I posted the data in post #4. It's from the IPCC. Please look at the whole range since the industrial revolution. You wouldn't make a post saying the overall bitcoin price trend was down based on april 3 - april 10 would you?
Maybe he wouldn't do that for bitcoin, but he's obviously not above doing it for temperatures. I'm sure it will come out that he sides with the deniers. |
|
|
|
|
All very interesting and all. Who knows?
But just because something was studied, does not mean it exists. Google "Project Orion".
|
|
|
|
Also, without rendering you exempt from answering any of my prior, as of yet unanswered questions, please define "claim", as in the process of claiming, particularly with regard to land.
Oh, please. I've made more than a worthwhile effort in engaging you in a real discussion about this. If you're going to be intentionally obtuse and contrarian, I'm not going to continue to entertain you. You haven't made any effort at all. All you've done is some vague hand waving, without actually addressing the real meat of the problem. The devil is in the details. Unless you want to get precise, in order to defend what you've posted, the document clearly has problems. By not digging deeper, it's clear you can't defend it to any degree. |
|
|
|
Just for the purpose of illustration though, I'll speculate on how it might be applied.
Any property you derive from your body (i.e. labour) is rightfully yours. If you take some unused land, sow seeds on it, and grow crops, those crops are rightfully yours. Furthermore, because you've transformed previously unproductive land, it could be argued that the land is now yours too (again, this is a matter of interpretation).
Thank you for the response. Let's now consider it. Furthermore, because you've transformed previously unproductive land, it could be argued that the land is now yours too (again, this is a matter of interpretation).
Please explain what you mean by unproductive land. Why do you think land unchanged by man is unproductive? Are you familiar with the concept of ecosystem services? Any property you derive from your body (i.e. labour) is rightfully yours.
That's an interesting proclamation. Why do you believe this? If you take some unused land, sow seeds on it, and grow crops, those crops are rightfully yours. Furthermore, because you've transformed previously unproductive land, it could be argued that the land is now yours too (again, this is a matter of interpretation).
Let me see if I understand this. I go out into the wild blue yonder, and find an attractive 20 acre plot. In the middle, I build a house, and I create a driveway (a path, road, whatever) from a boundary to my home. I leave the landscape on both sides of the driveway natural and untended. Some fellow comes along and starts building a shack and tills the fields next to my driveway. Such nerve he has, for the land is mine. I tell him to leave. He refuses, on account that he says I have not claimed the land, because I'm not using it. And so I'm in a race to deflower, decimate, "improve", and "landscape" as much land around my house as I can, before others do. Now, back to ecosystem services. Are you familiar with the concept or not? |
|
|
|
The beauty and sheer elegance of libertarian natural rights principle is the fact that it can be summed up in a sentence: people are sovereign in their own body, and any property derived from it.
Please explain what the hell the bolded part actually means. In detail. Be precise. Factor in what I've said thus far if it applies to what you believe the bolded part means. |
|
|
|
I just watched two Mikio Naruse films last night from my list. They were Late Chrysanthemums and Yearning. I liked both, but Yearning was just sublime. Filmed in 2.35:1, with a gorgeous sountrack. Get a taste of it here: http://www.hulu.com/watch/348203 |
|
|
|
Just look at the chart. As long as you can read numbers it should be clear.
Ok, I am looking at the chart. Is it two separate religions or just one? Why did they stop calling it global warming and now refer to it as climate change? Will climate change combine the two religions?  Ooooh! I too can do that! Look at this chart and see how I might pick the section from early 1990 to 1994. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/21/may-2013-global-surface-landocean-temperature-anomaly-update/Getting your source material from a website that has an agenda, eh? |
|
|
|
Database Error? Really Bitcointalk? I guess I'll just type it all again...  Henry Ford paid his workers 5 dollars per day at a time when half that salary was customary. He also cut their working hours from 9 to 8 hours.
Maybe he paid $5/hour so he would get and retain the good quality workers he wanted. Higher wages doesn't magically make shitty workers into good workers. In-n-out pays $15/hour but who is to say that they would want to employ those people who are currently earning $7/hour. FA mentioned that In-n-out can afford to pay $15/hr because of efficient practices. Maybe one of those practices is employing people who are actually worth the money. People who clean tables when they're dirty. People who are pleasant, attentive and polite to customers, who don't get the orders wrong. People who actually clean the bathrooms once in a blue moon. (This was better the first time around). This is true. However, I think you got it half right. In-n-Out trains people effectively. And money motivates workers. I have seen plenty of capable people in ordinary fast food restaurants that are up to the potential of In-n-Out employees. It is absolutely true that a great portion of the problem with most fast food restaurants is their failure to take a look at themselves in the mirror and see the following problems: - Unappealing menu - Poor training practices - Lower than possible sales per store - Too few employees per store Solution: - Hire a better master chef to come up with better recipes that feature fresh food - Create a better and more thorough training regime - Cut the number of stores in half - Pay the workers more - Put more workers in each store If, by chance, minimum wage was raised, a lot of the above would happen automatically, or the businesses would go out of business. |
|
|
|
I thought global cooling was the new thing. Are people still on the global warming fad?
This is so confusing. Will we become less violent when the world cools down as the new fad suggests?
The early adopters have moved on to global cooling hysteria. They figured they'd get the best seats on the bandwagon. But there's still a good group of the Warmers who are faithful .... to ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E42mIvjzRwI can tell you're one of those who lets his political agenda formulate his opinion about science. I myself let science formulate my political views. I'd recommend you do the same, especially with regard to climate change. |
|
|
|
I thought global cooling was the new thing. Are people still on the global warming fad?
This is so confusing. Will we become less violent when the world cools down as the new fad suggests?
You are confused. Back in the '70s, about two scientists out of about 100,000 theorized that cooling was going to happen. Those that received (and still receive) money from Big Oil like to mention those two scientists and make the gullible believe they represented the consensus back then. There was no confusion back then. And there's no confusion now. Global warming is real. So stop being confused. |
|
|
|
In fact, I even agree that they're asking for important changes!
Then why were you bitching about them? Because I believe they are thoughtless to the extent that they aren't even addressing the root of the issue and because they have no idea what the root of the issue is or why they can't magically be given $15 per hour. I was also bitching because it's a poor means of personal adaptation to environmental conditions. If a person is in dire need of change and have the capacity to elicit that change, then they should do so or else be subject to the passive course they've otherwise chosen. And, if they don't have the capacity, then chances are their skills aren't worth much more than $7.25 anyway. You seem to mistaken with regard to the difference between collective action and individual action. Has it occurred to you that any one individual (or most all) could in fact be personally weighing in their mind the very things you think they should be considering? Obviously not. A strike is a collective action, and you simply are not in a position to make a blanket comment about an individual's goals in that context. Instead, you can make a comment about the strike itself. But in doing so, please don't be an idiot about it, without first performing a better analysis of what could possibly be achieved. We've already established that there are two parties involved in the strike: the strikers and the employers. Your general assumptions and ignorance have led you to believe that the only resolution is for the strikers to give up, because you're an obstinate and obtuse individual that can't evaluate the dynamics fully. |
|
|
|
|
Also, without rendering you exempt from answering any of my prior, as of yet unanswered questions, please define "claim", as in the process of claiming, particularly with regard to land.
|
|
|
|
You mean like this idiot, a property rights lawyer, who confuses a political agenda with having knowledge of the environment: http://heartland.org/james-m-taylor-jdYou mean because how he purports to know stuff, he can be the self nominated editor of Environment and Climate News? Who mean how ignoramuses such as he feel the need to sway the community with bogus propaganda because he doesn't like what real science tells him? In other words, your hero is just a dumbfuck that you idolize because he puts law above knowledge? Because he thinks he knows what's appropriate when operating with willful ignorance? I've never heard of this person you claim is my hero and that I idolize, and it's a weak straw-man argument. If you have something to actually say, go for it. I didn't say you heard of him. But he's right up your alley. He's an example of the stupidity I'm fighting against, which has manifested itself in this thread by you quoting some document from your idol. Now, back to those issues regarding property. |
|
|
|
Define property precisely. Define it with respect to:
- Transient physical objects, such as: air, animals, eroding soil, water, root systems, etc.
- Physical extent of property with regard to land (above and below)
The Bill does not define property. Instead, it states that "The procedural rules given here are intended as a starting point for the development of rules for maintaining and enforcing natural rights. These rights do not change, but the procedures for maintaining and enforcing them can be continually improved." If you are interested in theory of property, there are many other discussions which address it. No. This is the place for discussing property. Right here. Otherwise, remove items 3 and 11. If they're in there, then we need a full understanding of property. If you can't defend them, get rid of them. So far, you've failed miserably, as you don't even understand what you're saying. The world is too complex for your simplistic view. |
|
|
|
Well, for starters, there is no unclaimed land left on this Earth, or land that doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of some existing treaties. So it's a fantasy document then, or is this for the Moon, Mars or perhaps Ganymede? Interestingly, the author, who was a legal expert, used this for his work 'Law of the Somalis', which at the time did have land under no jurisdiction. You mean like this idiot, a property rights lawyer, who confuses a political agenda with having knowledge of the environment: http://heartland.org/james-m-taylor-jdYou mean because how he purports to know stuff, he can be the self nominated editor of Environment and Climate News? Who mean how ignoramuses such as he feel the need to sway the community with bogus propaganda because he doesn't like what real science tells him? In other words, your hero is just a dumbfuck that you idolize because he puts law above knowledge? Because he thinks he knows what's appropriate when operating with willful ignorance? |
|
|
|
3. use any object not belonging to others and make it his property;
11. to exploit his land and waters, and any material in them;
I'm sorry, but these just don't belong until you demonstrate more knowledge on the subject. As for the other stuff, I'm just not bothering to criticize it. You are being vague, so I'm going to take an educated guess that your objection to the lines above is in the potential to cause harm to others. If you continue reading, the 'rights' section is balanced by the 'obligations' and 'remedies' sections. Please explain how compensation after irreversible damages occur always trumps regulations. Please explain how a property owner can be coerced to allow inspection of his land to make sure he is not the culprit. Please explain how a property owner compensates another for irreversible damages when he doesn't have the means to do so. |
|
|
|
Then, by your own definition, (3) and (11) need to be removed, as your document pertains only to interactions between humans.
Not at all. They outline freedom from coercion from individuals or groups of individuals in relation to the disposition of your own property, except when compensation is required for otherwise disposing of another's property. Define property precisely. Define it with respect to: - Transient physical objects, such as: air, animals, eroding soil, water, root systems, etc. - Physical extent of property with regard to land (above and below) |
|
|
|
In fact, I even agree that they're asking for important changes!
Then why were you bitching about them? |
|
|
|
No, I'm saying leave the companies out of it because the OP has nothing to do with the attitudes of the companies. It's a totally separate issue. The post is not about whether the pay is fair or f the working conditions suck.
The post is about people who are in a situation they don't like that they voluntarily entered into, and now thy want someone to change it for them. Those "someones" just happen to be companies.
Actually, your OP is about you and your bitching about people trying to affect change, albeit in a way you disapprove, hence your bitching. It's also about how you fell into a position in which you are under qualified and overpaid, a situation which is uncommon, and thus utterly stupid of you to assume everyone else might have such an opportunity. What you fail to realize though, is that perhaps the changes those workers are trying to affect are important. As I've pointed out several times, and as you've been unable to aggregate into your thinking processes, there is fat to trim in the fast food business. |
|
|
|
3. use any object not belonging to others and make it his property;
11. to exploit his land and waters, and any material in them;
I'm sorry, but these just don't belong until you demonstrate more knowledge on the subject. As for the other stuff, I'm just not bothering to criticize it. It's an authority on the definitions and limits of violence in human interaction.
Then, by your own definition, (3) and (11) need to be removed, as your document pertains only to interactions between humans. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
