Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:In a Self-Driving Future--- (Score 1) 307

by khallow (#48446391) Attached to: In a Self-Driving Future, We May Not Even Want To Own Cars
Recall an AC wrote:

I'm not aware of any law that says I must shave and talk on the phone while driving. I believe it's the reverse.

and then you wrote:

Yeah, and I hear a lot of people say they are 'law abiding' when they are not. They glide through stop signs, go a few miles over the limit, tailgate like crazy, 'little' things they are not even conscious of. Human drivers are still dangerous. Driverless cars aren't ready for prime time, but they will be. Removing the human element can only be a good thing. --

The point, made over and over again, is that a law abiding driver is a safe driver. Not a law breaking driver who says they're "law abiding". I'm tired of idiots including you making the claim that because some people can't drive, then no one should drive.

For example, roughly a third of all highway deaths involve a driver over the mild intoxication threshold and a number involve heavily intoxicated people behind the wheel killing other people. Does that mean as a result everyone drives drunk and kills people just because a "lot of people" (in your words) do?

As to your equally pointless observation that human drivers are dangerous, so is anything else that drives. Driving is an inherently dangerous activity no matter who is driving. Else you wouldn't even be peddling this safety argument in the first place.

I sympathize. The internet is "bizarro world". But you could make it better by thinking about what you write.

Comment: Re:Mistaken Western-centric thinking about China (Score 1) 107

Yes, this! The CCP first priority is to ensure grip on power for the CCP, by the CCP. They do reach out to their own universities smartest and brightest to offer a position though. But such intelligence and brainpower is used to play the game. Today your friend is your sworn enemy tomorrow. Backstabbing is the name of the game in the CCP as I understand it (from others). And like a gang or mafia, once your in, your IN baby. Someone, will hold you for blackmail; even if the entire reason is made us BS. Fuck up in the CCP by not towing the party line, and your buttons will be pushed to self-destruction. It's at that point your rank and file will be less than an average Chinese citizen.

This is why Communism (Leninism specifically) is REALLY RALLY BAD!!

Comment: Re:Too weak because humans are not the cause (Score 1) 77

by hairyfeet (#48446203) Attached to: Prospects Rise For a 2015 UN Climate Deal, But Likely To Be Weak

You want ties to industry? How about cap and trade being written by the same geniuses that gave us credit default swaps? At the end of the day you can wave whatever flag you want because the only "solutions" being pushed are nothing but a reverse robin hood scam where the actual polluters get carbon "indulgences" while those that can't afford to offshore their wealth get royally fucked in the ass to benefit the 1%...surprise surprise, the rich getting richer by stealing what few cents out of each dollar they don't already hoard.

Its nothing but a case of "tighten your belt peasant to save teh earf!" being sold to ya by guys like Rev Al Gore who sips his wine while riding in a fleet of SUVs to his McMansion...but he is "green" because he pays himself carbon credits from his own company LOL! It just shows you how badly the greenies have been had, when a guy can take money from his left pocket and put it in his right and get credit (as well as a tax break) for being "carbon neutral" LOL!

Comment: Re:no hope for political solution (Score 1) 77

by phantomfive (#48445311) Attached to: Prospects Rise For a 2015 UN Climate Deal, But Likely To Be Weak

I've never met anyone who can argue successfully against action on climate in an open debate.

Well, since you are being the judge of 'successful,' I'm not surprised you've never seen that. You are no different than most people in that you don't like to lose your own argument.

In the case of climate change, people and politicians are happy to help the environment. You will rarely see a politician who says he wants to hurt the environment.

It's only when you get down to specific propositions that people object. How much are you willing to help the environment? Are you willing to double the price of gas (to decrease demand)? Are you willing to significantly increase your electric bill? The answer to these for most people is no, they aren't.

But if it's just 'doing something', sure, I'm in favor of 'doing something,' as long as it doesn't negatively effect me.

Comment: Re:Prof. Yunus "Creating a World Without Poverty" (Score 0) 79

by DNS-and-BIND (#48445153) Attached to: How "Big Ideas" Are Actually Hurting International Development

First of all, your dig at the Nobel Peace Prize is racist, you just can't stand that a black man won it in 2009 and you'll go to any length to criticize him.

Second, that pro-capitalist bullshit is a bunch of bullshit, stop cheerleading for Danone and other multinational corporations. The sooner they are driven out of business, the better.

Third, the whole "money-lender" thing is anti-Semitic, and this is the nail in the coffin of your whole gestalt. Yeah, you didn't actually say "Jews" but then again you didn't need to, you made it quite clear. Please stop speaking in public.

Comment: Re:For those who found TFA to be TLDR (Score 1) 79

by phantomfive (#48444709) Attached to: How "Big Ideas" Are Actually Hurting International Development

Scientific replication and generalization requires multiple studies of competing hypotheses.

Or better, test your aid to make sure it's actually working. A technique could work in multiple studies of competing hypotheses and still not work later on.

But if you are spending millions of dollars without checking how well it's working, why not?

but you could turn it around the other way and say that fads involving big ideas are hurting science as well

I'm not sure that's relevant. Deworming kids isn't exactly a big idea.

Comment: no hope for political solution (Score 1) 77

by phantomfive (#48444681) Attached to: Prospects Rise For a 2015 UN Climate Deal, But Likely To Be Weak
The only way to reduce carbon emissions is to improve our technology to the point that non-emitting technologies are cheaper than emitting technologies. Electric cars, etc.

The reason politicians won't come to a meaningful agreement is because the population doesn't want it. Most people aren't willing to give up their car (or even double the price of gas) for the sake of global warming.

It would be easier to get everyone to agree to switch to nuclear energy than to agree to meaningful limits on CO2 emissions, and you should be familiar with how difficult of a political problem that is. People don't want to switch to nuclear because of.........actually I don't really know why, but even in countries that actually want to do something about CO2 (like Germany) are switching away from nuclear, so that tells you how hard the problem is.

Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson

Working...