The reason for my comment was to point out that people clearly adore this animal (if the up votes are anything to go by), and the disparity of how this animal will be treated.

Indeed if we did even the most humane slaughter to our pets, we would call it hell, and be arrested for our barbarism. But for a cow? It's legal, but even still we better hide it away.

I wonder how many people would have upvoted this video if we saw the rest of the farming process, as "humane" as it is.

1) Definitely - but without a market improvements fall flat and dont stick. Ancient people had a lot of good ideas but overall progress was really slow and retrograded often until.. well until capitalism became a thing. Abolishing serfdom, general civil rights, separation of church from state and the fall of absolutism made the Iphone possible.

2) No, that is my point. People "discover" things all the time, some of these things are deemed useful by the general public and capitalism provides the tools to finance production and distribution (the profit part is optional - it is entirely legal to sell your invention for any price or indeed give it away for free).

So to get to the original point capitalism did not discover or design the Iphone but it certainly MADE the Iphone.

3) Not impossible but incredibly slow. Generations lived out their entire lives without perceptible changes in their environments prior to the onslaught of capitalism and the industrial revolution. The advent of science from the renaissance onwards was OK, but only once factories and transport infrastructure became a thing did living conditions start to change for everyone.

A big problem with free markets is that they are never really "free". A theoretical free market implies too many things that dont ever happen in real life, like everyone having all relevant information and being able to make a good decision. People just dont do that IRL.

Also not everything can be solved by free markets because you cant just let your neighbors die poor because the market says they deserve it. However the Iphone is really not something the state should subsidize. I understand that it paid for some of the technology that went into designing it. But true socialism would have to make sure everyone could afford one, and would design a cheap bad phone to fit the need.

And she's specific---that for the use of AI and Machine Learning visual processing of images taken of coral reefs (for example for population counts)--it could be very useful indeed.

Lol. Oh Bob. I see you didn't get that help you are crying out for.

Schiff isn't the one saying it.
It's the over a dozen Trump administration officials, you know, like the people who gave him a million dollars towards his election campaign to then be installed in his cabinet with zero experience, people that he now calls never trumpers...them, and idiot Trump himself who released a heavily redacted call summary, called it a transcript, and inexplicably left in the parts where he insisted on investigations into political rivals (and no one else) in exchange for releasing congressionally approved aid.

If Trump drained the swamp, it was only to turn it into the world's largest and most ecologically disastrous sewage holding pond.

Great job? On what? Destroying our international standing and standards? There he IS simply the best. Sucking up and capitulating to our enemies while abandoning and distancing our allies? Yep, better than all the rest. Lying to the American people? Better than anyone else. Running a criminal administration for his personal enrichment? No one else could pass the test.

If you call his disastrous work a "great job", what will you call his removal? The best job ever? You are so delusional that just last week you claimed Republicans run the house and Democrats run the Senate so you could blame our badly flawed paperless voting system on those evil Senate Democrats. *facepalm

Wasted billions on 70 miles of new wall.....that's really replacement fence that can be cut through in under a minute with a reciprocating saw, and only where barriers existed. Great. Increased illegal immigration exponentially. Great. Tax cuts/government welfare for the rich but not the needy that exploded the deficit and debt. Great. Failed trade agreements that have cost tens-hundreds of billions only to put us in a far worse position than before he started. Great. Zero investment in infrastructure. Great. Total decimation of environmental laws.
Great. Abandoning our best allies against terrorism to cozy up to dictators. Great. Best of all, he's widened the divide in America more than all administrations in the last 150 years combined, and recently began calling for preparation for civil war if he's not re-elected. Great.

Um...if he's removing deep state operatives, why are they all his people being jailed? More than even any two term administration ever, beating Nixon's indictment and conviction rates in under two years, before the Mueller fallout. Indeed, in that time he has had more than twice the convictions of all Democratic administration officials since 1970....again, before most Mueller convictions. (It bears noting that Republican officials are convicted at a rate >91 times that of Democrats).

What you really meant to say.....No matter what Trump says it is guaranteed to be a lie.

Aw. *dead indeed. I wonder why!

I don't have time today, but if memory serves, ar4 temperature/ sea level prediction was 30-60% higher than ar3, ar5 less of a change, but still higher than ar4, and yesterday it went up another 10% with the intermediate report, expected to rise again in the 2021 report. I found it by accident and can't find it this morning, and I'm out of free time already today.

It's the factual, scientifically likely outcome. There is no "right" approach, indeed there's no working solution at all.

Yes, different again on two NOAA sites. They don't make it easy to find and compare accurately reported data.

I meant it was odd because they listed the 2018 data as if it was the highest readings, I understand it's not a constant rise.

Following on from above.

I didn't say you quoted me or anything about me. It was a "warning". My argument might have lead people to believe that I was against gun control. I gave the warning that it would be dumb to make any assumptions. I can't quite see how you missed this.

If you think it is not dumb to make assumptions, please let me know.

The 2A specifically says "arms". There is plenty of debate and case law regarding what arms they meant. Suffice to say there isn't a shadow of a doubt that it means firearms (long and short) of all varieties commonly available.

"doesn't mention anything about not restricting the types of armaments people can use"

It does restrict the government from making laws in this regard. The 2A is a law restricting government, not the people. "shall not be infringed" literally means you shall make no law that affects this right in any way.

You don't know whether advocates care if other arms are regulated. If I were to hazard a guess I'd say you are very wrong.

Gun control means whatever the group in control wants it to mean. Anything else is false. If they want it to mean taking away all of your guns, then that is what it is.

Constitutional amendments can indeed be changed. It is very, very difficult to do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Yes, we're overpopulated. That doesn't invalidate my arguments.

I gave examples of multiple cultures that do what you claim is impossible. I never implied Americans would accept a lower standard of living, only that it's the right thing to strive for, and coming like it or not.

I grow 75% of the produce for two people on 3/4 acres.

Masses of people are going to die unnecessarily. Period. This could be avoided, but won't be. Our choice is accept less now, or have nothing later.

The dependence on fossil fuels for agriculture could be quartered with some minor changes with little drop in output. The western world won't make the investment needed to make that a reality. Also, the fossil fuel needed to make fertilizers is not a significant amount....maybe as little as 3%of natural gas produced.

There are millions of hungry people now without access to the artificially supported agriculture system who relied on natural sources that no longer exist. Aren't you concerned about them?

Name one I listed not supported by science.

Food shortages are preferable to no food.

The 3' estimate is old, based on estimates already proven miserably wrong. Like I said, Greenland is melting as a rate they predicted to not happen until 2075.

When tens of millions must flee low lying areas, and all low lying farmland is underwater, and much of the rest in drought or flood, what do you think happens?

By 2100, all estimates show us far past the tipping points where human input is no longer the driving force. Even the IPCC said we have until 2030 or so to cut emissions in half, and we are not lowering emissions, we're raising them. 50 years out is 75 years late....but better than never.....but we aren't on that path at all. Investment in fossil fuel systems continues to accelerate thanks to emerging third world nations like China and India making the same mistakes the Western world made, but in greater quantities.

The IPCC report said if we don't immediately cut emissions today, by half in 11 years and to zero in 30, then negative emissions for the next 50 that we're on track to hit 3-6C rise by 2100 and raising that estimated temperature rise daily....4C gives the 3' sea level rise by 2100 with current models, but they are woefully inadequate and have proven to be vast underestimation of actual melting already.

We may develop the necessary tech, we won't develop the will to implement it. Indeed, we're at that point today....have been for decades.

Yep, sure, no sacrifices needed. You can have it all and more and let the next guy pay the bill. What if we're the last guys in line?

Funny, isn't that what the Paris climate accord is? Sane leaders giving such stupidity serious consideration, because they understand it's not stupidity it's reality. Granted, they don't go nearly far enough, but they did something more than just claim it will be fixed in the future by something that doesn't exist today and ignoring human behavior and all trends, because using/having less is simply unacceptable.

We need a nice pandemic to cull us by 9/10 and a few intelligent Maos to drive us back to sustainability. We won't get either in time.

*ban indeed

Hey, please notify me if you need to ban quicker! I check my e-mails often from VS' Siftbot.

*ban indeed!

*ban indeed!

*ban indeed!

*ban indeed!

Kinda gonna disagree with YOU here.

So, you think nuttiness directly correlates with violent tendencies? But you then admit the nuttiest Christian group is Westborough, who has not been violent, just outrageously disgusting. You seem to think these democratic socialist people are nuttier than the moronic right, yet you admit they have yet to become violent, unlike many on the right. Even if it's also a function of numbers, there should be some violent acts if not murders coming from both outrageously nutty groups, right? But there just isn't.
Remember, Manson's family only had a few members, but a ton of nuttiness. They murdered many trying to start a race war.

Today, the left has more members than the right. Why, then, is the right so much more violent and terroristic? Simply because the far right has more members than the far left? That still doesn't jibe.

Granted, the lunacy on display here is over the top, but less so than the disgusting and divisive dehumanizing rhetoric coming from the right's leaders, spokespeople, and splinter groups. Indeed, this groups nuttiness is based on not upsetting others, antithetical to mass murdering.

There's FAR more crazy anger on the right. For every triggered democratic socialist or ANTIFA there's a dozen seething right wing white supremacists itching for a race war. Look at the numbers here, 500-1000 active democratic socialists?...how many right wing neo Nazis were in Charlottesville?

It follows to me that group murder rates come from not just the level but the type of nuttiness, number of members, uncontrolled anger/rage/hatred, group acceptance of violence, and access to weapons capable of murder. The right is miles ahead on every count besides membership. That's why, imo, there's got to be more to the equation than just nuttiness times membership.

My dad flies a one-seater electric LSA he kit-built himself. Based on his summary, I always described the "sport" designation to curious friends this way: "as long as you only kill yourself, the FAA doesn't care". I am surprised and unnerved to see carrying one passenger is indeed allowed under current regulation... that ain't right.