What you seem to have forgotten is that as the money raised by carbon taxes increases, you reduces the other taxes such as corporation, sales and income taxes.
And so that it's not a complete shock to the system you phase it in over a decade or two. Make the tax on carbon very low in the first year and the commensurate reduction in other taxes also low. Each year you shift more and more towards carbon taxes. This gives industries time to adapt and an incentive to adapt. If they are carbon neutral then they only pay the lower other taxes and no carbon tax.
Of course, individuals and companies, even if their own activities are carbon neutral, buy goods and services. You're more likely to buy your food from a lower carbon supplier since they will be able to charge lower prices since they will have lower a carbon tax and lower 'other' taxes, than a higher carbon supplier. Market forces will begin to drive higher carbon suppliers either out of business or to reduce their carbon footprint.
It won't be easy or painless. However, we're going to have to adapt anyway, whether it's to move away from oil because of it's rising price, or to cope with devastation caused by a warming planet.
The bad news is that if a hacker guesses said password, then you will be held responsible for their copyright infringement - after all it can't have been a third party since the wifi router was "secured". That is the whole point of this type of thing, to make it easier for someone to be sued for copyright infringement.
You will no longer be innocent until proven guilty, you will be guilty until you can prove that you are innocent, i.e. you can prove that it was someone who had hacked into your wifi.
You can stop at any time. If you only feel you can support one candidate then you only put 1 against their name and do not put a 2 against anyone.
If your choice of candidate is not successful and is eliminated then your vote is not transferred to another candidate.
How about a US born citizen who is of Mexican descent. They do not have a green card to carry with them. If they don't drive and haven't been abroad they don't have a drivers license or passport. As a US citizem why should they need to carry any identification - just because they "look" like a Mexican.
In the book, it describes that drug dealers chances of death per year are worse than death row inmates! So someone who has been sentenced to death has more chance of surviving the year than a drug dealer.
The TARDIS has always been unreliable (when the plot demanded it). The in story reasons are something to do with the idea that the TARDIS was already old, unreliable and in for repair when the Doctor "borrowed" it a few centuries ago, it also explains why it's stuck in the form of a 1960s police box - the chameleon circuit being broken. Having an imperfect TARDIS has allowed for some good stories during the history of the show so I don't think they'd want to have it ever fully be fixed - even if it can repair itself to some extent (again perfect for allowing a new set to be constructed when old ones wouldn't work for HD)
Which is why Dr Jones explicitly said that the data for those years were not significant to the 95% level. He's said one cannot draw conclusions from the data from 1995 to 2009. However the data for just one more year, from 1994 to 2009, were significant to above the 95% level, from which one can draw conclusions.
Yes that would be ideal. However, are you saying that important research should not be publicly funded into anything where they have to get access to data for which they don't have a license or right to publish? Instead that we should throw our hands up in the air say "oh no, while we could get the data and do some really useful research we had better not since we don't have the right to publish the raw data?"
No instead that research should still be funded, provided that the funding organisation believe that it is worthy of funding; the results however should be weighed against the facts that the raw data is not published with the paper - just as has been done in this case.
If there were many public data set that said GW is not happening and one private data set that said it was, then reasonable people might well come to the conclusion that the private one was dubious. However, when all, public and private data sets say that it is happening, and the majority of people involved in the research are respected scientists then perhaps one should conclude that GW is probably happening.
Is there any law or regulation that stops the French socialists from fielding a candidate in the UK or Italy? No, they just choose not to waste their campaign funds on competing outside of their country. Sinn Fein for example fields candidates in both Eire and UK (though for obvious reasons they want to unite the whole island of Ireland and so don't really see it as campaigning in two countries).
Instead the French socialists that are elected end up working with a group of (mostly) "like minded" MEPs from across Europe.
You have a choice to vote for the parties that field candidates, and if you don't like the choice offered you can ask other parties to field candidates, set up your own party and stand etc.
Why the hell would anyone open a hospital and equip it with the latest equipment and best doctors, if he couldn't earn a profit from it?
Oh, I don't know, maybe the government could build and equip them as common infrastructure, like for example roads or fire stations or police stations. When a hospital is a private institution then they get built where they can make a profit rather than where they might be needed.
If there were no other countries that offered socialized medicine, you would have a point. But that's not the case. As a matter of fact, it's the opposite. There are no developed countries that do NOT offer socialized medicine except for the US.
Think of it this way. We are in a seafood restaurant. Every other restaurant is a burger joint. You are in the seafood restaurant with us, but you want a burger. So instead of going to a burger joint and leaving us to our seafood, you and others like you decide to turn the seafood restaurant into a burger joint, just like every other restaurant in town. So now, you get your burger. We all get burger. Even though you could have gotten burger elsewhere, you decided that because you wanted burger, that everyone should have burger no matter what they think they wanted before.
Or with a slight change in analogy:Every other restaurant has modern cleanliness standards. You are in a restaurant that doesn't clean its kitchen with us, but you want safe food. So instead of going to a clean joint and leaving us to our salmonella infected food, you and others like you decide to clean up the dirty restaurant, just like every other restaurant in town. So now, you get sanitary food. We all get sanitary food. Even though you could have gotten safe food elsewhere, you decided that because you wanted safe food, that everyone should have safe food no matter what they think they wanted before.
A burger and seafood analogy might sound great and suggest that either choice is basically interchangeable. If there were no real difference between the two choices - everyone satisfies their hunger - then it would be a valid analogy. However, when the choice is between 32 million people having or not having health care then it is more like the clean verses dirty restaurant analogy - serious consequences for those who do not have access to health care: that's just not a civilised society. Do you want to eat in the dirty restaurant or get it cleaned up?
For example, you decide that buying/renting that blockbuster for $x is more than you are willing to pay for it. Instead you download it and watch it, using up some of your leisure time. If you didn't download it you might well have spent your time on some other leisure activity that costs $y, which is less than $x. Since you have been able to satisfy your need for leisure for nothing you have not spent that $y in the economy.
It's probable that spending $y dollars on something else, for example an independent movie, helps that sector of the leisure industry to survive and prevents a monoculture of only blockbusters from the MPAA; it also has the side benefit of increasing competition against the MPAA and potentially means that they decide to charge less than $x in the future - benefiting everyone.
It's why Bill Gates is happy for people to pirate Windows, since it adversely affects their competition while Microsoft still have enough profit to live comfortably.
This also has the advantage that the drug companies know what the limit is, so if they want to sell a drug to the NHS then it had better be cheap enough to fit under the bar, otherwise the NHS doesn't buy it and the drug company loses their biggest potential customer in the UK. If there is no limit other than individuals deciding what they can afford or insurance company representatives deciding whether your policy would cover the treatment then the drug company will raise the price as high as they are able to - almost regardless of how effective it is.
That might be true when it was introduced, but once it becomes the norm, you'll significantly reduced the problem of ticket touts. Yes there will still be some idiots, but they are also the same idiots who are likely to be scammed by counterfeit tickets.
I'm not so sure. They believed that the death would be written off as natural and not a murder. If that had happened then no-one would have been looking for them. That's also why they were willing to operate where cameras could see them.
Mossad will have dozens of operatives in Iran, so they already know how to get people in and out of Iran - and flying from Dubai is probably a good route for getting agents to Iran - they aren't going to fly from Tel Aviv are they.
So I can't take this as evidence that it's not Mossad. I don't know that it is - though the circumstantial evidence is that it is Mossad.
Have a read of Freakonomics. That has a chapter about the economics of drug dealing. The headline question posed is something like "Why do drug dealers live at home with Mom?" The answer being that it pays so badly that the majority of dealers can't afford their own place. The conclusion was that drug dealers, in Chicago if I remember correctly, on average earn less than minimum wage and have a lower life expectancy than someone on death row.
One asks why do they do it then, one the main reasons apparently was that they could see that 1% who were earning megabucks and thought that they'd be able to break into the big time too, so all the hardship now would be worth it - of course 99% never make it big.
Yes, you leave your fingerprints everywhere you go. Currently there is no real incentive for criminals to collect them. However when fingerprint authentication become common place then suddenly the cost-benefit for criminals shifts.
So either we make the decision that fingerprints are only used to authenticate people for trivial things where misuse has no real consequence (but then why would you really need fingerprint authentication for that anyway). Otherwise we should ban the use of fingerprints for authentication to situations where it massive consequences and thus where protection against misuse is something that can be justified by the consequences of allowing a person to incorrectly authentication as someone else.
How about when your car requires a fingerprint, and your front door, and your bank atm, and your club, and all the shops etc? When giving fingerprints becomes common place then it is much easier for a "bad guy" to get a working copy of your fingerprint. We already see compromised chip and pin machines which keep a copy of your bank pin; you can bet that once fingerprints become valuable that there will be compromised fingerprint scanners.
Using a fingerprint for authentication means that once it's broken once it's broken for everything. When it's used for everything there is an incentive to break the system, be it the gummy bear attack or a ink jet printed photo attack. At least with a bank card and pin you can revoke them, you can never revoke your fingerprint.
If scanners get to the point where they can't be fooled by the "gummy bear" attacks and work 100% of the time, you can find yourself in the situation where you'll be kidnapped so that criminals get use your fingerprint. At least with a bank card and pin you can give that up to them under threat of your life; when it's your finger you don't have that option (easily).
Overall, fingerprints are a really bad idea as a generic means of authentication. It should be reserved for only the most serious and highly controlled situations, where the consequences of getting authentication wrong can seriously threaten someone's life. Clocking-in for studies does not meet those requirements to me.
Them not being there while they are clocked-in is evidence, get their supervisor to write them up for absenteeism and then go through standard disciplinary process.
Knowing that someone is in the building isn't managing the amount of work people do. There are so many cases where someone is "in the building" but still goofing off that relying on clock-in and clock-off is actually mostly a waste of time. If you run a company and people are abusing clock-in and clock-off then you've got more serious problems than trying to make it a little bit harder to circumvent. You have supervisors who aren't supervising, and you have employees who don't care about getting to work on time or staying until the end of their day. Fix those two problems first rather than try to blame the security of the clock-in mechanism.
What I don't get is why people who disagree with AGW don't collate their own data sets rather than complain about the data sets of those who have done the research and came to the conclusion that AGW is happening. If AGW were false then I would have expected by now someone to have collected their own temperature data and produced a peer-reviewed paper. I don't believe that EVERYONE who has some raw temperature data has manipulated it, so there should be plenty that can used for such a study.
No instead, the people who disagree with AGW seem hell bent on picking holes in existing research rather than actually spending the time and effort to demonstrate through their own research why AGW is a flawed theory.
Until there is compelling evidence against AGW, then I'm going to go with the current scientific consensus that AGW is happening, even if there are some apparent flaws in some of the research.
You are right in the respect that anyone can publish anything and it's only if they get caught that they have to face consequences. In the YouTube case, Google aren't the ones specifically infringing copyright, it's the person who uploads the video. In this case, Google are explicitly the company that is infringing copyright and the difference here is a quantitative one. An individual or company that is caught infringing copyright in one incident would be sued and face the usual fines etc for that. A company that repeatedly and willingly infringes copyright will soon fine themselves facing bigger and bigger sanctions. Judges would start awarding punitively large damages and holding directors in contempt of court; it could even face a winding up order.
Search in Google to see if they can find the publisher or author: Can't find a web site.
Oh well, we've tried to hunt down the author and can't find them - guess we'll just have to keep the money in trust in our bank account until they come forward.
Slashdot Mirror
What you seem to have forgotten is that as the money raised by carbon taxes increases, you reduces the other taxes such as corporation, sales and income taxes.
And so that it's not a complete shock to the system you phase it in over a decade or two. Make the tax on carbon very low in the first year and the commensurate reduction in other taxes also low. Each year you shift more and more towards carbon taxes. This gives industries time to adapt and an incentive to adapt. If they are carbon neutral then they only pay the lower other taxes and no carbon tax.
Of course, individuals and companies, even if their own activities are carbon neutral, buy goods and services. You're more likely to buy your food from a lower carbon supplier since they will be able to charge lower prices since they will have lower a carbon tax and lower 'other' taxes, than a higher carbon supplier. Market forces will begin to drive higher carbon suppliers either out of business or to reduce their carbon footprint.
It won't be easy or painless. However, we're going to have to adapt anyway, whether it's to move away from oil because of it's rising price, or to cope with devastation caused by a warming planet.
The bad news is that if a hacker guesses said password, then you will be held responsible for their copyright infringement - after all it can't have been a third party since the wifi router was "secured". That is the whole point of this type of thing, to make it easier for someone to be sued for copyright infringement.
You will no longer be innocent until proven guilty, you will be guilty until you can prove that you are innocent, i.e. you can prove that it was someone who had hacked into your wifi.
You can stop at any time. If you only feel you can support one candidate then you only put 1 against their name and do not put a 2 against anyone. If your choice of candidate is not successful and is eliminated then your vote is not transferred to another candidate.
How about a US born citizen who is of Mexican descent. They do not have a green card to carry with them. If they don't drive and haven't been abroad they don't have a drivers license or passport. As a US citizem why should they need to carry any identification - just because they "look" like a Mexican.
In the book, it describes that drug dealers chances of death per year are worse than death row inmates! So someone who has been sentenced to death has more chance of surviving the year than a drug dealer.
And part of that will be that it will be harder and harder to sell shows overseas if they aren't in HD.
The TARDIS has always been unreliable (when the plot demanded it). The in story reasons are something to do with the idea that the TARDIS was already old, unreliable and in for repair when the Doctor "borrowed" it a few centuries ago, it also explains why it's stuck in the form of a 1960s police box - the chameleon circuit being broken. Having an imperfect TARDIS has allowed for some good stories during the history of the show so I don't think they'd want to have it ever fully be fixed - even if it can repair itself to some extent (again perfect for allowing a new set to be constructed when old ones wouldn't work for HD)
Which is why Dr Jones explicitly said that the data for those years were not significant to the 95% level. He's said one cannot draw conclusions from the data from 1995 to 2009. However the data for just one more year, from 1994 to 2009, were significant to above the 95% level, from which one can draw conclusions.
Yes that would be ideal. However, are you saying that important research should not be publicly funded into anything where they have to get access to data for which they don't have a license or right to publish? Instead that we should throw our hands up in the air say "oh no, while we could get the data and do some really useful research we had better not since we don't have the right to publish the raw data?"
No instead that research should still be funded, provided that the funding organisation believe that it is worthy of funding; the results however should be weighed against the facts that the raw data is not published with the paper - just as has been done in this case.
If there were many public data set that said GW is not happening and one private data set that said it was, then reasonable people might well come to the conclusion that the private one was dubious. However, when all, public and private data sets say that it is happening, and the majority of people involved in the research are respected scientists then perhaps one should conclude that GW is probably happening.
Is there any law or regulation that stops the French socialists from fielding a candidate in the UK or Italy? No, they just choose not to waste their campaign funds on competing outside of their country. Sinn Fein for example fields candidates in both Eire and UK (though for obvious reasons they want to unite the whole island of Ireland and so don't really see it as campaigning in two countries).
Instead the French socialists that are elected end up working with a group of (mostly) "like minded" MEPs from across Europe.
You have a choice to vote for the parties that field candidates, and if you don't like the choice offered you can ask other parties to field candidates, set up your own party and stand etc.
And this helps our corporations how, exactly?
He didn't say "your corporations", just "corporations" - i.e. the ones with the brown envelopes stuffed with cash, regardless of where they are based.
Why the hell would anyone open a hospital and equip it with the latest equipment and best doctors, if he couldn't earn a profit from it?
Oh, I don't know, maybe the government could build and equip them as common infrastructure, like for example roads or fire stations or police stations. When a hospital is a private institution then they get built where they can make a profit rather than where they might be needed.
If there were no other countries that offered socialized medicine, you would have a point. But that's not the case. As a matter of fact, it's the opposite. There are no developed countries that do NOT offer socialized medicine except for the US. Think of it this way. We are in a seafood restaurant. Every other restaurant is a burger joint. You are in the seafood restaurant with us, but you want a burger. So instead of going to a burger joint and leaving us to our seafood, you and others like you decide to turn the seafood restaurant into a burger joint, just like every other restaurant in town. So now, you get your burger. We all get burger. Even though you could have gotten burger elsewhere, you decided that because you wanted burger, that everyone should have burger no matter what they think they wanted before.
Or with a slight change in analogy:Every other restaurant has modern cleanliness standards. You are in a restaurant that doesn't clean its kitchen with us, but you want safe food. So instead of going to a clean joint and leaving us to our salmonella infected food, you and others like you decide to clean up the dirty restaurant, just like every other restaurant in town. So now, you get sanitary food. We all get sanitary food. Even though you could have gotten safe food elsewhere, you decided that because you wanted safe food, that everyone should have safe food no matter what they think they wanted before.
A burger and seafood analogy might sound great and suggest that either choice is basically interchangeable. If there were no real difference between the two choices - everyone satisfies their hunger - then it would be a valid analogy. However, when the choice is between 32 million people having or not having health care then it is more like the clean verses dirty restaurant analogy - serious consequences for those who do not have access to health care: that's just not a civilised society. Do you want to eat in the dirty restaurant or get it cleaned up?
It is not quite that black and white.
For example, you decide that buying/renting that blockbuster for $x is more than you are willing to pay for it. Instead you download it and watch it, using up some of your leisure time. If you didn't download it you might well have spent your time on some other leisure activity that costs $y, which is less than $x. Since you have been able to satisfy your need for leisure for nothing you have not spent that $y in the economy.
It's probable that spending $y dollars on something else, for example an independent movie, helps that sector of the leisure industry to survive and prevents a monoculture of only blockbusters from the MPAA; it also has the side benefit of increasing competition against the MPAA and potentially means that they decide to charge less than $x in the future - benefiting everyone.
It's why Bill Gates is happy for people to pirate Windows, since it adversely affects their competition while Microsoft still have enough profit to live comfortably.
This also has the advantage that the drug companies know what the limit is, so if they want to sell a drug to the NHS then it had better be cheap enough to fit under the bar, otherwise the NHS doesn't buy it and the drug company loses their biggest potential customer in the UK. If there is no limit other than individuals deciding what they can afford or insurance company representatives deciding whether your policy would cover the treatment then the drug company will raise the price as high as they are able to - almost regardless of how effective it is.
That might be true when it was introduced, but once it becomes the norm, you'll significantly reduced the problem of ticket touts. Yes there will still be some idiots, but they are also the same idiots who are likely to be scammed by counterfeit tickets.
I'm not so sure. They believed that the death would be written off as natural and not a murder. If that had happened then no-one would have been looking for them. That's also why they were willing to operate where cameras could see them.
Mossad will have dozens of operatives in Iran, so they already know how to get people in and out of Iran - and flying from Dubai is probably a good route for getting agents to Iran - they aren't going to fly from Tel Aviv are they.
So I can't take this as evidence that it's not Mossad. I don't know that it is - though the circumstantial evidence is that it is Mossad.
Have a read of Freakonomics. That has a chapter about the economics of drug dealing. The headline question posed is something like "Why do drug dealers live at home with Mom?" The answer being that it pays so badly that the majority of dealers can't afford their own place. The conclusion was that drug dealers, in Chicago if I remember correctly, on average earn less than minimum wage and have a lower life expectancy than someone on death row.
One asks why do they do it then, one the main reasons apparently was that they could see that 1% who were earning megabucks and thought that they'd be able to break into the big time too, so all the hardship now would be worth it - of course 99% never make it big.
+1
Yes, you leave your fingerprints everywhere you go. Currently there is no real incentive for criminals to collect them. However when fingerprint authentication become common place then suddenly the cost-benefit for criminals shifts.
So either we make the decision that fingerprints are only used to authenticate people for trivial things where misuse has no real consequence (but then why would you really need fingerprint authentication for that anyway). Otherwise we should ban the use of fingerprints for authentication to situations where it massive consequences and thus where protection against misuse is something that can be justified by the consequences of allowing a person to incorrectly authentication as someone else.
How about when your car requires a fingerprint, and your front door, and your bank atm, and your club, and all the shops etc? When giving fingerprints becomes common place then it is much easier for a "bad guy" to get a working copy of your fingerprint. We already see compromised chip and pin machines which keep a copy of your bank pin; you can bet that once fingerprints become valuable that there will be compromised fingerprint scanners.
Using a fingerprint for authentication means that once it's broken once it's broken for everything. When it's used for everything there is an incentive to break the system, be it the gummy bear attack or a ink jet printed photo attack. At least with a bank card and pin you can revoke them, you can never revoke your fingerprint.
If scanners get to the point where they can't be fooled by the "gummy bear" attacks and work 100% of the time, you can find yourself in the situation where you'll be kidnapped so that criminals get use your fingerprint. At least with a bank card and pin you can give that up to them under threat of your life; when it's your finger you don't have that option (easily).
Overall, fingerprints are a really bad idea as a generic means of authentication. It should be reserved for only the most serious and highly controlled situations, where the consequences of getting authentication wrong can seriously threaten someone's life. Clocking-in for studies does not meet those requirements to me.
Them not being there while they are clocked-in is evidence, get their supervisor to write them up for absenteeism and then go through standard disciplinary process.
Knowing that someone is in the building isn't managing the amount of work people do. There are so many cases where someone is "in the building" but still goofing off that relying on clock-in and clock-off is actually mostly a waste of time. If you run a company and people are abusing clock-in and clock-off then you've got more serious problems than trying to make it a little bit harder to circumvent. You have supervisors who aren't supervising, and you have employees who don't care about getting to work on time or staying until the end of their day. Fix those two problems first rather than try to blame the security of the clock-in mechanism.
What I don't get is why people who disagree with AGW don't collate their own data sets rather than complain about the data sets of those who have done the research and came to the conclusion that AGW is happening. If AGW were false then I would have expected by now someone to have collected their own temperature data and produced a peer-reviewed paper. I don't believe that EVERYONE who has some raw temperature data has manipulated it, so there should be plenty that can used for such a study.
No instead, the people who disagree with AGW seem hell bent on picking holes in existing research rather than actually spending the time and effort to demonstrate through their own research why AGW is a flawed theory.
Until there is compelling evidence against AGW, then I'm going to go with the current scientific consensus that AGW is happening, even if there are some apparent flaws in some of the research.
You are right in the respect that anyone can publish anything and it's only if they get caught that they have to face consequences. In the YouTube case, Google aren't the ones specifically infringing copyright, it's the person who uploads the video. In this case, Google are explicitly the company that is infringing copyright and the difference here is a quantitative one. An individual or company that is caught infringing copyright in one incident would be sued and face the usual fines etc for that. A company that repeatedly and willingly infringes copyright will soon fine themselves facing bigger and bigger sanctions. Judges would start awarding punitively large damages and holding directors in contempt of court; it could even face a winding up order.
If your problem is orphaned works then there are two fair solutions I can see to fix the problems:
Google will then hunt you down ...
For some values of "hunt".
Want to bet it's the following process: