They "lose it" only because they can afford to do so, knowing there will be no real consequence for losing it. If most peoples were armed they would keep their anger inside them, keep calm and move on.
The problem with that is most of these people do NOT think of the consequences. There is no thinking of the future -- the anger of the now blinds them to any intelligent action. See the Eric Garner situation in New York -- resisting arrest was an incredibly stupid thing to do, but he wasn't exactly thinking straight at the time.
But somebody does have ocean property. How did they get it? What if somebody else wants it?
But they don't. They don't "want" it. At least, not that badly. You don't have to worry about "well what if someone else wants to live when you do" when they don't particularly care. That's the human nature skewing I mentioned that makes a large-scale utopian society possible, and for that reason is what seems so unbelievable about Star Trek society.
I thought the picture painted during Deep Space Nine was much more believable. More currency, more want, and more corruption.
Whoa, that's a big assumption. Where does the 60 cents/mile come from? I've been driving a car since 2000 that currently has about 120,000 miles on it and gets around 27 mpg. I've spent maybe.. $4000 on maintenance over the last 14 years. Even at $4/gallon, that's about 15 cents / mile.
I understand that, but still, there's no incentive to wait tables. Certainly not with any regularity. On Star Trek, food, clothes, housing, all free. (I do wonder, though, how they apportion real estate. You can't replicate ocean front property, and I imagine that would still be desirable).
Star Trek as Roddenberry envisioned it is a utopian society, and like all utopian societies there is a certain amount of changing of human nature. Much is made of the notion that they no longer care about material wants, or getting ahead of other people. Nearly everyone seems just happy having the same, even standard of living. They work to better society, not just themselves or their families, and I'm assuming there are really no "bad neighborhoods," so everyone's fine with not having ocean property.
Who cleans the toilets on the starship Enterprise?
There are no toilets. Seriously ever see on the show. Clearly all the replicated food is entirely observable with no metabolic outputs beyond the amount of water that can eliminated through sweat and nobody ever poops, ever.
Fans wondered why Khan remembered Chekov in Star Trek II, even though Walter Koenig was added in Season 2, and Khan's appearance was in Season 1. Koenig liked to tell the story that the reason why Khan remembered Chekov is that Chekov was on the ship in some capacity, and accidentally make Khan wait an uncomfortable amount of time to use the bathroom.
The government gave Comcast/Time Warner a monopoly. Clearly we need more government to fix this.
In a way, you must, because it's an area where it is impossible to have a free market. You can't just have any mom-and-pop tearing up the street and peoples' to lay -their- cables which aren't really different from the competition's cables. We're talking about access to public and private property to lay utilities. By definition, that has to be limited.
It's not 'I'll pay more if someone else worries about it', It is 'we all CARE about each other and we all contribute to each other's wellbeing'. But that concept is apparently totally strange to right-wingers, who have only one thought: ME, ME, ME! and their only concern is about Me, Myself and I.
Now be generous, they're just operating out of Enlightened Self-Interest.
Common colloquial for "add another 50% to your total." It means one and half times, but apparently enough people are so bad at fractions that "half again as large" is somehow clearer.
Save it for real people doing real things, California can just fall into the ocean for all I care. It would effectively end the MPAA and RIAA, and the world would be much better off for it.
Ah yes, another person who for some reason believes that -copyright law-, of all things, is the most important issue of our times.
Utility has to raise rates. F. Good citizen who complied is a chump. He ends up paying more because he did a good deed
EVERYBODY has to deal with higher rates, and the higher rates will hit the big water users or even the average/wasteful user much harder than the person who conserves. There are certain fixed costs with utilities, and those costs will be paid by the taxpayers, no matter what. I think it's a mistake to turn that into "punishing people for conserving." Conserving lowers their water bill, but not as much as if they were still being billed at the same $X / gallon as before.
Compared to most chocolates, Ghirardelli is still excellent quality. No, it's not super-high-end, best-quality chocolate, but it's still the best you'll find in all but the top-end supermarkets for baking purposes.
The real loss for California's chocolate industry was the loss of Scharffen Berger. Now that's a tragedy.
All the climate deniers will come and say: "Hey look buddy. There is not Climate Change." And if you wimper "but what about the drought". They will say loud and simple: "There is no drought. There is no Climate change and there is no drought. Everything is fine. It's FINE!".
I'm not a climate denier, I look at the data and arguments and I believe AGW is real. However, there is a real risk in going overboard with predictions. The climate deniers would instead say, and they would be right in doing so, that you can't grasp at any regional/local/transitory weather problem and just blame it on global warming. Climatologists don't, and California has had cycles of dry weather and droughts, and wet weather for as long as there have been people in the state.
They've been stealing water from the colorado river for years. Yep, build a city in a dessert and then act surprised when you run out of water.
Is that not Nevada's entire MO? Build cities in the desert, living off the Colorado? And you realize a sizable portion of the Colorado flows through California? It forms the state's southeastern border.
Did you actually ready the article?!? It clearly stated that 11 trillion gallons is 42 cubic kilometers or if you can't do the math 42 trillion liters.
That still doesn't actually mean anything, since we rarely state rainfall in such terms. And -where- rain falls is just as important as how much, and how much of it is snow is equally as important! You could dump 11 trillion gallons on the Northern Californian coast, that won't do anything for the drought situation in the state if it all just flows down into the ocean. The state's water supply throughout the year comes from three major sources: 1) reservoirs filled during the rainy months, then continuously refilled through the spring and early summer by melting snow, 2) The snow pack which melts to feed rivers and reservoirs, 3) a groundwater reserve that has been drained and takes decades or longer to refill.
Underground natural aquifers take time to replenish. A burst of rain, even well-placed, won't do a lot to help there -- it will take years of rain and years of no longer overdrawing from the aquifers like California currently does.
Those forests around you were put there by the people who developed the land. They are not naturally occurring.
No? The Bay Area used to look quite a bit different before its settlement. Now Muir Woods and Armstrong State Park are about all that's left of the coastal redwood forests.
Piracy doesn't mean people don't pay for content. We see that today with video game, movies and music franchises topping billions of dollars.
And the only reason that is so is that piracy is kept on the fringes. It is not seen as the norm, except maybe some tech circles and teenagers.
If anything, Piracy leads to greater profits.
Piracy is great/free advertising. However, the point of an advertisement is to drive purchases. If piracy becomes the defacto way to getting content, then where does the money come from to make the content?
Slashdot Mirror
Game journalists represent the interests of the publishers, that's their bread and butter
That does not make them not-journalists. It makes them marketers.
Yet, where the gangs have literally taken control, like Chicago, home of the STRICTEST GUN LAWS IN THE US, deaths continue to be COMMON
Because if you want to do gun control, then doing it in a tiny zone is pointless.
Hey now, Canadians hunt too.
They "lose it" only because they can afford to do so, knowing there will be no real consequence for losing it. If most peoples were armed they would keep their anger inside them, keep calm and move on.
The problem with that is most of these people do NOT think of the consequences. There is no thinking of the future -- the anger of the now blinds them to any intelligent action. See the Eric Garner situation in New York -- resisting arrest was an incredibly stupid thing to do, but he wasn't exactly thinking straight at the time.
But somebody does have ocean property. How did they get it? What if somebody else wants it?
But they don't. They don't "want" it. At least, not that badly. You don't have to worry about "well what if someone else wants to live when you do" when they don't particularly care. That's the human nature skewing I mentioned that makes a large-scale utopian society possible, and for that reason is what seems so unbelievable about Star Trek society.
I thought the picture painted during Deep Space Nine was much more believable. More currency, more want, and more corruption.
At roughly 60 cents/mile operating costs
Whoa, that's a big assumption. Where does the 60 cents/mile come from?
I've been driving a car since 2000 that currently has about 120,000 miles on it and gets around 27 mpg. I've spent maybe.. $4000 on maintenance over the last 14 years. Even at $4/gallon, that's about 15 cents / mile.
The driving time, that's a big suck, though.
I understand that, but still, there's no incentive to wait tables. Certainly not with any regularity. On Star Trek, food, clothes, housing, all free. (I do wonder, though, how they apportion real estate. You can't replicate ocean front property, and I imagine that would still be desirable).
Star Trek as Roddenberry envisioned it is a utopian society, and like all utopian societies there is a certain amount of changing of human nature. Much is made of the notion that they no longer care about material wants, or getting ahead of other people. Nearly everyone seems just happy having the same, even standard of living. They work to better society, not just themselves or their families, and I'm assuming there are really no "bad neighborhoods," so everyone's fine with not having ocean property.
Who cleans the toilets on the starship Enterprise?
There are no toilets. Seriously ever see on the show. Clearly all the replicated food is entirely observable with no metabolic outputs beyond the amount of water that can eliminated through sweat and nobody ever poops, ever.
Fans wondered why Khan remembered Chekov in Star Trek II, even though Walter Koenig was added in Season 2, and Khan's appearance was in Season 1. Koenig liked to tell the story that the reason why Khan remembered Chekov is that Chekov was on the ship in some capacity, and accidentally make Khan wait an uncomfortable amount of time to use the bathroom.
It's a particularly-failed analogy, as the roads required to let the cars go back and forth.... once again, require some form of local government.
The government gave Comcast/Time Warner a monopoly. Clearly we need more government to fix this.
In a way, you must, because it's an area where it is impossible to have a free market. You can't just have any mom-and-pop tearing up the street and peoples' to lay -their- cables which aren't really different from the competition's cables. We're talking about access to public and private property to lay utilities. By definition, that has to be limited.
...Says the AC...
It's not 'I'll pay more if someone else worries about it', It is 'we all CARE about each other and we all contribute to each other's wellbeing'. But that concept is apparently totally strange to right-wingers, who have only one thought: ME, ME, ME! and their only concern is about Me, Myself and I.
Now be generous, they're just operating out of Enlightened Self-Interest.
The reason the "free Market" is being tried in your socialist utopia is THE UNSUSTAINABLE COST of your little paradise
You know, if something works for 60-80 years, maybe it's worth dropping the "unsustainable" tag.
Common colloquial for "add another 50% to your total." It means one and half times, but apparently enough people are so bad at fractions that "half again as large" is somehow clearer.
Save it for real people doing real things, California can just fall into the ocean for all I care. It would effectively end the MPAA and RIAA, and the world would be much better off for it.
Ah yes, another person who for some reason believes that -copyright law-, of all things, is the most important issue of our times.
Utility has to raise rates. F. Good citizen who complied is a chump. He ends up paying more because he did a good deed
EVERYBODY has to deal with higher rates, and the higher rates will hit the big water users or even the average/wasteful user much harder than the person who conserves. There are certain fixed costs with utilities, and those costs will be paid by the taxpayers, no matter what. I think it's a mistake to turn that into "punishing people for conserving." Conserving lowers their water bill, but not as much as if they were still being billed at the same $X / gallon as before.
Sacramento, CA (where I live) has already had more rainfall since December 1 than all of last year
Granted, but that's not a very high bar to set. :-D
Ghiradeli hasn't been top notch for years
Compared to most chocolates, Ghirardelli is still excellent quality. No, it's not super-high-end, best-quality chocolate, but it's still the best you'll find in all but the top-end supermarkets for baking purposes.
The real loss for California's chocolate industry was the loss of Scharffen Berger. Now that's a tragedy.
In exchange, California is willing to promise to forbid George Lucas from making another Hobbit movie
...
Wait, what? Are you talking about Ewoks?
The only way to stop the Hobbit movies is via an international treaty with New Zealand.
Why? Is it because black people are lazy? That's racist.
I'm not sure you appreciate the incredible numbers of illegal aliens living in California.
All the climate deniers will come and say: "Hey look buddy. There is not Climate Change." And if you wimper "but what about the drought". They will say loud and simple: "There is no drought. There is no Climate change and there is no drought. Everything is fine. It's FINE!".
I'm not a climate denier, I look at the data and arguments and I believe AGW is real. However, there is a real risk in going overboard with predictions. The climate deniers would instead say, and they would be right in doing so, that you can't grasp at any regional/local/transitory weather problem and just blame it on global warming. Climatologists don't, and California has had cycles of dry weather and droughts, and wet weather for as long as there have been people in the state.
They've been stealing water from the colorado river for years.
Yep, build a city in a dessert and then act surprised when you run out of water.
Is that not Nevada's entire MO? Build cities in the desert, living off the Colorado?
And you realize a sizable portion of the Colorado flows through California? It forms the state's southeastern border.
Did you actually ready the article?!? It clearly stated that 11 trillion gallons is 42 cubic kilometers or if you can't do the math 42 trillion liters.
That still doesn't actually mean anything, since we rarely state rainfall in such terms. And -where- rain falls is just as important as how much, and how much of it is snow is equally as important! You could dump 11 trillion gallons on the Northern Californian coast, that won't do anything for the drought situation in the state if it all just flows down into the ocean. The state's water supply throughout the year comes from three major sources: 1) reservoirs filled during the rainy months, then continuously refilled through the spring and early summer by melting snow, 2) The snow pack which melts to feed rivers and reservoirs, 3) a groundwater reserve that has been drained and takes decades or longer to refill.
Underground natural aquifers take time to replenish. A burst of rain, even well-placed, won't do a lot to help there -- it will take years of rain and years of no longer overdrawing from the aquifers like California currently does.
Those forests around you were put there by the people who developed the land. They are not naturally occurring.
No? The Bay Area used to look quite a bit different before its settlement. Now Muir Woods and Armstrong State Park are about all that's left of the coastal redwood forests.
Dude, you totally took the air out of his "Space Nutter" rant. He was just getting going. Good job.
Piracy doesn't mean people don't pay for content. We see that today with video game, movies and music franchises topping billions of dollars.
And the only reason that is so is that piracy is kept on the fringes. It is not seen as the norm, except maybe some tech circles and teenagers.
If anything, Piracy leads to greater profits.
Piracy is great/free advertising. However, the point of an advertisement is to drive purchases. If piracy becomes the defacto way to getting content, then where does the money come from to make the content?