Can I be pedantic for a moment and point out that IF volcanoes cause it (I'm not taking that position, though I am a skeptic), AGW is a misnomer, since that stands for "Anthtropogenic [i.e. Man-Made] Global Warming?"
1.) Judging from the complaints about its lack of stealthiness, I doubt its going to hide in the bushes. Have they considered an electric motor? Probably doesn't work for the same reason the electric car hasn't overtaken the automobile market yet: the inconvenience of needing a large enough battery and a place to charge it. But as the technology matures, they can revisit this.
I like the rest of your ideas though.
You do realize that one of the reasons we use taxes to pay for police and fire services is because the threats they deal with don't affect only one person. For example, a house fire in a densely populated neighborhood doesn't just threaten one house, but the surrounding houses as well. That's why this is an instance I have yet to see a libertarian object to paying taxes for. Health and education can be a bit more abstract. Most communicable diseases (and damn CDC definitions, I'm including food-borne illnesses or cross-contamination in this as well) come down to sanitation issues, IMO another valid use of tax dollars. Meanwhile, injuries and non-communicable diseases don't tend to immediately affect others outside that person's social circle, and certainly not society as a whole. And the success or failure of education comes down to what one sets as the end goal of that education, which varies from person to person, and consequently government isn't adept at figuring out since government solutions by and large wind up being one-size fits all.
The answer to both questions is no. And I'd personally like to see him try to make some edict that takes away people's handguns. The results should be entertaining.
I had been playing Metal Gear Solid 5 a lot recently, and in that game there are inflatable decoys (of personnel, not materiel). I had thought that this was another one of Hideo Kojima's outlandish bits of in-game humor, but after learning about this, apparently is isn't so far fetched after all.
Then that's all the more reason to lose political correctness. Not that the bombing might not still be necessary, but the less people being harmed as collateral damage, the better.
My first thought was that this could be damning of law enforcement, but the flaw in this argument is the fact that law enforcement officers as a consequence of their job intentionally engage dangerous individuals, whereas trouble is unlikely to befall most individual citizens minding their own business.
Anything to not give credit to, or to blame Republicans. If it worked during a GOP administration, it must have been a previous Democrat's policies. If it failed during a Democrat's term in office, it had to have been the previous GOP administration's fault.
Presumably because they decided to get police involved in what the plaintiffs feel is a school disciplinary matter? Their "overreaction" is what brought the cops there in the first place. That's just a guess.
I don't take the specifics of the post seriously, but the idea that this fear-mongering in the press about global warming is really a power grab by statists at the national and international levels isn't new. By and large, who is paying for the studies that indicate mankind is largely responsible for changes in climate? Who stands to gain from the public policy changes (i.e. increased regulations, carbon taxes, etc) implied to be necessary to stem the tide of these changes? The answer to both questions is government. It increases their power over both commerce, and over ordinary people's lives. The more influence they have, the more influence they have to peddle.
Corporations also pay for their own studies, and I should say their results should be looked at just as critically. My point in focusing on government in this case is because I too often see cognitive dissonance regarding "following the money," with people only doing so when private firms/individuals are involved, but never governments.
Aside from the Brits chiming in on this, I remember Alton Brown swearing by an electric kettle as a multitasker. Aside from water for tea, he recommended it for boiling eggs because of the auto-shutoff feature, which avoids overcooking resulting in a rubbery texture. It has other uses as well, even if it's just to free up a burner on your stove if you're prepping a large meal.
I think you've missed my point. Saying a real engineer wouldn't worry about social media is flawed. Plenty of engineers have used social media, and I'm almost certain some subset of those care about other people's opinions, even those on expressed via social media. Engineers don't check their humanity at the door when they start an engineering job.
You're the person who made it "those damn poor people." All I'm saying is that as the money supply increases (in this case, artificially), the educational institutions will step up to the trough to gobble up more, not merely by taking on more students, but by increasing prices because their price increases will be more easily accommodated by government (which doesn't care what it costs) than by consumers (who will, even if imperfectly, will at least weight whether or not the expense makes sense for them).
It would be fission where I live, too. But to be more blunt about my point, it's some people assume their environmental impact is lessened when they adopt certain practices or technologies, when it reality, more often, it's trading one problem for another. Energy consumption by incandescent light bulbs vs. mercury in florescent bulbs (though the maturation of LED lighting has mitigated this). Gasoline and diesel exhaust vs. battery disposal from hybrid and electric cars. And then, of course, there's the matter of how electricity charges an electric car, which varies by region. Often enough, something is burning to generate it, not to mention environmental impacts from spent nuclear fuel, or damming rivers, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Can I be pedantic for a moment and point out that IF volcanoes cause it (I'm not taking that position, though I am a skeptic), AGW is a misnomer, since that stands for "Anthtropogenic [i.e. Man-Made] Global Warming?"
1.) Judging from the complaints about its lack of stealthiness, I doubt its going to hide in the bushes. Have they considered an electric motor? Probably doesn't work for the same reason the electric car hasn't overtaken the automobile market yet: the inconvenience of needing a large enough battery and a place to charge it. But as the technology matures, they can revisit this. I like the rest of your ideas though.
You do realize that one of the reasons we use taxes to pay for police and fire services is because the threats they deal with don't affect only one person. For example, a house fire in a densely populated neighborhood doesn't just threaten one house, but the surrounding houses as well. That's why this is an instance I have yet to see a libertarian object to paying taxes for. Health and education can be a bit more abstract. Most communicable diseases (and damn CDC definitions, I'm including food-borne illnesses or cross-contamination in this as well) come down to sanitation issues, IMO another valid use of tax dollars. Meanwhile, injuries and non-communicable diseases don't tend to immediately affect others outside that person's social circle, and certainly not society as a whole. And the success or failure of education comes down to what one sets as the end goal of that education, which varies from person to person, and consequently government isn't adept at figuring out since government solutions by and large wind up being one-size fits all.
The answer to both questions is no. And I'd personally like to see him try to make some edict that takes away people's handguns. The results should be entertaining.
I had been playing Metal Gear Solid 5 a lot recently, and in that game there are inflatable decoys (of personnel, not materiel). I had thought that this was another one of Hideo Kojima's outlandish bits of in-game humor, but after learning about this, apparently is isn't so far fetched after all.
"A broken clock is right twice a day?"
The problem is that it starts as a definite item: A bong threat or direct threats on someone's life.
"When an atomic bomb goes off, there's devastation; when an atomic bong goes off, there's celebration." --Robin Williams
Then that's all the more reason to lose political correctness. Not that the bombing might not still be necessary, but the less people being harmed as collateral damage, the better.
No sane person respects the University of Chicago. Their faculty includes an avowed terrorist, Bill "Guilty as sin; free as a bird" Ayers.
And apparently have the same level of understanding of our Constitution...
My first thought was that this could be damning of law enforcement, but the flaw in this argument is the fact that law enforcement officers as a consequence of their job intentionally engage dangerous individuals, whereas trouble is unlikely to befall most individual citizens minding their own business.
Anything to not give credit to, or to blame Republicans. If it worked during a GOP administration, it must have been a previous Democrat's policies. If it failed during a Democrat's term in office, it had to have been the previous GOP administration's fault.
Everything you said is what I don't like about Trump, and it's precisely what I don't like about President Obama.
until our politicians wake up and realize all costs are pushed onto the consumer anyway nothing will change
They know already, and don't care. They count on the average person not knowing that.
Presumably because they decided to get police involved in what the plaintiffs feel is a school disciplinary matter? Their "overreaction" is what brought the cops there in the first place. That's just a guess.
Nope. My area is being covered by Verizon proper.
I don't take the specifics of the post seriously, but the idea that this fear-mongering in the press about global warming is really a power grab by statists at the national and international levels isn't new. By and large, who is paying for the studies that indicate mankind is largely responsible for changes in climate? Who stands to gain from the public policy changes (i.e. increased regulations, carbon taxes, etc) implied to be necessary to stem the tide of these changes? The answer to both questions is government. It increases their power over both commerce, and over ordinary people's lives. The more influence they have, the more influence they have to peddle. Corporations also pay for their own studies, and I should say their results should be looked at just as critically. My point in focusing on government in this case is because I too often see cognitive dissonance regarding "following the money," with people only doing so when private firms/individuals are involved, but never governments.
Really? Then how come FIOS finally came to my neighborhood, which has Comcast for cable?
Aside from the Brits chiming in on this, I remember Alton Brown swearing by an electric kettle as a multitasker. Aside from water for tea, he recommended it for boiling eggs because of the auto-shutoff feature, which avoids overcooking resulting in a rubbery texture. It has other uses as well, even if it's just to free up a burner on your stove if you're prepping a large meal.
I think you've missed my point. Saying a real engineer wouldn't worry about social media is flawed. Plenty of engineers have used social media, and I'm almost certain some subset of those care about other people's opinions, even those on expressed via social media. Engineers don't check their humanity at the door when they start an engineering job.
You realize his statement was sarcasm, right?
And the "No True Scotsman" fallacy rears its ugly head...
You're the person who made it "those damn poor people." All I'm saying is that as the money supply increases (in this case, artificially), the educational institutions will step up to the trough to gobble up more, not merely by taking on more students, but by increasing prices because their price increases will be more easily accommodated by government (which doesn't care what it costs) than by consumers (who will, even if imperfectly, will at least weight whether or not the expense makes sense for them).
It would be fission where I live, too. But to be more blunt about my point, it's some people assume their environmental impact is lessened when they adopt certain practices or technologies, when it reality, more often, it's trading one problem for another. Energy consumption by incandescent light bulbs vs. mercury in florescent bulbs (though the maturation of LED lighting has mitigated this). Gasoline and diesel exhaust vs. battery disposal from hybrid and electric cars. And then, of course, there's the matter of how electricity charges an electric car, which varies by region. Often enough, something is burning to generate it, not to mention environmental impacts from spent nuclear fuel, or damming rivers, etc.
You're welcome to your coal-burning car... I prefer to burn my hydrocarbons directly, though.