Just in case this is an exercise in pedantry, I should correct my statement to say that our carbon emissions are ~200% as large as the rise in atmospheric CO2.
You can call it "pedantry" if you want, but I call it "taking your words at face value, and refusing to assume you meant something else when you wrote them". That is a pretty obvious difference between you and me.
In other words, you're a birther who denies being a birther, just like you're a climate contrarian who denies being a climate contrarian. Maybe you see liars everywhere because you're actually a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus who's dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet.
There you go. If this doesn't meet the definition of libel, I don't know what does.
You know that statement to be false, or at the very least have very good reason to believe it to be false. And my own words here on Slashdot, several times and in several places, show it to be. Yet you present it to the public as truth anyway.
Exactly. Look at how often the moon landing has been proven to have happened and how often President Obama's birth certificate was shown to be real.
Pardon me? I don't dispute the moon landing bit of course, but who showed Obama's birth certificate to be real? I do recall claims that artifacts were due to scanning, but that in fact has been proven false.
Now, don't get the idea that I am a "birther", as a certain other person has tried to claim here on Slashdot. I have stated before here at least several times that I do not pretend to know where Obama was or was not born. And Hawaiian authorities have claimed that the information on the certificate copy presented by the White House is accurate. (You will note, however, that none of those statements actually states that the White House document is a genuine copy of it.)
But none of that has any bearing on the fact that the document presented by the White House (and still available online) as his "birth certificate" is indeed fake. That is all I am saying here... I don't claim Obama is not an American. I'm just saying that the White House, for reasons of its own, has put up a faked document.
Numerous attempts to "debunk" the accusations of a faked document have failed to address some of the key evidence of forgery (which is very strong indeed). Nor does it explain the problems with numerous other identification documents that have come to light.
BUT, this is the key thing: even if the presences of a faked document or documents was proven beyond doubt, that does not in itself prove he's not an American citizen. There could be a number of explanations.
It does prove once again, though, that he IS a manipulative liar.
Wichita has been building the 737 fuselages since at least the late eighties when I worked in that plant. As a tool designer, I did some work on fixtures used to join the cockpit (41 section) to the forward passenger compartment (43 section).
I stand corrected then. I was under the impression that they moved the fuselage assembly away when they moved headquarters.
The risk in this situation is if you file a counter notice and then they decide to pursue additional legal action. While a counter-notice is indeed more painful than the initial DMCA take-down notice, it is much easier to do than filing an actual lawsuit where claims are subject to perjury penalties for making fraudulent assertions. It takes formal judicial action in order to go any further.
You are refusing to acknowledge the whole issue that I originally raised: while it may be "easier than", the fact is that you still have to demonstrate, prior to any judicial proceedings, evidence that you are "innocent" before your SPEECH can be restored. This is not a theoretical argument; we know by now of a vast many people who have had their websites taken down unjustly and with no real evidence, and have had trouble getting them restored.
We also know that the "actual damages" you refer to are more theoretical than real, and require yet another judicial action to initiate.
The fact remains that the DMCA has shifted the burden not just a little, but hugely, onto the defending party. And I repeat: that's not what America is about. We know, from hundreds of years of experience, that is a bad approach to law and justice.
Then you claimed I hadn't notified you after I wrote this article until "much later" when I'd actually notified you within a few hours. Will you retract your claim, or is "much later" actually defined as a few hours in Janeland?
First, as I mentioned to you before elsewhere, it isn't an "article". It doesn't meet any standard definition of "article". It's a rambling, ongoing diatribe that reads like little more than a monument to your ego.
Second, as I have clearly explained to you several times, when I discussed this with you after that time I was also referring to LATER posts of yours, not the first one. Not that it really matters, because afterward is still afterward. You might disagree with my interpretation of "much later" in regard to the original post, but that's your opinion.
After that you gave me no notice at all of most of your distortions, in which you took even more comments of mine out of context, assigned wholly imagined meanings and motivations to them, and "argued" with them all by yourself, where you didn't have any fear of being contradicted. (Why? Because I don't care about you and don't visit your website every day... nor should I be forced to do so in order to incessantly correct your mis-characterizations of my words.)
The rest of your rant is loaded with similar bullshit. Yet again you are trying to mislead people for personal, and apparently rather strange, reasons of your own.
I will repeat what I wrote in another thread: all you are doing by indulging in this obsession is making yourself look foolish. I understand that you don't seem to think so, but that causes me some concern. Others have written about it before here, too.
Do you still dismiss flat statements like "the CO2 increase is attributable to human activity" as disingenuous
This is a classic example of your attempts to distort my comments. First, I might have ignorantly denied that C02 increases were due to human activity, years ago. I have not intentionally made any such statement in recent years, since I do not believe any such thing. But more to the point is this:
... and claim that we're only contributing a small percentage despite the fact that ~200% of the CO2 increase is attributable to human activity?
The "small percentage" I mentioned was in reference to this. You can argue if you like that a ~ 27.3% increase is large but I disagree, since climate sensitivity to CO2 is widely acknowledged to be based on a geometric progression.
We also need to keep in mind, though, what percentage that is of the overall atmosphere: (CO2 % of all atmosphere. Which is a very small percentage indeed, even though Wikipedia puts it higher than NCDC does in the above page.
Further, you appear to be claiming that we have contributed about "200% of the CO2 increase" ourselves, when that is simply not logically possible. While we might have produced 200% as much CO2, if so obviously much of it has been absorbed in one way or another by the environment. While you might have a problem with that, it is a completely separate argument. It is not possible for us to have contributed "200% of the increase", because only 100% of the increase actually exists. Once again you demonstrate a bizarrely weak grasp of logic for someone who presents himself as a scientist.
Do you still link to "PSI" blog posts accusing scientists of fraud because Dr. Salby said accumulation of human emitted CO2 is somehow unphysical? Do you acknowledge these "PSI" accusations of fraud are baseless, or do you think they're honest, true and correct?
If my memory serves (and it may not), I linked to that page once in the past. A
Wrong. Congress has given them authority of everything, and I do mean *everything* above a certain altitude, and within certain distances from airports. The current debate with the courts has more to do with the FAA being able to regulate *types of use* in the low-altitude range, and the current ruling (which is on hold pending more court battles) is more specifically about whether the FAA followed proper procedures when enacting those regulations.
No, it's not wrong. Although I do admit that I accidentally left out the "low altitude" part. Mea culpa.
But as the judge correctly pointed out, the law clearly states that the FAA has authority over "navigable" airspace, which means roughly airspace that is used for continuous travel by person-carrying vehicles. (This same rough definition is also used for "navigable" waters.)
So it's not even "everything" above a certain altitude. It is the travelable and traveled airways. Which are pretty clearly defined on airplane navigation charts.
Anything lower than that, or away from traveled airways (like airports, where low-altitude flight is common) is fair game. And it doesn't matter in the least whether the drone is being used for commercial purposes.
Rather you can only do this if you are an actual "cop".
Even then, the actual legal exceptions for police are fewer and thinner than most people think.
A few years ago, in one state nearby, the legislature clarified that when police are off-duty (off the clock), they have to obey the same laws, and particularly the same firearms laws, as everybody else. There was a huge howl of protest from law enforcement but they failed to make any legitimate case that it was somehow dangerous or unfair.
The reality was, they wanted to have it both ways. They wanted to be able to "be a cop" whenever they damned well felt like acting like one, but not at other times. Now it's clear that under the law (at least in that state), they're cops when they're on the clock and being paid to be cops. ONLY then. When they're off-duty they can carry guns or not just like other citizens, in the same places and under the same circumstances as other citizens, and they can make citizens' arrests, just like other citizens.
Also, does concealing a memory device now automatically imply child porn?
This is a fine argument for universal use of full-disk encryption.
And I sincerely hope that real child pornographers get it wrong.
Even so, let's drop political correctness and tell it like it is: our culture embraced "innocent until proven guilty" and "freedom from unreasonable search and seizure" for very good reasons. While we can all agree that harming children is abhorrent, removing those rights and freedoms from society at large does far more harm, to more people, and is the greater evil.
Do you deny that is says the climate sensitivity for CO2 is lower than they reported before? Do you deny that the projections for increased severe weather events is low labeled "low confidence"? Etc.
When AGW first became a big issue in the 1990s I was talking against it as a big scam on Usenet; particularity my old haunt talk.origins. it was when one of the regulars, a biologist (why any scientist would waste his time debating Creationists I'll never understand), pointed out to me that the theory was reasonably well supported, there were a boatload of papers and that science isn't the product of emotional need, and I finally accepted that AGW, even if it suggested things that I didn't like, was legitimate science.
Funny. I've had the opposite experience.
I was first introduced to the issue by Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", and pretty much accepted what he was saying... except that there was some nagging doubt due to things like unlabeled graphs and the like in his presentation.
It was when I started digging into the science that I started changing my mind. I found irresponsible handling of data, bizarre secrecy where there shouldn't be any, and so on. And all this has mushroomed in recent years.
Case in point: the recent admission by NCDC that certain USHCN data had been derived and used improperly, and they had known it for a long time. They said they had "intended to fix it" at some undefined point in the future, but the question is: why was it not fixed already, and why had they not told anyone (including scientists) about it, even though they knew about it?
And how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people?
The IPCC's latest report states clearly that the science supporting their position is weaker than ever... yet they're even more certain that it's true. WTF?
It is shenanigans like these that have fueled my skepticism. Those aren't the actions of responsible scientists.
It will mitigate legal trouble, as long as nothing happens. A tethered object isn't subject to the same rules as a free flying object. The pilot will still be liable for damaged caused, but not for breaking FAA rules. It's in the blurb, so mod this redundant.
BUT... and this is about the 4th time I have pointed this out on Slashdot:
A Federal administrative judge has ruled that the FAA has no authority to regulate small drones. Although the FAA has appealed this ruling, I very highly doubt it will be overturned, because the judge made his ruling on the basis that Congress simply hasn't given them any authority to do so.
It the meantime, of course, the FAA is still trying to regulate everything in sight. But it won't last.
Really what people should keep in mind here is that these "rights" groups aren't doing this to right any real social wrongs. They're doing it to make money. Plain and simple. Make money by threatening to make other suffer.
If that's not a pretty good description of extortion, I don't know what is.
Like for example the fact that these download snoopers so far have not shown to have legal status to be enforcing anything. Like the fact that most of these "investigators" don't have anything that qualifies as legal evidence. Like the fact that they have been shown to be breaking the same laws they accuse others of breaking (you can't break the law to enforce the law). Like the fact that cutting off Internet service based on thin evidence of non-criminal wrongdoing is probably illegal.
Oh, yes, there are MANY problems with this whole scheme. And a lot of it could be solved TOMORROW by the FCC choosing to regulate ISPs as Title II Common Carriers.
It works for Boeing, too. They just move out of state. Other parts of the country with lower costs can use the jobs.
It wasn't "costs", per se, it was taxes. Granted, taxes are a cost but let's be specific about this.
Boeing, being one of the largest employers in the State, demanded ever more "tax breaks". State legislators finally had enough and told them NO. (This was a rather public series of events.) Boeing said "If you don't, we'll move our headquarters somewhere else." The State said (in effect): "Bye-bye! Say hello to whichever state is more willing to sell political influence for dollars."
And it didn't work out quite as well as Boeing thought it would. Now its manufacturing facilities are far apart, and they have A LOT more shipping costs. And... they lose some product once in a while.
Before it cost Boing too much...(excuse the mock name) The Clark Fork River is really swift there as you can see in the picture.. Wonder if any fish will be flying first class?
Complete bullshit. It didn't "cost Boeing too much." They moved their headquarters and some of their manufacturing out of Washington State, because State legislators got sick and tired of their incessant demands for more tax loopholes, and told them no.
If they can't afford to pay taxes like everybody other goddamned business in the state, let them do business elsewhere. That seems like a pretty damned fair policy to me.
This is America. This is how the legal system has always worked.
NO, IT ISN'T.
Prior to DMCA, copyright law worked the same way as most other areas of law: in order to make somebody stop doing something, you had to show they were actually doing something wrong.
DMCA takedown provisions made it so that anybody -- almost ANYBODY -- can "claim" a copyright infringement without ANY evidence, and force other people to remove their "speech" from public view, until they give evidence that it's NOT infringing.
That is directly contrary to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Now, they're guilty -- to the extent that they can be punished -- unless they demonstrate they are innocent, and no court even has to be involved.
You are making the error in assuming that Economics or Finance is a science.
No, I agree with you to some extent, but my original comment was misunderstood a couple of different ways.
I wasn't suggesting that it had anything to do with political or economic science. Rather, that science can be unduly influenced by economic or political pressure.
I do agree that there are many economic models, some of which claim to be empirical and others not, etc. But one thing we do know is that by and large Adam Smith's "invisible hand" can and does work, if allowed to do so. (Presuming that appropriate antitrust regulation and enforcement exists, of course.)
As the money dries up you'll see more of them burning out and running themselves into the ground through sleepless nights in the lab than you will see them trying to thin the competition.
I don't dispute this, but don't forget there are things like... grants. And too much science lately seems to be more interested in chasing those grants than is healthy.
Slashdot Mirror
Just in case this is an exercise in pedantry, I should correct my statement to say that our carbon emissions are ~200% as large as the rise in atmospheric CO2.
You can call it "pedantry" if you want, but I call it "taking your words at face value, and refusing to assume you meant something else when you wrote them". That is a pretty obvious difference between you and me.
In other words, you're a birther who denies being a birther, just like you're a climate contrarian who denies being a climate contrarian. Maybe you see liars everywhere because you're actually a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus who's dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet.
There you go. If this doesn't meet the definition of libel, I don't know what does.
You know that statement to be false, or at the very least have very good reason to believe it to be false. And my own words here on Slashdot, several times and in several places, show it to be. Yet you present it to the public as truth anyway.
What does that make YOU?
Anybody seen any signs of adult behavior in this circus?
You forgot one, from OP:
Significantly, [the UN] calls for an entirely different approach to international diplomacy on the issue of how to combat climate change.
I think OP should have ended with the word "DUH."
Exactly. Look at how often the moon landing has been proven to have happened and how often President Obama's birth certificate was shown to be real.
Pardon me? I don't dispute the moon landing bit of course, but who showed Obama's birth certificate to be real? I do recall claims that artifacts were due to scanning, but that in fact has been proven false.
Now, don't get the idea that I am a "birther", as a certain other person has tried to claim here on Slashdot. I have stated before here at least several times that I do not pretend to know where Obama was or was not born. And Hawaiian authorities have claimed that the information on the certificate copy presented by the White House is accurate. (You will note, however, that none of those statements actually states that the White House document is a genuine copy of it.)
But none of that has any bearing on the fact that the document presented by the White House (and still available online) as his "birth certificate" is indeed fake. That is all I am saying here... I don't claim Obama is not an American. I'm just saying that the White House, for reasons of its own, has put up a faked document.
Numerous attempts to "debunk" the accusations of a faked document have failed to address some of the key evidence of forgery (which is very strong indeed). Nor does it explain the problems with numerous other identification documents that have come to light.
BUT, this is the key thing: even if the presences of a faked document or documents was proven beyond doubt, that does not in itself prove he's not an American citizen. There could be a number of explanations.
It does prove once again, though, that he IS a manipulative liar.
Wichita has been building the 737 fuselages since at least the late eighties when I worked in that plant. As a tool designer, I did some work on fixtures used to join the cockpit (41 section) to the forward passenger compartment (43 section).
I stand corrected then. I was under the impression that they moved the fuselage assembly away when they moved headquarters.
The risk in this situation is if you file a counter notice and then they decide to pursue additional legal action. While a counter-notice is indeed more painful than the initial DMCA take-down notice, it is much easier to do than filing an actual lawsuit where claims are subject to perjury penalties for making fraudulent assertions. It takes formal judicial action in order to go any further.
You are refusing to acknowledge the whole issue that I originally raised: while it may be "easier than", the fact is that you still have to demonstrate, prior to any judicial proceedings, evidence that you are "innocent" before your SPEECH can be restored. This is not a theoretical argument; we know by now of a vast many people who have had their websites taken down unjustly and with no real evidence, and have had trouble getting them restored.
We also know that the "actual damages" you refer to are more theoretical than real, and require yet another judicial action to initiate.
The fact remains that the DMCA has shifted the burden not just a little, but hugely, onto the defending party. And I repeat: that's not what America is about. We know, from hundreds of years of experience, that is a bad approach to law and justice.
Then you claimed I hadn't notified you after I wrote this article until "much later" when I'd actually notified you within a few hours. Will you retract your claim, or is "much later" actually defined as a few hours in Janeland?
First, as I mentioned to you before elsewhere, it isn't an "article". It doesn't meet any standard definition of "article". It's a rambling, ongoing diatribe that reads like little more than a monument to your ego.
Second, as I have clearly explained to you several times, when I discussed this with you after that time I was also referring to LATER posts of yours, not the first one. Not that it really matters, because afterward is still afterward. You might disagree with my interpretation of "much later" in regard to the original post, but that's your opinion.
After that you gave me no notice at all of most of your distortions, in which you took even more comments of mine out of context, assigned wholly imagined meanings and motivations to them, and "argued" with them all by yourself, where you didn't have any fear of being contradicted. (Why? Because I don't care about you and don't visit your website every day... nor should I be forced to do so in order to incessantly correct your mis-characterizations of my words.)
The rest of your rant is loaded with similar bullshit. Yet again you are trying to mislead people for personal, and apparently rather strange, reasons of your own.
I will repeat what I wrote in another thread: all you are doing by indulging in this obsession is making yourself look foolish. I understand that you don't seem to think so, but that causes me some concern. Others have written about it before here, too.
Do you still dismiss flat statements like "the CO2 increase is attributable to human activity" as disingenuous
This is a classic example of your attempts to distort my comments. First, I might have ignorantly denied that C02 increases were due to human activity, years ago. I have not intentionally made any such statement in recent years, since I do not believe any such thing. But more to the point is this:
... and claim that we're only contributing a small percentage despite the fact that ~200% of the CO2 increase is attributable to human activity?
The "small percentage" I mentioned was in reference to this. You can argue if you like that a ~ 27.3% increase is large but I disagree, since climate sensitivity to CO2 is widely acknowledged to be based on a geometric progression.
We also need to keep in mind, though, what percentage that is of the overall atmosphere: (CO2 % of all atmosphere. Which is a very small percentage indeed, even though Wikipedia puts it higher than NCDC does in the above page.
Further, you appear to be claiming that we have contributed about "200% of the CO2 increase" ourselves, when that is simply not logically possible. While we might have produced 200% as much CO2, if so obviously much of it has been absorbed in one way or another by the environment. While you might have a problem with that, it is a completely separate argument. It is not possible for us to have contributed "200% of the increase", because only 100% of the increase actually exists. Once again you demonstrate a bizarrely weak grasp of logic for someone who presents himself as a scientist.
Do you still link to "PSI" blog posts accusing scientists of fraud because Dr. Salby said accumulation of human emitted CO2 is somehow unphysical? Do you acknowledge these "PSI" accusations of fraud are baseless, or do you think they're honest, true and correct?
If my memory serves (and it may not), I linked to that page once in the past. A
Since I have bookmarks, about 2 seconds.
Do I have a local copy? No. Why? Because IPCC decided to publish the many sections of it separately.
Wrong. Congress has given them authority of everything, and I do mean *everything* above a certain altitude, and within certain distances from airports. The current debate with the courts has more to do with the FAA being able to regulate *types of use* in the low-altitude range, and the current ruling (which is on hold pending more court battles) is more specifically about whether the FAA followed proper procedures when enacting those regulations.
No, it's not wrong. Although I do admit that I accidentally left out the "low altitude" part. Mea culpa.
But as the judge correctly pointed out, the law clearly states that the FAA has authority over "navigable" airspace, which means roughly airspace that is used for continuous travel by person-carrying vehicles. (This same rough definition is also used for "navigable" waters.)
So it's not even "everything" above a certain altitude. It is the travelable and traveled airways. Which are pretty clearly defined on airplane navigation charts.
Anything lower than that, or away from traveled airways (like airports, where low-altitude flight is common) is fair game. And it doesn't matter in the least whether the drone is being used for commercial purposes.
Rather you can only do this if you are an actual "cop".
Even then, the actual legal exceptions for police are fewer and thinner than most people think.
A few years ago, in one state nearby, the legislature clarified that when police are off-duty (off the clock), they have to obey the same laws, and particularly the same firearms laws, as everybody else. There was a huge howl of protest from law enforcement but they failed to make any legitimate case that it was somehow dangerous or unfair.
The reality was, they wanted to have it both ways. They wanted to be able to "be a cop" whenever they damned well felt like acting like one, but not at other times. Now it's clear that under the law (at least in that state), they're cops when they're on the clock and being paid to be cops. ONLY then. When they're off-duty they can carry guns or not just like other citizens, in the same places and under the same circumstances as other citizens, and they can make citizens' arrests, just like other citizens.
Also, does concealing a memory device now automatically imply child porn?
This is a fine argument for universal use of full-disk encryption.
And I sincerely hope that real child pornographers get it wrong.
Even so, let's drop political correctness and tell it like it is: our culture embraced "innocent until proven guilty" and "freedom from unreasonable search and seizure" for very good reasons. While we can all agree that harming children is abhorrent, removing those rights and freedoms from society at large does far more harm, to more people, and is the greater evil.
Citizen, you will be implanted with this brain massager free of charge. Please do not attempt to remove this device. That is all.
Experiencing a bit of claustrum phobium, perhaps?
Talk to me agitation when you've read the IPCC report.
Agitation?
In any case, I have. It's available right here.
Do you deny that is says the climate sensitivity for CO2 is lower than they reported before? Do you deny that the projections for increased severe weather events is low labeled "low confidence"? Etc.
Read the damned thing yourself.
When AGW first became a big issue in the 1990s I was talking against it as a big scam on Usenet; particularity my old haunt talk.origins. it was when one of the regulars, a biologist (why any scientist would waste his time debating Creationists I'll never understand), pointed out to me that the theory was reasonably well supported, there were a boatload of papers and that science isn't the product of emotional need, and I finally accepted that AGW, even if it suggested things that I didn't like, was legitimate science.
Funny. I've had the opposite experience.
I was first introduced to the issue by Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", and pretty much accepted what he was saying... except that there was some nagging doubt due to things like unlabeled graphs and the like in his presentation.
It was when I started digging into the science that I started changing my mind. I found irresponsible handling of data, bizarre secrecy where there shouldn't be any, and so on. And all this has mushroomed in recent years.
Case in point: the recent admission by NCDC that certain USHCN data had been derived and used improperly, and they had known it for a long time. They said they had "intended to fix it" at some undefined point in the future, but the question is: why was it not fixed already, and why had they not told anyone (including scientists) about it, even though they knew about it?
And how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people?
The IPCC's latest report states clearly that the science supporting their position is weaker than ever... yet they're even more certain that it's true. WTF?
It is shenanigans like these that have fueled my skepticism. Those aren't the actions of responsible scientists.
It will mitigate legal trouble, as long as nothing happens. A tethered object isn't subject to the same rules as a free flying object. The pilot will still be liable for damaged caused, but not for breaking FAA rules. It's in the blurb, so mod this redundant.
BUT... and this is about the 4th time I have pointed this out on Slashdot:
A Federal administrative judge has ruled that the FAA has no authority to regulate small drones. Although the FAA has appealed this ruling, I very highly doubt it will be overturned, because the judge made his ruling on the basis that Congress simply hasn't given them any authority to do so.
It the meantime, of course, the FAA is still trying to regulate everything in sight. But it won't last.
To stay alive for the next 30 years.
How about "the same old story for the last 100 years"?
Really what people should keep in mind here is that these "rights" groups aren't doing this to right any real social wrongs. They're doing it to make money. Plain and simple. Make money by threatening to make other suffer.
If that's not a pretty good description of extortion, I don't know what is.
The problem is that
A problem is that... you mean. There are others.
Like for example the fact that these download snoopers so far have not shown to have legal status to be enforcing anything. Like the fact that most of these "investigators" don't have anything that qualifies as legal evidence. Like the fact that they have been shown to be breaking the same laws they accuse others of breaking (you can't break the law to enforce the law). Like the fact that cutting off Internet service based on thin evidence of non-criminal wrongdoing is probably illegal.
Oh, yes, there are MANY problems with this whole scheme. And a lot of it could be solved TOMORROW by the FCC choosing to regulate ISPs as Title II Common Carriers.
It works for Boeing, too. They just move out of state. Other parts of the country with lower costs can use the jobs.
It wasn't "costs", per se, it was taxes. Granted, taxes are a cost but let's be specific about this.
Boeing, being one of the largest employers in the State, demanded ever more "tax breaks". State legislators finally had enough and told them NO. (This was a rather public series of events.) Boeing said "If you don't, we'll move our headquarters somewhere else." The State said (in effect): "Bye-bye! Say hello to whichever state is more willing to sell political influence for dollars."
And it didn't work out quite as well as Boeing thought it would. Now its manufacturing facilities are far apart, and they have A LOT more shipping costs. And... they lose some product once in a while.
Before it cost Boing too much...(excuse the mock name) The Clark Fork River is really swift there as you can see in the picture.. Wonder if any fish will be flying first class?
Complete bullshit. It didn't "cost Boeing too much." They moved their headquarters and some of their manufacturing out of Washington State, because State legislators got sick and tired of their incessant demands for more tax loopholes, and told them no.
If they can't afford to pay taxes like everybody other goddamned business in the state, let them do business elsewhere. That seems like a pretty damned fair policy to me.
At least coffeescript is pre-semi-compiled.
Javascript faster than HTML? Really? I'd like to see that against my HTML-only page.
This is America. This is how the legal system has always worked.
NO, IT ISN'T.
Prior to DMCA, copyright law worked the same way as most other areas of law: in order to make somebody stop doing something, you had to show they were actually doing something wrong.
DMCA takedown provisions made it so that anybody -- almost ANYBODY -- can "claim" a copyright infringement without ANY evidence, and force other people to remove their "speech" from public view, until they give evidence that it's NOT infringing.
That is directly contrary to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Now, they're guilty -- to the extent that they can be punished -- unless they demonstrate they are innocent, and no court even has to be involved.
No, that's not America.
You are making the error in assuming that Economics or Finance is a science.
No, I agree with you to some extent, but my original comment was misunderstood a couple of different ways.
I wasn't suggesting that it had anything to do with political or economic science. Rather, that science can be unduly influenced by economic or political pressure.
I do agree that there are many economic models, some of which claim to be empirical and others not, etc. But one thing we do know is that by and large Adam Smith's "invisible hand" can and does work, if allowed to do so. (Presuming that appropriate antitrust regulation and enforcement exists, of course.)
As the money dries up you'll see more of them burning out and running themselves into the ground through sleepless nights in the lab than you will see them trying to thin the competition.
I don't dispute this, but don't forget there are things like... grants. And too much science lately seems to be more interested in chasing those grants than is healthy.
Beg to differ. go to retraction watch.com.
I'm not sure where the misunderstanding was, but you aren't "differing" with me, you are agreeing with me.