Car insurance is always cited as an example, which happens to be a state mandate. Not to mention that it is easier to not buy a car as opposed to not existing.
The government has so many legacy documents in Word. The entire defense industry revolves around Power Point (don't get me started, seriously everything is in Power Point). Asking for Microsoft Office as a requirement is completely legitimate.
I've never seen a company waste so much money just to become a growth stock again. They should have taken the massive amounts of money they spent on XBox and Bing and just given it to the stockholders.
So if a country eats like crap, skydives off of tall buildings, and plays Russian Roulette, they will have "worse" health care than a country full of witch doctors who eat non-processed foods in a balanced diet.
"Scientists have come up with a possible explanation for why the rise in Earth's temperature paused for a bit during the 2000s, one of the hottest decades on record."
Hey, no mention of the CERN experiments with cosmic rays and cloud cover. How odd...
Anyway, the main difference as far as I can tell is falsifiability. We've all read claims that the Earth will keep getting warmer. And when we actually observed that the warming trend has stalled, then a few articles will come out an admit that. Then they'll blame Chinese air pollution or ocean currents (i.e. an admission that they aren't really sure what's going on).
And after that you'll get articles saying "no, the Earth is still warming."
It's frankly a confused mess.
You throw into the mix that the Earth gets warmer and cooler periodically and that 1970 is not the basis to compare every other year, climate scientists have a difficult problem to sort out. To claim that they are as certain as other branches of science seems odd since there are so many variables that interact with each other.
So when climate scientists produce models about the future AND they accurately predict the future to a sufficient degree with some specificity, then skepticism would be silly. As the articles trying to excuse the last 15 years of non-warming show, they aren't there yet.
Back around 1990 or so I played one of the first Terminator video games on my PC. You got to pick either Kyle Reese or the Terminator as a character. I, being a young lad, picked the Terminator.
Well, the game was pretty complicated and I didn't want to put in the energy to master it. So I ended up stealing a car (in the game) and just mowing down civilians for fun with my stolen car.
I killed a couple crossing the street that randomly turned out to be Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor.
Was I a budding sociopath at the time? No, I don't think so. Why is killing A.I. civilians fun? I'm not sure. Maybe it's the absurdity of it all.
So you think California's problem is that it doesn't get enough tax revenue not that it over-regulates businesses and its tax rates are too high overall? What is the proper level of revenue? At what point, will some people say "that's enough for all our real needs"?
Based on the synopsis, are we supposed to infer some causation due to the New York Times editorial? "Oh no! An editorial that 99% of our users will never read was against us! What ever will we do?"
Let's assume for a second Marx was correct in his analysis of the problems capitalism has (his negative critique). That has no bearing on the absolute failure of his proposed solutions.
And before anyone tries to suggest that Communist governments weren't sufficiently communist, Marx laid out how there was going to be a transitory state-controlled period before everyone did everything voluntarily. And that voluntary bit... you'll never get 100% commitment. It's unworkable without state totalitarianism.
Engineers may be better at spotting the need for having multiple systems simultaneously and that that isn't the hallmark of blind step-by-step processes.
You are part of the generation that got vaccinated so you never saw the true cost of not getting vaccinated. The generations that had to deal with this stuff and watch young siblings die understand its a good idea.
I'm assuming the demand will be there regardless. But without legitimate businesses and markets in the mix, there will be no countervailing pressure for conservation.
Well, the National Socialists were socialists. They were definitely left-wing economically. Yeah, they weren't "universal socialists." They are still on that end of the spectrum.
Slashdot Mirror
Bingo.
Car insurance is always cited as an example, which happens to be a state mandate. Not to mention that it is easier to not buy a car as opposed to not existing.
The government has so many legacy documents in Word. The entire defense industry revolves around Power Point (don't get me started, seriously everything is in Power Point). Asking for Microsoft Office as a requirement is completely legitimate.
Right. I don't get how seeing an effect before the cause is the same as the cause being prior to the effect.
The higher education bubble has almost run out of steam. And, oh yes, it is a bubble.
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/college-tuition-cpi-vs-us-home-prices-vs-cpi-1978-2010
I'm not sure where all the money is going, but my guess would be student amenities, building programs, and excessive administration.
I don't know. I'll ask the pathetic losers on digg.
Just for my own edification, how would it upend causality?
People aren't forced to join Ponzi Schemes.
I've never seen a company waste so much money just to become a growth stock again. They should have taken the massive amounts of money they spent on XBox and Bing and just given it to the stockholders.
So if a country eats like crap, skydives off of tall buildings, and plays Russian Roulette, they will have "worse" health care than a country full of witch doctors who eat non-processed foods in a balanced diet.
"human thought..."
Are you wearing your tinfoil hat?
That looks like another way of saying warming has stopped for the time being.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/01/climate.change
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/05/scitech/main20076934.shtml
"Scientists have come up with a possible explanation for why the rise in Earth's temperature paused for a bit during the 2000s, one of the hottest decades on record."
Hey, no mention of the CERN experiments with cosmic rays and cloud cover. How odd...
Anyway, the main difference as far as I can tell is falsifiability. We've all read claims that the Earth will keep getting warmer. And when we actually observed that the warming trend has stalled, then a few articles will come out an admit that. Then they'll blame Chinese air pollution or ocean currents (i.e. an admission that they aren't really sure what's going on).
And after that you'll get articles saying "no, the Earth is still warming."
It's frankly a confused mess.
You throw into the mix that the Earth gets warmer and cooler periodically and that 1970 is not the basis to compare every other year, climate scientists have a difficult problem to sort out. To claim that they are as certain as other branches of science seems odd since there are so many variables that interact with each other.
So when climate scientists produce models about the future AND they accurately predict the future to a sufficient degree with some specificity, then skepticism would be silly. As the articles trying to excuse the last 15 years of non-warming show, they aren't there yet.
Back around 1990 or so I played one of the first Terminator video games on my PC. You got to pick either Kyle Reese or the Terminator as a character. I, being a young lad, picked the Terminator.
Well, the game was pretty complicated and I didn't want to put in the energy to master it. So I ended up stealing a car (in the game) and just mowing down civilians for fun with my stolen car.
I killed a couple crossing the street that randomly turned out to be Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor.
Was I a budding sociopath at the time? No, I don't think so. Why is killing A.I. civilians fun? I'm not sure. Maybe it's the absurdity of it all.
So you think California's problem is that it doesn't get enough tax revenue not that it over-regulates businesses and its tax rates are too high overall? What is the proper level of revenue? At what point, will some people say "that's enough for all our real needs"?
Based on the synopsis, are we supposed to infer some causation due to the New York Times editorial? "Oh no! An editorial that 99% of our users will never read was against us! What ever will we do?"
You can say that about any system. Or even an ad hoc system.
Take for instance, communism. Once you remove greed, you get laziness.
Let's assume for a second Marx was correct in his analysis of the problems capitalism has (his negative critique). That has no bearing on the absolute failure of his proposed solutions.
And before anyone tries to suggest that Communist governments weren't sufficiently communist, Marx laid out how there was going to be a transitory state-controlled period before everyone did everything voluntarily. And that voluntary bit... you'll never get 100% commitment. It's unworkable without state totalitarianism.
Engineers may be better at spotting the need for having multiple systems simultaneously and that that isn't the hallmark of blind step-by-step processes.
I heard a doctor on NPR say that if you want to know where the people who aren't getting vaccines are do the following:
-Find a Whole Foods
-draw a 10 mile radius around it (it was either 10 or 20, so I'll go with 10)
He was completely serious.
Sort of.
You are part of the generation that got vaccinated so you never saw the true cost of not getting vaccinated. The generations that had to deal with this stuff and watch young siblings die understand its a good idea.
You could look at it that way. You could also look at it that cheap energy will make everyone's life better off, including the poor.
I'm assuming the demand will be there regardless. But without legitimate businesses and markets in the mix, there will be no countervailing pressure for conservation.
Well, the National Socialists were socialists. They were definitely left-wing economically. Yeah, they weren't "universal socialists." They are still on that end of the spectrum.
Not to be mean or tawdry, but I would assume the answer to that question is "women."