Yes, a random large number from a famous guy over a random internet commenter. Also, FYI, I'm a libertarian and I don't like Trump at all. I'll be voting third party as I always do. As for where I get my information from regarding how oil companies handle taxes, it comes from working for two different major oil companies... Does that make me a paid shill?
No, the solution is not to reward people who break the law. Giving free stuff to not only those who come into the country illegally but also to people who might consider coming to the country illegally is increasing demand for people wanting to come into the country illegally. Enforce the border, send illegals who get through the border home, and change the law to stop anchor babies. Only the children where at least one parent is a citizen should be eligible for birth location citizenship.
Did you just propose socialism as a solution to illegal immigration? Do we have to pay protection money to all the world's poor to keep them from breaking our laws and flooding into the country? How is that working out for Europe?
What tax break do oil companies get that others don't? Most of the "tax breaks" people think are oil subsidies are tax breaks for construction, capital investment, and mining/capital extraction. Even if there were direct oil government handouts, they would pale in comparison to the subsidies for competing energy sources and be dwarfed again by the cost of regulation on oil companies that is oil specific. Not to mention the fact that while "renewable" energy plants are being built practically everywhere, new ways to supply conventional fuels are being blocked by local, state, and federal governments across the country.
You can roughly estimate it, but that should be the threshold of liability for damages. If you lived around Three Mile Island, you have scarce if any evidence that any real harm was caused, but if you lived in Pripyat, the evidence is far more substantial. Pretending the damage is significant benefits the ones who stand to benefit from selling snake oil solutions.
This. So much this. The globe is probably warming, we probably have something to do with it. But do I trust computer models? HELL NO. Just because you can throw a lot of variables into a computer and have it churn out graphs and maps doesn't make that data analysis worth shit. Until you have done actual experiments and compared them with the predicted results of your simulation (you know, REAL science) those simulations are nothing more than an interesting science fiction. Write up a climate modeling simulation, take the baseline based on the data we have now, and in 10,000 years we can compared what actually happened to the model. Until then, all we have is wild ass guesses.
It doesn't matter how many variables you correct and how many adjustments are programmed in. The climate is a chaotic system with a ridiculous number of variables, most of which we can't predict at all.
Ok, you are right. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING is a pollutant. But we aren't talking about taxing farts, banning air ionizers, forbidding the planting of trees that spread pollen, and fining people who aim flashlights in the sky. All of these have negative externalities. The point is that there is no measurable, direct, and/or traceable effect of CO2 emissions on any single person's property. The law cannot solve that.
As far as the dog shit on the lawn, it happens, and as long as it doesn't ruin your lawn most people just grumble about it and get on with their lives because short of forensics on the feces, you'll never find anyone to try to sue over damages.
Umm, I've seen the automatic shutoffs fail and people dribble a few gallons down the side of their car. Most gas stations have an oil/water separator to catch the bulk of oil from leaving the site via runoff though they aren't perfect. They also have spill kits of absorbents if there is a mishap. Additionally, many urban areas do have stage 2 recovery of vapors from fueling. You can see the rubber hose that fits around the fill nozzle.
I'm sorry, I don't remember seeing the climate clause of my property... And who gets to determine what climate is ideal? Maybe the people pushing for CO2 taxes to reduce global warming are hurting the investments of people owning land in Alaska (mainly the government actually)?
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It has consequences sure, but those consequences are nothing new to this planet. Until we can engineer a constant climate for the planet and can collectively decide what is the ideal climate for the planet, no one owns the right to long term climate stability as part of their property rights. The climate will change and you have no right to tax other people to reduce that change. If your property is going to decrease in value over time due to climate change, that means you should probably get out of that property sooner rather than later as pretty much any climate scientist will tell you even with massive taxes and reduction in CO2 emissions, the warming is already inevitable. Instead you want to tax and reduce the demand for living where climate change is going to be beneficial instead of harmful. How does that make sense?
I use Waze for general navigation, but I use Google Maps when navigating to a location for the first time. Google Maps is far more accurate in terms of the position of addresses and doing a location search based on terms. It also has lane directions which is extremely helpful in urban areas with dense exits with multiple exit and turn lanes. Waze is far better at traffic routing though, but I do with they had the Google Maps feature of highlighting alternate routes on the map with time estimates. Many times Waze will route you on an extremely convoluted path through a neighborhood to save 1 minute. I'd frequently like to know that and decide to wait in traffic a bit longer to avoid a frustrating series of stop signs or a left turn onto a major road.
Yes, but no one is proposing restricting the collection of wealth on the coasts. Rather the opposite is generally true. For some reason the intent is to carbon tax people living at high elevation in Alaska who would benefit from climate change so that rich people can keep building beach houses in Miami. I agree we have already invested a lot in the coasts, but how long do we keep throwing money into a city that is losing to the sea. New Orleans is a good example of a city that probably should be considered for abandoning the next time it floods.
Yes, but the sea level isn't just going to rise 200-300 feet. It's also going to get warmer... The landmass that gets covered by water will be offset by huge tracts of Russia, Canada, Alaska, Greenland, and maybe even Antarctica that will become warm enough to be populated.
This. The sea level isn't going to up 300 feet overnight. Even if the most ridiculous of climate models it will take 100s of years for the sea level to rise 10s of feet. Most of the major cities along the coast line literally did not exist 500 years ago, and until the last 100 years didn't even have tall buildings. The flatiron building was the crown jewel of the Manhattan skyline 100 years ago. All of the rest was built in less than a century, and with much less technology than we have today. There will be plenty of time to move. The human species is remarkably adaptable. The idea that any climate change can wipe out a large portion of the human population is ignorant of the history of life and humanity on the planet.
Why are we expected to take on so much debt for college? Why am I expected to fund my own retirement when my predecessor got a defined benefits package that I'm paying for? Why is healthcare so expensive? Why can't companies show a little bit of loyalty to us?
Why would you go to college knowing the price up front and the job market when you get out? Why don't people support phasing out social security similar to how pensions are going away? Why can't medical billing make sense and the costs be presented up front? Why would companies be loyal to employees that have no sense of loyalty?
Actually, plumbers, welders, electricians, and garbage collectors are likely to get rich. They tend to earn a decent amount of money and don't live lavish debt funded lifestyles. College degrees are necessary for some careers, but not most of them. The reason that a college degree is so worthless today is because the government decided to throw money at getting people college degrees. It's supply and demand. If the supply of college graduates goes up, the value of college graduates goes down. I've also been sorely disappointed by some of the college degree carrying retail workers that can't do basic math that they should have learned in elementary school...
Anon Coward for a reason? Millennials don't know what damn hard work is. I know because I am one and the "worst" job I ever had was being a janitor and having to clean toilets a few times. Millennials say they work hard, but working "two jobs" in air conditioned offices or at Starbucks and McDonalds isn't hard work. Coal mining is hard work. Welding in the Louisana summer heat and humidity for 12 hours a day is hard work. Being a plumber that fixes septic tanks is hard work. Having a job that has you living out of a shitty hotel for most of the year is hard work.
These jobs all pay pretty darn well though, but Millennials won't take them. They think partying for 4 (or 5) years to get a college degree and then do retail or office work is "hard work." They've never even fathomed what a hard day even is. Illegal immigrants are coming in and filling the jobs lazy American young adults are unwilling to take because they'd rather live in their parents' basements than do hard work.
If you ever want to know where social security money goes, go visit a casino. Full of old folks pulling the handles on slot machines all day and night...
Clicking fast is a "skill" but the bigger question should be which is more important? The "Real Time" or the "Strategy?" If it's more important to make things real time, then why have units with any autonomy at all? If clicking fast is the skill we are competing on, make resource gathers need to be manually told to return cargo and then go get another load. If the strategy part is the point of the game, then clicking fast shouldn't be an overwhelming advantage. And especially in StarCraft it is, especially in multiplayer where the units are less autonomous than they are in single player.
This is why I never enjoyed StarCraft 2 as much as the original. APM is where the focus went in multiplayer. It's obvious because in the single player, the units are far more autonomous. Built SCVs automatically start harvesting, units are smarter on their own etc. All of that goes away in multiplayer matches.
And this is the key issue. Computers winning at micro is trivial. All you have to do is stop making the units in the game autonomous at all (mini AI to help the human). Just make the game so that humans have to individually select enemy units to attack and just sit and die if they don't get a command to defend themselves. It's not any intelligence at all.
Macro is where the real contest is. That is what makes it a strategy game and not a reflex game. Forget StarCraft 2, and make the AI compete on the original Star Craft. If the AI can win without getting the free resources and faster startup time that the "AI" gets in multiplayer matches then it is progress.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, a random large number from a famous guy over a random internet commenter. Also, FYI, I'm a libertarian and I don't like Trump at all. I'll be voting third party as I always do. As for where I get my information from regarding how oil companies handle taxes, it comes from working for two different major oil companies... Does that make me a paid shill?
No, the solution is not to reward people who break the law. Giving free stuff to not only those who come into the country illegally but also to people who might consider coming to the country illegally is increasing demand for people wanting to come into the country illegally. Enforce the border, send illegals who get through the border home, and change the law to stop anchor babies. Only the children where at least one parent is a citizen should be eligible for birth location citizenship.
Did you just propose socialism as a solution to illegal immigration? Do we have to pay protection money to all the world's poor to keep them from breaking our laws and flooding into the country? How is that working out for Europe?
What tax break do oil companies get that others don't? Most of the "tax breaks" people think are oil subsidies are tax breaks for construction, capital investment, and mining/capital extraction. Even if there were direct oil government handouts, they would pale in comparison to the subsidies for competing energy sources and be dwarfed again by the cost of regulation on oil companies that is oil specific. Not to mention the fact that while "renewable" energy plants are being built practically everywhere, new ways to supply conventional fuels are being blocked by local, state, and federal governments across the country.
You can roughly estimate it, but that should be the threshold of liability for damages. If you lived around Three Mile Island, you have scarce if any evidence that any real harm was caused, but if you lived in Pripyat, the evidence is far more substantial. Pretending the damage is significant benefits the ones who stand to benefit from selling snake oil solutions.
This. So much this. The globe is probably warming, we probably have something to do with it. But do I trust computer models? HELL NO. Just because you can throw a lot of variables into a computer and have it churn out graphs and maps doesn't make that data analysis worth shit. Until you have done actual experiments and compared them with the predicted results of your simulation (you know, REAL science) those simulations are nothing more than an interesting science fiction. Write up a climate modeling simulation, take the baseline based on the data we have now, and in 10,000 years we can compared what actually happened to the model. Until then, all we have is wild ass guesses.
It doesn't matter how many variables you correct and how many adjustments are programmed in. The climate is a chaotic system with a ridiculous number of variables, most of which we can't predict at all.
A Super Aggro Crag you say? That would take some Global Guts to construct!
Ok, you are right. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING is a pollutant. But we aren't talking about taxing farts, banning air ionizers, forbidding the planting of trees that spread pollen, and fining people who aim flashlights in the sky. All of these have negative externalities. The point is that there is no measurable, direct, and/or traceable effect of CO2 emissions on any single person's property. The law cannot solve that.
As far as the dog shit on the lawn, it happens, and as long as it doesn't ruin your lawn most people just grumble about it and get on with their lives because short of forensics on the feces, you'll never find anyone to try to sue over damages.
people know you don't smoke near a gas pump
You've never filled up at a gas station before have you?
Umm, I've seen the automatic shutoffs fail and people dribble a few gallons down the side of their car. Most gas stations have an oil/water separator to catch the bulk of oil from leaving the site via runoff though they aren't perfect. They also have spill kits of absorbents if there is a mishap. Additionally, many urban areas do have stage 2 recovery of vapors from fueling. You can see the rubber hose that fits around the fill nozzle.
I'm sorry, I don't remember seeing the climate clause of my property... And who gets to determine what climate is ideal? Maybe the people pushing for CO2 taxes to reduce global warming are hurting the investments of people owning land in Alaska (mainly the government actually)?
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It has consequences sure, but those consequences are nothing new to this planet. Until we can engineer a constant climate for the planet and can collectively decide what is the ideal climate for the planet, no one owns the right to long term climate stability as part of their property rights. The climate will change and you have no right to tax other people to reduce that change. If your property is going to decrease in value over time due to climate change, that means you should probably get out of that property sooner rather than later as pretty much any climate scientist will tell you even with massive taxes and reduction in CO2 emissions, the warming is already inevitable. Instead you want to tax and reduce the demand for living where climate change is going to be beneficial instead of harmful. How does that make sense?
Really, the vast forests and tundra of Russia, Alaska, and Canada don't have soil?
I use Waze for general navigation, but I use Google Maps when navigating to a location for the first time. Google Maps is far more accurate in terms of the position of addresses and doing a location search based on terms. It also has lane directions which is extremely helpful in urban areas with dense exits with multiple exit and turn lanes. Waze is far better at traffic routing though, but I do with they had the Google Maps feature of highlighting alternate routes on the map with time estimates. Many times Waze will route you on an extremely convoluted path through a neighborhood to save 1 minute. I'd frequently like to know that and decide to wait in traffic a bit longer to avoid a frustrating series of stop signs or a left turn onto a major road.
Yes, but no one is proposing restricting the collection of wealth on the coasts. Rather the opposite is generally true. For some reason the intent is to carbon tax people living at high elevation in Alaska who would benefit from climate change so that rich people can keep building beach houses in Miami. I agree we have already invested a lot in the coasts, but how long do we keep throwing money into a city that is losing to the sea. New Orleans is a good example of a city that probably should be considered for abandoning the next time it floods.
Yes, but the sea level isn't just going to rise 200-300 feet. It's also going to get warmer... The landmass that gets covered by water will be offset by huge tracts of Russia, Canada, Alaska, Greenland, and maybe even Antarctica that will become warm enough to be populated.
This. The sea level isn't going to up 300 feet overnight. Even if the most ridiculous of climate models it will take 100s of years for the sea level to rise 10s of feet. Most of the major cities along the coast line literally did not exist 500 years ago, and until the last 100 years didn't even have tall buildings. The flatiron building was the crown jewel of the Manhattan skyline 100 years ago. All of the rest was built in less than a century, and with much less technology than we have today. There will be plenty of time to move. The human species is remarkably adaptable. The idea that any climate change can wipe out a large portion of the human population is ignorant of the history of life and humanity on the planet.
I vastly preferred XMMS myself. But I didn't really get into whipping llamas...
Yeah, as misleading as the "Flight deals from $59!*"
*$59 flight only available to the airport that is an hour drive away and would be stupid to actually fly to.
Why are we expected to take on so much debt for college?
Why am I expected to fund my own retirement when my predecessor got a defined benefits package that I'm paying for?
Why is healthcare so expensive?
Why can't companies show a little bit of loyalty to us?
Why would you go to college knowing the price up front and the job market when you get out?
Why don't people support phasing out social security similar to how pensions are going away?
Why can't medical billing make sense and the costs be presented up front?
Why would companies be loyal to employees that have no sense of loyalty?
Actually, plumbers, welders, electricians, and garbage collectors are likely to get rich. They tend to earn a decent amount of money and don't live lavish debt funded lifestyles. College degrees are necessary for some careers, but not most of them. The reason that a college degree is so worthless today is because the government decided to throw money at getting people college degrees. It's supply and demand. If the supply of college graduates goes up, the value of college graduates goes down. I've also been sorely disappointed by some of the college degree carrying retail workers that can't do basic math that they should have learned in elementary school...
Anon Coward for a reason? Millennials don't know what damn hard work is. I know because I am one and the "worst" job I ever had was being a janitor and having to clean toilets a few times. Millennials say they work hard, but working "two jobs" in air conditioned offices or at Starbucks and McDonalds isn't hard work. Coal mining is hard work. Welding in the Louisana summer heat and humidity for 12 hours a day is hard work. Being a plumber that fixes septic tanks is hard work. Having a job that has you living out of a shitty hotel for most of the year is hard work.
These jobs all pay pretty darn well though, but Millennials won't take them. They think partying for 4 (or 5) years to get a college degree and then do retail or office work is "hard work." They've never even fathomed what a hard day even is. Illegal immigrants are coming in and filling the jobs lazy American young adults are unwilling to take because they'd rather live in their parents' basements than do hard work.
If you ever want to know where social security money goes, go visit a casino. Full of old folks pulling the handles on slot machines all day and night...
It's like that on my Roku as well... Very frustrating.
Clicking fast is a "skill" but the bigger question should be which is more important? The "Real Time" or the "Strategy?" If it's more important to make things real time, then why have units with any autonomy at all? If clicking fast is the skill we are competing on, make resource gathers need to be manually told to return cargo and then go get another load. If the strategy part is the point of the game, then clicking fast shouldn't be an overwhelming advantage. And especially in StarCraft it is, especially in multiplayer where the units are less autonomous than they are in single player.
This is why I never enjoyed StarCraft 2 as much as the original. APM is where the focus went in multiplayer. It's obvious because in the single player, the units are far more autonomous. Built SCVs automatically start harvesting, units are smarter on their own etc. All of that goes away in multiplayer matches.
And this is the key issue. Computers winning at micro is trivial. All you have to do is stop making the units in the game autonomous at all (mini AI to help the human). Just make the game so that humans have to individually select enemy units to attack and just sit and die if they don't get a command to defend themselves. It's not any intelligence at all.
Macro is where the real contest is. That is what makes it a strategy game and not a reflex game. Forget StarCraft 2, and make the AI compete on the original Star Craft. If the AI can win without getting the free resources and faster startup time that the "AI" gets in multiplayer matches then it is progress.