Says the AC.
Let's not add a mechanism for retaliation.
Says the AC.
Let's not add a mechanism for retaliation.
A visual distinction for new comments loaded, if I "Check for New Comments". I would like it to be a little easier to find the new comments that were added. A shading change on the subject line or on the border would suffice; something small. Just some visual cue to let me know that this comment was added after the initial page load and/or "Load all Comments". I would think it would only work for "Check for New Comments" because (like this thread) 250+ comments be marked as "new".
A number of times I read all the comments on an interesting subject and at the end I want to see what was added after (could be a lot or few). I "Check for new Comments" and I spend most of my time re-reading the same stuff to try and find the new comments.
Cheers and best of luck.
You are missing the point to limit the power of the people as well. The whole system in the USA is predicated on a distrust of power on any group or institution. It's the same reason why many federal judges are appointed, like SCOTUS. It doesn't matter what whims curry favor with the majority. They can judge the law without backlash of popular morality (we have seen this recently with Scalia in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin).
The people have rights and responsibilities, just like the Executive/Congressional/Judicial branch, and one of their powers is guns or the threat of violence.
Do you want a micro-apology? How many micro-fucks should be given? I think you should cry a micro-bridge, build a micro-bridge and get over it.
Is micro-aggressive behavior == not really aggressive? Inconsequential aggression? Not really passive yet not really aggressive?
How many micro-aggression's does it take to make an aggression? I think we need 999999 micro-aggression's before a standard aggression can be determined for offense to be taken. Not sure, I will have to double check the Easily Offended Guide to be sure.
Lol, how do you get around with such thin skin that "micro aggressive" behavior creates a "toxic environment". Maybe a micro-toxic environment but that can be achieved by your standard grammar/spelling Nazi.
Grow some micro-thick skin already.
Glad to see that you are so quick to dismiss a persons civil liberties without due process because they were depressed.
I think we should extend this to the press. Rush Limbaugh was popping pills; he shouldn't have the ability to speak on the media any more. I see Glenn Beck crying on TV, that means mentally unstable that means he shouldn't have the right to speak. Thinking about it, someone "mentally unstable" doesn't need a lawyer; they need to be put in a hospital. They don't need a jury trial of their peers; they need a psyche evaluation by a panel of "experts".
You are the type of gun control prick that scares me the most. You turn any excuse into a scapegoat to undermine the rights and liberties guaranteed to us all. When will that excuse be used to circumvent other rights?
Who cares about innocent until proven guilty. Listen and believe amiright? Someone at one time who was depressed did something bad therefore all depressed people are bad. Hitler had a mustache and Stalin had a mustache... Therefore Tom Selleck is a murderer.
Fuck you prick.
Holy false equivalence batman!
You're an idiot. How many people have been killed by AGW? How many will die? How many people have a better lifestyle because of cheap energy and industrialization?
It does address your points because you want to use historical data on emissions to determine who "foots which part of the bill to right the wrongs." That is the whole point. If you want to argue that western economies are stronger and can pay more, ok. If you want to argue that the current leading polluters should pay more, ok. But my whole contention is using historical emissions data to determine who foots the bill is not the right thing to do.
Insofar as their action in pursuit of better life for themselves caused harm for other people down the line (yes, even 100 years later), they're liable for that harm, collectively.
They're dead. Their pursuit gave you and billions of others on the planet a better lifestyle, where does that factor in your 1st world guilt?
I'm not saying that Industrial Revolution was bad
You make it sound bad, "right the wrongs". But yet, you dismiss the wrongs that were righted.
Metaphorically speaking, the West has found a bunch of credit cards 200 years ago,
No, just no. Way to oversimple/dismiss history and economics. What part of your analogy takes into account the saturation of technology in the world that was developed on cheap energy? What about 2 world wars? What about incentivizing inventors? What about protecting investments and copyrights? How does it account for the slow progress of climate science over the centuries? You're an idiot.
disingenuous to claim that everyone benefited equally from it
I never claimed that. You're just an idiot. You don't seem to understand economics/history and have poor reading comprehension. I am done, you're idiocy is too much for me.
those who benefited through harming others
Just curious, do you think that more people have been harmed than helped? If you do you are an idiot. You are quick to dismiss the number of people that has been lifted out of poverty, have food in their belly, and clean water to drink, and a roof over their head. In 1990, there were 1.95 billion people making less than $1.90 in 2012 it was 896 million. That was from cheap dirty energy.
Your narrative is very one sided and dishonest. It is also missing the economics of energy and global trade.
So why exactly is it wrong to ask them to use those means to do so on behalf of those whom they harmed?
Because the average person isn't harming anyone and is just trying to live like anyone else. They didn't cause this problem. Everyone contributes to it. If you are going to take advantage of modern technology you take part in the responsibility which is nearly everyone. It's everyone's problem and everyone has to deal with it or you will get no where.
Concentrated relief, awesome.
Pointing finger because history. Not so.
Does that also mean that countries that leapfrog technologies are less responsible?
Yes, if they emitted fewer CO2.
Nice double standard. That green tech that developing nations can use to lift themselves out of poverty while keeping a small carbon footprint was built off the CO2 from developed nations. If you want to bring historical blame into this you should recognize that green tech was built on dirty energy. Any technology that can help the problem will have been researched and developed on dirty energy. That should be apart of your "who foots the bill." Or are you one of those that believe that RnD costs nothing?
This isn't about finger-pointing and shaming, it's about who foots which part of the bill to right the wrongs.
It isn't about finger pointing but you need someone to foot the bill? Sounds mutually exclusive.
It stands to reason that those who contributed more to the wrong are also those who should pay more of the bill - all the easier for them to do so because of the higher technological development that resulted out of it for them.
Those that have contributed more emissions have also developed more alternatives, but that counts for nothing. Those economic systems that burn through all the resources have lifted billions out of poverty, but that counts for nothing.
Perhaps, you are arguing that the industrial revolution should have never occurred?
No, I'm not arguing that.
If that is the case you wouldn't bother with historical emissions. It is a losing argument. Why is anyone alive today responsible on what previous generations did for energy or the economic climate which incentivized cheap fossil fuels? There are many more people outside of those nations that benefited from those choices. Just like there are many more people who suffer.
This will continually be an issue as climate change continues. The precedent set by this situation should be one where humanitarian aid is welcomed. Not scorned because "You're one of those countries who got us into this mess!"
Because they kickstarted the process.
Yes, the industrial revolution happened. Does that mean any country that has undergone or is undergoing industrialization is more culpable?
Does that also mean that countries that leapfrog technologies are less responsible?
Perhaps, you are arguing that the industrial revolution should have never occurred? How would we get the renewable energy sources (including nuclear) and the modern technology to combat climate change without industrialization?
I am all for curving emissions combating global warming but I don't think you should look at historical emissions and say; "you are the blame.". Because those technologies that will curve global warming (or adapt to it) will be predicated on industrialization. Unless you think aliens will give us the answer.
Yes, I am arguing that identical backgrounds are necessary to know equal opportunity exists
I disagree, you can know the rules and laws by which we all operate. You can control for various socioeconomic factors. Having identical backgrounds is not necessary to identify the possibility for various demographics to attend various institutions.
given that different people are treated differently we don't know if there is equality of opportunity.
... you will never be able to control everyone's behavior to ensure that everyone is treated like a grey box. That's the human factor. You can, however, control the rules and the laws by which we operate. If you find deviation from those rules/laws lets deal with it.
You said that someone from a rich family and someone from a poor do not have equal opportunity to attend Ivy League schools. There are professions where it's very important to come from the right school (not any I'm interested in, but still), and so we have unequal opportunity. The fact that some people from poor families do go to Harvard doesn't mean equal opportunity.
The poor have every opportunity as a rich person to attend an Ivy League school but they lack the means (money). Welcome to reality. There are only 8 ivy league schools and 300 million Americans and 7 + billion people. Do you not understand basic economics? Hint; supply and demand.
You are apparently using "equal opportunity" to mean "absence of strictly enforced barriers" rather than "will get approximately equal results from approximately equal talent and application".
Yes, because opportunity is about barriers (lack thereof specifically). Seriously, opportunity is a set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something. You seem to be confusing equal opportunity with equal outcome. You can't look at the end result and determine opportunity.
Can't tell if troll or just stupid.
Organic all natural nukes. The kind of nukes that you can feel good about.
Are you going to tell me that his background and mine constitute equal opportunity?
Are you seriously arguing that everyone has to have the same background in order for equal opportunity to exist? How are you going to do that? Are you going to kidnap the kids at birth divorcing them from their family and push them through cookie cutter programs until their adults? That is absurd and you know it. Some rich kid will be able to attend Ivy league schools while some poor kid will probably have to choose a state university, it's call life. Does that mean the poor kid has less opportunity to gain a higher education? He may have to work harder for it but that doesn't mean lack of opportunity. If the poor kid works hard and is successful his children will reap the benefits and maybe they will attend Ivy League. There is no lack of opportunity. A lack of means perhaps but that is irrelevant with your next statement.
It may be that X are discouraged and not-X encouraged, so there's unequal opportunities. It also may be that the opportunity is equal but X and not-X are attracted to the field in different proportions. There may be unequal opportunities and unequal interest.
Subtle encouragement... Really? This what you are going to justify as unequal opportunity? Not enough encouragement? Sorry, that just screams entitled. Do what you want and ignore the nay sayers. Have a spine FFS. If you have the ability you will be applauded. Are you discouraged? Get over it, some people are ass holes and those ass holes do not represent the whole of industry.
Who cares about unequal interest. That doesn't matter to equal opportunity. If you have the interest you peruse the opportunities. Opportunities are everywhere it takes someone with an interest to achieve something to see them.
What most of us want is equal opportunity
We have that. Unless you have evidence of legal or institutional restrictions that stop women and minorities from entering the field. Taking offense to being different or not receiving the encouragement you think you deserve is not a lack of opportunity.
And yet no one freaks out that they have to register their vehicle with the government.
Driving a car on government roads is totally the same as a constitutionally protected right. Rights are not given by the government to be taken away on a whim because of a tragedy.
Any right has collateral damage. The government argues this point time and time again with the NSA data snooping. How many people would be saved if only we gotten away with privacy and the need for warrants? How many criminals could we catch if we give law enforcement the ability to find and prosecute criminals without constitutional limits impeding their investigations?
You are an idiot if you can't tell the difference. Nothing will change unless you want to amend the constitution and you and I both know that won't happen.
anyone of any gender or race who wants to enter IT and is skilled enough to do so is able to
We have that by virtue of the fact that there are women and minorities in the industry. Small percentage representation does not mean systemic *ism against women and minorities. Unless you are going to argue like some modern feminists: "Everything is sexist. Everything is racist. Everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out." If so, you're an idiot.
we do care that there are women who want to become mechanics and firefighters and police who are unable to
Sure we care. thats why we have been lowering the standard.
the goal is equal opportunity
We have that. If we didn't, why would there be women and minorities in the industry? Just because it isn't 50/50 doesn't mean it isn't equal opportunity. Dongle jokes and shirts are not evidence of unequal opportunity. Being different in a classroom or workplace is not evidence of unequal opportunity. Star Wars/Trek posters are not evidence of unequal opportunity.