But it would require us to stop using alternative fuels like ethanol. We have been deforesting land to form new planting fields to grown corn and sugar cane in for ethanol production. That was a climate win right? How could government solutions possibly make us worse off?
Exactly. Climate change is inevitable. Humans can affect the climate. There is only one question we need to figure out... Do we want the planet to get warmer or colder? I prefer warmer myself. Other people are deluded enough to believe they can keep it the same.
You mean any studies that will never get published because they will be called "deniers"? Every claim of death and cost of global warming is hugely inflated. I have yet to see a study that shows any possible BENEFIT of global warming despite the evidence that the warmest times in Earth's history have been the times that life has been most prolific.
No, the claim is that all the scientists now learned how to do science from doing science fairs in school. They follow the same scientific method they learned there. Make a hypothesis. Form your conclusion. Find, manipulate, or fabricate data to support that conclusion. If you can't fudge the data enough, make a graph with inappropriate scale and units to make your data appear to support the conclusion.
That's what you see in science fairs, and that's all of this bullshit. Science isn't always about looking at data and being "that's funny" sometimes it's about having the scientific integrity to say "there is no clear conclusion that can be drawn from this data" or "we weren't able to isolate the variables enough to see a relationship."
I haven't read the full report, but I'm sure you won't read this rebuttal because it's from the Cato Institute. Their predictions are off, and getting farther off with each year of data.
If there's no actual investment then why do I get a yearly report from the Social Security Administration telling me how much I have in my fund? If you are agreeing that Social Security is a huge money hole where future generations pay for the retirement of the old, then who WOULDN'T opt out? Probably just the old, not the people paying for the old to retire.
You'd want to opt out of Social Security because it's a Ponzi Scheme. Or maybe because you can get better returns on your retirement dollars in a private fund. Or maybe because you'd rather buy gold for your retirement savings.
If you don't pay your mortgage than you are in violation of a contract and the bank goes to the government to bring guys with guns to kick you out as you are trespassing on the bank's property. It's still the government with the guns. Your bank can't have it's own private enforcement kick you out of their house.
I unplugged the On-Star module underneath the glove compartment in my G6. Then the cruise control stopped working. Taking it into the dealership, of course their solution is to plug On-Star back in, and then the cruise magically started working again. Tell me that GM isn't going to sabotage the cars of people who choose to disable On-Star... So I got a Ford instead. Not that My Ford Touch is any great technology either.
No, it means problems are often not repeatable and thus are easier to deny claims on. More and more cars are going toward virtual input devices and they have random bugs and errors all the time. Rarely, they release an update, but more likely the dealership can't reproduce the problem and they shrug and send you on your merry way.
Actually animals that are yummy don't go extinct. We domesticate them. It's all the ones that are useless to serve or be eaten by humans that are going extinct.
It depends on the specific procedure. I had PRK done and I could actually see the LED target get clearer with each shot of the laser during the actual surgery. But yes, take the valium... It's extremely stressful to be immobilized for such a long period of time and having your eyelids clamped open.
The Constitution came to be as an agreement between people that was voted on and approved. It's not magic pixie dust, but it is the document which is the people's contract with our government. I think it's a pretty good foundation. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we've got now. I can read the entire Constitution. I have read it several time in fact. It's a concise document that is pretty clear on most issues. It's been changed because the political class always desires more power and the people have lost the enthusiasm for liberty that the founding fathers had. Bread and circuses is what we have now to keep the masses content. How long do we have to wait for the fiddling to start?
Well then fuck you too. Libertarians respect people who don't believe what they do. Apparently you can't do the same. I don't take the Federalist Papers as the bible, but I do see the wisdom in the words it contains. The threat of democracy doesn't lie in the distinction between direct voting and representative voting, but in the idea that whatever is popular should be the law. The Constitution is written to protect individual rights regardless of what is popular by limiting the powers of government. Libertarians only ask that the government stay within the bounds of its charter. A federal enforcement arm such as the FBI or federal marshals is fully within the bounds of the Constitution and a Republic, even one with democratically elected representatives. However, your original argument of "like a democracy" was bullshit as a monarchy or even a dictatorship can still have government enforced tort law.
So basically you attack a libertarian because you don't respect them and don't even put together a coherent argument. So if you aren't going to respect me, or anyone who believes as I do, then I will return your lack of respect with another fuck you in closing.
From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A Republic, by which I mean a Government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.
1) A democracy is where 51% of the people decide the needs and force it on the other 49% 2) Most libertarians support the idea of a police force and law enforcement.
I think you are confusing libertarians with anarchists. Libertarians believe "The government that governs least governs best." The government and laws exist in a libertarian utopia, but their task is to make people adhere to fair play.
Slashdot Mirror
But it would require us to stop using alternative fuels like ethanol. We have been deforesting land to form new planting fields to grown corn and sugar cane in for ethanol production. That was a climate win right? How could government solutions possibly make us worse off?
Exactly. Climate change is inevitable. Humans can affect the climate. There is only one question we need to figure out... Do we want the planet to get warmer or colder? I prefer warmer myself. Other people are deluded enough to believe they can keep it the same.
In what universe is the Nobel prize not a popularity contest among peers?
You mean any studies that will never get published because they will be called "deniers"? Every claim of death and cost of global warming is hugely inflated. I have yet to see a study that shows any possible BENEFIT of global warming despite the evidence that the warmest times in Earth's history have been the times that life has been most prolific.
No, the claim is that all the scientists now learned how to do science from doing science fairs in school. They follow the same scientific method they learned there. Make a hypothesis. Form your conclusion. Find, manipulate, or fabricate data to support that conclusion. If you can't fudge the data enough, make a graph with inappropriate scale and units to make your data appear to support the conclusion.
That's what you see in science fairs, and that's all of this bullshit. Science isn't always about looking at data and being "that's funny" sometimes it's about having the scientific integrity to say "there is no clear conclusion that can be drawn from this data" or "we weren't able to isolate the variables enough to see a relationship."
http://www.cato.org/blog/clear...
I haven't read the full report, but I'm sure you won't read this rebuttal because it's from the Cato Institute. Their predictions are off, and getting farther off with each year of data.
If there's no actual investment then why do I get a yearly report from the Social Security Administration telling me how much I have in my fund? If you are agreeing that Social Security is a huge money hole where future generations pay for the retirement of the old, then who WOULDN'T opt out? Probably just the old, not the people paying for the old to retire.
You'd want to opt out of Social Security because it's a Ponzi Scheme. Or maybe because you can get better returns on your retirement dollars in a private fund. Or maybe because you'd rather buy gold for your retirement savings.
If you don't pay your mortgage than you are in violation of a contract and the bank goes to the government to bring guys with guns to kick you out as you are trespassing on the bank's property. It's still the government with the guns. Your bank can't have it's own private enforcement kick you out of their house.
As if asahi.com wasn't already borked from the canal story, we link to them again?
Nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Or we could ditch ethanol for fuels... Or stop paying farmers to go crops that there isn't demand for.
I unplugged the On-Star module underneath the glove compartment in my G6. Then the cruise control stopped working. Taking it into the dealership, of course their solution is to plug On-Star back in, and then the cruise magically started working again. Tell me that GM isn't going to sabotage the cars of people who choose to disable On-Star... So I got a Ford instead. Not that My Ford Touch is any great technology either.
So instead of linking to the original Jalopnik article, you post a copy on Road and Track?
No, it means problems are often not repeatable and thus are easier to deny claims on. More and more cars are going toward virtual input devices and they have random bugs and errors all the time. Rarely, they release an update, but more likely the dealership can't reproduce the problem and they shrug and send you on your merry way.
Actually animals that are yummy don't go extinct. We domesticate them. It's all the ones that are useless to serve or be eaten by humans that are going extinct.
It was weird for me after the surgery when in the winter I was all like, "what the hell is this shit pelting me in the eyeballs?"
It depends on the specific procedure. I had PRK done and I could actually see the LED target get clearer with each shot of the laser during the actual surgery. But yes, take the valium... It's extremely stressful to be immobilized for such a long period of time and having your eyelids clamped open.
Yeah, like the free games are stupidly hard and you can realistically only complete it if you pay for an upgrade or hints.
The Constitution came to be as an agreement between people that was voted on and approved. It's not magic pixie dust, but it is the document which is the people's contract with our government. I think it's a pretty good foundation. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we've got now. I can read the entire Constitution. I have read it several time in fact. It's a concise document that is pretty clear on most issues. It's been changed because the political class always desires more power and the people have lost the enthusiasm for liberty that the founding fathers had. Bread and circuses is what we have now to keep the masses content. How long do we have to wait for the fiddling to start?
Well then fuck you too. Libertarians respect people who don't believe what they do. Apparently you can't do the same. I don't take the Federalist Papers as the bible, but I do see the wisdom in the words it contains. The threat of democracy doesn't lie in the distinction between direct voting and representative voting, but in the idea that whatever is popular should be the law. The Constitution is written to protect individual rights regardless of what is popular by limiting the powers of government. Libertarians only ask that the government stay within the bounds of its charter. A federal enforcement arm such as the FBI or federal marshals is fully within the bounds of the Constitution and a Republic, even one with democratically elected representatives. However, your original argument of "like a democracy" was bullshit as a monarchy or even a dictatorship can still have government enforced tort law.
So basically you attack a libertarian because you don't respect them and don't even put together a coherent argument. So if you aren't going to respect me, or anyone who believes as I do, then I will return your lack of respect with another fuck you in closing.
From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A Republic, by which I mean a Government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.
From Federalist #10 by James Madison
Except most of our oil comes from domestic and friendly sources. The largest imported oil source is Canada.
1) A democracy is where 51% of the people decide the needs and force it on the other 49%
2) Most libertarians support the idea of a police force and law enforcement.
I think you are confusing libertarians with anarchists. Libertarians believe "The government that governs least governs best." The government and laws exist in a libertarian utopia, but their task is to make people adhere to fair play.
So libertarian strawmen are insightful now. Metamoderators, please act accordingly.