In many ways TFA sounds a lot like the mentality Monsanto has: make more food for more people with fewer resources. This is completely backwards, and will fail us in a devastating way long term. Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth.
Actually, one thing you overlook is that studies have repeatedly shown that as a population surpasses a certain level of wealth, population growth goes down. This mentality is an attempt to increase the net wealth of human population around the world, so while it will increase food production it will likely, also, reduce population growth.
Excuse me, you said it was on a winding mountain road and that it might take 15 miles to come to a place where you wouldn't need to pass on a blind curve, so that means that city laws are not relevant, only state laws. There are no cities in the U.S. where you would find a 15 mile stretch of mountain roads with blind curves over the entire 15 miles.
The article talks about how ants from different super colonies in the same region react aggressively to each other and how ants from the largest super colonies on separate continents react as if they are from the same colony. What it doesn't mention is the reaction of ants from the largest super colony in California to ants from the smaller super colony in Japan (or the smaller super colony in Europe). If ants of this species from California get along with ants from either of the colonies in Europe or Japan, then this interaction is much more complicated than the article reports. The only way the scientists conclusion is supported is if the ants from California get a similar reaction from ants from the smaller colonies as the ants from the larger colony in the region do.
Why complicate the process? It is a tax, call it one and make it one in a straightforward sense. Tax coal at some rate, imported petroleum at some other rate and exempt wind and solar energies. Simple. right?
There are two problems with your proposed solution:
First: the average voter would easily be able to see how much it was costing him or her and might hold his/her elected official accountable for that increased cost.
Second: It would be more obvious when politicians gamed the system to favor their friends and/or make money.
If one understands the purpose of this legislation, it is clear why this is the only possible solution. What is the purpose? To use Global Warming as an excuse to expand the power of government and help politicians to accumulate wealth.
I'm confused. You seem to be saying that fascism works by harnessing fear to oppose the expansion of government controls over companies. You do understand that an elemental part of fascism IS government control over the actions of private companies?
In the case of carbon taxation, by reducing the percentage of power generated by coal, we'll see positive effects like lower asthma rates in urban areas east of Ohio. Lower medical costs in these areas should partially offset higher energy costs. If the cap level is properly set, as mentioned earlier, this is a net win for everyone.
citation please.
Also, do you actually think the cap level will be properly set?
...the gov't ever got rid of a tax that was "replaced" by another.
Sure they do, why in 2006 they got rid of the telephone tax that was imposed to pay for the Spanish-American War. So, you see, eventually they get rid of old taxes.
And the bonus is, it would reduce the incentive to buy a fuel efficient car, since gas would cost less after they eliminate the gas tax. This is a great idea.
Of course it would have the additional bonus of allowing the government to identify who went to that subversive protest, you know, the one protesting the suspension of elections.
the injunction stopping the friend from carrying out the murder grows successively weaker with each ultra-realistic simulated murder...
And you know this for a fact? From watching Star Trek episodes about Holodecks, perhaps? Jack Thompson's newsletter? Please cite a source for this claim. Especially as no such "ULTRA REALISTIC" murder simulator exsts, or is likely to for some decades, until you can "jack in" like in Neuromancer. It's still a VIDEO SCREEN, not REALITY. If someone can't tell the difference, they need psychiatric help.
There is some evidence to support the OP's assertion. A study by the U.S. military showed that during WWII, only 15% of soldiers could bring themselves to fire at an exposed enemy (this number may be off, I can't find the source I where I originally saw it). As a result of this the U.S. military instituted changes in their training program in order to desensitize recruits to shooting others. Many of the things developed by the military to accomplish this new training are incorporated into video games. I have seen some studies that indicate that increased realism in video games increases the impact of these techniques.
The fact that certain activities desensitize people to committing violence does not mean that they should be illegal. But it should be talked about and people should give careful consideration as to whether they wish to partake in such activities and more importantly, whether they want their children to partake in such activities. This is a decision that each individual must make for themselves (and their children) based on various mitigating factors (such as how easily one gets angry, etc).
Apple will take any of their old hardware off your hands and recycle it/dispose of it correctly- just drop it off at an Apple Store. If you're trying to dispose of an old iPod, they'll give you a discount towards the purchase of a new one. Apparently they also recycle stuff from other manufacturers if you buy a new replacement item from them.
Amazon also has a recycling program available for their Kindles- you mail it in and they take care of it from there.
I'm pretty sure Sony has a similar program for their many electronics offerings.
Those all sound like a lot of hassle. I have to lug my electronics into some store, or to the Post office. The dumpster is a lot closer.
Recycling will only truly take off when someone is willing to pay me enough for the stuff to make it worth my while to sort it.
Bah, this has been common in Europe for some years. Also, where I live, if your dispose of your electronics properly you get to pay less garbage collection tax.
How do they know that you have any electronics to dispose of? Or is it a matter of if you don't dispose of any electronics in the proper way you pay more, whether you actually dispose of any electronics or not?
You're telling me that a small child could write a look up table for the sales tax in every zip code in the U.S., including a system to update it every time one of those places changes their rate? Oh yeah, it also has to adjust for WHAT is taxable in each of those zip codes.
No, it will encourage manufacturers to make products that are even crappier. They are going to be charged some amount for every cellphone they sell. It won't matter if the phone breaks down in 6 months, 1 year or 20 years. In order to maintain their profit margins, they will increase what they charge their customers and reduce the cost of production (in other words build even shoddier junk).
A 6 foot male who weighs 183 lbs is a stick figure. I am just shy of 5'8". When I was two years out of college, I weighed 185 lbs. According to the American Diatetics Association (the association of professional dietitians), I would have been obese at 195 lbs. I went to an event where they measured body fat percentage. They calculated my body fat percentage at 4 percent. Today I am obese according to the BMI charts. While my body fat percentage is higher than 4%, it is only somewhere around 20% ( I last had it measured a little over two years ago and have gotten into better shape since then).
This study does not come as news to me. A few years ago, I had seen a report of a meta study that reviewed a large number of studies that looked at weight and health. The authors of that study concluded that people who were obese were healthier than people who were below the "ideal" weight. They found that it wasn't until you got to people who were morbidly obese that the health problems of being overweight compared to the health problems of being underweight. This study indicates that BMI as currently used is faulty. It appears to me that the basis for determining if someone is overweight based on BMI is seriously flawed.
I've done both myself (which is why I used that example) and while the effect is similar, smoking hashish is vastly more intense than eating marijuana. Which was the point of my comparison, eating poppies will be a less intense high than smoking opium.
Right because you would be easily able to keep that database up to date with all of the changes in tax rate and what was taxable. Especially considering that my state has a fairly simple sales tax law and yet there is significant ambiguity about whether certain items are taxable(what is the difference between a "snack item" and a "food item").
It is not the online retailers that are leaching, it is the people who buy from them and don't pay the tax themselves. Do you have any idea what a nightmare it would be for a small online retailer if they had to figure out what sales tax to charge on every transaction in every locality in the country. I am surprised that Amazon didn't shut down all of their NY affiliates because NY has one of the most nightmarish sales tax setups for any retailer without a fixed location. "Yes, I know this is the Syracuse Convention Center, but it is not actually in the City of Syracuse, so the sales tax is 7.25% not 7.5%. You have been defrauding these people, even though you were going to pay all the tax you collected to the state of NY."
They don't discriminate in favor of illegal content, you ask them where to find such-and-such and they give you a list of websites that list it as part of their content. This could be used as a tool by those who legitimately hold the copyright to find those who post their content online without their permission, but they would rather just shut it down.
Actually the real problem with the copyright on Happy Birthday is that it is based on a (relatively) late publication date of 1935. It first appeared in print in 1912. The 1935 copyright is probably only valid for that particular format, but Warner claims it for all formats of Happy Birthday (which would only be true if 1935 was the original publication date of the song).
There is a lot of refining between poppies and opium. Comparing the effect of eating poppies to the effect of smoking opium is similar to comparing the effect of eating marijuana to the effect of smoking hashish.
The CBO says that energy production costs in the U.S. would increase by $770/year per household, but that this bill would only cost an average household $175/year. So, no I don't by the CBO numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
In many ways TFA sounds a lot like the mentality Monsanto has: make more food for more people with fewer resources. This is completely backwards, and will fail us in a devastating way long term. Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth.
Actually, one thing you overlook is that studies have repeatedly shown that as a population surpasses a certain level of wealth, population growth goes down. This mentality is an attempt to increase the net wealth of human population around the world, so while it will increase food production it will likely, also, reduce population growth.
Excuse me, you said it was on a winding mountain road and that it might take 15 miles to come to a place where you wouldn't need to pass on a blind curve, so that means that city laws are not relevant, only state laws. There are no cities in the U.S. where you would find a 15 mile stretch of mountain roads with blind curves over the entire 15 miles.
Where I live, if it is legal to drive 60 MPH, it is illegal to go slower than 35 MPH. Of course, it is also illegal to ride a bicycle on those roads.
The article talks about how ants from different super colonies in the same region react aggressively to each other and how ants from the largest super colonies on separate continents react as if they are from the same colony. What it doesn't mention is the reaction of ants from the largest super colony in California to ants from the smaller super colony in Japan (or the smaller super colony in Europe). If ants of this species from California get along with ants from either of the colonies in Europe or Japan, then this interaction is much more complicated than the article reports. The only way the scientists conclusion is supported is if the ants from California get a similar reaction from ants from the smaller colonies as the ants from the larger colony in the region do.
Why complicate the process? It is a tax, call it one and make it one in a straightforward sense. Tax coal at some rate, imported petroleum at some other rate and exempt wind and solar energies. Simple. right?
There are two problems with your proposed solution:
First: the average voter would easily be able to see how much it was costing him or her and might hold his/her elected official accountable for that increased cost.
Second: It would be more obvious when politicians gamed the system to favor their friends and/or make money.
If one understands the purpose of this legislation, it is clear why this is the only possible solution. What is the purpose? To use Global Warming as an excuse to expand the power of government and help politicians to accumulate wealth.
I'm confused. You seem to be saying that fascism works by harnessing fear to oppose the expansion of government controls over companies. You do understand that an elemental part of fascism IS government control over the actions of private companies?
In the case of carbon taxation, by reducing the percentage of power generated by coal, we'll see positive effects like lower asthma rates in urban areas east of Ohio. Lower medical costs in these areas should partially offset higher energy costs. If the cap level is properly set, as mentioned earlier, this is a net win for everyone.
citation please.
Also, do you actually think the cap level will be properly set?
Sure they do, why in 2006 they got rid of the telephone tax that was imposed to pay for the Spanish-American War. So, you see, eventually they get rid of old taxes.
And the bonus is, it would reduce the incentive to buy a fuel efficient car, since gas would cost less after they eliminate the gas tax. This is a great idea.
Of course it would have the additional bonus of allowing the government to identify who went to that subversive protest, you know, the one protesting the suspension of elections.
the injunction stopping the friend from carrying out the murder grows successively weaker with each ultra-realistic simulated murder...
And you know this for a fact? From watching Star Trek episodes about Holodecks, perhaps? Jack Thompson's newsletter? Please cite a source for this claim. Especially as no such "ULTRA REALISTIC" murder simulator exsts, or is likely to for some decades, until you can "jack in" like in Neuromancer. It's still a VIDEO SCREEN, not REALITY. If someone can't tell the difference, they need psychiatric help.
There is some evidence to support the OP's assertion. A study by the U.S. military showed that during WWII, only 15% of soldiers could bring themselves to fire at an exposed enemy (this number may be off, I can't find the source I where I originally saw it). As a result of this the U.S. military instituted changes in their training program in order to desensitize recruits to shooting others. Many of the things developed by the military to accomplish this new training are incorporated into video games. I have seen some studies that indicate that increased realism in video games increases the impact of these techniques.
The fact that certain activities desensitize people to committing violence does not mean that they should be illegal. But it should be talked about and people should give careful consideration as to whether they wish to partake in such activities and more importantly, whether they want their children to partake in such activities. This is a decision that each individual must make for themselves (and their children) based on various mitigating factors (such as how easily one gets angry, etc).
Hmm, tax payers already paid for it, no?
Actually, considering the size of the national debt, no, they haven't. Their grandchildren will.
Apple will take any of their old hardware off your hands and recycle it/dispose of it correctly- just drop it off at an Apple Store. If you're trying to dispose of an old iPod, they'll give you a discount towards the purchase of a new one. Apparently they also recycle stuff from other manufacturers if you buy a new replacement item from them.
Amazon also has a recycling program available for their Kindles- you mail it in and they take care of it from there.
I'm pretty sure Sony has a similar program for their many electronics offerings.
Those all sound like a lot of hassle. I have to lug my electronics into some store, or to the Post office. The dumpster is a lot closer.
Recycling will only truly take off when someone is willing to pay me enough for the stuff to make it worth my while to sort it.
Bah, this has been common in Europe for some years. Also, where I live, if your dispose of your electronics properly you get to pay less garbage collection tax.
How do they know that you have any electronics to dispose of? Or is it a matter of if you don't dispose of any electronics in the proper way you pay more, whether you actually dispose of any electronics or not?
You're telling me that a small child could write a look up table for the sales tax in every zip code in the U.S., including a system to update it every time one of those places changes their rate? Oh yeah, it also has to adjust for WHAT is taxable in each of those zip codes.
No, it will encourage manufacturers to make products that are even crappier. They are going to be charged some amount for every cellphone they sell. It won't matter if the phone breaks down in 6 months, 1 year or 20 years. In order to maintain their profit margins, they will increase what they charge their customers and reduce the cost of production (in other words build even shoddier junk).
A 6 foot male who weighs 183 lbs is a stick figure. I am just shy of 5'8". When I was two years out of college, I weighed 185 lbs. According to the American Diatetics Association (the association of professional dietitians), I would have been obese at 195 lbs. I went to an event where they measured body fat percentage. They calculated my body fat percentage at 4 percent. Today I am obese according to the BMI charts. While my body fat percentage is higher than 4%, it is only somewhere around 20% ( I last had it measured a little over two years ago and have gotten into better shape since then).
This study does not come as news to me. A few years ago, I had seen a report of a meta study that reviewed a large number of studies that looked at weight and health. The authors of that study concluded that people who were obese were healthier than people who were below the "ideal" weight. They found that it wasn't until you got to people who were morbidly obese that the health problems of being overweight compared to the health problems of being underweight. This study indicates that BMI as currently used is faulty. It appears to me that the basis for determining if someone is overweight based on BMI is seriously flawed.
How about we try a quote of longer standing, "If you are young and conservative, you have no heart. If you are old and liberal, you have no brain."
I've done both myself (which is why I used that example) and while the effect is similar, smoking hashish is vastly more intense than eating marijuana. Which was the point of my comparison, eating poppies will be a less intense high than smoking opium.
Right because you would be easily able to keep that database up to date with all of the changes in tax rate and what was taxable. Especially considering that my state has a fairly simple sales tax law and yet there is significant ambiguity about whether certain items are taxable(what is the difference between a "snack item" and a "food item").
It is not the online retailers that are leaching, it is the people who buy from them and don't pay the tax themselves. Do you have any idea what a nightmare it would be for a small online retailer if they had to figure out what sales tax to charge on every transaction in every locality in the country. I am surprised that Amazon didn't shut down all of their NY affiliates because NY has one of the most nightmarish sales tax setups for any retailer without a fixed location. "Yes, I know this is the Syracuse Convention Center, but it is not actually in the City of Syracuse, so the sales tax is 7.25% not 7.5%. You have been defrauding these people, even though you were going to pay all the tax you collected to the state of NY."
They don't discriminate in favor of illegal content, you ask them where to find such-and-such and they give you a list of websites that list it as part of their content. This could be used as a tool by those who legitimately hold the copyright to find those who post their content online without their permission, but they would rather just shut it down.
Actually the real problem with the copyright on Happy Birthday is that it is based on a (relatively) late publication date of 1935. It first appeared in print in 1912. The 1935 copyright is probably only valid for that particular format, but Warner claims it for all formats of Happy Birthday (which would only be true if 1935 was the original publication date of the song).
The summary could at least tell us what news sites it is showing up on. Huffington Post and Salon are almost as reliable as The Onion.
There is a lot of refining between poppies and opium. Comparing the effect of eating poppies to the effect of smoking opium is similar to comparing the effect of eating marijuana to the effect of smoking hashish.
The CBO says that energy production costs in the U.S. would increase by $770/year per household, but that this bill would only cost an average household $175/year. So, no I don't by the CBO numbers.