with embracing multiculturism. They have been
allowed to stick to their old ways.
> - Large companies, especially those ones having intellectual properties,
> and especially the American ones, are slowly trying to take over the world.
> The SOPA is just one of the latest and most egregious attempts at controlling
> and even shutting down the internet. These companies have even gone so far
> as to demand a foreign country to extradit one of that country's citizens
> because he *linked* to copyrighted material. That's right: He didn't even
> *distribute* copyrighted material, he simply *linked* to it, and now the
> property owners are demanding a foreign country to extradit this person so
> that he can be put in jail in the United States. This is how bold and
> egregious these companies have become about copyright.
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_O%27Dwyer)
Again, the element which argue against giving the government power to
grant favors to corporations was shouted down, and is still dismissed as
impractical cranks, even though what they predicted has come to pass.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/12/2011 11:18 AM, Warp wrote:
> Why does it feel like the near future is going to suck hard? Let's see:
You forgot to mention geomagnetic reversal. That will be a bummer!
But on the other hand 40 to 50 years ago we were all going to disappear
in a cloud of radioactive dust and we were entering a mini ice age as
well. There was also mention of a Megatsunami originating in the Canary
Islands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatsunami#Canary_Islands
The world has always been going to hell in a hand cart. I suppose that
it always will.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/29/2011 9:31 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> On 12/28/2011 6:18 AM, Warp wrote:
>> Why does it feel like the near future is going to suck hard? Let's see:
>>
>> - The climate is going so bad that in 50 to 100 years we will most
>> probably
>> be totally screwed, if not even sooner. And humanity is doing little
>> to help
>> this, even though it's a very well known problem.
>
> I see no *conclusive* evidence that the world's climate will behave any
> differently in the next fifty years than it has in the previous fifty.
> The doom-and-gloom predictors have oscillated between "global warming"
> and "impending ice age" at least three times in the past century alone.
>
Wrong.. In actual point of fact, for the most part the scientific
community has said "warming" all along. The media, and some TV movie
people, where the ones that introduced the absurd claims about
"impending ice age", probably confusing it with the, at the time, still
semi-worrisome idea of nuclear winter. For the most part, only the
fringe, and some TV movie makers, have been running "doom and gloom"
either. What has been said is:
1. Weather will get more complex, and probably more radical.
2. Ice caps will melt.
3. We *might*, maybe, see a slowing, or reversal of ocean flow paths,
which *could* cause a temporary mini-ice age, in areas effected, as
warmer water failed to travel north, and keep the ice melted.
In the third case, its possible, but if we get things bad enough, it
won't last long, and everyone else is going to get the rest of the hell
from the resulting weather. Its also not going to happen if there isn't
enough cold there to freeze anything. Temps in most of the world have
risen less than a degree. In some northern climates, its risen 5
degrees, enough to raise the ground temp *over* the melting point.
Globally, its its rising, but not "yet" as high as some have warned, but
its not slowing either.
From the other side we have:
1. Denial of whole communities disappearing due to permafrost melting
(and the land being nothing but permafrost with some dust over it).
2. Editing of documents to remove data, charts, and mentions of rising
tide levels in areas that where predicted to be effected.
3. Just general denial.
4. A lot of misinformation. The biggest one is that they ignore 200+
years of data, multiple sources of data collected from sources that can
trace trends back thousands of years, and most of what has happened in
the last 50 too, to harp on a small window of a few years, when, due to
other factors, there was a "temporary" decline in temperatures, in order
to claim that nothing at all has changed over time, its just another
"fluctuation".
Pretty much everyone that isn't paid by an energy company, or working
for some place like Kato, which is funded by the Koch brothers, and
other people with an incentive for it to not be true, thinks it *is*
conclusive. Which makes.. Nearly all of the climate scientists who are
not paid to not see anything, cranks, or not actually climate experts
(i.e., not climate scientists at all).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> I see no *conclusive* evidence that the world's climate will behave any
> differently in the next fifty years than it has in the previous fifty.
> The doom-and-gloom predictors have oscillated between "global warming"
> and "impending ice age" at least three times in the past century alone.
*sigh*
And man has never went to the Moon, 9/11 was an inside job, Kennedy was
killed by the FBI and the Bavarian Illuminati is trying to establish the
One World Order alongside the Freemasons.
> > - We are going to run out of oil in the near fugure.
> In spite of having more identified reserves than at any point in history.
You clearly don't understand exponential growth.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> writes:
> And man has never went to the Moon, 9/11 was an inside job, Kennedy was
> killed by the FBI and the Bavarian Illuminati is trying to establish the
Kennedy was killed by the CIA, not the FBI. Get your facts straight.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/30/2011 01:52 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Warp<war### [at] tagpovrayorg> writes:
>
>> And man has never went to the Moon, 9/11 was an inside job, Kennedy was
>> killed by the FBI and the Bavarian Illuminati is trying to establish the
>
> Kennedy was killed by the CIA, not the FBI. Get your facts straight.
>
you are most likely correct ... but J Edgar and Robert weren't exactly
buddies either ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/12/2011 8:18 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> you are most likely correct ... but J Edgar and Robert weren't exactly
> buddies either ;-)
Is that because JKK did not dress as woman ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/30/2011 1:18 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 12/30/2011 01:52 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Warp<war### [at] tagpovrayorg> writes:
>>
>>> And man has never went to the Moon, 9/11 was an inside job, Kennedy was
>>> killed by the FBI and the Bavarian Illuminati is trying to establish the
>>
>> Kennedy was killed by the CIA, not the FBI. Get your facts straight.
>>
> you are most likely correct ... but J Edgar and Robert weren't exactly
> buddies either ;-)
Did they just release a new piece of, previously held, film, that
conclusively killed this one? Snort.. What I am saying, the conspiracy
nuts probably just figure it took until now to properly CG a grainy film
strip, showing the shooting.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:31:06 -0500, John VanSickle wrote:
> I see no *conclusive* evidence that the world's climate will behave any
> differently in the next fifty years than it has in the previous fifty.
There's something of a fallacy here - that science has to provide
'conclusive' proof of anything before it's taken seriously.
There's overwhelming evidence to support the idea that the world is
warming. Even studies funded by climate change deniers (the recent one
funded by the Koch bros. for example) show that the world is warming.
*Absolute* proof is not the standard in scientific research. A
preponderance of the evidence is, but in actual scientific research, it's
also common to provide counter-evidence.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/31/2011 4:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:31:06 -0500, John VanSickle wrote:
>
>> I see no *conclusive* evidence that the world's climate will behave any
>> differently in the next fifty years than it has in the previous fifty.
>
> There's something of a fallacy here - that science has to provide
> 'conclusive' proof of anything before it's taken seriously.
>
> There's overwhelming evidence to support the idea that the world is
> warming. Even studies funded by climate change deniers (the recent one
> funded by the Koch bros. for example) show that the world is warming.
>
> *Absolute* proof is not the standard in scientific research. A
> preponderance of the evidence is, but in actual scientific research, it's
> also common to provide counter-evidence.
I did not say that the planet is not getting warmer. I said that the
climate will not behave any differently. One is not the other.
It is now a documented fact that much of the research purported to
support AGW was falsified and/or misrepresented, and claiming that this
puts me into the moon-landing denier camp is mere ad hominem.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 09:04:35 -0500, John VanSickle wrote:
> I did not say that the planet is not getting warmer. I said that the
> climate will not behave any differently. One is not the other.
That's not particularly logical, John. If one changes a variable, then
the outcome changes. If the planet is getting warmer, then there are
effects caused by that - and we're seeing that. Have you read the
reports about water shortages in (I think it was) Peru, where the glacial
melt has accelerated (demonstrated fact) and is causing a drought?
> It is now a documented fact that much of the research purported to
> support AGW was falsified and/or misrepresented,
"Much" is an exaggeration, and the data that was 'exaggerated' has been
removed from the data set, and the trends still show pretty clearly. In
fact, that study that was funded by the Koch bros. used all of the
validated data and was intended to actually answer the question one way
or the other - and the person doing the research reportedly didn't care
what the outcome was.
And the outcome was that it's real.
> and claiming that this
> puts me into the moon-landing denier camp is mere ad hominem.
I didn't put you in that camp - in fact, I was pretty careful *not* to do
so. So lumping this statement in with the rest makes it sound like I
did. I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 01/01/2012 20:53, Jim Henderson nous fit lire :
> On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 09:04:35 -0500, John VanSickle wrote:
>
>> > I did not say that the planet is not getting warmer. I said that the
>> > climate will not behave any differently. One is not the other.
> That's not particularly logical, John. If one changes a variable, then
> the outcome changes.
I think you both agree... somehow.
John states that the climate's rules are not changed (the reactions
remain the same, the rules of physics are not updated).
Jim states that the outcome will be different because the input
variables are differents.
To simplify, assume climate is a function f(x):= 3*x.
John states: f(x) remains unchanged.
Jim states: x was pi, next it is 4.
Both are corrects. old f(x) was 3 pi. new f(x) will be 12.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/1/2012 7:04 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> It is now a documented fact that much of the research purported to
> support AGW was falsified and/or misrepresented, and claiming that this
> puts me into the moon-landing denier camp is mere ad hominem.
>
No it wasn't. There where multiple data sources, including "actual
measurements". One bloody set of data, specific to a species of tree
whose rings where used, as one data point, to verify the trend, showed
an odd skew in the data, which contradicted the trend. The supposedly
"falsified" data was a chart that excluded the trees, for a very small
period of time, as used other data sources *instead*, to fill in the gap
that resulted. The exact reason for the disparity isn't certain, but a)
its a damn life form, and b) there where increases in drought conditions
in the region they where in, which might have had an impact on the data
produced. All other sources of data, including *live* recordings of
actual temperatures, all showed the expected trend. A few living
organisms, which belonged to one species, and might thus have been prey
to anything from bugs, to water contamination, to not enough water, to..
who knows, was the sole cause of the complaints about "falsified data".
But, this makes no damn sense at all. If, to give an example, you are
baking cookies, but they burn, and the oven says its 350, but a) other
things burn too, b) your cooking thermometer says its 450, c) other
means of testing the temperature says its too high as well, etc., do you
insist that the oven is right, or do you ignore the oven, and make down
on your recipe, "Set at 250, to compensate for the error."? That's
bloody making sure your data is right, not "faking it". now, if
everything, including the cookies, said its was 350, but your
thermometer said something else, but you sided with it, that would be a
completely different matter, but that was the exact opposite of what
happened with the tree ring data.
As for other claims of misrepresentation, etc... Those mostly came out
of denialist intentional misinterpretation of emails. Emails that
involved internal discussion as to which data was valid, why some of it
might be a bit quirky, and how trustworthy it was, what means should be
used to correct for these minor errors, in order to present the most
accurate assessment possible, and a fair number of emails about how
pissed off they where at people that liked to only point out things
that, for one reason or other, didn't show the expected results, in
order to undermine their research. Most of the reason for the small
problems where averaged out, not excluded, by tracking *multiple* data
sources, which produce an inexact, but never the less clear, pattern,
for those periods where we have no direct measurements.
But, for more recent measurements, the data includes satellite records,
better measurements, more accurate analysis of other data types, etc.,
and they all show, even without ignoring clear evidence, like melting
ice caps, communities vanishing to permafrost melting, rising tide
levels, in places like Texas, where the anti-AGW people actually
released the paper that was written there only *after* editing out all
mention of the tide levels, and all the charts showing it had increased,
and other things that supported the idea that sea levels where rising.
Every single scientist that had their name on the thing immediately
protested, and asked to be removed as an author.
There has been no legitimate case made for any data being falsified, or
misinterpreted, save by those people that either don't want it to be
true, or the companies that would need to change practices, and the
think tanks, which those same companies *pay* to say that the evidence
doesn't support AGW (as well as paying to claim all sort of other things
that are fishy, invalid, and/or strangely convenient for their benefactors).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/1/2012 2:14 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 01/01/2012 20:53, Jim Henderson nous fit lire :
>> On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 09:04:35 -0500, John VanSickle wrote:
>>
>>>> I did not say that the planet is not getting warmer. I said that the
>>>> climate will not behave any differently. One is not the other.
>> That's not particularly logical, John. If one changes a variable, then
>> the outcome changes.
>
> I think you both agree... somehow.
> John states that the climate's rules are not changed (the reactions
> remain the same, the rules of physics are not updated).
> Jim states that the outcome will be different because the input
> variables are differents.
>
> To simplify, assume climate is a function f(x):= 3*x.
>
> John states: f(x) remains unchanged.
> Jim states: x was pi, next it is 4.
>
> Both are corrects. old f(x) was 3 pi. new f(x) will be 12.
Yeah, but, we are talking about something more complex than that.
Something that, within certain constraints, has a stable result, but
which can get far more complex, and seemingly chaotic, if you change the
variables too much. Its not like we don't know of, or see, types of
whether that is unusual any place. For example, from what I understand
there is a certain kind if high altitude cloud that is very rare, and so
high that, at night it is visible, due to reflecting sunlight from
around the curvature of the earth (where its not obviously visible from
the ground). This is, supposedly becoming more common in the last decade
or so. While it may be true that the fundamental laws stay the same, you
have two major problems. The first one is, certain uncommon results can
become more common. The second one is, if those uncommon events have
secondary effects, such as disturbing other nearby weather systems,
which they wouldn't normally, or as much, the resulting change is no
longer predictable, given *expected* results from such proximities.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/28/2011 3:18, Warp wrote:
> And humanity is doing little to help
> this, even though it's a very well known problem.
The best thing to do about this is to have fewer children. I don't see that
going down well anywhere except maybe China.
> doing all this *on purpose*.
Probably, yes.
> are not doing anything about it.
I disagree. Alternate sources and battery tech improves tremendously.
> namely the United States, seems to be going down hard in politics,
> science and education. It's showing troubling signs of turning into a
> theocracy-like totalitarian state in the near future.
Sucks hard, yes.
> - Large companies, especially those ones having intellectual properties,
> and especially the American ones, are slowly trying to take over the world.
It's helped along by the fact that the governments don't want users having
such freedoms either.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 12/28/2011 3:18, Warp wrote:
> > And humanity is doing little to help
> > this, even though it's a very well known problem.
>
> The best thing to do about this is to have fewer children. I don't see that
> going down well anywhere except maybe China.
Problem is: nutjobs have children at a far higher rate than people who value
reason. It's the same as in voting: if you abstain, you merely let others
decide your future. You're not doing your job in improving mankind. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/01/2012 08:11 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Problem is: nutjobs have children at a far higher rate than people who value
> reason.
Required XKCD quote: http://www.xkcd.com/603/
(This took me an absurd amount of time to find, BTW. Unfortunately
Google can't search images...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/3/2012 8:55 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 12/28/2011 3:18, Warp wrote:
>> And humanity is doing little to help
>> this, even though it's a very well known problem.
>
> The best thing to do about this is to have fewer children. I don't see
> that going down well anywhere except maybe China.
>
Actually, birth rates are lower among a) the educated, b) in cities, and
c) among prosperous nations. Its higher in a subset of the later, only
where a) there is poor education, b) its a rural area, c) its a poor
neighborhood. Its really bad in places where a) is nearly nonexistent,
or undermined, b) every place is rural, and c) its so poor that you need
3-4 children, to make sure there is at least one survivor.
Stupidly, a lot of both religious people, and left wing flower power
types a) have warped ideas as to what constitutes good education, b)
hate cities, or believe you should have lots of kids anyway, and c) may
not be poor enough to realize that their success at having 4-18+ kids is
**not** normal for everyone.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:35:57 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Stupidly, a lot of both religious people, and left wing flower power
> types a) have warped ideas as to what constitutes good education, b)
> hate cities, or believe you should have lots of kids anyway, and c) may
> not be poor enough to realize that their success at having 4-18+ kids is
> **not** normal for everyone.
I don't know about the 'left wing flower power types", but from a
religious standpoint, promoting large families isn't uncommon -
especially where tithing is involved. Think of it as 'increasing the tax
base'.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/4/2012 8:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:35:57 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Stupidly, a lot of both religious people, and left wing flower power
>> types a) have warped ideas as to what constitutes good education, b)
>> hate cities, or believe you should have lots of kids anyway, and c) may
>> not be poor enough to realize that their success at having 4-18+ kids is
>> **not** normal for everyone.
>
> I don't know about the 'left wing flower power types", but from a
> religious standpoint, promoting large families isn't uncommon -
> especially where tithing is involved. Think of it as 'increasing the tax
> base'.
>
> Jim
Snort. Can explain where they get the absurd idea that you shouldn't tax
the rich. Just produce more poor people, if you need more taxes, the
money will magically appear in their pockets some how, never mind that
you have 95% of it already in your own bank. Though, I suppose the ones
insisting on going back to a "gold standard" have that one solved, you
just ship off all the extra poor people to dug holes, looking for more
gold you can steal.. uh, tax them.
Suddenly the apparent complete idiocy of these people makes sick sense...
But, yeah, you might be right about the left. Most flower power types
tend to be over-pro environment, even to the point of not wanting, in
some extreme cases, to offend nature by putting another human on the planet.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:56:04 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Suddenly the apparent complete idiocy of these people makes sick
> sense...
I found that was the way to understand the LDS Church here in Utah. Big
families, encouraged by the church, along with a strongly "recommended"
10% tithe = lots of money for the church. More followers = more money.
It's not very different from looking at businesses that focus on a few
large customers vs. businesses that focus on lots of smaller businesses.
Both *can* be successful, but a company that only focuses on the Fortune
500 loses much more revenue when they lose a single customer.
> But, yeah, you might be right about the left. Most flower power types
> tend to be over-pro environment, even to the point of not wanting, in
> some extreme cases, to offend nature by putting another human on the
> planet.
Kinda like religions that practice celibacy. Those tend not to grow a
whole lot after a generation or two.....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/4/2012 13:42, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> (This took me an absurd amount of time to find, BTW. Unfortunately Google
> can't search images...)
... yet. ;-)
This is one of the reasons so many web comic have transcriptions at the bottom.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/01/2012 06:17 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 1/4/2012 13:42, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> (This took me an absurd amount of time to find, BTW. Unfortunately Google
>> can't search images...)
>
> ... yet. ;-)
Oh come on, OCR is still an unsolved research problem. Plus I doubt they
have the compute capacity necessary.
> This is one of the reasons so many web comic have transcriptions at the
> bottom.
If you mean "so many" as in "the cardinality of the complement of the
set of comics that I read", then sure...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/12/2011 11:18 AM, Warp wrote:
> Why does it feel like the near future is going to suck hard? Let's see:
>
> - The climate is going so bad that in 50 to 100 years we will most probably
> be totally screwed, if not even sooner. And humanity is doing little to help
> this, even though it's a very well known problem.
I'm not so certain about this "doing little to help" part.
You could certainly argue "not doing ENOUGH to help". But I don't think
it's accurate to say that nobody is doing ANYTHING.
Heck, we banned CFCs, right? And the hole in the ozone layer is actually
shrinking now as a direct result of this. That's one small victory.
> - There's little question anymore that the global economy is going to crash
> hard in the very near future.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
> - We are going to run out of oil in the near fugure. We know this, and we
> know that when it happens, the economy will collapse even harder. The
> economic crisis of the 1920's will be child's play in comparison. Yet we
> are not doing anything about it.
Again, "not doing anything about it" is perhaps not an accurate summary.
Plenty of people seem to be looking into alternatives. It's just that
oil is cheap, and anything new will be expensive.
It's difficult to believe that oil companies don't know that the oil is
running out. It seems likely that when the oil becomes too expensive, a
"format war" between different alternatives will likely result, and if
so, it is incontrovertible that whoever ends up backing the right
"format" will end up making a crapload of money. And every big oil
company is going to want that to be them, not their competitors. So I'm
sure they're all doing some serious homework right now. (Probably in
secret, for the most part. Don't want to give the game away, right?)
> - One of the most influential countries in the world (a country that
> heavily influences the economy and politics of the rest of the world),
> namely the United States, seems to be going down hard in politics,
> science and education.
Yeah, I'm with you on that one. Perhaps it's only a vocal minority who
are morons. I don't know, I'm not there.
That said, there was a time when England ruled [most of] the world. We
had some of the greatest scientists and engineers the world has ever
seen, we practically /invented/ industry, we had political control of
vast amounts of land, and so forth.
Today, England is nobody. Great Britain is no longer great. We're just
another unimportant European country that most people won't even notice.
We no longer manufacture anything. We no longer design anything. We're
just a nation of useless "service companies". (Douglas Adams' "useless
third" of the population.)
There was a time when the USA ruled the world. Maybe that time is
passing now also? Or maybe this whole thing is a minor hiccup. Who can
say? (And who will be the next superpower? China? India? Korea?)
> - European countries have also been steadily going downwards in terms of
> freedom, democracy and the wellbeing of its citizens, also mostly for
> religious reasons. However, in this case the religion is not Christianity
> but naive multiculturalism. A revolution (to either direction of the
> political spectrum) is inevitable in the near future.
I do not share your pessimism.
Note that these words come to you from a pessimist of legendary
magnitude. ;-)
> - Large companies, especially those ones having intellectual properties,
> and especially the American ones, are slowly trying to take over the world.
Yeah, it is slightly ridiculous how content producers seem to think that
the way to stop illegal copying is to demand ever more power to control
people's lives. Rather than, you know, make it easier to LEGALLY obtain
said content.
Or, depending on how cynical: It's slightly ridiculous how content
producers think that they can trick people into giving them awesome
powers by pretending that such a thing is "necessary" in order to
"combat piracy".
> Sometimes I'm glad I don't have children. I don't have to worry about
> them growing in a world that is plummeting fast into total chaos.
I'm glad I don't have children, for a somewhat different reason... Every
time I go to the shops and some little kid is standing there screaming
"mommy, I want! I want! I want!", I feel a deep-seated urge to grab the
kid and violently beat him repeatedly until only shattered bones and
torn flesh remains. I gather legal authorities don't take kindly to this
kind of behaviour. o_O
At any rate, dire predictions of doom used to worry me. After decades of
hearing them, they now worry me somewhat less. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
