"You mean there's a catch?"
"Sure there's a catch", Doc Daneeka replied. "Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy."
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a
concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and
immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be
grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no
longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy
to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had
to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he
didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply
by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a
respectful whistle.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
a little reminder that winter in canada starts in november...
apparently, this dip in the gulf stream is easily explained by a giant hurricane barreling through the bering strait. but that's actually the same mechanism i posted a few months back about the sun, just from a different angle.
the sun has come back a little. it might not be so bad. but there's a time lag involved, too.
but you have to understand that it's a really, really big hurricane and this shouldn't be taken as indicative of the weather for the rest of the winter.
it's reasonable to ask questions about factors producing such a strong hurricane. but it's not the same phenomenon that was responsible for the cold weather last year.
(well, it is the same mechanism, but not the same phenomenon)
again, this is the key graph. it's an exceedingly weak sunspot cycle. this doesn't disprove anthropogenic climate change (i'd argue both of these things are happening, and they're currently offsetting each other in the northern hemisphere), and i'm not arguing it's as simple as less sunspots equals lower temperatures, but the reality is there's research going back decades that ties these dips in the jetstream (*specifically*) to the oscillations in sun activity. it's actually well established. the media is ignoring this, and it's probably largely because nobody wants to go anywhere near the idea of presenting the sun as a cause of weather because they're afraid they'll be called quacks and "deniers". but, you don't need to argue against the greenhouse effect to understand that the sun is the dominant cause of weather on this planet. it's been set up as a binary choice, but it's a totally false binary.
there's no contradiction in suggesting that the hurricane strength may be caused by global warming, and arguing that the dips in the jet stream we've been seeing recently are caused by weak solar activity. effects can come from multiple causes.
the key plank in the argument is that this isn't a little bit of a weak cycle. it's not down a little, it's down a whole lot. it's one of the lowest we have on record.
i'm hoping the peak may help. but it's the peak. the truth is we could be in for some cold winters for a while.
i mean, insulating your house will help to keep the heat in.
but if you turn the heat down, the insulation is going to have less heat to trap.
it's kind of a worst case scenario, because it's not actually reversing any of the problems. it's just making it cold in the heart of the empire, and warping people's perceptions.
but, i mean, what's actually going on? are these jet stream dips due to melting ice? i think the science actually leans towards the sun, this time.
apparently, this dip in the gulf stream is easily explained by a giant hurricane barreling through the bering strait. but that's actually the same mechanism i posted a few months back about the sun, just from a different angle.
the sun has come back a little. it might not be so bad. but there's a time lag involved, too.
but you have to understand that it's a really, really big hurricane and this shouldn't be taken as indicative of the weather for the rest of the winter.
it's reasonable to ask questions about factors producing such a strong hurricane. but it's not the same phenomenon that was responsible for the cold weather last year.
(well, it is the same mechanism, but not the same phenomenon)
again, this is the key graph. it's an exceedingly weak sunspot cycle. this doesn't disprove anthropogenic climate change (i'd argue both of these things are happening, and they're currently offsetting each other in the northern hemisphere), and i'm not arguing it's as simple as less sunspots equals lower temperatures, but the reality is there's research going back decades that ties these dips in the jetstream (*specifically*) to the oscillations in sun activity. it's actually well established. the media is ignoring this, and it's probably largely because nobody wants to go anywhere near the idea of presenting the sun as a cause of weather because they're afraid they'll be called quacks and "deniers". but, you don't need to argue against the greenhouse effect to understand that the sun is the dominant cause of weather on this planet. it's been set up as a binary choice, but it's a totally false binary.
there's no contradiction in suggesting that the hurricane strength may be caused by global warming, and arguing that the dips in the jet stream we've been seeing recently are caused by weak solar activity. effects can come from multiple causes.
the key plank in the argument is that this isn't a little bit of a weak cycle. it's not down a little, it's down a whole lot. it's one of the lowest we have on record.
i'm hoping the peak may help. but it's the peak. the truth is we could be in for some cold winters for a while.
i mean, insulating your house will help to keep the heat in.
but if you turn the heat down, the insulation is going to have less heat to trap.
it's kind of a worst case scenario, because it's not actually reversing any of the problems. it's just making it cold in the heart of the empire, and warping people's perceptions.
but, i mean, what's actually going on? are these jet stream dips due to melting ice? i think the science actually leans towards the sun, this time.
age aside, i don't understand what the target demographic for this is in the first place. i was a pretty messed up teenager, but i would have had no use for this, not even as a joke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POCngEpkOLI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POCngEpkOLI
it might seem like she's moving backwards with this, but she's actually right. it's true that spotify is broadly what people want, and it's true that digital music is with us until at least the oil crash. but, people are expecting a free lunch.
the basic problem is that the price is a fraction of what it needs to be to compensate the artists. with the price that spotify pays out, you'd have to listen to a record every day for a year to get a dollar to the label on it, which is going to be less than that to the artist.
the idea of access to a giant database of music is a good one, but in order for the revenue stream to get to where it needs to be some combination of the following things are necessary:
1) you need to cut the labels out. spotify is now the label. it's releasing, hosting and distributing. as it is, what spotify is doing is both decreasing the price and adding another middleman. that's economically impossible. in order for it to be sustainable, it needs to replace the existing middleman and work directly with artists.
2) there needs to be different pricing options, connected to how much is actually being listened to. $120/year is simply not enough. $120/month is more like it. plenty of people pay something close to that for cable. there's just as much content being delivered, and many more people that need to get paid. cable-like pricing options are required for this service to succeed.
3) one of the pricing options should be per-stream pricing, and at rate close to $0.10/stream. if you do the math, you'll see the dramatic disconnect between what it needs to be and what it is now.
there's a lot of rhetoric about how artists need to conform or get out, but that's not the way it's going to be. spotify needs content to work. if it doesn't increase it's price, artists are going to slowly start leaving. taylor's high profile and everything but she's not the first one out - and i'd expect people will follow her out. it may take another quarter or two, but this free lunch just isn't sustainable, and it's not going to happen.
the part of the catalogue that is safe is the old stuff that the labels own outright. the boomers don't have much time left, so this is about to explode - floyd, beatles, zeppelin, etc. jazz. classical. elvis. etc.
unless a tactic is developed for consumers to pay more into it, this is the future of spotify - an archive of recordings by dead people.
as it is, they basically did everything wrong. if this model does pick up, and it will if it's done right, it's almost certainly going to be through a different service.
after looking into it a bit more, i'd put my money on google driving spotify to bankruptcy.....
the basic problem is that the price is a fraction of what it needs to be to compensate the artists. with the price that spotify pays out, you'd have to listen to a record every day for a year to get a dollar to the label on it, which is going to be less than that to the artist.
the idea of access to a giant database of music is a good one, but in order for the revenue stream to get to where it needs to be some combination of the following things are necessary:
1) you need to cut the labels out. spotify is now the label. it's releasing, hosting and distributing. as it is, what spotify is doing is both decreasing the price and adding another middleman. that's economically impossible. in order for it to be sustainable, it needs to replace the existing middleman and work directly with artists.
2) there needs to be different pricing options, connected to how much is actually being listened to. $120/year is simply not enough. $120/month is more like it. plenty of people pay something close to that for cable. there's just as much content being delivered, and many more people that need to get paid. cable-like pricing options are required for this service to succeed.
3) one of the pricing options should be per-stream pricing, and at rate close to $0.10/stream. if you do the math, you'll see the dramatic disconnect between what it needs to be and what it is now.
there's a lot of rhetoric about how artists need to conform or get out, but that's not the way it's going to be. spotify needs content to work. if it doesn't increase it's price, artists are going to slowly start leaving. taylor's high profile and everything but she's not the first one out - and i'd expect people will follow her out. it may take another quarter or two, but this free lunch just isn't sustainable, and it's not going to happen.
the part of the catalogue that is safe is the old stuff that the labels own outright. the boomers don't have much time left, so this is about to explode - floyd, beatles, zeppelin, etc. jazz. classical. elvis. etc.
unless a tactic is developed for consumers to pay more into it, this is the future of spotify - an archive of recordings by dead people.
as it is, they basically did everything wrong. if this model does pick up, and it will if it's done right, it's almost certainly going to be through a different service.
after looking into it a bit more, i'd put my money on google driving spotify to bankruptcy.....
like most advanced mammals, lions need to be taught in order to know how to do things. that doesn't mean it's a good idea to have a pet lion - you're too easy of a meal if you're standing there naively patting it's head, with your gut pressed up against it's face. there's no skill required in munching you. but, young lions that are not taught to hunt will not know how to hunt until they are taught or they figure it out through trial and error.
taking an elephant down, in particular, is something that requires a lot of teamwork. that means it requires a lot of practice, which means it requires a lot of training. it's a task for seasoned, professional lions only.
that's a lot of lions in one place, and it's a little curious as to how they all got there. but it looks to me like the lions are also quite young - a year old, maybe two.
that's the explanation of what you're seeing - it's baby lions v baby elephant.
taking an elephant down, in particular, is something that requires a lot of teamwork. that means it requires a lot of practice, which means it requires a lot of training. it's a task for seasoned, professional lions only.
that's a lot of lions in one place, and it's a little curious as to how they all got there. but it looks to me like the lions are also quite young - a year old, maybe two.
that's the explanation of what you're seeing - it's baby lions v baby elephant.
i'm glad you got the last one on film.
that's the variable that a lot of these "social experiments" completely miss.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvq6pH5Rheg
that's the variable that a lot of these "social experiments" completely miss.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvq6pH5Rheg
deathtokoalas
you know, i don't want to listen to religious music any more than i want to listen to schmaltzy fake-soul quintets do pop covers, but the idea that your opinion on the band's religious views is in any way meaningful is exactly the reason religion won't die. the more you hack it down like this, the stronger it comes back. you really need to adopt an avoidance strategy, and learn to just ignore it.
besides. a couple of dorks singing lame songs in a cave is hardly the dark side of christianity.
PhourQ
lol @ your emotional fear of theism. Face it, religion will never die and thank God for that...since it is our human experience to apprehend that God exists...no matter how much it scares you to believe it.
deathtokoalas
i sure hope that religion has a best before date, but i don't deny that i have an immense fear of what religion is capable of.
that's a circular argument, by the way. you're stating that god must exist because god created us to have a "human experience" to apprehend it. most atheists would toss your whole conception of "human experience" in the trash heap.
i don't think there's any reason we exist at all, except to carry the dna to the next level. i get that it's maybe a bit overwhelming to get your head around it, but i think it's a pre-requisite to building a truly free society.
it's a catch-22. religion is incompatible with freedom, and it consequently must be abolished on the cultural level in order to attain a free society. but, forcing people to drop it creates a backlash which merely stunts the process. don't get me wrong - i'd be in favour of rounding up all the theists and sending them on a one way trip to jupiter if i thought it would work. but, i know it just pushes it underground, where it forms the basis of the next inevitable revolt against state tyranny. it places a flavour on the revolutionary character that is difficult to transcend.
people have to figure this out on their own. a little bit of ridiculing is maybe a step in the right direction, but it needs to be done carefully. censorship or persecution is just out of the question - it's simply counterproductive.
PhourQ
I wasn't trying to argue for the existence of God in saying it is part of our human experience. I am making that statement with God's existence as a given. I am not concerned about atheists tossing my arguments anywhere. My beliefs will never be swayed by what someone else thinks of them. The fact that theists find meaning in life makes atheists uncomfortable, but atheists provide no rational basis for theists to chuck their beliefs. The problems atheists associate with religion completely disregard the fact that those problems arise when the theist is not in accord with his own beliefs...the problems voiced are rarely the teachings of religion themselves. Furthermore, to suggest that religion is incompatible with freedom may be your opinion, but again, disregards the freedom that the religion teaches itself. Mankind naturally will seek to control and destroy regardless...some corrupt theism to accomplish this, others use atheism. Completely removing beliefs in religious ethics or morals in exchange for varied and subjective morality will have obvious results.
deathtokoalas
right. so obviously that statement about "human experience" isn't going to mean anything to me, then. you'd might as well have been speaking to the wall. it's about as useful to me as a discussion about pink unicorns. which is kind of a refutation, but why bother...
the idea that atheists ought to be convincing theists to modify their beliefs is again a circular presentation. atheism argues that we need to look at the world in terms of evidence-based reasoning. it wouldn't argue in favour or against any specific belief, so much as it would demand that evidence is gathered to argue in favour of the belief. it's nothing more complicated than backing up your argument, which is something we teach kids to do in grade school - and place a great emphasis on. for example, i have a belief that extra-terrestrials exist in the universe, and the bible is evidence of their contact with us in the past. that's an evidence-based argument that is consistent with atheism, but it is still a belief. what we get upset about is not over the fact that you believe things but that you use faith-based reasoning to back it up. we then get frustrated over your refusal to accept the superiority of evidence-based reasoning over....magic, basically. let's be sure that this much is clear.
atheists tend to use the same process to deduce morality that the christian fathers did, which is rational discovery. atheism is not the elimination of morals, it is the elimination of magic. now, that necessarily eliminates any kind of authoritarian basis underlying legal systems, but that's the point. "infringing the rights of others is to be discouraged" is a much better statement than "thou shalt not kill" - an improvement, an advance, a step forwards - for the precise reason that it provides for more subtlety in analysis, and stops people from enforcing the rules with a blunt stick. few atheists are going to argue with the general content of religious morality (the few points of contention are largely going to be in the heteropatriarchal nature of the religious systems, but that these exist in religion is reflective of society's influence on religion, rather than the other way around); the point is more that it oversimplifies complex issues, often leading to undesirable outcomes. if the religious texts were thousands of pages long and full of carefully analyzed case notes, there'd be less contention. but, then nobody would read it. it's a tragic flaw in the outcome.
which is where the issues of freedom exist. a group of people that believe a book tells them what is right and wrong and belong to a culture that requires the enforcement of it's contents to reach immortality is....it's insane. whatever the cause, whatever social ill, it's organized madness. and, a free society simply cannot exist in these conditions of coercion and self-righteousness. the proselytism that enforces this self-righteousness into hierarchies and tyrannies is worked into the bulk of the major religions. the idea of free will may be inherent to most religions, but this idea that religion mostly preaches tolerance is absolutely false. every religion seeks to convert the entire world to it's path. this is simply not compatible with a free society.
you know, i don't want to listen to religious music any more than i want to listen to schmaltzy fake-soul quintets do pop covers, but the idea that your opinion on the band's religious views is in any way meaningful is exactly the reason religion won't die. the more you hack it down like this, the stronger it comes back. you really need to adopt an avoidance strategy, and learn to just ignore it.
besides. a couple of dorks singing lame songs in a cave is hardly the dark side of christianity.
PhourQ
lol @ your emotional fear of theism. Face it, religion will never die and thank God for that...since it is our human experience to apprehend that God exists...no matter how much it scares you to believe it.
deathtokoalas
i sure hope that religion has a best before date, but i don't deny that i have an immense fear of what religion is capable of.
that's a circular argument, by the way. you're stating that god must exist because god created us to have a "human experience" to apprehend it. most atheists would toss your whole conception of "human experience" in the trash heap.
i don't think there's any reason we exist at all, except to carry the dna to the next level. i get that it's maybe a bit overwhelming to get your head around it, but i think it's a pre-requisite to building a truly free society.
it's a catch-22. religion is incompatible with freedom, and it consequently must be abolished on the cultural level in order to attain a free society. but, forcing people to drop it creates a backlash which merely stunts the process. don't get me wrong - i'd be in favour of rounding up all the theists and sending them on a one way trip to jupiter if i thought it would work. but, i know it just pushes it underground, where it forms the basis of the next inevitable revolt against state tyranny. it places a flavour on the revolutionary character that is difficult to transcend.
people have to figure this out on their own. a little bit of ridiculing is maybe a step in the right direction, but it needs to be done carefully. censorship or persecution is just out of the question - it's simply counterproductive.
PhourQ
I wasn't trying to argue for the existence of God in saying it is part of our human experience. I am making that statement with God's existence as a given. I am not concerned about atheists tossing my arguments anywhere. My beliefs will never be swayed by what someone else thinks of them. The fact that theists find meaning in life makes atheists uncomfortable, but atheists provide no rational basis for theists to chuck their beliefs. The problems atheists associate with religion completely disregard the fact that those problems arise when the theist is not in accord with his own beliefs...the problems voiced are rarely the teachings of religion themselves. Furthermore, to suggest that religion is incompatible with freedom may be your opinion, but again, disregards the freedom that the religion teaches itself. Mankind naturally will seek to control and destroy regardless...some corrupt theism to accomplish this, others use atheism. Completely removing beliefs in religious ethics or morals in exchange for varied and subjective morality will have obvious results.
deathtokoalas
right. so obviously that statement about "human experience" isn't going to mean anything to me, then. you'd might as well have been speaking to the wall. it's about as useful to me as a discussion about pink unicorns. which is kind of a refutation, but why bother...
the idea that atheists ought to be convincing theists to modify their beliefs is again a circular presentation. atheism argues that we need to look at the world in terms of evidence-based reasoning. it wouldn't argue in favour or against any specific belief, so much as it would demand that evidence is gathered to argue in favour of the belief. it's nothing more complicated than backing up your argument, which is something we teach kids to do in grade school - and place a great emphasis on. for example, i have a belief that extra-terrestrials exist in the universe, and the bible is evidence of their contact with us in the past. that's an evidence-based argument that is consistent with atheism, but it is still a belief. what we get upset about is not over the fact that you believe things but that you use faith-based reasoning to back it up. we then get frustrated over your refusal to accept the superiority of evidence-based reasoning over....magic, basically. let's be sure that this much is clear.
atheists tend to use the same process to deduce morality that the christian fathers did, which is rational discovery. atheism is not the elimination of morals, it is the elimination of magic. now, that necessarily eliminates any kind of authoritarian basis underlying legal systems, but that's the point. "infringing the rights of others is to be discouraged" is a much better statement than "thou shalt not kill" - an improvement, an advance, a step forwards - for the precise reason that it provides for more subtlety in analysis, and stops people from enforcing the rules with a blunt stick. few atheists are going to argue with the general content of religious morality (the few points of contention are largely going to be in the heteropatriarchal nature of the religious systems, but that these exist in religion is reflective of society's influence on religion, rather than the other way around); the point is more that it oversimplifies complex issues, often leading to undesirable outcomes. if the religious texts were thousands of pages long and full of carefully analyzed case notes, there'd be less contention. but, then nobody would read it. it's a tragic flaw in the outcome.
which is where the issues of freedom exist. a group of people that believe a book tells them what is right and wrong and belong to a culture that requires the enforcement of it's contents to reach immortality is....it's insane. whatever the cause, whatever social ill, it's organized madness. and, a free society simply cannot exist in these conditions of coercion and self-righteousness. the proselytism that enforces this self-righteousness into hierarchies and tyrannies is worked into the bulk of the major religions. the idea of free will may be inherent to most religions, but this idea that religion mostly preaches tolerance is absolutely false. every religion seeks to convert the entire world to it's path. this is simply not compatible with a free society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)