wheres the nexus?
Complex software. Recognizing objects in images and video seem to be one thing search, autonomous cars, and military robots have in common.
No, I do not believe it. I believe that you just made it up. Do you have a citation? Because a Google search finds nothing except a law banning "aggressive begging" (blocking traffic, badgering or pursuing people, loitering next to ATMs, etc.).
I wouldn't go so far as to accuse him of just making it up. There are several places he might have picked up the idea. Some, the courts overrule the laws or parts of it. Some are just proposed. Some require a permit to 'gather' (eg more than 5 people). On Thanksgiving, the church should have 1 person with food in the park. 4 at a time, the homeless could come over. Then, walk away and 4 more could come up. I think the homeless should not be able to look at each other either
Las Vegas, NV
Los Angeles, CA
I was asking whether the defendant's right to remain silent is good for society as a whole.
I believe as a whole that it is. a few of my thoughts.
Without the Fifth, what prevents a suspect from being locked up until they confess? If there isn't evidence for conviction do we want to allow compelled confession.
If an innocent man is held, a guilty man may be free. Given overcrowding prisons and early paroles, one could argue that it's statistically true.
Is there data that we would convict more guilty people without the Fifth? Are the guilty going to confess if the Fifth didn't exist?
It is part of America's ethos that individual rights trump society's. Such that some of the harm done to society is mitigated by good done to our psyche. There is a hypothesis that this gives us a we can do anything mentality. An offshoot is getting away with things. We often idolize people that get away with things. We make fun of the Fifth. Depending on who uses it, we can love or hate it. It's part of our culture.
I was being silly with my examples because an all or nothing attitude is silly.
For the sake of progress. Focus on this part. Is a 3 degree change over 500 years equally as catastrophic as a 3 degree change over 50? I contend that it makes a difference how long the change takes. Do you disagree?
Personally, I think a day/night cycle is needed for life to get started. I think it helps similar to how a PCR machine works. Each day as the Earth heated up, some molecules broke apart. At night they came together. After a while, the molecules grow sides and mirror each other. Molecules whose chemical traits allow their mirror images to pick up more chemicals in the environment began to outnumber those that didn't. Molecules that impacted their environment in such a way that they retained their traits continued the traits. At some point. we call the complex chemical reactions between those molecules life.
This is the part I disagree with. Frankly, I think it makes zero difference to humanity if we do it in 100 years or 1,000 years, the result will be just as horrible and life changing to everyone here.>
Yes, we do disagree.
We don't have to cut to zero, we simply have to cut to a sustainable number. But that number is much closer to 0 than what we're doing now, we probably do need to cut our CO2 emissions by 90%
This seems conflicting. Wouldn't a 90% reduction in CO2 emissions be the difference between burning them in 100 years or 1000?
hink of it like the federal budget for the US. 4 things make up most of it... Social Security, Medicare, Defense, Welfare. If you don't tackle those 4 big items, nothing you do to everything else matters. No amount of cuts to NASA or the CDC is going to change the outcome if you won't touch the big 4.
You got me there. I have to concede to that. You're right that a little bit doesn't help and I see what you're saying. A little bit won't help, And here's where I'm conflicted. I don't want people to avoid getting say a hybrid instead of a full gas vehicle because they think it's just a little bit. Each person needs to do a little bit so that we can do a lot as a society.
Someone posted the other day that 17 new solar panels are installed every day in the US
Here's recent good news we can both be happy about then.
I completely agree that we need to get off of fossil fuels as soon as we can. For environmental reasons and many more. Every bit we do to reduce it, does help. It's not bad that the earth will be warmer, it's bad that it will change quickly. Thus, anything we can do to slow that change is helpful. If it were truly all or nothing, there wouldn't be any point in even trying. Nothing isn't going to happen any time soon.
I just feel that an all or nothing attitude is too extreme and not founded in what the problem is. It's also very defeatist since we've already burned a trillion barrels. It's not any particular amount of fossil fuel burned that causes a catastrophe, it's how fast we burn it. Burning fossil fuels over a million years isn't nothing, but I'm not sure you'd be able to argue it would be catastrophic. As you acknowledge, fossil fuels are the result of carbon sequestration over millions of years. That process is still occurring today, carbon in the atmosphere is being turned into fossil fuels by way of plants consuming it in swamps, dying and turning into coal. Over a long enough time, that will cool the earth. Certainly if we burned fossil fuels at the rate their created, that wouldn't be a problem. That's not nothing. Either way, the earth changes, but it's the speed of change that's catastrophic, not the change itself.
Can you provide evidence that burning all of the fossil fuels over 100 years, 1000 years and 10,000 years is equally catastrophic? If not, every bit helps.
1. the trees are made of carbon extracted from the atmosphere
Where did the carbon in fossil fuels come from?
2. even if they don't burn that carbon goes back to the atmosphere when the trees die and decay.
Correct, we'll have to stop that to. My contention was that CO2 emission is not an all or nothing situation since there is some level of CO2 emissions that are acceptable. My point is that the earth doesn't really differentiate between CO2 from one source or another. An all or nothing attitude doesn't make sense. CO2 levels have not been constant and CO2 comes from many sources. It's not all or nothing, because it's the change over time that's catastrophic not just the change.
Is a 3 degree rise in temperature over 500 years equally as catastrophic as a 3 degree change over 50 years? I'm arguing that the change over 500 years is less catastrophic than the same change over 50 years. Are you disagreeing with that? I was being silly with my examples because an all or nothing attitude is silly.
Consider a moving temperate zone for agriculture due to climate change. If the borders of that temperate zone move slowly over the years, you only have changes to agricultural production at the borders. If it moves to a completely different area it can wipe out entire crops. The difference between the climate where you grow oranges moving 5 miles a year and moving 100 miles in a year is huge.
An attitude that's it's all or nothing will make any pragmatist give up as the burning of organic material that releases CO2 occurs naturally also. Obviously, you don't have to eliminate all CO2 emissions. Remember, we humans emit the gas too. Are you implying all animals must be killed off too. There's an amount of CO2 productions that's ok, there's even a rate of change that's ok. It wasn't steady for the millions of years before the industrial revolution.
Let's use a classic car analogy instead. Would you rather your car die 1 mile from home or 10. That's certainly an every foot helps situation. The problem isn't that the earth will get too hot, the problem is that it will change too quickly for a lot of life, including ourselves to adapt. If you can slow down that change, all the better, even if you don't completely stop it. There's a huge difference in effect from a temperature change of 3 degrees over 100 years versus 500 years versus 1000 years. Nobody would be concerned if we thought the temperature was going to change 3 degrees over 10,000 years. We might even be surprised if it didn't over that time span.
The concern is the rate of change. That's not an all or nothing situation. We should do everything we can to reduce fossil fuels. Doing everything we can, means embracing an attitude that every bit helps. If it's all or nothing, we might as well give up, we've already burned more than a trillion barrels of oil anyway. All or nothing already lost before you even try.