Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Heh... (Score 1) 95

by khallow (#48427193) Attached to: The Software Big Oil's PR Firm Uses To "Convert Average Citizens"
No, it's not. That billion dollars a year comes from a paper that claims $900 million "cumulative" spending per year by a large group of conservative groups which turn out to spend a lot of that money on other things. And as that blog post notes, the top three groups (the biggest two of which account for 30% of the alleged spending) rarely comment on climate issues. The blog also notes that the top two groups by spending support carbon taxes, which is kind of an odd target for climate "counter-movement" propaganda spending. The author claims 25% of the "counter-movement" money goes to "think tanks supporting global warming restrictions".

The author find only $68 million explicitly opposing global warming activism while $22 million supports the same. That's not only a bit shy of $900 million a year, it also is suspicious in its substantial incoherence on the subject of climate change.

In comparison, the author notes the presence of five environmental groups with $1.6 billion per year in spending and a far more aggressive and coherent climate change message.

So no, that isn't the number from the blog post that the GGP linked to.

Comment: Re:Capitalism does not reward morality (Score 1) 189

by khallow (#48426611) Attached to: Is a Moral Compass a Hindrance Or a Help For Startups?

You having value doesn't mean he or his friends want to trade with you for your value.

The problem with this argument is that your assertion doesn't happen in practice.

Besides, one scenario GP mentioned is the orphaned infant. How much labor can they offer?

Quite a bit over their lifetime.

And as mentioned above, infants can't consent to your aid. Even if somebody does decide to care for the infant, they have to infringe on the infant's freedom to do it. They had to make decisions for the infant. Even if it's in the infant's interest to have somebody make decisions for her, her freedom was still infringed.

If they can't consent or act on their own interests, then they don't have present freedom to infringe upon. Since they can be expected in the future to become human adults, able to act on their interests, then our present actions can infringe on their future freedom.

I think that's the point. The GGP's claim was that capitalism in a free market system is the most moral way to run an economy. In the scenario GP presented, they have capitalism in a free market system, yet it is not the most moral society, as we have people like you (orphaned infants) getting screwed.

No, that poster merely showed the potential for immoral action, ie, that the free market system might not, under very contrived circumstances be perfectly morally. Instead, to prove the above assertion, one needs to come up with an approach that works better than the free market in the moral sense of the original poster.

I think we can think of better examples than that. After all, the structure of almost all markets in the first place assumes the presence of immoral behavior in the participants of that market. And externalities are by definition the ways trades in markets can impose on others without their consent. Finally, what isn't traded on a market tends to be invisible to that market (unless there is an obvious proxy). As they say, money can't buy happiness.

Comment: Re:Capitalism does not reward morality (Score 1) 189

by khallow (#48424351) Attached to: Is a Moral Compass a Hindrance Or a Help For Startups?

Suppose I and my friends have all the money, all the property, and all the food, and you don't have any of it. What exactly are you free to do?/quote> In the real world, I do have something you or your friends value - my labor.

Second, if you and your friends have all that power and no interest in helping me, then who will impose on your freedom for me? If society universally decides not to support me, then I don't get that support. Any imposition on society to help me comes because someone wants to help me. In that case, they could just help me directly and cut out the very expensive middle man.

Comment: Re:Wrong and irrelevant as well (Score 1) 489

by khallow (#48424317) Attached to: Rooftop Solar Could Reach Price Parity In the US By 2016

Funny thing is your "point" just moved from size to if it can be seen

Welcome to the thread. My first response was to a post speaking of "eyesore" complaints about wind turbines. Visibility is the number one consideration above size because would-be neighbors are far less likely to complain about an "eyesore", if they can't actually see it.

Comment: Oh, for a successor to Open Moko (Score 3, Interesting) 52

I'm still waiting for a truly open-source, unlocked, user-controllable phone. Like a successor to Open Moko. (Building a closed platform on a base of open software doesn't cut it.)

Is anything out there or in the works?

(It's particularly acute for me just now: My decade-old feature phone started to flake out last week.)

Comment: Re:Wrong and irrelevant as well (Score 1) 489

by khallow (#48424043) Attached to: Rooftop Solar Could Reach Price Parity In the US By 2016

As for coal mines, look up "open cut" instead of using that imagination.

No reason to. My point stands. They aren't doing coal mingin in urban areas and even if they were, it's not going to result in highly visible structures that you can see from a great distance.

I did some work at a plant adjacent to a small city where a very stupid fuckup with the scrubbers overnight had resulted in weak nitric acid condensing out on every car in town which ruined the paint and cost a fortune in compensation. It's a very bad idea to put a coal fired plant of any size near a town for many reasons, including land costs for a large footprint.

One can get similar scaled risks with fires in buildings. It isn't uncommon for things to have low probability but high damage risks associated with them. That doesn't mean you can't do them in urban areas. You just need to address the risks first.

Comment: Re:Heh... (Score 1) 95

by khallow (#48422527) Attached to: The Software Big Oil's PR Firm Uses To "Convert Average Citizens"
Using the "astroturf" label to describe large public movements is just a silly ad hominem argument. Feel free to rationalize whatever you'd like, but this strikes me as an indication of considerable ignorance on your part. I think a better course of action would be for you to understand the viewpoints you downplay as astroturf.

For example, the US's EPA is part of the same government as the NSA or the US military. It uses different heavy-handed, often extra-legal tactics, but the same bureaucratic indifference for the welfare of the individual (and often, rule of law) is evident. The abuses of government aren't concentrated just in a few divisions we don't like.

The libertarian weighs the risks differently with government actions considered more dangerous and harmful than business actions. I side with that interpretation. No business has sovereign immunity, a captive revenue stream like taxpayers, or the raw power (on numerous levels) than government wields.

Comment: I installed ubuntu 14.04 on my BBBs (Score 1) 521

by Ungrounded Lightning (#48421087) Attached to: Debian Votes Against Mandating Non-systemd Compatibility

I don't see why your BeagleBone black example is systemd's fault. It has a convoluted way of managing network interfaces because it uses connman, a network-management daemon from Intel that is not part of systemd.

I installed ubuntu 14.04 on my BBBs. (Had to upgrade the kernel a little later because the 3.13.0 kernel wasn't ported to arm-on-bone in time to go out with the original 14.04 distribution and the 2.whatever they shipped didn't handle a class of USB device I needed, but it's fine now at 3.13.6-bone8.)

Changing to a specified, fixed, IP address was just a matter of editing /etc/network/interfaces, which was commented well enough (in combination with the man page on my ubuntu laptop) to make it easy.

(Main problem was that DeviceTree overlays weren't supported by 3.13.0-6, so I had to hack the boot-time base device tree to reconfigure for the onboard device functionality I wanted, rather than just overlaying the deltas during or just after the boot procerss.)

Comment: Re:Time Capsule ? (Score 1) 69

B: Rely on people to chop them and do their best to make the smallest possible cut. Then don't even get me started on the really careful manipulation involved to not lose one of those super small cut of hair.

This. It's a half a billion British Pounds budget. They can afford this modest effort. If you spend an hour per strand of hair, that's only 25 man-years to handle 50,000 hair strands. Even at 100k pounds per man-year cost, that would be 2.5 million pounds in labor costs. I don't see the problem.

Comment: Re:uh, no? (Score 1) 337

by khallow (#48419315) Attached to: Alleged Satellite Photo Says Ukraine Shootdown of MH17

It was not rumor but fact

No, I googled this. It was rumor.

What valid pretext are you talking about exactly? That US "think-tank" groups pumped tons of money into the Euromaiden movement? That pro-Russian civilians are and were being killed by Kiev? Be more clear on this, because this is a lengthy discussion with many points and none match your particular verbiage.

Exactly. There's no valid pretext even if those accusations are correct.

"Those who will be able to conquer software will be able to conquer the world." -- Tadahiro Sekimoto, president, NEC Corp.