Slashdot Mirror

Certain spending called "supplemental appropriations" is outside the budget process entirely but adds to the national debt. Funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was accounted for this way prior to the Obama administration.

Bush's tax cuts:

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-legacy-of-the-2001-and-2003-bush-tax-cuts

In 2013 CBPP estimated that, when the associated interest costs are taken into account, the Bush tax cuts (including those that policymakers made permanent) would add $5.6 trillion to deficits from 2001 to 2018.[8] This means that the Bush tax cuts will be responsible for roughly one-third of the federal debt owed by 2018

Bush's wars:

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

According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money.

Is it too much to ask for you to have just a hint of honesty or integrity?

Is there any reason I should suspect that Supergirl should be weaker than Superman on any scale that matters?

Sure there is.

Superman is physically bigger than Supergirl, so even if we completely ignore strength provided directly by muscle mass, he has a larger surface area through which to receive the sunlight that gives Kryptonians their superpowers. Since we know his height and weight (6'3", about 235lbs according to the DC wiki), we can calculate that Superman has a surface area of ~2.35m^2. Meanwhile, Supergirl (depending on which universe) is about 5'7" 123lbs, and thus has a surface area of ~1.64m^2. From this, we can estimate that Superman's powers will charge about 2.35 / 1.64 = 1.43x as fast as Supergirl's, which implies that his instantaneous power level will differ by about the same ratio, all else being equal. However, since Kryptonian superpowers ostensibly work more like a solar battery than a solar cell (otherwise cloudy skies would be just as effective as Kryptonite), it also follows that he should be stronger because he's been absorbing sunlight longer than she has in most of the storylines.

Windows 10 and Edge were released to the general public less than six months ago. Firefox's market share has been in sharp decline since at least 2009. So claiming that Firefox's decline is the result of Edge is utter bullshit.

We seem to have a vocabulary problem here. Doing nothing is not a "solution." Doing nothing is choosing to not solve the problem. This is indeed an option which should be considered, but you can't call it is a "solution"-- saying "we don't have to solve this problem" is not a solution.

Indeed we have a vocabulary problem. "We do nothing" only means that government does nothing because the "we" in that phrase refers to collective action by society. You erroneously believe that "we do nothing" amounts to nothing being done at all.

Indeed, we do have a vocabulary problem. When, in your original post, you said "do nothing," I assumed that you meant "do nothing." There was no "we" in what you posted. Now what you're saying is to do something, but in a distributed system, where your "do nothing" does not mean do nothing, but means to not take in a directed, organized action.

OK. You're saying that people will decrease their use of fossil fuel because it's expensive. I'd like to see some numbers here. But, actually, I can analyze it trivially. Fossil fuel usage increases directly in proportion to GNP. Overall, the gross world product is increasing-- the poor are getting less poor (despite all the doomsaying). This is despite the face that, in your belief, fossil fuels are "expensive". So, the net result is that fossil fuel consumption is increasing.

Gross world product here: http://stats.areppim.com/stats...
Fossil fuel use here: http://worldhistoryforusall.sd...

Going up. Not down. Nope, that does not solve the problem.

But, you wouldn't expect it to. Since the piece doesn't reflect externalities, there's no reason in the world to expect usage to decrease to account for the fact that the planet is growing warmer. That isn't part of the market calculation.

I don't know of any real-world economist who says that the only way to discourage fossil fuel use is to properly account for externalities.

You could have stopped typing after "I don't know any real-world economists".

In fact, most economists simply say that the more expensive you make fossil fuel, the less people will be using it and the more they will be incentivized to look for alternatives.

Exactly! You got it! Gold star!

"incentivized to look for alternatives." Exactly. That's called "substitution of resources". That's how markets work.

Dear Coward,

Have you allowed for the vast changes in the market i.e desktop no longer is the majority platform type?

What the fuck are you talking about? The stats linked to in that earlier comment clearly show that the desktop is the "majority platform type"!

Which I've already demonstrated is bullshit. You've managed to find the only source of stats that support your view... (how lucky is that?). How's that big lie working out for you?

And the flaws in the reporting i.e. Firefox is counted as Firefox, but Iceweasel, PaleMoon, and a myriad of other builds of Firefox aren't.

Did you actually look at the stats page? Look at the very bottom, where it says

Pale Moon 25.5 0.006%

Do you even look at what you're quoting? I've bolded it for you in case your lips got sore and it's stopped you reading it. Cherry pick much? Where did I say PaleMoon was not counted? I clearly said it was counted as not Firefox

I looked at and responded to all your "points". You, on the other hand ignored the ones I made. How convenient.

Mobile platform browser figure sources aren't given, Desktop platform figures come from StatCounter - I don't know who the fuck they are - and no one I know does either

Netmarketshare says 12.06% , a 3% drop since August last year. Probably a more reliable figure for the broad range of web servers, and similar to other figures from the largest websites.

Wikipedia - from reputable sources which are listed

As of February 2015, Firefox has between 12% and 20% of worldwide usage as a "desktop" browser, making it, per different sources, the third most popular web browser

Note the "reference" you quote, that I provide evidence to show is distorted, claims to use StatCounter as it's source, and "various" other unnamed sources (you probably missed that, ironically. It's "at the very bottom" of your "source").
Then somehow manages to come up with market share figures that don't even agree with the source they do quote (17.87%) using stats from, wait for it -StatCounter .

A long way from the 8% you claim. Smells like bullshit, looks like bullshit, and it fell out the backend of a bull. So yeah - your claims from which you extrapolate imminent demise are bullshit.
If you weren't trying so hard you'd know that Firefox market share peaked back in 2009 when it lost it's new factor with the Eternal September mob. You're a latecomer to the end of the world predicting club.

Iceweasel isn't even listed because, guess what, NOBODY USES IT!

Oh right - Debian is part of the Mozilla marketing grand conspiracy is it? And denial is a river in Egypt.

But really, none of those are Firefox. Firefox is Firefox. Iceweasel is kind of Firefox, but it's not Firefox. Pale Moon is not Firefox.

Bullshit. The only differences with Iceweasel is the name and longer support for security patching. PaleMoon is a fork only by technicality (it's interface contain a few hundred lines of different code, and config defaults are "optimised").

Face it, Firefox is dying off. It's losing users left and right. It's marching full speed into its own grave!

Sounds like it's a football fan thing....
You

There is a simple long term study that proves that cell phones do not appreciably increase brain cancer risks. It is the basic cancer statistics. That graph covers the years 1992 to 2010. Over that period of time cancer rated have been pretty steady. Considering the explosion in subscriber after 1998 there should be an explosion in brain cancers. There is not. No correlation therefore no causation.

Thanks for the 8th grade science lesson. Unfortunately the real world is often much, much more complex. If the exposure needs to be over decades then the time frame is still too short. If there was a corresponding decrease of exposure to some other environmental cause, completely different but was phased out around the same time then it would not show up in your overly simplistic analysis. Also, FTA

Overall the lengthy research programme found no evidence that exposure to generally low frequency base station (mobile network) emissions during pregnancy affects the risk of developing cancer in early childhood, and no evidence that use of mobile phones can lead to an increased risk of leukaemia.

These seem to be the kind of overly specific details that one often uses in the hopes the naive public will generalize that there is no risk what so ever.

Finally, without knowing how the study was done the it really could be complete rubbish. What were the statistical methods used. See the /. article http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/02/12/2112254/why-p-values-cannot-tell-you-if-a-hypothesis-is-correct.

There is a simple long term study that proves that cell phones do not appreciably increase brain cancer risks. It is the basic cancer statistics. That graph covers the years 1992 to 2010. Over that period of time cancer rated have been pretty steady. Considering the explosion in subscriber after 1998 there should be an explosion in brain cancers. There is not. No correlation therefore no causation.