That's why my preferred solution is stamped concrete made to look like brick. It's already commonly used for pavement purposes like sidewalks and such.
You think money in a back account is sitting idle? How do you think banks make money? Why do you think bank accounts earn interest? Banks don't keep much cash in the vault... It's not the same as cramming it under a mattress.
There is a difference. An increase of worker pay results in more tax money going to the government. There is income taxes on wages, there is not an equivalent tax deduction for corporations for worker pay.
I can recall from my school days that is exactly what "science fair" projects mostly teach. Come up with a "hypotheses" and then find or manufacture data to support your conclusion. Do you have any idea how many science fair projects I have seen where ethanol had more energy density (BTUs/gallon) than gasoline? That's what the kids believe based on the green energy marketing and that's what teachers should be verifying... But no, these projects routinely get evaluated well for whatever reason and end up at the state level where some judges actually know what they are talking about and ask simple questions about background research into the subject matter.
Even worse, pretty much every science fair project has to have a conclusion to get anywhere. Teachers don't let kids run an experiment where the conclusion is that the test didn't have any findings that support accepting or rejecting the hypothesis. That is not only a perfectly acceptable result in science, but a very good one to find. I encouraged this behavior in projects where kids "concluded" something invalid by running statistical analysis they didn't understand. Excel will give you a trend line even if there is no trend. It's hard to tell a kid their science project found nothing, but in science, that's how most experiments should end up.
And it very well could change something that is not a forest into a forest for example. All of the climate studies predicting a catastrophe focus on any negative effects and gloss over the numerous positive effects that a warmer climate might bring.
Or that much of the land area of Florida is uninhabitable because it's a swamp, not because it's too hot... Florida has also only been developing with settlement and cities since the 1500s as opposed to the island of Britain which has been developing since the Roman Empire. Also dreary drizzle is still quite warm as the UK has a rather temperate climate and rarely has very cold weather.
Yep, more land on earth is uninhabitable because it is too cold than the area uninhabitable because it's too warm.
In fact, some of the hottest places on the earth are fairly densely populated (Las Vegas, Dubai) whereas the coldest places are very loosely populated with small contingents of crazy scientists.
Welcome to climate models and reports! I have no doubt in my mind that humans are causing climate change that is trending toward warming. I have every doubt in my mind that the catastrophic claims are even remotely likely.
Most people like warmer climate. See the population difference between Florida and Siberia...
20+ cameras per person isn't unreasonable for 1st world countries, but yeah averaged out among the population is ridiculous. Let me count the number of cameras I can think of that just my wife and I own or have access to (leaving out public cameras):
3 phones (6 cameras) 4 laptops (4 cameras) 2 webcams Front and rear dashcam (2) Go pro Sony camera Old Olympus camera Endoscope
So that's 18 for 2 people for 9 each. And I'm probably forgetting plenty...
This may be true for a lot of individuals, but is not the norm. Most of the oil businesses around people started in their 20s (or earlier) and keep right on welding through retirement. Some of them burn out and become project inspectors which is less labor intensive, but still subject to the travel and weather conditions.
Yes, I have voted, also in several states. I also have gotten a notification that I was still an eligible voter in one state after having lived in another state for YEARS. This is after multiple state databases had my address changed including the "overdue vehicle registration" notice I received mailed to my out of state address...
Every time I vote, it's a joke on identification. Yes, anyone can come in and vote claiming to be you if they know your address (easy to obtain) and know that you aren't going to vote in person (due to sickness, lack of transport, lack of motivation, etc). I sure as hell could vote in multiple states most likely and as multiple relatives. There is no way to know.
What really impacts the elections is the fact that for the vast majority of the population, their vote is meaningless. They have little to no chance to vote for someone they actually want and under a first past the post, primary based election system, most votes are completely and utterly wasted.
I support voter ID laws because if those can't get passed, what hope do we have of changing anything else about the elections lest we "disenfranchise" voters? Every change to a voting law is going to change voter behavior, turnout, and outcomes. There will be a motivator behind anyone pushing for any change. Being against a simple requirement like identification is a recipe for no changes at all which is exactly what BOTH parties really want.
I don't like Republican voters either. But they have ID. I'm only for stopping people from voting if they can't prove they are who they claim to be and are eligible to vote. But I'm the unreasonable one here?
Yes, but driving for 8 hours straight is not a guarantee of being tired or falling asleep at the wheel. Hell, if you have multiple drivers in the car, it's possible to have quick driver tradeoffs and drive continuously without falling asleep at the wheel being an issue. I know me and 4 buddies drove 12 hours straight through the middle of the night for an NCAA game and then did the same trip back. No one did an excessive stint and people were able to sleep in the back when they weren't driving.
The fact that fraud is unlikely to change the outcome of any election doesn't change the fact that it is a problem that shouldn't need to be solved. It's unlikely that anything on my work computer is likely to hurt my company if the information was released to the public, but I still have a password requirement and IT policies preventing free access to the internet.
Photo ID is a pretty low bar for voting. Who the hell are all these voters that don't have them and why should the entire election results be risked just to allow these people to vote? Based on who is for and against the voter ID requirements, I'd say most of these no-ID voters are unmotivated Democrats that will vote straight ticket if it isn't too much trouble...
Personally, if they can't be troubled to get an ID, I don't really want their votes to count toward making policy for the whole country.
Does Putin have influence over an election? Yes, by being a public figure he does. Did he influence US voters by exposing the shady operations of the Democratic party? Most certainly. Is any of that a crime or a surprise? Nope. The question you have to ask yourself is was anything supposedly released by the Russians false and did they actually fraudulently vote in the election? I haven't seen anything to suggest either of those things is true.
I do certainly support minority rule. AND SO DO YOU. You just want the majority of voters (a minority of the population) to decide who the leader is. Unless you are proposing compulsory voting and somehow that can bring the voting participation rate up a whole hell of a lot... It would take close to a 90% landslide of voters to reach a majority of even voting eligible citizens.
I am pretty familiar with Canada's immigration standards. I'm an engineer that works in the petroleum sector, I could move there with a work visa next week if I wanted to. I am not a fan of their healthcare system, but it's not like ours is a shining example of how to run it... And Canada is actually currently ahead of the US on most economic freedom indexes. So not perfect, but definitely trending better than our country, especially if we decide to do something stupid like institute a straight popular vote for president.
I have some black friends. They all have ID. If you mean poor people... I don't have many poor friends.
I agree that we should spend at least as much money securing elections as we do on campaigns, but that is not the case. I also agree that felons who have served their sentence should be eligible to vote.
But being against ID? That's ridiculous. There is no reason other than wanting ineligible voters to vote or allowing individuals to vote multiple times to be against ID. Welcome to the modern world. You can't so much as sneeze without a photo ID. I get carded to buy spray paint, yet even the poorest criminals manage to obtain it. I get carded to buy alcohol, yet the random beggars in the street manage to obtain it. I couldn't manage to function more than a day in modern society without proving who I am. Hell it's a nightmare trying to do most things without being forced to provide a SSN which is explicitly not supposed to be used for identification.
I don't think in the modern world there is any reason to not be providing a photo ID for free to every citizen and requiring it be used to vote. The only reasons to be against that policy is tin foil hat wearing paranoia or the encouragement of fraud.
Ok, so you are a partisan ideologue... I happen to be a libertarian and hate Trump's guts. I also hate Hillary's guts. If assholes on both sides start shooting each other in the streets, I'll be the one hiding in the woods. Or Canada.
No, I reject a majority rule for a rule of law. I don't care how unpopular a candidate is if they are elected and have limited power to restrict my freedom as intended by the Constitution. The candidates should be representatives, not kings. They may be bad at representing me, but they shouldn't be able to rule me.
Give me a rational reason why population centers should be able to pick a candidate that isn't supported by the majority of communities in America. There are flaws to both systems, but straight popular vote is one of the worst ways to pick a representative. It gets even worse when you use the first past the post voting system we do in the USA.
I support the candidate that won under the rules of the election that were in place when the campaign and election were run. If I could choose a better set of rules, it wouldn't be a popular first past the post election. The electoral college is mildly better, but subject to many problems which we are currently experiencing.
My goals would be to elect a candidate that polls better than 33% favorable. Hillary sure as hell wasn't much better. Neither were above 50%. You fix the problems with elections being a false choice between two horrible people and I'll support making it a popular vote.
Perhaps, but those are not direct and immediate deaths. If anything it would be reduced lifespans for those exposed. Could be a few years on some, could be a decade or two on some. This is not even close to the same as a direct death from an accident.
Then there is the question of exactly why a candidate who loses the popular vote is winning via the electoral college.
There is no question why. It is by design. What you see is a flaw is a built in protection of the majority from being able to totally control the government. Now the exact way the electoral college works is flawed, but the reason we don't do a strict popular vote is completely valid.
It's hard to make claims one way or the other about voter fraud when voters need not present reasonable identification. It's impossible to know if there were fraudulent votes if you can't identify legitimate voters.
Fukushima: "None of the workers at the Fukushima Daiichi site have died from acute radiation poisoning,[17] though six workers died due to various reasons, including cardiovascular disease, during the containment efforts or work to stabilize the earthquake and tsunami damage to the site.[17]" "Although it was the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986,[10] and the radiation released exceeded official safety guidelines, there were no casualties caused by radiation exposure, but 34 people died as a result of the evacuation.[4]"
Chernobyl: "56 direct deaths (47 accident workers and nine children with thyroid cancer) resulted from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, and it is estimated that there may eventually be 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.[2][3][4]"
Nuclear is pretty clean. Fukushima is an accident, but to call it a disaster is an insult to the earthquake and tsunami that were the ACTUAL disaster: "On 10 March 2015, a Japanese National Police Agency report confirmed 15,894 deaths,[37] 6,152 injured,[38] and 2,562 people missing[39] across twenty prefectures, as well as 228,863 people living away from their home in either temporary housing or due to permanent relocation.[40]"
Nuclear is like anything else, it can be very dangerous when in the wrong hands. When used for power generation it might kill approximately ZERO people. When made into a bomb: "According to figures published in 1945, 66,000 people were killed as a direct result of the Hiroshima blast, and 69,000 were injured to varying degrees.[32] "
Slashdot Mirror
That's why my preferred solution is stamped concrete made to look like brick. It's already commonly used for pavement purposes like sidewalks and such.
You think money in a back account is sitting idle? How do you think banks make money? Why do you think bank accounts earn interest? Banks don't keep much cash in the vault... It's not the same as cramming it under a mattress.
There is a difference. An increase of worker pay results in more tax money going to the government. There is income taxes on wages, there is not an equivalent tax deduction for corporations for worker pay.
I can recall from my school days that is exactly what "science fair" projects mostly teach. Come up with a "hypotheses" and then find or manufacture data to support your conclusion. Do you have any idea how many science fair projects I have seen where ethanol had more energy density (BTUs/gallon) than gasoline? That's what the kids believe based on the green energy marketing and that's what teachers should be verifying... But no, these projects routinely get evaluated well for whatever reason and end up at the state level where some judges actually know what they are talking about and ask simple questions about background research into the subject matter.
Even worse, pretty much every science fair project has to have a conclusion to get anywhere. Teachers don't let kids run an experiment where the conclusion is that the test didn't have any findings that support accepting or rejecting the hypothesis. That is not only a perfectly acceptable result in science, but a very good one to find. I encouraged this behavior in projects where kids "concluded" something invalid by running statistical analysis they didn't understand. Excel will give you a trend line even if there is no trend. It's hard to tell a kid their science project found nothing, but in science, that's how most experiments should end up.
Actually, the other two deaths were due to an unrelated helicopter crash...
And it very well could change something that is not a forest into a forest for example. All of the climate studies predicting a catastrophe focus on any negative effects and gloss over the numerous positive effects that a warmer climate might bring.
Or that much of the land area of Florida is uninhabitable because it's a swamp, not because it's too hot... Florida has also only been developing with settlement and cities since the 1500s as opposed to the island of Britain which has been developing since the Roman Empire. Also dreary drizzle is still quite warm as the UK has a rather temperate climate and rarely has very cold weather.
Yep, more land on earth is uninhabitable because it is too cold than the area uninhabitable because it's too warm.
In fact, some of the hottest places on the earth are fairly densely populated (Las Vegas, Dubai) whereas the coldest places are very loosely populated with small contingents of crazy scientists.
It also didn't manage to kill all mammals which didn't have modern technology to help them survive inhospitable climates... Or even clean water.
Really, a claim with no evidence, no source, and only one sentence long gets a +5 Insightful? The mod groupthink is strong with this post.
Welcome to climate models and reports! I have no doubt in my mind that humans are causing climate change that is trending toward warming. I have every doubt in my mind that the catastrophic claims are even remotely likely.
Most people like warmer climate. See the population difference between Florida and Siberia...
20+ cameras per person isn't unreasonable for 1st world countries, but yeah averaged out among the population is ridiculous. Let me count the number of cameras I can think of that just my wife and I own or have access to (leaving out public cameras):
3 phones (6 cameras)
4 laptops (4 cameras)
2 webcams
Front and rear dashcam (2)
Go pro
Sony camera
Old Olympus camera
Endoscope
So that's 18 for 2 people for 9 each. And I'm probably forgetting plenty...
This may be true for a lot of individuals, but is not the norm. Most of the oil businesses around people started in their 20s (or earlier) and keep right on welding through retirement. Some of them burn out and become project inspectors which is less labor intensive, but still subject to the travel and weather conditions.
Yes, I have voted, also in several states. I also have gotten a notification that I was still an eligible voter in one state after having lived in another state for YEARS. This is after multiple state databases had my address changed including the "overdue vehicle registration" notice I received mailed to my out of state address...
Every time I vote, it's a joke on identification. Yes, anyone can come in and vote claiming to be you if they know your address (easy to obtain) and know that you aren't going to vote in person (due to sickness, lack of transport, lack of motivation, etc). I sure as hell could vote in multiple states most likely and as multiple relatives. There is no way to know.
What really impacts the elections is the fact that for the vast majority of the population, their vote is meaningless. They have little to no chance to vote for someone they actually want and under a first past the post, primary based election system, most votes are completely and utterly wasted.
I support voter ID laws because if those can't get passed, what hope do we have of changing anything else about the elections lest we "disenfranchise" voters? Every change to a voting law is going to change voter behavior, turnout, and outcomes. There will be a motivator behind anyone pushing for any change. Being against a simple requirement like identification is a recipe for no changes at all which is exactly what BOTH parties really want.
I don't like Republican voters either. But they have ID. I'm only for stopping people from voting if they can't prove they are who they claim to be and are eligible to vote. But I'm the unreasonable one here?
Yes, but driving for 8 hours straight is not a guarantee of being tired or falling asleep at the wheel. Hell, if you have multiple drivers in the car, it's possible to have quick driver tradeoffs and drive continuously without falling asleep at the wheel being an issue. I know me and 4 buddies drove 12 hours straight through the middle of the night for an NCAA game and then did the same trip back. No one did an excessive stint and people were able to sleep in the back when they weren't driving.
The fact that fraud is unlikely to change the outcome of any election doesn't change the fact that it is a problem that shouldn't need to be solved. It's unlikely that anything on my work computer is likely to hurt my company if the information was released to the public, but I still have a password requirement and IT policies preventing free access to the internet.
Photo ID is a pretty low bar for voting. Who the hell are all these voters that don't have them and why should the entire election results be risked just to allow these people to vote? Based on who is for and against the voter ID requirements, I'd say most of these no-ID voters are unmotivated Democrats that will vote straight ticket if it isn't too much trouble...
Personally, if they can't be troubled to get an ID, I don't really want their votes to count toward making policy for the whole country.
Does Putin have influence over an election? Yes, by being a public figure he does. Did he influence US voters by exposing the shady operations of the Democratic party? Most certainly. Is any of that a crime or a surprise? Nope. The question you have to ask yourself is was anything supposedly released by the Russians false and did they actually fraudulently vote in the election? I haven't seen anything to suggest either of those things is true.
I do certainly support minority rule. AND SO DO YOU. You just want the majority of voters (a minority of the population) to decide who the leader is. Unless you are proposing compulsory voting and somehow that can bring the voting participation rate up a whole hell of a lot... It would take close to a 90% landslide of voters to reach a majority of even voting eligible citizens.
I am pretty familiar with Canada's immigration standards. I'm an engineer that works in the petroleum sector, I could move there with a work visa next week if I wanted to. I am not a fan of their healthcare system, but it's not like ours is a shining example of how to run it... And Canada is actually currently ahead of the US on most economic freedom indexes. So not perfect, but definitely trending better than our country, especially if we decide to do something stupid like institute a straight popular vote for president.
I have some black friends. They all have ID. If you mean poor people... I don't have many poor friends.
I agree that we should spend at least as much money securing elections as we do on campaigns, but that is not the case. I also agree that felons who have served their sentence should be eligible to vote.
But being against ID? That's ridiculous. There is no reason other than wanting ineligible voters to vote or allowing individuals to vote multiple times to be against ID. Welcome to the modern world. You can't so much as sneeze without a photo ID. I get carded to buy spray paint, yet even the poorest criminals manage to obtain it. I get carded to buy alcohol, yet the random beggars in the street manage to obtain it. I couldn't manage to function more than a day in modern society without proving who I am. Hell it's a nightmare trying to do most things without being forced to provide a SSN which is explicitly not supposed to be used for identification.
I don't think in the modern world there is any reason to not be providing a photo ID for free to every citizen and requiring it be used to vote. The only reasons to be against that policy is tin foil hat wearing paranoia or the encouragement of fraud.
Ok, so you are a partisan ideologue... I happen to be a libertarian and hate Trump's guts. I also hate Hillary's guts. If assholes on both sides start shooting each other in the streets, I'll be the one hiding in the woods. Or Canada.
No, I reject a majority rule for a rule of law. I don't care how unpopular a candidate is if they are elected and have limited power to restrict my freedom as intended by the Constitution. The candidates should be representatives, not kings. They may be bad at representing me, but they shouldn't be able to rule me.
Give me a rational reason why population centers should be able to pick a candidate that isn't supported by the majority of communities in America. There are flaws to both systems, but straight popular vote is one of the worst ways to pick a representative. It gets even worse when you use the first past the post voting system we do in the USA.
I support the candidate that won under the rules of the election that were in place when the campaign and election were run. If I could choose a better set of rules, it wouldn't be a popular first past the post election. The electoral college is mildly better, but subject to many problems which we are currently experiencing.
My goals would be to elect a candidate that polls better than 33% favorable. Hillary sure as hell wasn't much better. Neither were above 50%. You fix the problems with elections being a false choice between two horrible people and I'll support making it a popular vote.
Perhaps, but those are not direct and immediate deaths. If anything it would be reduced lifespans for those exposed. Could be a few years on some, could be a decade or two on some. This is not even close to the same as a direct death from an accident.
Then there is the question of exactly why a candidate who loses the popular vote is winning via the electoral college.
There is no question why. It is by design. What you see is a flaw is a built in protection of the majority from being able to totally control the government. Now the exact way the electoral college works is flawed, but the reason we don't do a strict popular vote is completely valid.
It's hard to make claims one way or the other about voter fraud when voters need not present reasonable identification. It's impossible to know if there were fraudulent votes if you can't identify legitimate voters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Fukushima: "None of the workers at the Fukushima Daiichi site have died from acute radiation poisoning,[17] though six workers died due to various reasons, including cardiovascular disease, during the containment efforts or work to stabilize the earthquake and tsunami damage to the site.[17]" "Although it was the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986,[10] and the radiation released exceeded official safety guidelines, there were no casualties caused by radiation exposure, but 34 people died as a result of the evacuation.[4]"
Chernobyl: "56 direct deaths (47 accident workers and nine children with thyroid cancer) resulted from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, and it is estimated that there may eventually be 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.[2][3][4]"
Nuclear is pretty clean. Fukushima is an accident, but to call it a disaster is an insult to the earthquake and tsunami that were the ACTUAL disaster:
"On 10 March 2015, a Japanese National Police Agency report confirmed 15,894 deaths,[37] 6,152 injured,[38] and 2,562 people missing[39] across twenty prefectures, as well as 228,863 people living away from their home in either temporary housing or due to permanent relocation.[40]"
Nuclear is like anything else, it can be very dangerous when in the wrong hands. When used for power generation it might kill approximately ZERO people. When made into a bomb: "According to figures published in 1945, 66,000 people were killed as a direct result of the Hiroshima blast, and 69,000 were injured to varying degrees.[32] "