For many years, whenever I wanted to watch netflix during peak time, the connection was laggy and low-quality. If I wanted to watch pay-per-view from my ISP (also a video provider, so a competitor to netflix) I always got perfect quality.
This was because my ISP purposely kept their bandwidth to netflix low. The other ISP in my area did the same thing.
So... there is a single example. You can never again say that you have never heard a single example.
I also recall a few cases of ISPs (who also sold telephone service) intentionally degrading VOIP connections.
"Net Neutrality" became a thing as a result of Netflix trying (and failing) to bully Comcast into peering agreements by appealing to the public.
Yeah, I hate when huge companies bully helpless startups like Comcast.
A more accurate description: Comcast is being paid by you and me to deliver the internet, including netflix. But comcast sells movies, so netflix is a competitor. So they decided to limit the traffic from netflix to their customers, so that netflix movie quality would be terribly but comcast movie quality would be good.
Netflix offers free caches to solve this problem, and free peering to solve this problem, but comcast doesn't want to solve this problem, because to them it is a feature.
In a free market we could move to another ISP. In my case, I could also use Verizon... who is doing the same crap as comcast. ISPs are a natural monopoly, based on the economics and physics of running cables.
With net neutrality, all companies can compete based on quality. Without net neutrality, vertically-integrated ISPs have an major advantage. Now, you may like government picking winners and losers, but I'm a fan of market competition, so I choose net neutrality.
Sorry, the reason she didn't want to talk about it was because it had a number of bombs in it that were timed to go off after elections. As they've went off, they have continued to propel the cost of insurance up astronomically.
What is amazing is that exactly zero predictions Republicans made about Obamacare came true. Zero. That's a truly amazing record. I don't think there has ever been a psychic with a worse record.
Healthcare.gov would never work? False. Nobody would sign up for the ACA? False. Only sick people would sign up? False. Would kill millions of jobs? How about that really low unemployment and many years of job growth! (Thanks Obama!) Would make employers make millions of jobs part-time-only? False. 30 million people would lose employer insurance? False. Death panels? I don't even... Would cause massive deficits? The deficit shrunk in real dollars every year that Obama was president.
"Propel the cost of insurance up astronomically"? Huh? Even with spikes in a few states health care costs are well below estimates from 8 years ago. Until Obamacare, health care costs were going up an average of 8% a year over the previous 30 years. They've gone up about 3-4% a year since. Sure, some of that was the recession, and there will be some corrections; we're seeing a few now. But that still puts costs far below expectations.
Pelosi said that people like you were telling lies about the ACA, but that once it was passed people would see through the lies. Guess what: People don't want to get rid of Obamacare! GOP officials are cancelling town halls because their fragile egos crack when they hear their constituents beg them to keep Obamacare. Every budget watchdog has warned that removing Obamacare will explode the deficit. The GOP has gone from "repeal" to "repeal and replace" to "repair" and now they're hoping they can just ignore it and let it continue.
Look, I realize that you actually believe the lies you repeat. But it's so easy to look at the actual facts. Please, please do so.
Trumped up alternative facts don't last long in the face of the truth. Deal with it.
Things like birtherism, climate change denial, Benghazi, and anti-vax paint a different story, sadly. The only reason that birtherism and Benghazi have stopped mattering is because the targets have left positions of power.
no interest in prosecuting anyone whose name isn't Clinton, Warren, or Pelosi.
Only Warren and Pelosi; they stopped their muckraking campaign against Hillary the day after the election. There will be a few more accusing statements, since their fragile white herds must be pacified while they are pointed at a new target, but there will be no action.
Right. I mean, I can imagine those Republicans are so stupid that they'll come up with something and then say "duh, but, der, we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it". That'd be just like a stupid Republican, amiright?
I love that quote; it's an easy way to separate idiots from people who care about facts. Intelligent people listen to the two sentences before it and realize what Pelosi was saying. Idiot partisans just assume it means "we won't show you what's in this bill before we pass it, neener neener", and of course never look deeper because they're idiots.
I encourage you to look up the whole quote. Then think about where you first heard about this quote, and ask yourself why they lied about the meaning, and why you accepted it. Also ask yourself if listening to that source is a good idea. You won't, but since this country would be better off with fewer sheep and more thinkers, I feel that I should at least encourage you.
First, UBI studies have been done in the United States, with similar results. So I'm not sure why you wouldn't think they wouldn't generalize, unless you have never looked at those studies and just assumed.
Also: "one of those cultures and there is the basic social expectation that you of course want to contribute to society" sounds like the usual "anyone on welfare is lazy and deserves to be poor" whining I hear a lot. Folks in conservative states regularly do studies to show that most people on welfare are gaming the system. Have you ever heard of those studies? Likely not, because they always show that the fraud rate on welfare is quite low. "Improper payments" is about 10% of welfare funds, and that doesn't mean 10% fraud, that means 10% of funds are over- or under-paid; the percentage of money paid to lazy people gaming the system is far lower.
Oddly, the fraud rate for poor people on welfare is pretty similar for the fraud rate of rich doctors scamming medicare. Poor lazy people have the same fraud rate as smart rich doctors; do you put doctors in the "don't want to contribute to society" category too?
Drinking absolutely pure water can hurt or kill you. In the same way, pure information, stripped of context, is as likely to mislead or confuse as help. For example, if I pick a specific range of years, I can "prove" that the climate change is making the earth hotter, colder, or is completely false. A bit of context (a graph showing a wider range of years) is far more accurate.
I use the name as part of the context of information. It's not the whole of the context; even mostly-truthful sources can be mistaken, and even mostly-false sources sometimes post truths. But it's a useful shorthand, because nobody has time to verify every fact. My experience is that those who claim they verify every fact are the least accurate, actually...
Also, if you can't be bothered to sign up for a mostly-anonymous account and have your current statement interpreted in light of your previous statements, then I don't see why I should take to time to read your opinion. Most people who don't want their statements connected are trolls, and I've got better things to do than deal with them.
The more money you give to people for free, the less work they'll do.
Interestingly, previous small-scale experiments have not really shown this; time spent working only decreased a small amount, and was mostly replaced with other useful activities (raising children or education). Do you think the previous experiments did not measure this, or do you think the results will not scale?
Which means the trade balance with other countries will worsen, and more of your tax money will escape.
That's a non-sequitur; trade balance doesn't seem tied to hours worked. It has some relation to economic output, but (with automated jobs) that is also not strongly tied to hours worked. Basically, how is our trade balance affected by how many workers vs robots are in a restaurant or in a factory? It is affected by how much consumers can spend, but UBI means that spending power is also less tied to hours worked.
Well, yes, the whole point of UBI is that everyone gets the money whether they need it or not. Unless you think that paying for complicated regulations, means-testing, enforcement etc is a better idea?
Besides, I find that most anti-UBI people are convinced that 90% of people on welfare don't need it, so if that's the case we're ALREADY paying people who don't really need it; how would UBI be worse? Unless you're one of those folks who love regulations for the sake of more regulations?
I'm not claiming that UBI will solve all problems, or even that the economics will work out, but declaring it unworkable without trying it seems weird. The small-scale experiments have worked well so far; let's scale the experiments up.
I should add that UBI also looks very good to people who evade tax completely but have an income.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the US president is NOT a UBI supporter. Nor are most large multinational companies who play shell games with money in various havens. So I'm not sure who you are talking about.
I'm a supporter of UBI (assuming the economics work), and I can assure you I pay lots of taxes. I make enough to pay lots, but not enough to use most of the tax breaks. I assume that the direct benefit I get from UBI will be eaten up by the extra taxes it will cost, but that's fine. If more people in my area can afford to buy things, then my business will prosper and I'll make more money to buy more things for myself (and to pay more taxes).
We've tried cutting taxes on the rich (effectively giving money to the rich). That doesn't work well for anyone but the already-rich. So maybe we should try giving money to the folks who need money, and as a side benefit remove most of the regulations around it.
I see a lot of people on welfare making negative contributions. They break things out of boredom, or they ruin their health by smoking, eating, and drinking, and require fixing up with expensive medical treatments.
And I see a lot of people NOT on welfare doing the same thing. I see lots of people on welfare taking shitty part-time jobs with back-breaking, health-destroying labor, and buying shitty food because they cannot afford healthy food nor the time needed to prepare healthy meals.
So... many people will do stupid unhealthy things whether they work or not. But many underemployed people do stupid unhealthy things because they cannot afford anything else. May as well let them afford healthy things; it will save us all money in health care down the road (and is more moral if you care about such things).
A basic income also means that your renters will be able to afford renting your property, leading to fewer cases of forced evictions (which are a landlords nightmare, trust me). Win-win.
A basic income means that we can weaken labor protection laws, since nobody starves if they get fired. Actually we can weaken lots of regulations if the human cost is less of a problem. Seems fine to me; liberals like me want intelligent regulations because they protect people. Nobody actually likes regulations for their own sake!
I'm still not convinced that the economics will work out, but it seems worth investigating. We know the effects of "tax cuts for the rich"; maybe we if we want different results we should try something different.
The remaining $800 could go across the border, but most of it will go to local stores for food, clothing, health care, etc. Who pay their employees (among other things), who then pay taxes on that money and buy more things, round and round.
Some money will go across a border. And some money from across a border will come here (for any definition of "border" and "here"). That's economics, whether or not UBI is involved.
Nobody is saying that UBI "pays for itself"; that's stupid. But it seems like it could be a workable system, which is why folks are running experiments. Some folks (like TFA) have decided on the outcome of the experiments without bothering to run them. Maybe it won't work, but I'm encouraged by the small-scale experimental results in the past.
I note the linked articles make no indication of what wireless standard they will use. Given that QI is used by almost everyone I would hope that is the standard they will follow, but Apple, being Apple, will probably see the need to introduce a new incompatible standard. I hope I am wrong about that,
I've owned a number of Qi devices, and while I love wireless charging, Qi is too limited. Too slow, placement is too precise, distance is too small (even a thin case slowed charging). I'm using a USB-c Nexus now; less convenient but fast charging and a plug which doesn't just piss you off.
I really hope that Apple goes with a far better charging system, something that gives you at least a few inches distance (better would be a few feet, maybe with beamforming?) and speed to match USB-c charging. If so, then other phones will get that too within a year and I'll be much happier.
Why would Lastpass be inadequate? Lastpass is also a fine solution, as long as you store a manual replacement for your TFA there in a secure note. Its more complex than Facebook's system, but does far more.
Anything which make TFA easier is a good thing. Facebook is solving one TFA problem. U2F solves some different problems. Lastpass solves a slightly different set of problems. Bad security is easy, good security is hard and will get harder as long as criminals exist.
It sounds like this doesn't replace TFA, it complements it. It is an attempted solution for "what do you do when you lose/damage your yubikey?"
We can argue about whether or not this is a good solution (my guess is that it is fine for most people, but not for security professionals), but there is no doubt that it is trying to solve a real problem (just not the one in the headline).
If there was a reliable, cheaper, and cleaner alternative then the switch would happen regardless of what anyone thinks about climate change.
Sure, eventually. But the energy market is full of external costs. Burning oil for power has very low direct costs, but high external costs (pollution, climate change, etc) which are not paid by the individual burning the oil but are paid by the society (in higher health care costs, higher food costs, pollution cleanup costs, etc). The free market is great with direct costs but shitty with external costs.
In my case charging an e-car with power from a coal plant would just be trading one pollutant for another since I don't have an option to choose an alternative power company.
Yes and no... The energy needed to move your car 1000 miles will cause pollution either at your tailpipe or at the coal plant. But coal plants have much stricter emissions standards than cars, and it's economical to put in expensive scrubbing apparatus at the plant but not in every car in a city. So you are trading lots of one pollutant for much smaller amounts of another pollutant.
Sure, zero pollutants would be great but you should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I'm pretty sure you already said yes when you signed up for gmail. But I'm sure there will be a new one-time banner, which says "if you select no, then since you no longer agree to our terms of service we'll freeze your account." Which seems reasonable.
Or you can pay Google $5/month/user for Google Apps account which lets you have email without ads. Which also seems reasonable.
I never knew about Breitbart news until this election, and after following them for the last 3 months I think they're probably the best example of actual news reporting on the net. The site is right-wing slanted, but the actual reporting appears to be high quality and accurate.
You should avoid the obvious trollery; you almost had me for a second there.
I seem to recall Petraeus giving the information to his mistress, a journalist? While Hillary used the information (she kinda needed it for her job, after all) she did not give classified information to unauthorized folks. Kinda not the same thing at all.
Also, the Petraeus case involved in some other crap (stalking, harassing, lying to investigators, etc); I suspect that the mishandling classified information charge was a plea-bargain to avoid more stuff.
Interesting: while reading about that case, I see that the investigators knew they had a big case but did not announce anything for a few months because it was too close to the election of 2012. What a difference four years makes.
I suspect that we are saved by the fact that we can barely get 50% of senators to agree that the sun is in the sky at any given time. 66% is more organization than those folks can muster.
Though Comey has managed to piss off both parties now; he may be an exception.
Did you read the article you posted? It said he took them "to show his family" and that he destroyed all of the evidence during the investigation so that they could not prove anything either way. So... we don't know if he sent them to anyone, but he clearly destroyed evidence. I suspect that that was the main reason for his conviction.
In Comey's July statement he clearly said that Hillary had not destroyed evidence during the investigation.
Also, some research shows that picture in the sub were far more extensive than a few selfies; "Saucier methodically documented the entire propulsion system of the nuclear submarine, including the design of its nuclear compartment and its nuclear reactor." Amazing how a few facts can change something, eh?
I always thought that a libertarian paradise was a place with no government or a very limited (powerless) government. There are many places around the world like that, yet for some reason libertarians want to stay in the US with a powerful and very-invasive (though often paralyzed) government. I wonder why that is.
I don't know what a government under Trump would look like. Nor does anyone else, since Trump has said so many contradictory things. It might be just fine... but that seems rather unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
For many years, whenever I wanted to watch netflix during peak time, the connection was laggy and low-quality. If I wanted to watch pay-per-view from my ISP (also a video provider, so a competitor to netflix) I always got perfect quality.
This was because my ISP purposely kept their bandwidth to netflix low. The other ISP in my area did the same thing.
So... there is a single example. You can never again say that you have never heard a single example.
I also recall a few cases of ISPs (who also sold telephone service) intentionally degrading VOIP connections.
"Net Neutrality" became a thing as a result of Netflix trying (and failing) to bully Comcast into peering agreements by appealing to the public.
Yeah, I hate when huge companies bully helpless startups like Comcast.
A more accurate description: Comcast is being paid by you and me to deliver the internet, including netflix. But comcast sells movies, so netflix is a competitor. So they decided to limit the traffic from netflix to their customers, so that netflix movie quality would be terribly but comcast movie quality would be good.
Netflix offers free caches to solve this problem, and free peering to solve this problem, but comcast doesn't want to solve this problem, because to them it is a feature.
In a free market we could move to another ISP. In my case, I could also use Verizon... who is doing the same crap as comcast. ISPs are a natural monopoly, based on the economics and physics of running cables.
With net neutrality, all companies can compete based on quality. Without net neutrality, vertically-integrated ISPs have an major advantage. Now, you may like government picking winners and losers, but I'm a fan of market competition, so I choose net neutrality.
Sorry, the reason she didn't want to talk about it was because it had a number of bombs in it that were timed to go off after elections. As they've went off, they have continued to propel the cost of insurance up astronomically.
What is amazing is that exactly zero predictions Republicans made about Obamacare came true. Zero. That's a truly amazing record. I don't think there has ever been a psychic with a worse record.
Healthcare.gov would never work? False. Nobody would sign up for the ACA? False. Only sick people would sign up? False. Would kill millions of jobs? How about that really low unemployment and many years of job growth! (Thanks Obama!) Would make employers make millions of jobs part-time-only? False. 30 million people would lose employer insurance? False. Death panels? I don't even... Would cause massive deficits? The deficit shrunk in real dollars every year that Obama was president.
"Propel the cost of insurance up astronomically"? Huh? Even with spikes in a few states health care costs are well below estimates from 8 years ago. Until Obamacare, health care costs were going up an average of 8% a year over the previous 30 years. They've gone up about 3-4% a year since. Sure, some of that was the recession, and there will be some corrections; we're seeing a few now. But that still puts costs far below expectations.
Pelosi said that people like you were telling lies about the ACA, but that once it was passed people would see through the lies. Guess what: People don't want to get rid of Obamacare! GOP officials are cancelling town halls because their fragile egos crack when they hear their constituents beg them to keep Obamacare. Every budget watchdog has warned that removing Obamacare will explode the deficit. The GOP has gone from "repeal" to "repeal and replace" to "repair" and now they're hoping they can just ignore it and let it continue.
Look, I realize that you actually believe the lies you repeat. But it's so easy to look at the actual facts. Please, please do so.
Trumped up alternative facts don't last long in the face of the truth. Deal with it.
Things like birtherism, climate change denial, Benghazi, and anti-vax paint a different story, sadly. The only reason that birtherism and Benghazi have stopped mattering is because the targets have left positions of power.
no interest in prosecuting anyone whose name isn't Clinton, Warren, or Pelosi.
Only Warren and Pelosi; they stopped their muckraking campaign against Hillary the day after the election. There will be a few more accusing statements, since their fragile white herds must be pacified while they are pointed at a new target, but there will be no action.
Right. I mean, I can imagine those Republicans are so stupid that they'll come up with something and then say "duh, but, der, we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it". That'd be just like a stupid Republican, amiright?
I love that quote; it's an easy way to separate idiots from people who care about facts. Intelligent people listen to the two sentences before it and realize what Pelosi was saying. Idiot partisans just assume it means "we won't show you what's in this bill before we pass it, neener neener", and of course never look deeper because they're idiots.
I encourage you to look up the whole quote. Then think about where you first heard about this quote, and ask yourself why they lied about the meaning, and why you accepted it. Also ask yourself if listening to that source is a good idea. You won't, but since this country would be better off with fewer sheep and more thinkers, I feel that I should at least encourage you.
First, UBI studies have been done in the United States, with similar results. So I'm not sure why you wouldn't think they wouldn't generalize, unless you have never looked at those studies and just assumed.
Also: "one of those cultures and there is the basic social expectation that you of course want to contribute to society" sounds like the usual "anyone on welfare is lazy and deserves to be poor" whining I hear a lot. Folks in conservative states regularly do studies to show that most people on welfare are gaming the system. Have you ever heard of those studies? Likely not, because they always show that the fraud rate on welfare is quite low. "Improper payments" is about 10% of welfare funds, and that doesn't mean 10% fraud, that means 10% of funds are over- or under-paid; the percentage of money paid to lazy people gaming the system is far lower.
Oddly, the fraud rate for poor people on welfare is pretty similar for the fraud rate of rich doctors scamming medicare. Poor lazy people have the same fraud rate as smart rich doctors; do you put doctors in the "don't want to contribute to society" category too?
Drinking absolutely pure water can hurt or kill you. In the same way, pure information, stripped of context, is as likely to mislead or confuse as help. For example, if I pick a specific range of years, I can "prove" that the climate change is making the earth hotter, colder, or is completely false. A bit of context (a graph showing a wider range of years) is far more accurate.
I use the name as part of the context of information. It's not the whole of the context; even mostly-truthful sources can be mistaken, and even mostly-false sources sometimes post truths. But it's a useful shorthand, because nobody has time to verify every fact. My experience is that those who claim they verify every fact are the least accurate, actually...
Also, if you can't be bothered to sign up for a mostly-anonymous account and have your current statement interpreted in light of your previous statements, then I don't see why I should take to time to read your opinion. Most people who don't want their statements connected are trolls, and I've got better things to do than deal with them.
The more money you give to people for free, the less work they'll do.
Interestingly, previous small-scale experiments have not really shown this; time spent working only decreased a small amount, and was mostly replaced with other useful activities (raising children or education). Do you think the previous experiments did not measure this, or do you think the results will not scale?
Which means the trade balance with other countries will worsen, and more of your tax money will escape.
That's a non-sequitur; trade balance doesn't seem tied to hours worked. It has some relation to economic output, but (with automated jobs) that is also not strongly tied to hours worked. Basically, how is our trade balance affected by how many workers vs robots are in a restaurant or in a factory? It is affected by how much consumers can spend, but UBI means that spending power is also less tied to hours worked.
Well, yes, the whole point of UBI is that everyone gets the money whether they need it or not. Unless you think that paying for complicated regulations, means-testing, enforcement etc is a better idea?
Besides, I find that most anti-UBI people are convinced that 90% of people on welfare don't need it, so if that's the case we're ALREADY paying people who don't really need it; how would UBI be worse? Unless you're one of those folks who love regulations for the sake of more regulations?
I'm not claiming that UBI will solve all problems, or even that the economics will work out, but declaring it unworkable without trying it seems weird. The small-scale experiments have worked well so far; let's scale the experiments up.
I should add that UBI also looks very good to people who evade tax completely but have an income.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the US president is NOT a UBI supporter. Nor are most large multinational companies who play shell games with money in various havens. So I'm not sure who you are talking about.
I'm a supporter of UBI (assuming the economics work), and I can assure you I pay lots of taxes. I make enough to pay lots, but not enough to use most of the tax breaks. I assume that the direct benefit I get from UBI will be eaten up by the extra taxes it will cost, but that's fine. If more people in my area can afford to buy things, then my business will prosper and I'll make more money to buy more things for myself (and to pay more taxes).
We've tried cutting taxes on the rich (effectively giving money to the rich). That doesn't work well for anyone but the already-rich. So maybe we should try giving money to the folks who need money, and as a side benefit remove most of the regulations around it.
I see a lot of people on welfare making negative contributions. They break things out of boredom, or they ruin their health by smoking, eating, and drinking, and require fixing up with expensive medical treatments.
And I see a lot of people NOT on welfare doing the same thing. I see lots of people on welfare taking shitty part-time jobs with back-breaking, health-destroying labor, and buying shitty food because they cannot afford healthy food nor the time needed to prepare healthy meals.
So... many people will do stupid unhealthy things whether they work or not. But many underemployed people do stupid unhealthy things because they cannot afford anything else. May as well let them afford healthy things; it will save us all money in health care down the road (and is more moral if you care about such things).
A basic income also means that your renters will be able to afford renting your property, leading to fewer cases of forced evictions (which are a landlords nightmare, trust me). Win-win.
A basic income means that we can weaken labor protection laws, since nobody starves if they get fired. Actually we can weaken lots of regulations if the human cost is less of a problem. Seems fine to me; liberals like me want intelligent regulations because they protect people. Nobody actually likes regulations for their own sake!
I'm still not convinced that the economics will work out, but it seems worth investigating. We know the effects of "tax cuts for the rich"; maybe we if we want different results we should try something different.
The remaining $800 could go across the border, but most of it will go to local stores for food, clothing, health care, etc. Who pay their employees (among other things), who then pay taxes on that money and buy more things, round and round.
Some money will go across a border. And some money from across a border will come here (for any definition of "border" and "here"). That's economics, whether or not UBI is involved.
Nobody is saying that UBI "pays for itself"; that's stupid. But it seems like it could be a workable system, which is why folks are running experiments. Some folks (like TFA) have decided on the outcome of the experiments without bothering to run them. Maybe it won't work, but I'm encouraged by the small-scale experimental results in the past.
I note the linked articles make no indication of what wireless standard they will use. Given that QI is used by almost everyone I would hope that is the standard they will follow, but Apple, being Apple, will probably see the need to introduce a new incompatible standard. I hope I am wrong about that,
I've owned a number of Qi devices, and while I love wireless charging, Qi is too limited. Too slow, placement is too precise, distance is too small (even a thin case slowed charging). I'm using a USB-c Nexus now; less convenient but fast charging and a plug which doesn't just piss you off.
I really hope that Apple goes with a far better charging system, something that gives you at least a few inches distance (better would be a few feet, maybe with beamforming?) and speed to match USB-c charging. If so, then other phones will get that too within a year and I'll be much happier.
Why would Lastpass be inadequate? Lastpass is also a fine solution, as long as you store a manual replacement for your TFA there in a secure note. Its more complex than Facebook's system, but does far more.
Anything which make TFA easier is a good thing. Facebook is solving one TFA problem. U2F solves some different problems. Lastpass solves a slightly different set of problems. Bad security is easy, good security is hard and will get harder as long as criminals exist.
It sounds like this doesn't replace TFA, it complements it. It is an attempted solution for "what do you do when you lose/damage your yubikey?"
We can argue about whether or not this is a good solution (my guess is that it is fine for most people, but not for security professionals), but there is no doubt that it is trying to solve a real problem (just not the one in the headline).
If there was a reliable, cheaper, and cleaner alternative then the switch would happen regardless of what anyone thinks about climate change.
Sure, eventually. But the energy market is full of external costs. Burning oil for power has very low direct costs, but high external costs (pollution, climate change, etc) which are not paid by the individual burning the oil but are paid by the society (in higher health care costs, higher food costs, pollution cleanup costs, etc). The free market is great with direct costs but shitty with external costs.
In my case charging an e-car with power from a coal plant would just be trading one pollutant for another since I don't have an option to choose an alternative power company.
Yes and no... The energy needed to move your car 1000 miles will cause pollution either at your tailpipe or at the coal plant. But coal plants have much stricter emissions standards than cars, and it's economical to put in expensive scrubbing apparatus at the plant but not in every car in a city. So you are trading lots of one pollutant for much smaller amounts of another pollutant.
Sure, zero pollutants would be great but you should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I'm pretty sure you already said yes when you signed up for gmail. But I'm sure there will be a new one-time banner, which says "if you select no, then since you no longer agree to our terms of service we'll freeze your account." Which seems reasonable.
Or you can pay Google $5/month/user for Google Apps account which lets you have email without ads. Which also seems reasonable.
So what you're saying is that we need fact checkers who are not biased towards facts?
I never knew about Breitbart news until this election, and after following them for the last 3 months I think they're probably the best example of actual news reporting on the net. The site is right-wing slanted, but the actual reporting appears to be high quality and accurate.
You should avoid the obvious trollery; you almost had me for a second there.
I seem to recall Petraeus giving the information to his mistress, a journalist? While Hillary used the information (she kinda needed it for her job, after all) she did not give classified information to unauthorized folks. Kinda not the same thing at all.
Also, the Petraeus case involved in some other crap (stalking, harassing, lying to investigators, etc); I suspect that the mishandling classified information charge was a plea-bargain to avoid more stuff.
Interesting: while reading about that case, I see that the investigators knew they had a big case but did not announce anything for a few months because it was too close to the election of 2012. What a difference four years makes.
I suspect that we are saved by the fact that we can barely get 50% of senators to agree that the sun is in the sky at any given time. 66% is more organization than those folks can muster.
Though Comey has managed to piss off both parties now; he may be an exception.
Didn't even send them to anyone.
Did you read the article you posted? It said he took them "to show his family" and that he destroyed all of the evidence during the investigation so that they could not prove anything either way. So... we don't know if he sent them to anyone, but he clearly destroyed evidence. I suspect that that was the main reason for his conviction.
In Comey's July statement he clearly said that Hillary had not destroyed evidence during the investigation.
Also, some research shows that picture in the sub were far more extensive than a few selfies; "Saucier methodically documented the entire propulsion system of the nuclear submarine, including the design of its nuclear compartment and its nuclear reactor." Amazing how a few facts can change something, eh?
I always thought that a libertarian paradise was a place with no government or a very limited (powerless) government. There are many places around the world like that, yet for some reason libertarians want to stay in the US with a powerful and very-invasive (though often paralyzed) government. I wonder why that is.
I don't know what a government under Trump would look like. Nor does anyone else, since Trump has said so many contradictory things. It might be just fine... but that seems rather unlikely.