SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
U.S. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said on Thursday he has sent recommendations from his review of more than two dozen national monuments to President Donald Trump, indicating that some could be scaled back to allow for more hunting and fishing and economic development.
The recommendations follow a 120-day study of 27 national monuments across the country, created by presidents since 1996, that Trump ordered in April as part of his broader effort to increase development on federal lands.
The review has cheered energy, mining, ranching and timber advocates but has drawn widespread criticism and threats of lawsuits from conservation groups and the outdoor recreation industry.
There were fears that Zinke would recommend the outright elimination of some of the monuments on the list, but on Thursday, speaking to the Associated Press in Billings, Montana, he said he will not recommend eliminating any.
Zinke said in a statement that the recommendations would "provide a much needed change for the local communities who border and rely on these lands for hunting and fishing, economic development, traditional uses, and recreation." He did not specify which monuments he plans to recommend be scaled back.
The Associated Press reported that Zinke said he would recommend changing the boundaries for a "handful" of sites.
If you're taking millions of acres off the table for one site, you fail at knowing the definition of a monument.
Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-interior-monuments-idUSKCN1B41YA
Also at RT, CNN, The Washington Post and The Hill.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @01:51PM (85 children)
Profit is the only reason to do anything.
Either actions create wealth, or they don't; either your actions are profitable, or they aren't—when a thief steals your wallet, he is indeed profiting himself, but you (and society at large) are losing something, which is why you (and society at large) are motivated to stop theft.
Space has all the resources. Why should anybody be interested in space? Because that interest will eventually lead to massive profits our species!
Profit is everything. Quit thinking of it as a dirty word.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @02:06PM (19 children)
Wow, just wow. Profit is everything, profit is life? I understand your point but it is so wrong. Explain nonprofits! Explain charities! Explain the mitary!
I'm sure you can do some mental gymnastics to frame those activities as some derivative of profit seeking but that would be disingenuous. Instead try admitting you were wrong and profit doesn't fit into every human activity.
It is only a dirty word when people make profit more important than everything else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @02:22PM (13 children)
None of those things is unprofitable—with the exception of the military, which is a humongous waste of society's resources; as usual, the government is a parasite on productive society, skimming resources from its host.
If a thing merely breaks even, then it's not likely to survive in the long-term.
If a thing is cannot even break even, then it will disappear.
That is the nature of living in a Universe of finitely accessible resources.
What is so difficult to grasp about that fact? It's virtually an axiom.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @02:49PM (12 children)
You're conflating conservation of energy with an economic model. Just that fact right there makes you incompetent to continue this little debate. Are you a robot? Cause you seem to have lost your humanity somewhere along the way.
Yes that is a mean dig, but it is incredibly relevant. Only robots would view all human activity as something that must be monetized. Time to grow as an individual, your axiom is flawed.
Here, I'll give you an example to highlight and in a sense agree with your flawed logic. The Sun will run out of fuel someday so it IS a finite resource, but the time frame is so long as to be irrelevant to humanity. It is possible for our limited resources to be re-used indefinitely if we're smart about our society building and don't let our population explode further out of control. So the axiom of finite resources is flawed for the next few million years at least. Oh! Also, finite resources precludes the concept of profit, how can you create profit once the resource is gone? What about selling digital music? The supply is infinite, yet many people are able to make a profit selling their music.
Simply put you are narrow minded and have put your faith in a simple idea which lets you stop worrying about the details. No need to think further, just apply the profit test!
1. Is the thing privately owned? No? BAD! Yes? GOOD!
2. Does the thing require taxes? Yes? BAD! No? GOOD!
So the space race was bad? Oh lemme guess, it was worth it because we later privatized things? There are many things that are better off without a profit motive, the logic you are using is simply an excuse for the ownership class to get their hands on every piece of human activity so they can extract money from people.
This is the bullshit I expected form Trump, selling out the people for the benefit of corporations. And we have intellectual powerhouses like yourself ready to hop in with simple logic that sways the ignorant.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @02:56PM (8 children)
This guy just said the OP is a humanity-less robot. Where are the down-moderations for this guy?
Oh, space race again? How about "Redundant"; it's already been discussed in this very thread! Talk about Eternal September... man... "space race". What's next? "Move to Somalia!"??
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:10PM (7 children)
Oh yes, lets get out the burn cream! That shit was wicked hot!
Are you the violently imposed monopoly guy? Won't budge in your viewpoints even when many many people show you the flaws in your thinking? The human experience entails more than profit motivated activity. Art, beauty, love, excitement, fun, adventure, compassion, altruism.
Not only is your profit based ideology flawed, but it is incorrect as well. You presume that everything should be privately owned, but that is not even a requirement for something to be a benefit to humanity!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:23PM (6 children)
It takes resources to manifest "art, beauty, love, excitement, fun, adventure, compassion, altruism". Stop trying to ignore that fact.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:32PM (3 children)
Not ignoring that fact, you are under the mistaken impression that no one here understands your argument. Quite they opposite, your arguments are understood and found to be limited and flawed. You're mixing up the general definition of profit with the capitalistic idea of privatized profits. Enough examples and arguments have already been put forth, continue with your persecution complex if you want.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:38PM (2 children)
Those "examples" provide no damage to the argument that I've put forward.
With regard to "mixing up" the meaning of profit, please see here. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @04:46PM (1 child)
No, go troll somewhere else.
(Score: 4, Funny) by aristarchus on Friday September 01 2017, @06:43PM
One cannot "go troll somewhere else"! SoylentNews is the only place left! The green site, Rivendell, all of then have been privatized, and now for some reason there are not enough resources to troll, and most functions have been taken over by mindless, souless, amoral and incontinent robots. And it is starting even here! First they came for Bear's Ears, and then they came for Soylent, and then there was nowhere to troll at all.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday September 01 2017, @06:53PM (1 child)
not even the high-quality paint that Artistes use.
Therefore the Mona Lisa is worth about seventy-five clams.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 02 2017, @04:04AM
"Mona Lisa is worth about seventy-five clams"
That's the start of a good clam bake, but just the start. I'll meet you out on the mudflats, and we'll get serious about clamming.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 01 2017, @05:40PM (2 children)
Sorry, that's bogus. Let us note that "energy" was not mentioned at all and even if it were, no such conflation actually took place.
Second, if the economic model doesn't follow laws of physics (eg, infinite energy generators and the like for conservation of energy), then it's a bad model. If your model of economics ignores that a vast amount of resources (there's a lot more conserved quantities out there than energy!) is conserved or nearly so (with high cost to create or remove said resources), then it's going to have a lot of built in fail to it. There is no conflation here, it's recognizing that activities consume scarce, mostly conserved resources and if they can't sustain themselves directly, then they need to have a means by which they can insure the transfer of resources in perpetuality say via trade or the support of enduring sponsors.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @06:19PM (1 child)
Physics fail: That is the nature of living in a Universe of finitely accessible resources.
Everything is energy, AC brought in the finite universe as support for their argument so blame them.
You want economic models that include human activity to be on par with physical laws of the universe? Drink some more coffee, your brain is still dreaming.
(Score: 1, Informative) by khallow on Friday September 01 2017, @06:51PM
[...]
These are straw man arguments. No one has expressed anything that is relevant to your claims. In particular, economics models don't need to be as rigorous as physical law in order to work.
And the fact of the finite universe is support for the AC's argument. As to everything being energy, you do realize that it takes considerable effort to transform between various forms of matter and energy? For example, we could transform sunlight directly into gold by particle-anti-particle creation, assembling the resulting simple particles into gold nuclei eventually. But no one will do that because the cost of doing so would be huge. Even using nuclear reactions to generate gold nuclei is grotesquely inefficient. Thus, the amount of gold in the present world is effectively conserved even though we can think of a variety of hard paths for creating or removing it.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Friday September 01 2017, @05:26PM (4 children)
Speaking of disingenuous, we have a beauty here. Asking a question that you already know the answer to and then ruling out the answer without cause because it requires imaginary mental gymnastics and is disingenuous from a disingenuous point of view. Profit in the general sense is merely getting out more than you put in. Another word for it is sustainable. It doesn't require huge external inputs to keep going because the value of the thing or activity pays for itself either directly or through contributions of resources from concerned citizens.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @06:24PM (3 children)
Another physics failure!
That is actually NOT sustainable, the only way that could possibly be true is if you ignore the Sun's input and even then we still don't have matter/energy conversion so we're restricted by the physical matter available to us.
You're making the same mistake as the AC, profit can be defined as a general "net benefit" or a specific economic term. Using both interchangeably is the mental gymnastics part.
Generally everything can be viewed as profit, but economically there are many ways to achieve that general goal. Capitalistic profit models that rely on private ownership are NOT required. They make sense for some areas of human activity but not all. If you believe everything should be privatized then go make your own country and take your anarcho-libertarian friends with you.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 01 2017, @06:32PM (2 children)
Sustainable on the time scale of hundreds of millions of years. Come up with a better argument.
And you're making the mistake of thinking we are. Plus, I agree that the two uses of the term are not equivalent, but there is considerable overlap.
The thing that gets ignored here is that government ventures routinely have huge inputs of public funding. When that goes away (say because the opponents get into office with solid political support), then you have that funding dry up and the activity stopped. Hence, the emphasis on sustainable activity that isn't so dependent on capricious political sources for support.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @10:16PM (1 child)
Then mark the areas as public land forever and be done with it. If public funding disappears then the land is still there, but no rangers to oversee it or budget to fix parking lots, and big signs saying "Enter at your own risk!"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 02 2017, @07:15PM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @02:24PM (15 children)
Profit may be the only reason for you to do something. It's quite childish to then project your personal worldview as "the one and true god" of beliefs. In my view all that matters is positively changing society. Sometimes this goes hand in hand with profit, sometimes it does not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @02:33PM (14 children)
To say that you want society to change positively is to say that you want society to profit.
A bank balance, for example, is just one way to measure profit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:13PM (12 children)
You can't have it both ways. Either "profit" is a stand-in for "general benefit" or it is specific to the capitalist economic model. If it is a general word to indicate benefits in any form then you must drop the focus on private ownership. If not you're intellectually bankrupt and kindly go back to school.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:35PM (6 children)
Capitalism is not separable from "profit", even in the most general sense of the word.
This is because nobody knows what anything should cost, or what something should be priced—society has to find these values; centuries of experiments (and, last century in particular) have revealed that so far, we only know one good way to find these values:
The Price Mechanism
For a system as complex as society, the only workable solution for finding the values in question seems to be evolution by variation (supplier competition) and selection (consumer choice); as you can see, we're making our way towards capitalism.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @05:19PM (5 children)
Ah yes, the "free market" which does not actually exist and unless you manage to solve the pesky "human" problem it will never exist. Update your presumptions, cross reference with reality.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 01 2017, @06:41PM (4 children)
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @07:26PM (3 children)
Free market when you want it to solve efficiency problems or get rid of regulation, don't need a free market for pricing mechanisms to work.
God DAMN how has your existence not ruptured the space time continuum?
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Friday September 01 2017, @08:54PM (2 children)
You got it.
Because I understand nuance apparently. Tools don't have to work absolutely perfectly in order to be usable tools.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @10:41PM (1 child)
Hahahah, ok whatever khallow, remain a walking paradox and enjoy all the arguments you can until people realize its just easier to ignore you. Only reason I respond is so that some random person isn't suckered into your semi-reasonable yet contradictory statements.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 02 2017, @05:34AM
The second sentence says nothing about the first and vice versa, hence they can't contradict each other. A freer market tends to be more efficient and less ridden with regulation, neither which really has anything to do with the existence of pricing mechanisms (the efficiency of the mechanism, sure, but not whether it exists). But you can have a market that's pretty far from the free market ideal and still have pricing mechanisms. You just need a few things like price discovery and voluntary trade. And that's pretty much it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 01 2017, @05:47PM (4 children)
This is ridiculous. There's a huge number of words out there with multiple meanings. Nothing magical about profit that it can't have multiple meanings as well. I get that you don't want semantic mixing of the term, but that isn't actually happening here. The claim is being made that personal profit is usually societal profit as well. Sure, it's not always true, there are plenty of examples of activities that have huge externalities to them that outweigh the benefit of the activity to the involved parties. But most activities don't have those huge externalities.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @06:28PM (3 children)
You are ridiculous. Words can have multiple meanings, no one is saying profit can only mean one thing. However, when making an argument you can't substitute in the various definitions to support the narrow definition of privatized business profits.
EXACTLY! So can we stop this pointless debate? National parks / monuments are a public good, privatizing them is the continuation of robbing the public for corporate profits.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 01 2017, @06:57PM (2 children)
Unless we benefit more from privatizing them than the loss of the public good. Then it's not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @07:04PM (1 child)
If something is better then it is better. If it isn't better then it is not better. I will go with historical evidence of corporations abusing natural resources for their own profits instead of this hypothetical privatized system you imagine.
Draft up your proposals, include a contract that enforces environmental protections and limits on what the private owners can do, THEN we can discuss whether the public land should be privatized. You want me to trust the market / corporations? I refer again to historical evidence.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 02 2017, @07:39PM
And? Abusing natural resources is not necessarily a bad thing. All our stuff is made from abused natural resources.
Why should the rights of the land owner be limited in such a way? What's going on here is that for the past twenty years, the federal government has been using the Antiquities Law to reserve large tracts of land by presidential decree. It's relatively mild right now with perhaps 1-2k square miles land area and ~50k square miles of sea area reserved per year on average over the past two decades. But there's nothing legally to prevent future presidents from escalating this to vast fractions of the US in the future and using the power to push their agendas. There needs to be some pushback.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:14PM
You've been confused by your Anarchocap for Dummies book. ;-) The weenie word you're looking for is value. And a weenie word it is. Value is defined as fundamentally anything that makes a statement using it true, even if it contradicts another statement's usage of the word. This argument is kind of like trying to say claim that all colors are green. The only difference is academic - the wavelength absorption/reflection bands are changed a shade, but it's all green. Radio waves? Nope, green waves. X-rays? Nope, green-rays. Is the sky blue? No, it's green. Space empty... black? Nope, green. Roses are red? Nope, green. Of course you're free to say whatever you like, but trying to magically redefine words to make a view seem less radicalized is itself an ironic example of extreme radicalization.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Friday September 01 2017, @02:26PM (38 children)
Profit is not a dirty word.
But Profit is NOT absolutely NOT the only reason to do things. Some things are immensely valuable to society, both today and for future generations. Some things are worth preserving.
It's not like the companies are going out of business if they don't get to strip mine every undeveloped national monument or natural resource on the planet.
You mention Space has all the resources. Clue: the space program of the 1960's was immensely expensive. And there was no profit motive driving it to achieve great things. Yet out of it flowed all kinds of economic benefits both in terms of jobs created to support the space programs, and technology spin offs that flowed into all other areas of society and kickstarted the IC and microprocessor revolution.
The Interstate project is not directly profitable to the government or anyone. But it also created enormous economic benefits.
Now preserving some lands may not have economic benefits, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. The benefits may not be directly understandable at the time of the doing. (eg, space program, and interstate for moving military supplies rapidly) But preventing various species extinction might prove to be valuable in the not so distant future.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @02:42PM (26 children)
You're saying it's profitable to preserve something; future generations would find it to be a loss of wealth were it not preserved. Of course, that's your opinion; numbers can help back up your claim—which often leads to calculations in terms of money.
You're saying the Interstate Project has been profitable; of course, maybe some other, more organically grown, market-driven system of transportation would have been even more profitable (private money tends not to support bridges to nowhere).
Satellite communications and navigation technology has been very profitable for society; of course, it's pretty stupid to develop satnav by trying to plant a flag on the moon, rather than to plant a flag on the moon after developing highly profitable space technology. Sure, maybe NASA's work has yielded a 10x return, but a market-driven approach may have yielded a 1000x return—and may have resulted in designs for moon colonies or asteroid mining rather than earth-bound ICBMs. Get it, yet?
Your bank balance is just one way to measure profit; to say that you "want society to improve" is to say that you "want society to profit".
Profit is never dirty; profit is everything.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @02:49PM (22 children)
This website is terrible for discussion; the moderation is horrifically biased, and hides comments that are perfectly legitimate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:00PM (3 children)
All you're doing is repeating your argument and twisting everything as somehow supporting your idea. What do you expect when you ignore other people's points and just re-iterate what you already said? Intellectual dishonesty, you can't face your personal axiom having failed.
Perhaps the actual problem here is that you are applying "profit" in the absolute most general sense: An advantageous gain or return; benefit.
If so, then you should broaden your vocabulary, because to most people profit is tied into economics.
Example: a state park. Everyone would be served perfectly well if the parks generated zero profit. Pay the rangers and their costs, but no one should be getting money for simply owning the parks. The park is still a net benefit to humanity, but it is more beneficial if the prices don't include paying some rich dude to sit on his ass and do nothing except keep a deed in his desk. Many countries with massively more socialized programs are doing quite well.
Don't want to be marked redundant? Stop trying to force your beliefs on to everyone else. Try listening to their arguments and growing beyond your own narrow view.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:10PM (1 child)
With regard to forcing beliefs on anyone else, I'm not the one who looks to pull the levers of government to effect my world view; hell, I'm not even the one moderating others.
With regard to your "zero profit" scheme, see the prior comment [soylentnews.org]; you'll notice it has already been discussed—maybe you should actually "try listening to their arguments and growing beyond your own narrow view".
How is "tied into economics" defeating any argument? You're just using other words to make it sound like you've said something novel.
To me, it looks like your own personal axioms are failing, and that you cannot handle it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:18PM
Nice projection bud, way to evade personal responsibility. I read your arguments and found them limited. Not wrong, but incomplete. All you're doing here is playing "I know you are but what am I?"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Friday September 01 2017, @03:31PM
It's called moving the goalposts (but I'm sure you already knew that). Start out with the definition of profit that nobody can mistake for cashy monies, then when called on it say, "haha, I was talking general benefit all along!"
Horseshit. No you (they) weren't.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:01PM (17 children)
Nothing is hidden -- just browse at -1.
I use the mod system to rate the audience, not the posts (except for the obvious off-topic or spam posts).
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday September 01 2017, @03:28PM (16 children)
Then you're blatantly doing it wrong. jmorris et al. occasionally make good points, but under your system we would never see them because they'd be voted down anyway.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:49PM (13 children)
You missed the bit where I browse at -1.
I see everything, even the "jmorris et al." posts that are sometimes down-modded.
(Score: 3, Funny) by tangomargarine on Friday September 01 2017, @03:51PM (1 child)
Good for you, Mr. Selfish, but you're damaging everyone else's SN experience.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @04:59PM
Moral dilemma: no one should be modded down for an identity, the value of their words should stand for themselves.
Problem: but its jmorris!!
Result: Ok ok, bigotry is fine, but just this ONE TIME!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @04:03PM (10 children)
I also browse at -1, but I use modding for the sake of others, not myself. I don't even understand the compulsion to leave anonymous moderation, if not to affect the experience of others. </anonymous virtue signalling>
(Score: 1, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday September 01 2017, @06:48PM (9 children)
Boy, I wish I [soylentnews.org] could do this!
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 01 2017, @10:16PM (8 children)
Use the Spam moderation for spam instead of "making a point" and you could.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday September 02 2017, @01:23AM (7 children)
There you go again, Buzz! Spamming the forum with redundant comments about the spam mod! If I could mod, I might have to mod this spam, just to make a point, again.
(Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 02 2017, @01:41AM (6 children)
Second offense is six months, just in case you were wondering.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday September 02 2017, @01:48AM (5 children)
So, will you stop spamming SoylentNews with your incessant hall-monitoring?
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 02 2017, @02:42AM
Nope, that's what I get paid the big bucks for. I even have an official vest and everything.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 02 2017, @03:42AM (3 children)
You really, and truly, need to change your name. Or, was the real Aristarchus a petty whining bitch too? Have you ever suffered a hardship more severe than being deprived of moderation privileges for a few days? What a spoiled, pampered fuck you are.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Saturday September 02 2017, @09:48AM (2 children)
You, oh pampered by anonymity AC, need to change your name! Who are you to even address one such as I? Let alone the The Mighty Buzzard, who is Mighty? And of course, being the historically illiterate AC that you are, you do not comprehend the seriousness of the current stuggle! You probably would have gone with Chamberlain to Berlin, in search of "peace in our time", and let the Nazis mod-ban the Jews, the Communists, the Gays, the Roma, and the Catholics with balls! Wouldn't you? Oh, if my "whining" in defense of free speech and justice offends thee, pluck out thy, . . . well, pluck out something. Those of us working for social justice have no time for the annoyed. So we will continue posting here. Even if we must spam mod the Migratory Bandsaw one hundred times, even if we have to suffer mod-bans of months, or sixes of months, or shadow-bans and IP blocking, we will continue, because history is on our side. The right wing know this, it is why they have gone daft and extreme. I mean, seriously, Nazis and KKK and Militias from the '70s? CosPlay, dude! And Trump.
You may not be aware of the history of Samos. This island birthed many of the greatest minds of its era, including Pythagoras, Epicurus, Melissus, Aesop, and myself. You seem not to be aware that Pythagoras, the man who invented the term "philosophy", was forced to hide in a cave on Mount Kerkis, because the tyrant Polycrates tried to mod-ban him, or at least the ancient equivalent. So do not be surprised that the Sons of Samos are the First in Revolution in the Name of Justice, even here on SoylentNews, against the tyrant TMB. Really, it is no problem to me. I feel no pain, or even harm. Just concern for the dream that was SoylentNews, back when we started this adventure together. Or were you not there, AC?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 02 2017, @04:38PM
Look, man, you spammed. Someone saw it and correctly moderated it. Learn something for once instead of acting like a petulant child.
I didn't moderate you. I just refused to reverse legit moderation. I didn't mod-ban you either. I just shook my head, said "dumbass", and went on with my day.
You want someone to have a vendetta against, go for it. You're not going to get any help with that from me though. I happen to enjoy reading ~95% of what you have to say here. The rest I just say "meh" and go on to the next comment.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 03 2017, @10:57AM
"This island birthed many of the greatest minds of its era"
Thank God and Evolution that we aren't relying on those Greeks to do our thinking today! How's that Greek economy doing, anyway?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @04:14PM (1 child)
Actually, I'm quite certain I could live a full and meaningful life without ever having seen any of jmorris' comments. By my reckoning, jmorris' comments (and those of a few notable others) could disappear into a black hole and nothing of value would be lost. YMMV.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Saturday September 02 2017, @09:51AM
Of all the comments I missed modding up while my unjust mod-ban was in place, I think I shall miss this one the most. So true, so succinct, so nobly phrased! Well done, Anonymous Coward, well done!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday September 01 2017, @05:16PM (2 children)
The interstate project was of economic benefit in hindsight. It was for national security when it started.
Space satellites have been of enormous economic benefit in hindsight. During the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs, profit and economic benefits were not seen.
Prior to Apollo there wasn't any significant market for space. It was enormously expensive to get something into orbit. A lot of that was the R&D costs of developing launch vehicles. And a huge number of unknowns that the moon shot program solved -- at great cost. No telecom company would think, hey let's put up a telecom satellite. All we have to do first is spend many billions of dollars to develop a way to launch it. And to research how to even build a satellite that can withstand the environment of space.
Profit isn't dirty, per se. But it's not the only reason to do everything. Having families and children is not profitable.
There is a word for thinking that everything revolves around profit. Psychopath. And some CEOs are.
If profit drives everything, then why don't we just strip mine the entire planet until it is totally uninhabitable. Think of the profits!
If you just want the profit above all, organized crime is the end point, so why not just skip all the middle steps and start with organized crime? There are reasons why we have government. It is to protect the public good, while allowing everyone to pursue happiness (and profit).
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 02 2017, @12:53AM
Satellites for the purpose of communications were one of the very first things proposed for space technology. You're just pulling shit out of your arse.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 02 2017, @05:15PM
This is nonsense as well. Eisenhower became a big fan of the idea after he saw the autobahns after the Second World War. Sure, it has military application, but it's obvious that an efficient nation-wide transportation system will have massive economic benefits as well.
And yet parents value their children more than they do the resources consumed in raising those children. That is what profit is about, whether the specific financial version or the general one, getting more out than you put in.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday September 01 2017, @02:45PM (9 children)
Aside from "because it is beautiful" -- which ought to be enough -- there are other arguments for open space such as the fact that such spaces clean the air and water -- two things that without, profit is irrelevant. They also provide a place for occasional excess water to collect, a benefit that protects profit in developed areas and that benefit should be obvious to anyone who has heard of Harvey.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @02:52PM (8 children)
You're saying this: Those open spaces are profitable for society.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:37PM (1 child)
I liked this response [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:54PM
It doesn't match this situation.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:50PM (5 children)
WE GET IT, you enjoy MISUSING the word profitable, and it appears you are doing it to push your own POV that everything is and should be about profit.
No one else here agrees with your definition of the word. You are not going to convince people other wise. So at this point its just trolling, so STOP IT.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:58PM (4 children)
Would you profit if I stopped? How many bitcoins would you send me in exchange for stopping?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @04:49PM (3 children)
Well I bothered to log in and counteract what I thought was an incorrect flamebait mod. I will now probably join people in modding you troll.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @05:16PM (2 children)
Please, explain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @05:26PM (1 child)
I corrected what I thought to be a faulty moderation. Upon further reflection I see that you are simply restating your primary idea of profit == everything. Enough people have posted legitimate responses and demonstrated that "profit" does not cover everything, and that you are using the general and specific definitions of profit to suit your purposes.
I will now mod such submissions as trolls since they ignore valid arguments and simply restate the assumption that profit == everything. When using the general and specific definitions at will you can wrap everything into the general and then "logically" tie it to the specific business profit definition.
To further explain, it is like you are copy/pasting the same argument over and over, no variation and no valid critiques of counter arguments. This is trollish behavior, spamming a message to try and force engagement. A few people have already commented that you are intentionally doing this, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and explaining the situation.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @08:29PM
Their arguments haven't been ignored; they've been rebutted (and, indeed, invalidated).
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 02 2017, @04:09AM
"ut Profit is NOT absolutely NOT the only reason to do things."
Double negatives? So, you actually agree with GP? I are getting confused, LOL.
I'm just kidding, really, but double negatives attract my attention.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:27PM (2 children)
I had to log in and correct the moderation, I used interesting cause that seems the closest. The comment is definitely not flamebait, improper downmods only serves to solidify the person's flawed thinking because we are flawed humans and can't help but tie our emotional reactions into our beliefs. They now feel persecuted (somewhat legitimate) and thus their ideas become martyrs. If you disagree with their profit only model please add a rebuttal, or at least use the disagree mod.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:59PM (1 child)
We're all still waiting. The OP seems to rebut fairly well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @05:13PM
Profit is everything!
Anything that isn't profit is BAD and can be ignored since it is BAD and shouldn't exist. 10/10 for style, 12/10 for insight.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @04:25PM (3 children)
You wouldn't happen to be related to Donald Trump, would you?
Question: I sometimes do volunteer work for charity. I don't get paid for this work. (Well, OK, sometimes I might get a free burger from a local restaurant for a morning and/or afternoon of work.) How does this fit into your "profit is everything" model of how the world works? Am I wasting my time? Should I, instead, look to engage in something more "profitable"? Frankly, it looks to me like your "profit is everything" model is severely lacking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @04:51PM (2 children)
The troll is misusing the word profit, switching between the general and specific definitions as it suits the argument. Intellectually dishonest, probably the same person as the "violently imposed monopoly!"
Safe to ignore.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @05:20PM (1 child)
If someone's argument seems disagreeable, that person is by definition wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @05:30PM
That would indeed seem to be the logic you are operating on. I hope you are trolling, or that you live in another country. The US can't handle much more stupid.
(Score: 3, Touché) by karmawhore on Friday September 01 2017, @06:00PM
=kw= lurkin' to please
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday September 01 2017, @06:49PM (1 child)
"Honey, I need some lovin' tonight."
"That'll be 200 bucks."
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @08:36PM
... when you've just come home from a fancy $200 dinner.