Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re: "...need to be prepared..." (Score 1) 366

Come on now.

Rich people pay the carbon tax, too. Probably more then poor people (it takes a lot to heat a McMansion and fuel the SUV/sensible car/fun car combo) in absolute terms, if not relative terms.

The Carbon tax is intended to do a lot more then prevent floods. It also deals with droughts and forest fires. And guess who hunts a lot, and will be in trouble if there's a drought?

Comment Re: "...need to be prepared..." (Score 1) 366

I didn't mean to imply it was, certainly not about the people. If we cared about the people the whole Katrina mess would not have been allowed to get so bad. The levee would have been fixed, the Marines flown in with a bevy of small watercraft to rescue people so the National guard could truck them to hastily set-up refugee centers on Day 2, etc.

What we care about is their property right to have a house on precisely the exact plot of land they have the deed to. We will not violate that property right by turning the entire damn neighborhood into a national park, no matter what.

Always remember, before Thomas Jefferson got to it the battle cry was "Liberty and Property."

Comment Re:There's truth on both sides here (Score 1) 1030

1. I never said you were. I said white guys like them really don't get why anyone with a modicum of manners doesn't make up a word, apply to everyone who disagrees with them, and then act offended when they act offended.

Note that what they're doing is the same thing as you imply I'm doing with race: you're saying that whenever I hear something I disagree with I call it racist no matter what the actual argument is. What they're doing is whenever I say something they disagree with, they say "that's social justice bullshit."

Thank you for proving my point.

2. Who cares whether you "let me" do it. The fact is their slate got rejected by their own voters due to a combination of their over-aggressive tactics and Vox Day. That is what actually happened. Several were quoted at the awards ceremony saying they agreed with many Sad Puppy arguments but voted No Award anyway. The Sad Puppy point lost partly because it was being argued by a guy everyone hates. This is not uncommon. It is the reason nobody has asked Dubya's endorsement for anything since he left the White House.

3. The only social justice movements in the 60s were against sexism and racism. In fact they actually called themselves that back then. If you don't want me to believe you don't oppose the Civil Right movement don't a) say you want shit to be like it was back then, and b) deride your opponents as being Social Justice anything.

Hell if you want to actually have an exchange of ideas at any level don't use that term. You made it up as a slur, which means my response to hearing you say it is not gonna be "he's probably a nice guy, I have a moral duty to give him the benefit of the doubt." It's gonna be "fuck that guy." Particularly if that guy is in any way associated with Vox Day.

4. And what possible rule change can eliminate brigading at voting? It's trivial to do it in nominations. You could restrict everyone to three nominations and still have five nominees. You could eliminate the fan-nomination process completely and have a committee of winners determine the nominee list, or have the guy who runs the con write the nominee list. Any one of those rules makes the Sad Puppy system technique virtually impossible. But you can't have a rule that says "you can't vote for that guy for short story AND that other guy for novel because we found a website advocating both of them" without banning all fan voting or adding a whole bunch of by-laws to prevent the Sad Puppies from producing a bunch of fake internet slates combining all possible combinations of ballot that they dislike.

Which puts this in a completely different tradition: that of trolls dominating something for a short time period, getting themselves banned, and then declaring victory anyway because "we made our point, and we didn't want to not be banned anyway."

Comment Re: "...need to be prepared..." (Score 2) 366

Because New Orleans and Miami are already mighty close to being drowned at high tide, and doing the logical and cheap thing (moving them to Detroit, which has perfectly fine water resources, is 500-600 feet above sea level, has plenty of space to build new housing, and no hurricane issues) is a political non-starter.

Moreover these estimates aren't really shrinking, so it's entirely possible that in 2115 mSparks43 III will read that comment and say "Geez, grandad sure was wrong about what would happen to Lady Liberty."

Comment Re:Alaska (Score 1) 198

[joke] That bits on your side of the border. It's your problem. [/joke]

That was hyperbole. Niagara Falls does exist, but in terms of the bit of the lakes that the US uses, almost none of it is anywhere near the Falls. It's very easy for most American cities to use up their water supply because the place water goes is not a place you can easily get freshwater from. Phoenix's mostly goes to the sky as evaporation, and will come down somewhere that is not Arizona, LA and NYC send theirs to the ocean. Cities on rivers tend to send it downriver. But Chicago actually gets it's water from the same place it discharges it's wastewater. Detroit (which is downlake two Great Lakes, Lake St. Clair, and a couple rivers from Chicago) both gets it's water from the lake system and gives it back to the Lake system. You don't get to a point where the US Side of the border actually loses a gallon of water somebody uses until you hit Buffalo.

That means it takes a lot more water-use before we use up the lake.

Comment Re:Alaska (Score 1) 198

But the question wasn't "Are they gonna be in some trouble?" Everybody's in some trouble (except Alaska and, mayhaps, the Great Lakes). It's "Are they in more trouble then everyone else?"

And the cities of the Pacific Northwest are probably fine, because that constant mist of rain off the ocean probably won't change, so in theory they don't *have* to ration water (they almost certainly will anyway because Portland). The interior is less fine, but it's not really more un-fine then Idaho, the Imperial Valley, or any of another half-dozen places.

Comment Re:Alaska (Score 1) 198

Two points:

1) Unlike many watersheds, particularly towards the coast, it's a closed system except for evaporation. Chicago water comes from, and goes to, the same lake. This water is then available for Chicago again, or (more likely) can be pumped into Michigan for irrigation, Milwaukee's water system, etc. And then it proceeds through Huron, Erie, and Ontario; and is usable by Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, etc. etc.

2) The lakes contain a fifth of the world's fresh water. The watershed population them contain much less then a fifth of the human race (by my count it's 1% or so, it's hard to do more precisely because the political borders do not match up to the hydrological borders).

Which means we'd have to be using as truly ridiculous amount of water before the fact it was in the fields irrigating Cherries (and not in the lake) started affecting the lake-level in any measurable way; and we'd have to keep doing it for literally decades before we got to Cali-levels of fucked by global warming.

Comment Re:Alaska (Score 4, Informative) 198

If you're gonna divide it up like that the Great Lakes bit of the Midwest should have no shortage, either. The prairie bit of the Midwest is in much bigger trouble because the Oglala Aquifer is being drawn down too much, and the Mississippi is probably gonna be schizo with more evaporation (ie: lots of heat meaning more evaporation, and some years the rain'll come down within the Mississippi valley and they'll have too much, and others it won't and they'll have too little). The Pacific Northwest should also be fine.

I suspect the South, Southwest, and Cali will have the biggest problems.

No idea about the Northeast.

Comment Re:There's truth on both sides here (Score 1) 1030

1. White people really are fucking clueless about how they sound to anyone else, probably largely because we don't have to talk to anyone else in a context where they can get away with calling us assholes to our faces. The Sad Puppies call themselves Sad Puppies, except for Vox Days faction who prefer the term "rabid puppies." Their logo is a sad puppy. If I wanted to do what they did, and make up some insulting phrase to dismiss their entire argument, it would actually be pretty easy. They're fighting, and they called me a warrior, so warrior would probably be in it. They explicitly admit that they want SciFi to be like it was in the 60s and 70s, when the only white people in it were Uhura and Sulu. So they really don't want me to make up a bunch of words about them.

As for the brigading issue, look at the reform proposals. They're not doing anything about brigading in voting, they're doing something about brigading in the nomination system. The Sad Puppies have never said the nomination system was rigged (every year at least one Puppy-approved work has been on the final ballot), they've said the actual voting was rigged. That's why they tried to keep all non-Puppies-approved work off the ballot this year, rather then settling for a couple works in each category like they did last year.

Which means the Hugos are now changing the rules to protect the bit of the process that (the puppies say) is rigged, from the process the puppies use to de-rig the awards.

Comment Re:There's truth on both sides here (Score 1) 1030

1. I'd believe that somebody who'd been trolled by Vox Day repeatedly might decide to throw the label back in his face. Day's that kind of guy. But, as someone who was on the board of one of the state-level groups that helped push for ObamaCare, I think I'm pretty well informed on how progressive activists refer to themselves. And I can assure you that nobody uses the word "warrior." Somebody somewhere (particularly in the more "I-have-a-PhD-so-you're-stupid" wing) might use the phrase "social justice," but "equality" and "fairness" are much more common.

2. "Clouds of association?" If I started putting the gun-rights guys (and in my experience gun rights ladies are rarer then black conservatives), the pro-life activists, and libertarians all under the same label I'd be an asshole. I've done it before, and I'll do it again, because it's a useful activism tool (people get more worked up about opposing Right-Wing Loonies then they do some reasonable term), but that doesn't mean I'll be right in an objective sense of the term. And those groups are as tightly allied as the so-called SJWs. More tightly aligned then gays and blacks -- those three groups really seem to understand how each-other thing, whereas I have never met a non-black gay-rights activists who has any clue how black people think.

3/4 When Vox Day is involved brigading against him is inevitable. At the actual con more then one attendee was quoted saying they agreed with the puppies, but hated their tactics/Vox Dayish personality so much they'd voted No Award.

Drawing conclusions about the nature of Hugo voting from this is roughly as sensible as drawing conclusions about French elections from that time La Pen managed to squeak through the first round and got whipped by Chirac.

Comment Re:There's truth on both sides here (Score 1) 1030

The way you're using the phrase "SJWs" makes little sense. It's not like anybody would answer the question "Are you a Social Justice Warrior?" with a yes. Gay rights activist, black lives matter activist, progressive, those would all get somebody to say yes, and all three probably have pretty significant overlap with people you'd call Social Justice Warriors, but in general the whole concept of Social Justice Warrior is something that is entirely made up by their opponents.

In this case, for example, there's no progressive slate at the Hugo's. Never has been. There's a Fuck Vox Day vote, but the Fuck Vox Day vote includes a lot of people Vox Day supported strongly enough to get Hugo Nominations.

Comment Re:There's truth on both sides here (Score 1) 1030

Whether Card could win would depend on what WorldCon attendees thought, and quite a few of them don't seem to mind conservative authors. Mike Resnick has gotten five, for example.

I suspect that if Card did something really, truly great, and didn't include any overt anti-gay stuff, it would be virtually impossible to beat him. He's OSC, and the extremely gray WorldCon audience is probably not very gay. It could easily turn out like the Sad Puppies campaign -- piss off all the voters for bringing politics into their little world and fail miserably.

Comment Re:SJW prove the SP's point (Score 1) 1030

I doubt Weber's ever campaigned. He doesn't go to WorldCon. Most Baen authors don't bother. Eric Flint went, but he did it specifically to oppose the Sad Puppies slate.

He was there because the Sad Puppy story did not add up. If the Sad Puppies'd wanted the best story to win, why did they nominate a full slate? That prevents anyone who isn't on the Sad Puppy side from having any influence. That, combined with the presence of Vox Day (who, BTW, declared victory with the No Awards on the basis that his point the entire time was to ruin the Hugos), is a major reason why No Award beat their entire slate. The logical thing for them to do next year is nominate one or two in each category, and stay far the fuck away from a guy who openly wants to destroy the awards.

And, again, as I mentioned this is SciFi. It is about the future. A story about the future that does not include gays is not a good story, because we all know perfectly well that gays are not going away.

Comment Re:SJW prove the SP's point (Score 1) 1030

1. So you're not an academic, but you're trying to "analyze the event" while simultaneously convincing people you strongly disagree with to change their minds?

That's a PhD-level combination of sounding smart while being totally ineffective right there.

2. If it's a term the person you're talking with does not use, in their everyday lives, it is jargon to them.

4. It's pretty simple. The official name of the act ("Affordable Care Act") has never stuck. That makes it jargon in most of the country, which means that a pol talking about the Affordable Care Act dilutes his message with a strong dose of "thinks he's smarter then me." If he's Obama, and the popular name is "ObamaCare," it gets worse because it sounds like he's trying to avoid taking credit for his signature domestic accomplishment.

You talk with your audience at their level, not above their heads.

Comment Re:SJW prove the SP's point (Score 1) 1030

Actually it was conservatives who first called it Obamacare.

I believe if you try to exercise some reading comprehension you'll discover that was my point.

Conservatives were calling it ObamaCare, which was sticking with a sufficiently large slice of the general public that Obama had to do the same.

Prototype designs always work. -- Don Vonada