Classic Conversation Thread

[filmlover]

1 hour ago, WrathOfHan said:

*prays LMD doesnt show up*

Don’t worry, I’ve brought the holy water.

[terrestrial]

6 hours ago, Morieris said:

With birthday and Christmas money, I'll have enough to renew my certifications - only 200$ instead of like 480$

for what - better said which kind of - certification renew you have to pay $480/$200 ?

 

[Morieris]

6 hours ago, terrestrial said:

for what - better said which kind of - certification renew you have to pay $480/$200 ?

 

 

COMPtia >_> Security+, more specifically. Though it will also renew the cheaper A+ which would have been another 300$. IT Stuff that hasn't landed me a job yet but

 

 

[Cmasterclay]

My take on the last few pages is that the burden of combating climate change shouldn't be thrust and shamed upon the individual consumer, it should be the responsibility of governments to regulate and set standards for industries and corporations. Sure changes in consumption will help, but until we have regulation the standard operating procedure for corporations and other large institutions will be to continue to produce unmitigated. Generally when it comes to any issue, I don't like the whole "shame the consumer" shit. The government has a responsibility to protect citizens and utilize resources and reach for the public good, and that begins with smart regulation of mass emission producers, not me being shamed for leaving my phone plugged in after its fully charged. 

[grim22]

11 minutes ago, Morieris said:

 

COMPtia >_> Security+, more specifically. Though it will also renew the cheaper A+ which would have been another 300$. IT Stuff that hasn't landed me a job yet but

 

 

You just reminded me that I need to renew my CISSP, CCSK and CBCP. Luckily my firm pays for certifications and renewals, once you find a good firm I am sure they will pay for renewals going forward.

[The Panda]

2 hours ago, Cmasterclay said:

My take on the last few pages is that the burden of combating climate change shouldn't be thrust and shamed upon the individual consumer, it should be the responsibility of governments to regulate and set standards for industries and corporations. Sure changes in consumption will help, but until we have regulation the standard operating procedure for corporations and other large institutions will be to continue to produce unmitigated. Generally when it comes to any issue, I don't like the whole "shame the consumer" shit. The government has a responsibility to protect citizens and utilize resources and reach for the public good, and that begins with smart regulation of mass emission producers, not me being shamed for leaving my phone plugged in after its fully charged. 

While I do think us as individuals have some responsibility (not necessarily choosing to entirely cut all of our emissions, but finding ways to reduce our footprint is helpful), it's obvious it's not a practical long term solution.  It's like when people say charitable giving is the solution to fighting poverty, it's nice and can potentially help, but it will not alleviate the systemic conditions.  That'll require large scale policy.  So I definitely agree with you, especially when industries have the capabilities to reduce emissions, produce cars with better gas mileage, etc. yet they choose not to.

 

It's again why I a blanket revenue neutral carbon tax would be the most effective policy to start with.  Hit every industry that contributes to emissions, and make it high enough where they'll find a way to pick another energy source to get around  the cost.

[Morieris]

 

New Christmas classic tbh. All I Want For Christmas Is You who?

[DAR]

Ah shit Penny Marshall died

[dxmatrixdt]

17 hours ago, DAR said:

 

 

i'm sorry, I thought you were somebody else

[Eric Duncan]

On 12/11/2018 at 10:03 PM, CoolEric258 said:

BTW @Morieris you're on my ignore list for a week for subjecting me to that visual horror. The fact you thought this was okay for us to see is disgusting.

Well, you're no longer on the list. Just don't post any more creepy Sonic stuff, and we'll be okay.

[The Futurist]

6 hours ago, Cmasterclay said:

My take on the last few pages is that the burden of combating climate change shouldn't be thrust and shamed upon the individual consumer, it should be the responsibility of governments to regulate and set standards for industries and corporations. Sure changes in consumption will help, but until we have regulation the standard operating procedure for corporations and other large institutions will be to continue to produce unmitigated. Generally when it comes to any issue, I don't like the whole "shame the consumer" shit. The government has a responsibility to protect citizens and utilize resources and reach for the public good, and that begins with smart regulation of mass emission producers, not me being shamed for leaving my phone plugged in after its fully charged. 

Governments don't have any control on the laws of physics, chemistry and biology.

Regulations won't change anything, nada, zilch.

Unless you are ready tomorrow to live with less comfort, computer gizmos, transport, food choices, health care, working opportunities (less services, more hard, physical work for westerners), entertainment, way way less everything really.

 

In the end, our world won't be able to produce billions of smarthones per year (and every other consumer goods, I just chose a recent exmaple of mass consumption) for very long, a few decades tops.

 

Shame is a moral concept which has little to do with the description of the science principles that govern our world and universe.

 

I don't think there is physics book in all the librairies of the world where this word is mentionned.

 

Thanos still lead this debate, what he is describing will happen sooner or later, it s just a question of when.

[The Futurist]

5 hours ago, PANDA said:

While I do think us as individuals have some responsibility (not necessarily choosing to entirely cut all of our emissions, but finding ways to reduce our footprint is helpful), it's obvious it's not a practical long term solution.  It's like when people say charitable giving is the solution to fighting poverty, it's nice and can potentially help, but it will not alleviate the systemic conditions.  That'll require large scale policy.  So I definitely agree with you, especially when industries have the capabilities to reduce emissions, produce cars with better gas mileage, etc. yet they choose not to.

 

It's again why I a blanket revenue neutral carbon tax would be the most effective policy to start with.  Hit every industry that contributes to emissions, and make it high enough where they'll find a way to pick another energy source to get around  the cost.

What you are describing is a drop in the ocean in terms of energy consumption.

Do you have idea how much energy you and I consume for our way of life ?

We gobble tons of energy every day without realizing it.

Corporations can reduce their emissions and energy consumption by very small margins when compared to what is needed to make our way of life works.

 

The Corporations/governments  should do this and that is a comforting and soothing thought by it is naive.

Again, physics people.

Most of you wouldn't say those things if you knew what is the true nature of energy which is difficult to explain for a non english speaker, it takes a very long argument and explanation.

 

We re living like Kings and Queens every single day, unaware that this will be a somewhat short moment in time in Humanity s history, around 200 years.

I give us another 50 years for the oil/fossil fuel age tops but it s difficult to predict especially on how much coal will end up consuming since reserves are enormous.

You probably heard about the "Theory" of Peak oil, right ?

Well, I am happy to report peak oil happened in 2006, which means our Mad Max days are closer to us than we want to believe.

 

ENJOY THE PARTY WHILE IT LASTS

Edited December 18, 2018 by The Futurist

[Plain Old Tele]

 

[Barnack]

7 hours ago, Cmasterclay said:

My take on the last few pages is that the burden of combating climate change shouldn't be thrust and shamed upon the individual consumer, it should be the responsibility of governments to regulate and set standards for industries and corporations. Sure changes in consumption will help, but until we have regulation the standard operating procedure for corporations and other large institutions will be to continue to produce unmitigated. Generally when it comes to any issue, I don't like the whole "shame the consumer" shit. The government has a responsibility to protect citizens and utilize resources and reach for the public good, and that begins with smart regulation of mass emission producers, not me being shamed for leaving my phone plugged in after its fully charged. 

100% of the polution is made by individual consumer too, corporation are mere paper made virtual entity for compatibility purpose completely driven by consumer choice and already trying to use the less input in a product than is possible to please the consumer and that is highly correlated with polluting has little of possible for them, the more a product cost to do, the more it will tend to pollute to do.

 

For a government to have the public support to do the necessary action, it need a population that really want it (and that were shaming the consumer occur).

 

Is it really the government job to make us eat less beef, travel less, live closer to work, decide if we make a cement building for people to live in or not ? Those choice kind of need to come from the people, at least by strongly asking the government to do it for them because they know they will not have the will to do it.

 

That the nice thing about a carbon tax, it use raise of cost to do the job that shame would.

 

Regulation/standard is only a little change in percentage with some effects, the giant driver is individual consumption.

Edited December 18, 2018 by Barnack

[dxmatrixdt]

.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Slave Animal Rights

[dxmatrixdt]

economics are invented by man.  economics could follow natural principles, but ultimately this market is a function of us.  

economics as an answer to carbon emissions looks to be a slow answer that is going to cost us.

[Plain Old Tele]

9 minutes ago, nature league said:

are women defenseless unless they have a boyfriend?  or a relationship to know themselves by?

 

Women should live with them when they are lost. In fact, some of the people, that's enough.

[FantasticBeasts]

Wow... impressed... 

@The Futurist making two back to back comments that make sense?

 

[FantasticBeasts]

God it's so depressing thinking about it sometimes. Western societies are basically able to exist the way they do simply because there is so much poverty and starvation in Africa and Asia. That's why I hate charity so much... It's a bunch of super-rich people trying to promote their image and/or console their guilt. They know that the people they are trying to help are necessary for them to be living the type of lifestyle they are having...

And that's not excluding myself... This is the extreme case but we are all hypocrites to some extent.

[Plain Old Tele]

1 minute ago, FantasticBeasts said:

God it's so depressing thinking about it sometimes. Western societies are basically able to exist the way they do simply because there is so much poverty and starvation in Africa and Asia. That's why I hate charity so much... It's a bunch of super-rich people trying to promote their image and/or console their guilt. They know that the people they are trying to help are necessary for them to be living the type of lifestyle they are having...

And that's not excluding myself... This is the extreme case but we are all hypocrites to some extent.

 

What? No.

 

Sure, there are charities that do dubious things and people who over-promote their own "charitable" doings. But by and large most charities do good work around the world. Do I wish they didn't need to exist? Sure. But that doesn't make them terrible.