Not really, no. It remains neither an actual poll nor a random sample, and the selection biases are completely unknown.
My complaint is that the 97% draws an invalid link between abstracts written and opinion. 99.999% of scientists have an opinion on AGW; that doesnt mean they have written a paper on that. The way you determine that is to do a random sample poll, not to use a selection-biased sample and draw faulty conclusions on it.
That 97% number IS bull, and its right there in the link you provided, under abstract:
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
So of the abstracts which discuss global warming, 97% support AGW. Except, you would not call that an unbiased sample, nor would that be an acceptable selection criteria in any other poll, ever.
I generally nope out of any AGW conversation because theyre cesspools of illogic, ad hominems, and general idiocy, but come on. That 97% claim is like saying "97%*** of CoD players hate the game (***- 97% of players posting negative posts on the message boards)".
Any idiot off the street with a copy of Windows has access to Powershell and 90% of the
It IS accessible. Every copy of Windows since 2006 has included Powershell, which is one of the easiest to learn things you will ever come across, and it can handle 99% of the tasks your average non-programmer user will ever want to do, from simple GUI's with scripted events, to excel automation, to bulk administrative work. Theres even an IDE for it built right into windows.
Im not an OSX guy but I understand things are pretty similar over there, with whatever OSX uses (Applescript?), and Im pretty sure most Linux distros come with Perl or Python (if not theyre a 1-liner away).
If you're not finding those scripting languages accessible enough, you dont care enough about the project you want to do. Alternatively, maybe some people just dont naturally have a gift for the type of thought process required by programming-- and I dont think that needs to be a "problem".
We are using OSI. Forget about UDP, and layer 2 protocols other than ethernet?
Most people can ignore most of OSI, but its still there. Signal recieved by interface, layer 1 signalling is removed, layer 2 headers are removed, layer 2 headers are re-written, layer 1 signalling is reapplied, signal sent out.
"et" IS a word in latin. The "C" is the abbreviation. Et c.
For example, much wealth in the early days of the US was built on the backs of the slaves. That's not capitalism.
...And wiped out in the great depression, and rebuilt in World War 2. That IS capitalism.
For the record, the North had quite the booming economy even without slave labor, even before slavery was abolished.
Communism relies on a breed of human that doesnt exist: One that is perfectly rational, selfless, and lacking any sort of vice.
When you find one of those, maybe we can start talking about communism.
How many times do you have to hear someone say "hey I have a great idea", and listen to him, and then watch a million people starve to death, before you're just being an idiot for listening to them?
Appealing to some mythological communism that apparently hasnt been gotten right after some dozen attempts and some 100 million dead in the process doesnt engender a whole lot of trust that you'll pull it off the next time.
And for the record, int he past 150 years (or even the past 50 years) the average salary, standard of living, level of education, and level of technology have all drastically risen. We havent hit a problem yet despite 150 years of luddites decrying the end of the world as we know it.
I dont think you have the knack of how technological progress interacts with standards of living. You seem to think that increased efficiency necessitates an increase in poverty, when historically the opposite has been true.
Alternatively: Panama canal engineers deign to use heavy machinery rather than workers equipped with spoons! How will ditch diggers make a living?!?!?!
The Australia project, on the other hand, is not meant to be communist
* Everyone gets an equal share. The only semblence of an economy is the fact that everyone gets 1000 credits.
* Everyone controls the means of production
* No one is required to do a specific amount of work: its all "whatever you can chip in"
That sounds a lot like communism to me.
Saying "dont call it communism, cause that conjures up all the horrific attempts at it in the real world" is a bit too idealistic for me. Looking at the track record for an idea and its implementation seems like a pretty good indicator of how healthy it is.
There were lots of benefits to the plug-in setup. The primary social justification for the setup was to prevent bad behavior/crime.
That anyone can hear / say something like that without shudders running up their spine is amazing to me. I would be doubly dumbfounded if you told me you had read 1984.
Reeducation is one of those things that sounds great in theory, until you get down to what it would actually entail.
If you're using the word "good" (in the moral sense) to mean "things that benefit me", you have made it meaningless. People talk of the holocaust being "bad", even if it did not personally affect them; but by your meaning you simply wouldnt attach any moral judgement to it unless you happened to be a Jew or Romani.
Its a strange thing that Communism tends to be espoused by folks who seem to be well informed and intelligent, but who invariably miss the fact that it attracts the sort of people who make it not work (authoritarians).
Also, Communist China came close. It failed for MANY reasons, and authoritarianism wasnt it. Farmland was redistributed so that farmers could do their farming for all, but farmers tended to sell the farmland for a quick payout. Communal kitchens were set up, but they tended to lower the quality of life for people involved. Systems for generating vast quantities of steel were implemented, but because there was no output--earning link, the steel tended to be worthless pig iron.
People keep saying "it just hasnt been done right" but communism was happening in a very pure form in China for several years after the revolution and it simply doesnt work; people starve to death, well before the Big Bad Authoritarians come in. The fact that they come in eventually is a symptom of the underlying illness. And the worst of the atrocities are due to the fact that Communism requires EVERYONE to buy into the system, which results in things like the killing fields or the Cultural Revolution, necessary to purge those nasty subversive capitalist tendencies.
Theres no way you can cut it where Communism isnt a plague on humanity. People are not fluffy bunnies who have lost their way; they are self-interested, and generally not good folk, and appealing to an economic system that requires selfless devotion to the greater good is a delusional pipe dream.