drumbo

You are plainly wrong, they are a function of both the number of interactions and how the interactions tend to go. Given what we read in the news and what we know about American cops the interactions can go catastrophically poorly, and those unfortunate cases increase as the number of interactions increase. I don't know where you are planning on getting these angelic cops who never pull the trigger when a seemingly belligerent person answers the door with a gun, but in the real world many of those cops are going to shoot the man no matter how well you train them to use de-escalation techniques. The outcomes are a function of how many interactions there are, the trivial proof being that if there were zero interactions then nobody would ever be shot by a police officer. Maximizing the protection of property versus maximizing the potential to rehabilitate criminals is exactly the point that I made originally, and is completely consistent with everything I said thereafter. I added the detail about absolute maximization versus constrained maximization because you seemed to be unable to grasp the difference, forgive me for assuming that those concepts were intuitively understood by most people.

You aren't listening. More policing results in more confrontations between police and citizens, resulting in more deaths and injuries for them before they can be booked into any system. Read, this just happened: https://newsmaven.io/pinacnews/cops-gone-rogue/watch-phoenix-cops-kill-man-after-responding-to-noise-complaint-over-video-game-AsvFt-AHpkeQlcgNj5qiTA It is astounding to me that you cannot grasp this, perhaps this is rocket science for you. Your claim "Also, property can be protected in other ways. More police is not the only option.", is moot since you made no effort no show that it doesn't concede the point that maximizing the protection of property in an absolute sense likely involves a well funded police force. There, you see what a proper elucidation of a viewpoint looks like? Now you do that.

Do you understand the concept of optimization subject to constraints? Have you ever taken an economics course or a course in optimization techniques (KKT conditions, etc...)? You can maximize something in the absolute sense, or you can maximize it subject to some constraint. Of course you can maximize the rehabilitation of criminals subject to the constraint of first maximizing the protection of property. But if remove that constraint then you could rehabilitate criminals to an even greater degree. I already gave an explanation that the number of police encounters with criminals/suspects increases the number of poor outcomes for the criminals/suspects, thus reducing the opportunity for rehabilitation. I really have to say, that you have consistently failed to explain your viewpoint demonstrates such contempt and a lack of humility. You may have an unshakable belief in the correctness of your beliefs and the infallibility of your mind, but I do not. Why don't you share your thoughts, as I have so that we can all judge if you are as correct as you think you are?

If you want to repeat yourself without giving any additional explanation so that I can respond and expand upon my viewpoint I welcome your generosity. It's only your case that suffers. Any time police arrive interact with criminals, or potential criminals, the criminals/suspects are put in harm's way. They could be shot, injured, or given a criminal record that ruins their chances for employment. Increasing policing will necessarily increase the number of these kinds of encounters. You cannot maximize the protection of property while maximizing the potential to rehabilitate criminals. You are welcome to explain your viewpoint, I am genuinely curious.

I've seen you claim something I said was not true at least twice now on these forums, without giving any further explanation. How is that constructive? If you aren't able to explain yourself then your input is almost useless. Justify your beliefs. It seems patently true to me that increased policing protects property during riots and in general in high crime areas, and that protection of property is maximized when the police are well funded. However more policing is necessarily juxtaposed with rehabilitating criminals since it puts criminals in harms way.

Crime is arbitrarily defined by whoever possesses a credible threat of force. Aron Nimzowitsch said something to the effect of "The threat is greater than the execution." A crime is any act that is forbidden by some authority that possesses a credible threat of force to enforce their rule. For example, I can draft my own law right now, the drumbo law, anyone who disagrees with me shall be imprisoned. However, since I do not possesses a credible threat of force to enforce that rule you will probably not obey it. On the other hand if I was a dictator and had control of the army and police then you would be much more likely to comply, since I would possess a credible threat of force. Not paying your taxes is a crime, since if you do not your paychecks may be garnished forcefully, if you contravene that somehow then your property may be seized, if you try to contravene that physical force will be used against you to seize your property, and if you try to resist that you may be injured or killed. Therefore not paying your taxes is a crime, since it is enforced by a credible threat of force. The execution controls one man, but the threat controls a million.

Intuitively it should be very close to zero if not exactly zero. There are three reasons your bloodline could end. The first being that you or your children or your grandchildren just end up not having children for some reason. It happens. However once you get past that hurdle and you have quite a few descendants it is almost impossible that your bloodline would end solely because nobody had children, and then the next reason your bloodline could end would be some catastrophic event such as a war, asteroid impact, or some other high fatality event. For example, my grandfather was one of 13 children, and 6 of his siblings died during WWII. It's not hard to imagine that some families which had only a few children might have had their entire bloodline wiped out during WWII, especially Jews. The city, Novi Sad, where my grandparents lived pretty much had zero Jews after WWII ended. Now consider how often these high fatality events happen. The black death wiped out 50% of the population of Europe, and that wasn't that long ago when we're considering a scale of a billion years. The third reason your bloodline could end is if the humans species, or whatever is descended from us, just gets totally wiped out. Assume a 50% fatality event happens every 100,000 years. Also assume that 5% of the population is descended from you the first time there is a 50% fatality event. What is the probability of your bloodline lasting the next billion years? 1st 50% fatality event - This could either greatly reduce or greatly increase the proportion of your descendants. It would depend on factors like geographic distribution of your descendants, if they are specifically targeted by the event for some reason, etc... If you're lucky this could double, or ever more than double, the proportion of your descendants. If it doubles and 10% of the population is descended from you during the 2nd 50% fatality event then you have a better shot of your bloodline not getting totally wiped out than you did at 5%. Say you get lucky again and you double up, now 20% of the population is descended from you, and you can see where this is going. The probability that your bloodline survives the next billion years is high dependent on them surviving the first few 50% fatality events. If they survive the first few, then your descendants become so prevalent in the population that it becomes almost impossible for them to be wiped out unless the entire species gets wiped out. Therefore the probability is P(you, your immediate children, and grandchildren all have kids) * P(your descendants survive the first few 50% fatality events) * P(the species doesn't get wiped out within a billion years). Now let's plug in example numbers. P(you, your immediate children, and grandchildren all have kids) = 0.7 P(your descendants survive all of the 50% fatality events) = 0.1 P(the species doesn't get wiped out within a billion years) = 0.01 So it's got to be pretty close to zero.

Well it's clear that the issue is highly politicized. To discuss it objectively we need to identify a goal. Are we interested in maximizing rehabilitation of criminals or the protection of property? Those are juxtaposed goals, if I owned a lot of property I would want more policing preventing rioting and vandalism from damaging it. If I owned little or no property and also had a soft spot for the downtrodden criminals of the world I might want less policing. It all depends on what you value.

It implies that it is possible for there to be a mirror image of our universe that has the same laws as our own.

It's not as stupid an idea as you think. The great philosophers of the past entertained the idea of god and the soul as a source of exogenous influence. Today we consider the idea of god and the soul quaint, but the great philosophers of the past were some of the greatest minds of their time and even they entertained the idea that there may be some exogenous influence that elevates the mind beyond some mechanical object. Rejecting the existence of god and the soul, there may yet be some phenomenon we do not know of (quantum mechanics?) that allows the brain to perform processes that no other object in the universe does. In that sense the mind would be a separate entity based upon a unique process that introduces an exogenous influence in a way that no other object does. In that case the relationship between the mind and the observed world is one of feedback; the mind introduces its exogenous influence, which then affects the world, which is then perceived as the observed world, and the mind once again introduces its exogenous influence. A feedback loop where each "step" introduces entropy into the system.

It's not a hijack, I think it's important to determine if the mind is merely an object within the world or an object that is capable of introducing some exogenous influence. Of course it is a question that wanders into the determinism question, but it's related and highly relevant here.

This implies that poo is volatile.

It could happen like this: Imagine a future where academics, the government, and hospitals tell you that if you attempt to undergo a natural pregnancy you will be putting your health and the child's at great risk since statistics show that artificially gestated childbirths have much lower risks of complications for both the child and mother. The hospital then charges a large amount of money to deliver a natural pregnancy since they need all sorts of extra staff and procedures to minimize the risk of complications. Your insurance premiums also skyrocket once they learn you intend to carry out a natural childbirth. At some point in the future natural childbirth might be become associated with poverty stricken people who do not have access to modern technology. The parentless convicts you speak today of are subject to poverty and other poor socioeconomic conditions. I see no reason why people raised in wealthy futuristic communities without a 2 parent model couldn't become well adjusted healthy people. Keep in mind that the 2 parent model only developed because it was evolutionary convenient and it worked; it made sense for 2 parents to work together prioritizing their own kids to pass on copies of their genes. But if we are going to move towards a future where we do not selfishly prioritize our own genes and instead use genetic engineering to promote the traits that we think are good, regardless of whether we have those traits, then there is no reason for a 2 parent model.

I once wondered if the brain takes advantage of some exogenous mechanism to introduce creativity into decision making, elevating the mind into a truly intelligent construction rather than being based on some deterministic electrochemical machine. In that case the mind would exist outside of the world as we know it, if that exogenous mechanism is found nowhere but in the brain. Even if that exogenous mechanism is a feature of the universe itself, if it is found and exploited only within the brain then the mind is essentially a separate and special entity.

The observed world is a subset of the world itself, since the observed world only exists within a mind that is contained within the world. The observed world only exists for as long as the mind continues to function. The actions of the mind affect the world, so one could say that the world itself would not exist in its current state without the mind, but the mind is just part of the world. I'm confused now.

What chemical gives farts their distinctive smell? I highly doubt that if I bought canisters of pure nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and methane, and then mixed them in the proportions you listed the mixture would have smell I would expect a fart to have. What chemical(s) make the smell?

This is more or less where I see things headed. Keep in mind that if artificial gestation pods are developed, and if they become cheap, reliable and widely available, then very few women would be willing to go through the stress of natural childbirth and would instead opt to use the "pods". And if children are no longer developed inside of women's bodies that opens up the possibility of completely abandoning the two parent model for raising children, and children would probably instead be raised by the community or the state.

The practical question is, if people that do crime are not responsible for their behavior should we still punish them? Well at the very least we should deter or prevent them from committing crime again, and that can require doing something punitive like imprisoning them. I can't think of a good way to stop a serial killer from murdering people other than keeping them in a secure facility 24/7, regardless of whether or not they are responsible for their behavior.

We can take care of the environment by not polluting it, but how can we control the climate? If we knew how to do that we could settle on Mars.

That graph uses the purported manipulated data. The original data shows no warming trend for the past 20 years.

There is substantial evidence that the IPCC's climate models do not work. They drastically over-predicted the amount of warming that would occur, and made at least two major adjustments to global surface temperature series' that concealed this. Sources: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469 https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2297 These are not the only adjustments that have occurred. Almost all of the adjustments tended to make earlier years colder, which boosted the warming trend. It is very improbable that would happen without an intention to manipulate the data. I posted this fact earlier, and not only was no explanation or rebuttal given, the reply was deleted.

Sure, I am claiming that records of the surface temperatures are badly compromised, and the sources for that claim were given before. Your "rebuttal" failed to disprove that. It is not cherry picking to use the only dataset which has not been manipulated. Did you even read the link you gave? It does not disprove the claim.

It seems like not "arguing in good faith" is a favorite buzzphrase around here. What a convenient way to ignore any points that I make. It seems like that poor old horse gets trotted out any time someone makes an argument that can't be rebutted. I have yet to see you make an intelligent and constructive reply. This is not ad hominem, I have no doubt dimreepr is an intelligent person who has no issues stringing together a cogent thought, I'm sure he just chooses not to. It's just a pity that the moderators don't hold him to the same standards of discourse as they do myself. But of course, he's on the right side. One could say that holding your opponent to a higher level of discourse than those who agree with you is "not arguing in good faith". Well it is awfully convenient that you found a reason to ignore all the points I made. One could almost say that this is "not arguing in good faith". Referring to valid points as memes and running away. Is this in "good faith"? The data is not cherry-picked, it is the only data which has not been manipulated. I read through the synopsis of each article in the "rebuttal" you posted, and each synopsis does not indicate a true rebuttal. Not once do they demonstrate that the surface data has not been compromised, they merely dance around the issue by trying to undermine the precision of the satellite data, or claiming that the authors have not considered alternative explanations for the deviation between predicted and observed temperatures. Where is the rebuttal to the fact that adjustments have been made which consistently help the AGW narrative? Do you understand how unlikely that is and how dishonest that makes the AGW supporters look?

Feel free to visit https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ and scroll down to the synopsis of chapter 2 which is "Showing how emissions can be brought to zero by mid-century stay within the small remaining carbon budget for limiting global warming to 1.5°C." and chapter 3 "Why is it necessary and even vital to maintain the global temperature increase below 1.5°C versus higher levels? Adaptation will be less difficult. Our world will suffer less negative impacts on intensity and frequency of extreme events, on resources, ecosystems, biodiversity, food security, cities, tourism, and carbon removal." If you are skeptical of well known facts which can be verified within 5 seconds of visiting the IPCC official website, then you should spend some time educating yourself before participating in a discussion. Real world data do not show the dramatic warming which climate models have predicted. There has only been slight warming, and most of it in winter and at night. From https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/climate-change-rule-thumb-cold-things-warming-faster-warm-things "colder seasons are warming faster than warmer seasons" and "colder times of day are warming more than warmer times of day". According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there has been no systematic increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, and the ongoing rise in sea level that began with the end of the ice age continues with no great increase in magnitude. The constancy of land-based records is obvious in data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Atmospheric scientist John Christy developed a global temperature record of the lower atmosphere using highly accurate satellite soundings. NASA honored him for this achievement, and he was an author for a previous edition of the U.N. report. He told a House Science Committee hearing in March 2017 that the U.N. climate models have failed badly. Christy compared the average model projections since 1979 to the most reliable observations — those made by satellites and weather balloons over the vast tropics. In the upper levels of the lower atmosphere, the models predicted seven times as much warming as has been observed. Over-prediction also occurred at all other levels. Christy is not looking at surface temperatures, as measured by thermometers at weather stations. Instead, he is looking at temperatures measured from calibrated thermistors carried by weather balloons and data from satellites. Records of the surface temperatures have been badly compromised. Globally averaged thermometers show two periods of warming since 1900: a half-degree from natural causes in the first half of the 20th century, before there was an increase in industrial carbon dioxide that was enough to produce it, and another half-degree in the last quarter of the century. The latest U.N. science compendium asserts that the latter half-degree is at least half man made. But the thermometer records showed that the warming stopped from 2000 to 2014. Until they didn’t. In two of the four global surface series, data were adjusted in two ways that wiped out the “pause” that had been observed. The first adjustment changed how the temperature of the ocean surface is calculated, by replacing satellite data with drifting buoys and temperatures in ships’ water intake. The size of the ship determines how deep the intake tube is, and steel ships warm up tremendously under sunny, hot conditions. The buoy temperatures, which are measured by precise electronic thermistors, were adjusted upwards to match the questionable ship data. Given that the buoy network became more extensive during the pause, that’s guaranteed to put some artificial warming in the data. The second big adjustment was over the Arctic Ocean, where there aren’t any weather stations. In this revision, temperatures were estimated from nearby land stations. This runs afoul of basic physics. Even in warm summers, there’s plenty of ice over much of the Arctic Ocean. Now, for example, when the sea ice is nearing its annual minimum, it still extends part way down Greenland’s east coast. As long as the ice-water mix is well-stirred (like a glass of ice water), the surface temperature stays at the freezing point until all the ice melts. So, extending land readings over the Arctic Ocean adds nonexistent warming to the record. Further, both global and United States data have been frequently adjusted. There is nothing scientifically wrong with adjusting data to correct for changes in the way temperatures are observed and for changes in the thermometers. But each serial adjustment has tended to make the early years colder, which increases the warming trend. That’s wildly improbable. In addition, thermometers are housed in standardized instrument shelters, which are to be kept a specified shade of white. Shelters in poorer countries are not repainted as often, and darker stations absorb more of the sun’s energy. It’s no surprise that poor tropical countries show the largest warming from this effect. All this is to say that the weather balloon and satellite temperatures used in Christy’s testimony are the best data we have, and they show that the U.N.’s climate models just don't work.

But it is your request for evidence which is in bad faith, it's like asking someone to provide evidence that the moon landing was real. It is well known that all the computer models the IPCC has used in its 25 years of existence have predicted global warming much greater than has actually been observed, just like it's well known that the moon landing happened. If you are claiming that you did not already know that then it would reflect poorly upon your basic knowledge on this matter. Do you honestly doubt this is true (it is)? It is not hyperbole. The IPCC has clearly stated they want to bring net carbon emissions down to zero within the next thirty years. There is no technology currently existing that would allow that without a return to pre-industrial/dark ages levels of poverty. Where do you think all of the energy needed to run the civilization around you comes from?