Toadfish Monastery

This year may have been trying for some of us but that is no reason to stop celebrating it's end! 

May 2016 be better for all of us.

Happy New Year!

There was an interesting discussion about oil somewhere else where it had no business happening. This is what has been said:

Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on March 27, 2015, 04:32:46 PM

Quote from: Griffin NoName on March 27, 2015, 01:24:49 AM
It's like climate change; everyone agrees it is coming, but no one behaves as if it really is.

Not everyone believes it's real (thanks to)[, and] those in power who couldn't care less who get's screwed so long their shares in oil and gas industries go up. Not only everyone would have to be conscious of the problem (not easy with the "reeducation" from the oil & gas henchmen) but ready to act upon a threat that [supposedly] will take years to materialize. Ignorance and our right malice play a role in our natural long term stupidity on that one.

Quote from: Aggie on March 27, 2015, 07:54:07 PM
Oil shares are down quite a bit at the moment, actually, although that's largely because y'all are producing a surplus of shale oil down there, thanks to fracking.

Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on March 31, 2015, 03:27:59 PM
As for oil, they were explaining how the stronger dollar is affecting the price of oil (because oil is sold only in dollars), so on one end supply got way more ample, and on the other, as the US economy got better (and the European/Japanese not) the dollar went up, the price got really low, which in turn makes fracking (and the tar sands BTW) between less profitable to non viable (in fact there is a noticeable slowdown on new fracking wells here), which eventually will push the price up.

The other element is that demand has remained between stable and weak and it isn't clear if that trend will continue or not. Theoretically the lower prices should push up demand, but OTOH even emerging markets are more conscious of global warming and/or have their economies slowing down, so it is hard to tell when the prices will go back up (unless the crazies get to power here on the next cycle and declare another war in the middle east. Still, at least two years away).

Quote from: Aggie on March 31, 2015, 05:02:40 PM
The oilsands are definitely less profitable at these prices (and losing money in many cases), but it's the newer, somewhat cleaner in-situ facilities that will be hit the hardest.  I'm sure the big dirty open-pit dinosaurs from the 70's that are the most visible eyesores up there will keep chugging along just fine.

Low oil prices tend to translate to much less environmental work being done in the patch, as companies slash their cleanup budgets.

Some of the timing of this cycle might have more to do with geopolitical events than market economies, as the Saudis have been keeping production up to put financial pressure on Russia and Iran.

And to continue, I'd say the Saudis are simply placing pressure on everybody else trying to bite into their business..

I was looking at Salon when I found this pearl:

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/01/genocide_is_permissible_according_to_insane_times_of_israel_op_ed/

Beyond the complete lack of irony from the writer, or the desperate pull of the article by ToI, it makes me wonder, first, someone let that article go up without thinking anything was wrong with it, and second, how many people in Israel actually thinks this way? I heard reports of 90%+ support for the current operation in Gaza.

Note, I don't by any means support Hamas or the use of random violence, but this is the stuff that gets my blood boiling.

It's official, Colbert will replace Letterman next year which means that The Colbert Report has less than a year to live. As much as I wish CBS won't try to dilute Colbert's satire I fear that corporate interests may make it as irrelevant as Letterman.

In a different thread Lord Mero made some comments (perhaps in a different context) that I believe are worth debating regarding what property is:

Quote from: Sibling Qwertyuiopasd on March 13, 2014, 10:19:39 PM

Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on March 13, 2014, 09:16:30 PM

Quote from: The Meromorph on March 13, 2014, 09:01:16 PM
I believe you will find that even real 'public space' is actually owned by some entity and at some level of abuse will be 'policed' on behalf of that entity.
I'm OK with that, but the universe doesn't care whether I'm OK with it. That's the way it is.

That is an interesting discussion about property and ownership in itself, is the bird the owner of the hole in the tree where she is nesting, or the tree, or a more powerful entity claiming ownership of the forest? A lot of stuff to debate there.

Well, one answer would be that ownership/property is a lie, and doesn't really exist. Birds just live in their holes, at least as long as they are able to defend it from any other bird that might want it.

Granted, property becomes a thing when governments and societies say it is a thing and treat it as such. In which case I think it's basically the same story, but with some more bureaucracy. The United States Government owns all the space within the geography defined as the United States, at least as long as and insofar as it can defend it from others who want control of it (or convince them not to do it, like how Canada is unlikely to invade us and vice versa). Within that, the government gives the land to people within it, the most obvious form of this being the Homestead Act. So then it's some individual or corporation's property because they bought it from the government, or from someone else who did.

Now, I assume there are laws about defining public spaces and what that means, like a restaurant would be a public space, so public indecency laws would apply, and (if I understand non-discrimination properly) the owners couldn't bar people for the wrong reasons. Or like highways are public property, but that's more because they're owned by the government for public use, and of course have their own laws and restrictions.

For some reason I read in his post the suggestion that everything is ultimately owned by something or someone, and the implications of that assertion are far and wide, one of them is hinted by Qwerty as the ability (power) to 'defend' said property, which in turn would suggest that property is a property of power, that is, if I'm able to own something is because I have to power to defend it, or by extension, if by force I'm able to procure it from someone else.

Perhaps I'm reading to much natural law into the argument but I see some philosophical quandaries there.

I couldn't resist making a Mussorgsky reference while thinking on the current turmoil in Ukraine.
--
Reading the news and the reactions to the events I'm a bit surprised as how certain things remain the same even if the Cold War ended about a quarter of a century ago. From my desk it would seem that the western media paints the Russians as the evil monsters taking over the poor Ukrainians in Crimea. From the East it would seem that the Russians in Crimea would face imminent death from the evil West.

No shots have been fired in Crimea (yet) to my knowledge, although things in Donetsk seem to be a bit more "active" (although you would have to read Xinhua because the western news are still repeating the already refuted threats to the Ukrainian military bases in Crimea).

Beyond how evil Yanukovich really is (apparently very evil) or how obvious is for Russia to desire their main base in the Black sea to be under their indisputable control, the truth is that the overwhelming majority of people living in Crimea are ethnic Russians, and I don't see how they can go back to how things were.

Now, things in Donetsk and other cities in the East are a bit more complicated as according to admittedly oldish polls, the Ukrainian and Russians are more or less evenly split demographically. True, the majority voted for Yanukovich in the eastern provinces/oblasts, but still there are significant ethnic Ukrainians in those regions, more interesting are places like Odessa where technically the Russians are a third of the population but the overwhelming majority are Russian speakers.

Personally I don't think the country can remain whole but it is clear that the populations are quite intertwined, at least in the East making any changes a potentially explosive proposition.

What do you gals & guys think?

Quote from: pieces o nine on October 26, 2013, 01:22:27 AM
I resent males whose eyes almost audibly focus in on my chest

[clueless male comment ahead]
I find incredibly ironic how those lacking, erm... presence on that department complain about it and those, mmm... gifted on that area complain of undue attention. In fact it would seem like there is no perfect size as those with more want less and those with less want more (with those in the mathematical middle identifying themselves with the other two groups).

Men OTOH may resent smaller sizes but I have yet to hear one complaining of large ones...

In a different thread it was mentioned that the vote in Australia is compulsory to the point of fines if the individual doesn't vote. Personally I do like the idea, specially if the None of the Above option has consequences, for instance in Colombia for governor and mayor elections, if a majority of voters chose what we call a 'Blank Vote' new elections have to be called and depending on the circumstances with different candidates.

Today, in many places, including the US and Colombia the majority of voters simply abstain from voting, and that has absolutely no consequences on the election, thereby endorsing the will of the majority without making a choice, while in reality they are disenfranchised or apathetic about the democratic process.

As a last note, if votes are compulsory, the state must do everything in its power to allow everybody to vote, while in places where it isn't there is no incentive to allow such things or even worse, an active desire to suppress the votes of those who the system doesn't like making it increasingly difficult to vote (ie, did you know that in the past presidential election many precincts in Florida hadn't finish casting votes way past the time when it was known who won? Not surprisingly, the Republican governor and FL congress did their best [worst] to shorten vote windows, close precincts and make it harder to register to suppress potential Democratic votes).

In a different discussion I saw an appropriate post regarding some nonchalant comments made by a 3rd party about prostitution, the gist was that what someone does with his/her own body is his/her own business, provided that no coercion or hardship is prompting the situation in the first place. That got me thinking on the concept of consent, specifically because I see an overlap between the current "age of consent" discussion and prostitution, in which both are sex related, and require the participants to be able to agree voluntarily to perform sexual acts. In the case of statutory rape, the idea is that a young person is not able to consent to such acts, the rationale being that there is no reasonable understanding of the consequences of said acts, at least up until certain age. In the case of prostitution, the individual should be able to consent of his/her own free will, acknowledging also the consequences.

The question goes to at what point are we able to actually consent? Definitions and legal terms tend to draw hard lines, but the reality is that there is a large space for grey areas, understanding of consequences can happen well before or after the legal age, and in the case of prostitution, at what point can we say that poverty and/or lack of alternatives becomes coercion? I certainly can see how the more unemployment you have in a society relates with how ubiquitous prostitution can be, but other considerations apply, if you can get a lower paying/physically straining job instead do you have a choice?

The classical example is public bathroom cleaning. This is a job usually low skilled, badly paid, strenuous, and potentially uncomfortable, and those performing such job would likely change jobs at the first chance, which begs the question, are they able to consent to do such job? The counter question is, if a regular badly paid job, and a better paying sex trade job are available to the same person are they able to choose? Is any choice better than the other if at all?

Watching how an evenly divided government is simply unable to do anything of consequence unless both parties agree with their corporate overlords, I had an idea regarding a way to manage federal government (not that different from the idea of letting the budget be chosen by taxpayers):

Federal taxes aren't universal, only states willing to fund a particular government agency tax their citizens to fund it. An example of this would be those states who want to fund the EPA tax their citizens and receive the corresponding services. If a state doesn't want the EPA testing their air and water they don't fund it and let their state regulate and enforce (or not) state laws. On the same token, non funding states can't vote on legislation for agencies that they don't fund, therefore, a bill for XYZ regulation is only voted on by those interested (you don't want ATF in your state and don't pay for ATF? Then you can't vote against the director of the agency or it's regulations). If a state doesn't want to pay for the Department of Defense then no bases will be placed in the state.

A variation of that theme would be to liquidate the Federal Government completely and let the willing states to create a Co-Federate government in which the states agree which agencies they want to fund.

Not that I think that such proposals would ever be considered nor their implementation be practical if for instance a state decides to fund an agency just for the pleasure to block any related legislative efforts, but I'm currently inclined to think that a solution as such not only would stop the current legislative gridlock but be more fair with the citizens and their beliefs.

Any comments? Comparisons with the current EU (incredibly complicated) way to do things?

I've been talking to my son about this and I've been wondering about the general reactions from different sectors of society about it. It is true that changes in society's values tend to move at a glacial speed, and that attitudes change with generations because human nature prevents major changes once the mind of the individual is set, yet certain aspects and attitudes while popular do not reflect the speed at which society takes them, which lends the belief that there are interests in keeping said status quo. Personally I'm inclined to think that the incredible inertia society exhibits goes beyond human nature and that power and wealth actively work to keep the status quo even if the change it self doesn't affect them, for instance, the sections of society that do their utmost effort to keep the economical status quo are usually the same that fight social issues like the acceptance of homosexuality even at the cost of depriving them from an extra source of customers.

I understand some of the motivations of the conservative (with lower case c) mindset (cautious, avoid risk, don't fix it if it works, prepare and save, etc) and I recognize the value of some of those attitudes, but I wonder if those become part of the Conservative (with upper case C) mindset because there is a natural fit or if there is more to it.

Thoughts?

Watching TCR with my son, Colbert made a reference to his interview about this: Why there's something rather than nothing? I know Aggie has made this comment before and we had discussed it to a degree but the reference left me thinking: why is this argument The Argument? Am I particularly dense because I don't see what is the big deal about the argument, I mean, there is something and we don't really know if at some point there was nothing or if something has always been there, but unless I'm missing something, the main metaphysical question basically implies that at some point there was nothing, to which I reply How do you know?

My son was saying that the argument was empty on principle: does it matter? The point is based on a metaphysical conjecture therefore as valid as asking, do aliens like strawberry ice cream?, and going further could basically say that metaphysics in itself are as valid as futurology, in that they are nice as conjecture goes but fundamentally don't add much to our understanding.

Obviously a demiurge can have profound consequences on various belief systems and for those who believe in them so an answer to the question isn't a trivial matter, at least for believers, still my question remains, why is the question significant?

Aggie, I'm looking at you buddie,

Living in the very hot place I live in I was wondering if there is a way to have the benefits of the sun (ie: light) without the drawbacks (heat!) while designing a room.

One of the ideas I had goes for a house I have in mind with huge windows on the opposite side of the sun to light the full house, but the house design is quite different from the average and the glass would have to be security glass (hurricanes...) making it expensive.

I had a different idea today:

The idea is to have the sun landing on an aluminium plate on an angle which would depend on how low the sun goes and how perpendicular it can be depending on the time of the year. The glass would isolate both the room and the plate which then could be used to heat water (pipes not drawn).

Is it a fair assumption that most heat would be trapped in the compartment? is there a better way to accomplish good lighting without the heat?

Talking with mom the other day she asserted that Xtianity had been a positive force for the world. I don't think anyone can't deny it's influence on the western world but was it positive? Most of the morality influence of Xtianity seems to come from the Socratic (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) and Neo-Platonic (Plotinus) schools of thought. Perhaps the critical element is the "theology of disenfranchisement" (the beatitudes) that places religion at the reach of the poor, the sick, the slaves/servants, etc, which helped it gain critical mass an a relatively short period of time. But while the sermon is democratic I contend that the powerful transform it into a tool to keep the status quo ("hey, don't worry about the injustices of this world, be a good boy/girl and you'll get better conditions on the next").

Is there are rational way to say categorically that the influence of Xtianity had a positive effect on the world? How exactly?

Someone in a tech news site left an interesting link in the comments about UFOs. Googling further I found this:

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/ufo/index.shtml

Note how the site isn't fake, and the documents are supposedly declassified.

The question is, what the heck is in there, cryptography exercises? Standard PR? Your standard conspiracy?

Anyone playing Portal 2? It has a nifty cooperative campaign that perhaps we can try with any sibling.

I was reading some of the retractions from the site Aggie posted the other day and I found this amusing post. First there is some info on mating on Drosophila and the relation with gut bacteria, then some sexual and asexual reproduction in rotifiers and then...

Quote from: offending editorialAs far as humans are concerned, you may think you know all about sexual signals, but you'd be surprised by new findings. It's been known since the 1990s that heterosexual women living together synchronize their menstrual cycles because of pheromones, but when a study of lesbians showed that they do not synchronize, the researchers suspected that semen played a role. In fact, they found ingredients in semen that include mood enhancers like estrone, cortisol, prolactin, oxytocin, and serotonin; a sleep enhancer, melatonin; and of course, sperm, which makes up only 1%-5%. Delivering these compounds into the richly vascularized vagina also turns out to have major salutary effects for the recipient. Female college students having unprotected sex were significantly less depressed than were those whose partners used condoms (Arch. Sex. Behav. 2002;31:289-93). Their better moods were not just a feature of promiscuity, because women using condoms were just as depressed as those practicing total abstinence. The benefits of semen contact also were seen in fewer suicide attempts and better performance on cognition tests.

So there's a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there's a better gift for that day than chocolates.

First I don't get it, and reading the comments it turns out I'm not alone. Reading further someone starts saying how chauvinist the editorial and how it was all part of a male dominated view of the world, etc.

Am I crazy (or a chauvinist pig) for thinking there is nothing wrong with the editorial? Is it really that offensive and I'm just another clueless male? Could it be that certain brand of feminist is too sensitive to take science and a tasteless joke for what those really are? Or is it something in between?

Takers?

With the US government shutdown and all the hoopla about the deficit I've been thinking on a solution that should be possible to implement if enough people ask for it.

It has become clear that the parties can't agree on anything, nor compromise, and frankly why would they? There should be a way to acknowledge the differences when about half of the country thinks one way and the other half in an opposite way. What I would propose -and hope a tea partier should be able to accept- is that the funding of different things on the federal budget is based on a form that would be filled at tax time. Such form would split the costs of the federal government in a pie and each tax payer would have a checkbox list in which (s)he would select which part of the pie (s)he wants his/her tax dollars to go.

For example*:

Item	%	Select
Social Security	25%	[ ]
Medicare/Medicaid	23%	[ ]
Military Spending*	28%	[ ]
Regulatory Agencies	8%	[ ]
Homeland Security	9%	[ ]
Education	12%	[ ]
Parks/Reserves etc	0.2%	[ ]
Science Investment	0.5%	[ ]

*the numbers in the graph are just an example
**excluding pensions

That would be a completely democratic way to fund the government and one in which those who think that we need more F-22s and less FAA can select Military Spending and not Regulatory agencies, and those who want the opposite would fund accordingly. The size of each item would then be more proportional to the wishes of the populations and not the ones of the intermediaries, in this case, the congress critters pushing one way or another.

Do you thing a R-Winger would see this as an acceptable approach?

I just read this luverly story today:

QuoteGoDaddy CEO Bob Parsons is not the sort of person who really cares what PETA or any other liberal types might think. If a grey wrinkly Elephantidae is creating trouble he will shoot it.

A video of Parsons  shooting an elephant in Zimbabwe has gone viral, causing the domain name registry and web hosting company to become a Google Hot Topic.

Never heard good things about godaddy but now I will never do business with them.

If you have been following the news the rethug governor of Wisconsin has decided that he will take away the ability of the union to do collective bargaining. He isn't alone, similar news now ring from Indiana, Oklahoma, Ohio and more states seem to follow.

It's quite curious how all of them (with repug governors and legislators in charge) have decided to "tackle" the issue so frontally.

I'm aware that unions on occasion have abused their power, but it's perfectly clear to me that without them workers would be way worse (in fact if the opera company I used to sing for had a union I might still be singing there).

Am I the only one worried about this?