Ayn Rand was an outspoken atheist, and similarly Atlas Shrugged was anti-religion. It seems that neither side of the left-right dichotomy wants to remember Atlas Shrugged accurately.
It's just like how the fundamentalists remember that gawd tells them to kill gays, but they forget he also tells them that women are supposed to be killed if they don't display bloody bedsheets that prove she was a virgin the day after she gets married.
That's how we have gay marriage threatening the sanctity of their second, third, fourth, and sometimes fifth marriages. https://www.quora.com/How-many...
At this point, I'm hoping that the Republican party splits in two. One half can go on to be the more moderate GOP with conservative principals but implemented in a sane manner. The other half can include the religious fundamentalists and loud-brash folks like Trump. This half can spiral out of control until it crashes and burns. Please, Republican party, kick out the loons because I actually DO want to seriously consider your candidates but I can't do that when Trump/Cruz are the front runners.
It would take an act of political bravery. They would certainly lose the national elections for a little while, but in the end emerge stronger.
Because once upon a time, Republicans actually did believe in science. Many if not most actually accepted that there was such a thing called the greenhouse effect, and that the earth was older than 6000 year old.
Once upon a time Republicans would never have purposefully stopped government and screwed up our credit rating.
Now, even though the 20 percent is ruling the party, and your pleas and mine to give a sane alternative to voting democrat, at least I've been called a "country club Republican, or in other words, a RINO. Today, the lunatic fringe is calling the shots.
Let us know how that works out for ya, teabaggers.
If you are a fiscal conservative the Republicans are not your party either. They like cutting taxes but are too chicken to cut spending in any serious way because they know if they do they'd get kicked out in the next election.
They call that "starving the beast" as if they actually had any plan.
The result is that the rate of change in the national debt goes up during Republican administrations and down during Democratic administrations. Here's a post on it by David Brin: So Do Outcomes Matter More Than Rhetoric?
Brin also notes one of my pet peeves, the dishonest accounting trick of emergency appropriations. Which chickens - or is that chickenhawks? - came home to roost just about the time the great housing swindle and living off credit cards debacle hit. The trifecta of how to mismanage everything.
That we did not descend into a worldwide depression that would have made the thirties look prosperous is nothing short of a well worked miracle. I have a suspicion that history will treat this administration much more kindly than the neocons and teabaggers would have us believe.
But I'm certain the Oklahoma legislature will tell us the cure is more tax cuts, a sure fire way to increase revenue. Any state that lives and dies on oil prices to shore up their ideological ideas is going to have a problem.
I wonder how angry these idiots get when they see the play "Inherit the wind", and look at the calendar and realize that it is 2016 and they are still fighting to get the science denier position politically recognized, and they are still failing.
The cartoon world provides the answer. The Coyote in the road runner cartoons, and Sylvester the Cat never win, but they never give up either. While the people who made the cartoons wanted us to realize that those two were stupid, the fundies thought it was a blueprint for success.
Meanwhile the rest of us consider this sad and a source of endless comedy and the only ones not in on the joke are the science deniers.
Kansas, another state chock full of science deniers, occasionally runs into the same problem. Then their politicians, university systems and business leaders are subjected to the expected ridicule.
The problem of course, is that in the biology field, which is largely based on the fact of evolution and it's brethren genetics, there is no controversy, at least of the basic underpinnings. Any controversy there is is over small details. "God did it" or the dishonest "Ancient Aliens did it" is simply trying to force religion into science classes. The lawsuit against the Dover School district in Pennsylvania pretty much proved that, as it brought to the world, the "wedge document" where while pretending that not specifying a creator to the general public, but specifiying a specific creator, which just happens to be the selfsame Abrahamic god they just happen to worship. Lying for Jeezuz we call it.
The clown show however is the politician pandering to their base, who won't ever accept any other explanation, yet will no doubt take the meds based on biology. Just one of those mysterious ways that their god works.
And as the God of the Gaps shrinks smaller and smaller, eventually the only thing left is the earplugs.
Hey, I can live with everything else provided zero taxes. With the money saved we can all send our kids to private school.
You'll have to home school, because there won't be a road to the school. It's that hidden part of th eequation for teh "no tax" crowd. You get no services either Roads and maintenance and all of the other things teh evilz guvmint provides are socialistical communism, and cannot ba abided. Of course citizen, you are welcome to build your own road, than make people stop every mile to pay a toll. The awesome part is three others might build a road beside yours to engage the free market.
I would say a small part of it is that there is no equivalent to the Tea Party among Democrats. I mean, I've never heard anyone describe a politician as "Liberal in Name Only" (LINO), but you hear the calls of RINO all the time from the right.
Probably the closest group on the liberal side in terms of kookiness, is the so called SJW's. But that is a very small and not organized group, and most people recognize them for what they are. Not a real threat, more part of the noise. Some of the things they demand are sortakinda being addressed, but aside from silliness like "banning bossy" and women only coding classes, they really are fringing it. Their ideology would be proven just as useless as the teabaggers "I got mine - screw you!" and unworkable financial ideas.
It's like they're trying so hard to prove that they're more conservative than the next guy, that it removes options from the playbook (to mix my metaphors a little), because using one of those options, why that means you're a RINO.
What I don't get, is how did the kooky base get to decide what a Republican is? While I'm a registered independent, until 2000, I was a pretty reliable Republican voter - at least 75 percent. Mostly on financial issues. Then they party turned. First the Trotskyite neocons, then the Teabaggers took over. Now we're looking at Trump and/or Cruz?
Hellamighty - one's a Putin Clone, and the other - well, you need to look up what Dominionists are.
I keep having this recurrent dream that Barry Goldwater is resurrected and saves the Republican Party from itself.
So they have to cater to the ultra-conservative core of the party who espouses these views.
It's like Chanty Binx determining what a true Democrat is.
I would really like to believe that Democrats are just as stupid as Republicans. I don't see any reason why there would be a monopoly on stupid. And I certainly have seen lots of stupid democrats individually, And yet, my unscientific impression is that whenever something truly idiotic tries to become law there a preponderace of republicans backing it. How can this possibly occur?
While Democrats do not have a monopoly on smarts, at this moment in time, they are not ideologically locked in.
What has happened is that the Republican party has become locked in to it's base. And whereas most politically savvy people one time noted "Who is the base going to vote for otherwise?", at this juncture, the kooky base tail is wagging the dog.
So we're getting what we get. Some places like Oklahoma, where they swing far right, and have relied on oil to cover their financial ineptitude, are exposed by this downturn.
However, I have to say, I don't care if they reduce the tax rates to zero, impose a Fundamentalist Christian test for employment and refuse to teach science in school and replace all textbooks with the KJV Bible.
I hope this law passes. Then they can further serve as a warning to others.
Why don't we add an amendment to this law saying that anyone in violation will be considered to be a witch and burned at the stake accordingly.
This must be why Oklahoma is such an economic powerhouse. Oh wait, turns out they are the dead last state in GDP. I'm sure these progressive laws had nothing to do with that, not a thing.
Oklahoma is a perfect example of modern day conservative values as applied. Freaky thing is it gets hard to blame the liberals when they've all been run out of power. http://oklahomawatch.org/2015/...
But I'm certain the Oklahoma legislature will tell us the cure is more tax cuts, a sure fire way to increase revenue. Any state that lives and dies on oil prices to shore up their ideological ideas is going to have a problem.
Um - Let me get this straight. Since some intrepid Slashdotters beileve that it is dishonest to call a tax break a subsidy, let's put that to the test.
An oil company gets a tax break - That's not a subsidy in your world.
I put up a solar electricity generating system abd get a tax break, as has happened in the past. Whaddya think? Exact same situation, So is my tax break a subsidy? I earned my money, I'm keeping it instead of paying it to someone. I get this situation via a tax break. As I recall,
I call that a subsidy. You can wordsmith it all you like. It's a subsidy. The Government is giving you in one form or another, money it has collected.
It took only twenty seconds of flipping through your misi-net reference to find a glaring flaw in the calculations. Namely, those "incentives" or what you call "subsidies" are on the whole not subsidies at all. There are tax credits,
And some are written on green paper, some on white and a few others in purple ink.
Also not their problem, they should simply hand over all the evidence to law enforcement.
Since law enforcement isn't even involved yet, and we don't know how far this infection has spread, I guess you demand shutting down teh Intertoobz, right? Wait for law enforcement, that might never even be involved.
It's a little strange. Slashdotters seem to want the server owner strung up shot, burnt, buried, and then exhumed and do it all over again.
Haven't heard a thing about the asshat that seemed to think that creating a monster and introducing it to the wild, and thinking it was for "educational purposes" might have just the tiniest itty little bit of responsibility for the mess.
Especially after version 1 was used by the bad guys, he strengthened it and released a second version into the wild.
And a fsckin security researcher to boot. I don't get it - What kind of secure world does he live in where you publish - and therefore do the legwork - for the very people you are supposed to be securing against?
Complete deletion was an act of negligence, and if they aren't criminally tried, the provider should at least be compensating victims for their loss that was a result of not being able to obtain ransomware decryption keys which the provider destroyed.
FTFA - "Creator of both projects is Turkish security researcher Utku Sen, who says that both his projects, Hidden Tear and EDA2, were published only for educational purposes.
Yeah. Create a monster, release it into the wild, the obvious thing happens, and it's all the fault of the server owner panicking.
For women that are affected by this problem it's not just a joke, it's how they are treated every single day that is the problem.
Banning big bad bananas? Or do we just breed them so that they are square shaped and then do the same with anything else with a large length to width ratio?
So as not to unjustly upset anyone who sees a banana, thinks it looks like a penis, and then gets pissed off at human males because a banana reminds them of a penis.
Sounds like a remarkably stable person to me!
But we cannot stop there. All male rapist foods need renamed as well. We need to come up with a different name for those tasty legumes that are another symbol of the patriarchy - peanuts. So offensive on so many levels Sounds like pee, and males testicles shoved together and then it sounds like Penis...... Penis-Peanuts? A conicidence? I don't think so! not funny dude - so not funny.
The banana is a button. That's very juvenile. If someone in my office were to do this, I'd start loading them with enough "responsibilities" to make them leave.
The solution is for all the systemd haters to band together into one distro and move on. I'm not a particular fan of the idea of systemd either but it's time to get over it.. To continue to fight something with that kind of momentum is ridiculous. It's as bad as expecting microsoft to go away and die.
The amount of subsidies, on kWh produced basis, is tiny compared to solar. The coal subsidies, assuming they even exist, look huge because they produce 30% or more of our electricity. Same for nuclear and natural gas as they also each produce roughly 30% of our electricity. That last 10% that is not produced by oil, coal, and nuclear is largely from wind. The fraction of a percent of the electricity that solar power produces gets them HUGE subsidies.
Several comments on this thread pointed out that solar energy gets 1000x the amount of subsidies that coal gets based on kWh produced.
I have no issue with the subsidies that nuclear, oil, gas, and hydroelectric get because those subsidies are miniscule compared to solar. I will agree that all energy subsidies must end, but solar subsidies are on a whole different level than the others.
Stop complaining about how much oil get subsidized, IMHO, it makes you look like a fool.
Here you go spunky. My research from another post. Some of it is based on a reply to another person, so hte beginning will be a little redundant.
On energy incentives, and an tl;dr version from Wikipedia:
A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI) estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period.
The percentage is higher for renewables, which given the much smaller percentage of use, and of course the fact that renewables wasn't even on the map during that time. cite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Corn based Ethanol production and the Alcohol credit for the FET is subsidized to the tune of almost 17 billion a year, renewable is 5 billion.
My point is that it's all subsidized. That the government subsidizes new power production isn't anathema to me in principle, but it would seem that the well established technologies shouldn't be getting subsidies. If you need to be subsidizing oil, natural gas, or coal for 60 plus years, they should be abandoned, right?. Or perhaps something else at play? Regardless, calling this "regressive political income redistribution in support of a putatively progressive cause." while apparently finding all of the others just fine is hypocricy at t's finest.
Back to the present:
I don't really care if you find subsidies for all of the other energy sources just fine, while the 5 billion per year for all of renewables a thing to difficult to suffer. It merely shows your politics, It's like the free market Republicans working to ban Tesla dealerships in their states.
This will make batteries more important. Now it's no longer profitable to use the grid for storage.
Yup - and that's actually a good thing.
While I take great issue with the hypocrisy of people who think that renewables are the work of godless commies commies, yet have no issue at all with the direct from the government to the stockholders transfer of my tax dollars for every other type of energy production, (see my other research on the issue in another post) and that the folks are pleased to have done this for political reasons as they note "regressive political income redistribution in support of a putatively progressive cause.", it is apparent that all of th eother energy subsidies are somehow a conservative principle.
I'll be happy to take advantage of new battery technology. I'll be happy to get myself off the grid.
I'm certain that good conservative principles will give me a tax break because why should I have to pay for energy subsidies I'm not using.
No one owes you a break-even on a harebrained scheme. You are free to power your own house with solar. No one will prohibit it or care. But your insistence on a break-even means you're wanting someone else to subsidize your hobby.
OTOH, a deal is a deal.
Now write the same thing about Nuclear, Oil, Gas, and hydroelectric. You have no issue with the massive subsidies they get?
Well your 'little more' is x4.23 as much. Instead of selling at the market price for supplying power at 2.6, they were selling it at the customer purchasing price of 11.
Now they are being dropped back down to normal supply pricing.
It was inevitable. Those kinds of premiums are only temporary to jump start an industry. Once they get large enough, the premium is removed and they then have to compete with everybody else in the market. After all, a market that makes nothing can't afford maintenance and other costs and collapses.
On energy incentives, and an tl;dr version from Wikipedia:
A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI) estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period.
The percentage is higher for renewables, which given the much smaller percentage of use, and of course the fact that renewables wasn't even on the map during that time. cite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Corn based Ethanol production and the Alcohol credit for the FET is subsidized to the tune of almost 17 billion a year, renewable is 5 billion.
My point is that it's all subsidized. That the government subsidizes new power production isn't anathema to me in principle, but it would seem that the well established technologies shouldn't be getting subsidies. If you need to be subsidizing oil, natural gas, or coal for 60 plus years, they should be abandoned, right?. Or perhaps something else at play? Regardless, calling this "regressive political income redistribution in support of a putatively progressive cause." while apparently finding all of th others is hypocricy at t's finest.
This should be settled by the market. It's a simple supply and demand issue. People who sunk a bunch a money into it knowing that things could change should consider it an important, if expensive, lesson on economics.
The harder people push back against ads, the more arrogant and "Fuck You" the advertisers become. It's really getting to the point where finding information on the internet is looking for the proverbial needle in the haystack because of all the advertising pitfalls, page rank gaming, etc.. and the search engines simply aren't up to the task of sorting out what you need anymore. It's all noise.
You figure the advertisers are going to win after the internet becomes unusable? I'm not going to turn off my adblocker to look at sites that won't let me in because I'm using one. It isn't the right solution. If the customer becomes the enemy, then the advertiser shouldn't be too surprised if the customer treats them like the enemy.
I have no responsibility to break through my smartphone's data cap just because someone thinks I should be forced to see ad's about what some housewife in Pennsylvania discovered that is driving the insurance companies crazy.
Already, without ad blocking I personally consider the internet unusable. Making adblockers illegal will simply drive me away.
My effective, useful Internet has shrunk to about five websites. Every time I open the door to another website it seems I spend about 5 minutes waiting for it to render, then I have to update AdBlock to block all the invasive advertising, because the advertisers are desperately trying to end run around blocking. Shutting down all JavaScript speeds things up, but breaks a lot of sites. And when I finally find the information, I find that it is incomplete, un-cited, low quality.
I'm really starting to wonder whether having internet is truly indispensable. I could text instead of email, go to the bank in person, get information out of dead tree books. I would miss Slashdot as it is an outlet for my snarkiness, but I could just be snarky to my wife (that's what they're for, right?).
The problem is that we've pretty much killed it. Allowing the prime use of the internet to be commercial interests and that anything they do is just fine, we've just about done it in. I did an analysis a few years abo on what just noscript does. And there have been sites I've gone to that have had 50 or more javascripts that run when I listed them. The surprise finding was that the biggest abuser is facebook. They are tracking the living hell out of people. Facebook is tracking you even if you aren't on facebook. Google is in there as well. Big difference is that google doesn't try to obscure that they re doing it. There are other trackers as well. The only innocuous script was a font rendering one.
So if a site doesn't work for me, it's seldom my problem. I realize that all too many websites look at the user as the enemy, and have no desire to contract Intertoobz VD.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at the president of Canada, for example.
Do you mean the Prime Minister of Canada, or was that a sideways jab at Ted Cruz?
I think we should declare war on Canada, for giving us both Ted Cruz and Justin Beiber. Polite country my ass.
Ayn Rand was an outspoken atheist, and similarly Atlas Shrugged was anti-religion.
Pro choice as well.
Ayn Rand was an outspoken atheist, and similarly Atlas Shrugged was anti-religion. It seems that neither side of the left-right dichotomy wants to remember Atlas Shrugged accurately.
It's just like how the fundamentalists remember that gawd tells them to kill gays, but they forget he also tells them that women are supposed to be killed if they don't display bloody bedsheets that prove she was a virgin the day after she gets married.
That's how we have gay marriage threatening the sanctity of their second, third, fourth, and sometimes fifth marriages. https://www.quora.com/How-many...
At this point, I'm hoping that the Republican party splits in two. One half can go on to be the more moderate GOP with conservative principals but implemented in a sane manner. The other half can include the religious fundamentalists and loud-brash folks like Trump. This half can spiral out of control until it crashes and burns. Please, Republican party, kick out the loons because I actually DO want to seriously consider your candidates but I can't do that when Trump/Cruz are the front runners.
It would take an act of political bravery. They would certainly lose the national elections for a little while, but in the end emerge stronger.
Because once upon a time, Republicans actually did believe in science. Many if not most actually accepted that there was such a thing called the greenhouse effect, and that the earth was older than 6000 year old.
Once upon a time Republicans would never have purposefully stopped government and screwed up our credit rating.
Now, even though the 20 percent is ruling the party, and your pleas and mine to give a sane alternative to voting democrat, at least I've been called a "country club Republican, or in other words, a RINO. Today, the lunatic fringe is calling the shots.
Let us know how that works out for ya, teabaggers.
If you are a fiscal conservative the Republicans are not your party either. They like cutting taxes but are too chicken to cut spending in any serious way because they know if they do they'd get kicked out in the next election.
They call that "starving the beast" as if they actually had any plan.
The result is that the rate of change in the national debt goes up during Republican administrations and down during Democratic administrations. Here's a post on it by David Brin: So Do Outcomes Matter More Than Rhetoric?
Brin also notes one of my pet peeves, the dishonest accounting trick of emergency appropriations. Which chickens - or is that chickenhawks? - came home to roost just about the time the great housing swindle and living off credit cards debacle hit. The trifecta of how to mismanage everything.
That we did not descend into a worldwide depression that would have made the thirties look prosperous is nothing short of a well worked miracle. I have a suspicion that history will treat this administration much more kindly than the neocons and teabaggers would have us believe.
Sometimes the adults just have to take over.
But I'm certain the Oklahoma legislature will tell us the cure is more tax cuts, a sure fire way to increase revenue. Any state that lives and dies on oil prices to shore up their ideological ideas is going to have a problem.
It's worked for Saudi Arabia for a while now.
For a while.
I wonder how angry these idiots get when they see the play "Inherit the wind", and look at the calendar and realize that it is 2016 and they are still fighting to get the science denier position politically recognized, and they are still failing.
The cartoon world provides the answer. The Coyote in the road runner cartoons, and Sylvester the Cat never win, but they never give up either. While the people who made the cartoons wanted us to realize that those two were stupid, the fundies thought it was a blueprint for success.
Meanwhile the rest of us consider this sad and a source of endless comedy and the only ones not in on the joke are the science deniers.
Kansas, another state chock full of science deniers, occasionally runs into the same problem. Then their politicians, university systems and business leaders are subjected to the expected ridicule.
The problem of course, is that in the biology field, which is largely based on the fact of evolution and it's brethren genetics, there is no controversy, at least of the basic underpinnings. Any controversy there is is over small details. "God did it" or the dishonest "Ancient Aliens did it" is simply trying to force religion into science classes. The lawsuit against the Dover School district in Pennsylvania pretty much proved that, as it brought to the world, the "wedge document" where while pretending that not specifying a creator to the general public, but specifiying a specific creator, which just happens to be the selfsame Abrahamic god they just happen to worship. Lying for Jeezuz we call it.
The clown show however is the politician pandering to their base, who won't ever accept any other explanation, yet will no doubt take the meds based on biology. Just one of those mysterious ways that their god works.
And as the God of the Gaps shrinks smaller and smaller, eventually the only thing left is the earplugs.
Hey, I can live with everything else provided zero taxes. With the money saved we can all send our kids to private school.
You'll have to home school, because there won't be a road to the school. It's that hidden part of th eequation for teh "no tax" crowd. You get no services either Roads and maintenance and all of the other things teh evilz guvmint provides are socialistical communism, and cannot ba abided. Of course citizen, you are welcome to build your own road, than make people stop every mile to pay a toll. The awesome part is three others might build a road beside yours to engage the free market.
I would say a small part of it is that there is no equivalent to the Tea Party among Democrats. I mean, I've never heard anyone describe a politician as "Liberal in Name Only" (LINO), but you hear the calls of RINO all the time from the right.
Probably the closest group on the liberal side in terms of kookiness, is the so called SJW's. But that is a very small and not organized group, and most people recognize them for what they are. Not a real threat, more part of the noise. Some of the things they demand are sortakinda being addressed, but aside from silliness like "banning bossy" and women only coding classes, they really are fringing it. Their ideology would be proven just as useless as the teabaggers "I got mine - screw you!" and unworkable financial ideas.
It's like they're trying so hard to prove that they're more conservative than the next guy, that it removes options from the playbook (to mix my metaphors a little), because using one of those options, why that means you're a RINO.
What I don't get, is how did the kooky base get to decide what a Republican is? While I'm a registered independent, until 2000, I was a pretty reliable Republican voter - at least 75 percent. Mostly on financial issues. Then they party turned. First the Trotskyite neocons, then the Teabaggers took over. Now we're looking at Trump and/or Cruz?
Hellamighty - one's a Putin Clone, and the other - well, you need to look up what Dominionists are.
I keep having this recurrent dream that Barry Goldwater is resurrected and saves the Republican Party from itself.
So they have to cater to the ultra-conservative core of the party who espouses these views.
It's like Chanty Binx determining what a true Democrat is.
I would really like to believe that Democrats are just as stupid as Republicans. I don't see any reason why there would be a monopoly on stupid. And I certainly have seen lots of stupid democrats individually, And yet, my unscientific impression is that whenever something truly idiotic tries to become law there a preponderace of republicans backing it. How can this possibly occur?
While Democrats do not have a monopoly on smarts, at this moment in time, they are not ideologically locked in.
What has happened is that the Republican party has become locked in to it's base. And whereas most politically savvy people one time noted "Who is the base going to vote for otherwise?", at this juncture, the kooky base tail is wagging the dog.
So we're getting what we get. Some places like Oklahoma, where they swing far right, and have relied on oil to cover their financial ineptitude, are exposed by this downturn.
However, I have to say, I don't care if they reduce the tax rates to zero, impose a Fundamentalist Christian test for employment and refuse to teach science in school and replace all textbooks with the KJV Bible.
I hope this law passes. Then they can further serve as a warning to others.
Why don't we add an amendment to this law saying that anyone in violation will be considered to be a witch and burned at the stake accordingly.
This must be why Oklahoma is such an economic powerhouse. Oh wait, turns out they are the dead last state in GDP. I'm sure these progressive laws had nothing to do with that, not a thing.
Oklahoma is a perfect example of modern day conservative values as applied. Freaky thing is it gets hard to blame the liberals when they've all been run out of power. http://oklahomawatch.org/2015/...
But I'm certain the Oklahoma legislature will tell us the cure is more tax cuts, a sure fire way to increase revenue. Any state that lives and dies on oil prices to shore up their ideological ideas is going to have a problem.
Let us help - pray for Broklahoma.
An oil company gets a tax break - That's not a subsidy in your world.
I put up a solar electricity generating system abd get a tax break, as has happened in the past. Whaddya think? Exact same situation, So is my tax break a subsidy? I earned my money, I'm keeping it instead of paying it to someone. I get this situation via a tax break. As I recall,
I call that a subsidy. You can wordsmith it all you like. It's a subsidy. The Government is giving you in one form or another, money it has collected.
It took only twenty seconds of flipping through your misi-net reference to find a glaring flaw in the calculations. Namely, those "incentives" or what you call "subsidies" are on the whole not subsidies at all. There are tax credits,
And some are written on green paper, some on white and a few others in purple ink.
Money is not money in your world, eh?
Also not their problem, they should simply hand over all the evidence to law enforcement.
Since law enforcement isn't even involved yet, and we don't know how far this infection has spread, I guess you demand shutting down teh Intertoobz, right? Wait for law enforcement, that might never even be involved.
It's a little strange. Slashdotters seem to want the server owner strung up shot, burnt, buried, and then exhumed and do it all over again.
Haven't heard a thing about the asshat that seemed to think that creating a monster and introducing it to the wild, and thinking it was for "educational purposes" might have just the tiniest itty little bit of responsibility for the mess.
Especially after version 1 was used by the bad guys, he strengthened it and released a second version into the wild.
And a fsckin security researcher to boot. I don't get it - What kind of secure world does he live in where you publish - and therefore do the legwork - for the very people you are supposed to be securing against?
Complete deletion was an act of negligence, and if they aren't criminally tried, the provider should at least be compensating victims for their loss that was a result of not being able to obtain ransomware decryption keys which the provider destroyed.
FTFA - "Creator of both projects is Turkish security researcher Utku Sen, who says that both his projects, Hidden Tear and EDA2, were published only for educational purposes.
Yeah. Create a monster, release it into the wild, the obvious thing happens, and it's all the fault of the server owner panicking.
For women that are affected by this problem it's not just a joke, it's how they are treated every single day that is the problem.
Banning big bad bananas? Or do we just breed them so that they are square shaped and then do the same with anything else with a large length to width ratio?
So as not to unjustly upset anyone who sees a banana, thinks it looks like a penis, and then gets pissed off at human males because a banana reminds them of a penis.
Sounds like a remarkably stable person to me! But we cannot stop there. All male rapist foods need renamed as well. We need to come up with a different name for those tasty legumes that are another symbol of the patriarchy - peanuts. So offensive on so many levels Sounds like pee, and males testicles shoved together and then it sounds like Penis...... Penis-Peanuts? A conicidence? I don't think so! not funny dude - so not funny.
The banana is a button. That's very juvenile. If someone in my office were to do this, I'd start loading them with enough "responsibilities" to make them leave.
You mean the banana is a lie?
The solution is for all the systemd haters to band together into one distro and move on. I'm not a particular fan of the idea of systemd either but it's time to get over it.. To continue to fight something with that kind of momentum is ridiculous. It's as bad as expecting microsoft to go away and die.
Amen!
The amount of subsidies, on kWh produced basis, is tiny compared to solar. The coal subsidies, assuming they even exist, look huge because they produce 30% or more of our electricity. Same for nuclear and natural gas as they also each produce roughly 30% of our electricity. That last 10% that is not produced by oil, coal, and nuclear is largely from wind. The fraction of a percent of the electricity that solar power produces gets them HUGE subsidies.
Several comments on this thread pointed out that solar energy gets 1000x the amount of subsidies that coal gets based on kWh produced.
I have no issue with the subsidies that nuclear, oil, gas, and hydroelectric get because those subsidies are miniscule compared to solar. I will agree that all energy subsidies must end, but solar subsidies are on a whole different level than the others.
Stop complaining about how much oil get subsidized, IMHO, it makes you look like a fool.
Here you go spunky. My research from another post. Some of it is based on a reply to another person, so hte beginning will be a little redundant.
You mean like nuclear power? http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/de... [ucsusa.org]
Or petroleum? Or NatGas? Or Hydroelectric?
From another article:
http://www.misi-net.com/public...
On energy incentives, and an tl;dr version from Wikipedia:
A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI) estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period.
The percentage is higher for renewables, which given the much smaller percentage of use, and of course the fact that renewables wasn't even on the map during that time. cite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Corn based Ethanol production and the Alcohol credit for the FET is subsidized to the tune of almost 17 billion a year, renewable is 5 billion.
My point is that it's all subsidized. That the government subsidizes new power production isn't anathema to me in principle, but it would seem that the well established technologies shouldn't be getting subsidies. If you need to be subsidizing oil, natural gas, or coal for 60 plus years, they should be abandoned, right?. Or perhaps something else at play? Regardless, calling this "regressive political income redistribution in support of a putatively progressive cause." while apparently finding all of the others just fine is hypocricy at t's finest.
Back to the present:
I don't really care if you find subsidies for all of the other energy sources just fine, while the 5 billion per year for all of renewables a thing to difficult to suffer. It merely shows your politics, It's like the free market Republicans working to ban Tesla dealerships in their states.
But the numbers speak for themselves.
This will make batteries more important. Now it's no longer profitable to use the grid for storage.
Yup - and that's actually a good thing.
While I take great issue with the hypocrisy of people who think that renewables are the work of godless commies commies, yet have no issue at all with the direct from the government to the stockholders transfer of my tax dollars for every other type of energy production, (see my other research on the issue in another post) and that the folks are pleased to have done this for political reasons as they note "regressive political income redistribution in support of a putatively progressive cause.", it is apparent that all of th eother energy subsidies are somehow a conservative principle.
I'll be happy to take advantage of new battery technology. I'll be happy to get myself off the grid.
I'm certain that good conservative principles will give me a tax break because why should I have to pay for energy subsidies I'm not using.
Oh.... wait...
And yet I'm required to subsidize health care for smokers, alcoholics, drug users and the obese.
Why should they be given a break, let alone a subsidy, for their harebrained lifestyle choices?
That's okay, We have to subsidize people with Anal-Cranial impactions.
No one owes you a break-even on a harebrained scheme. You are free to power your own house with solar. No one will prohibit it or care. But your insistence on a break-even means you're wanting someone else to subsidize your hobby.
OTOH, a deal is a deal.
Now write the same thing about Nuclear, Oil, Gas, and hydroelectric. You have no issue with the massive subsidies they get?
Well your 'little more' is x4.23 as much. Instead of selling at the market price for supplying power at 2.6, they were selling it at the customer purchasing price of 11. Now they are being dropped back down to normal supply pricing. It was inevitable. Those kinds of premiums are only temporary to jump start an industry. Once they get large enough, the premium is removed and they then have to compete with everybody else in the market. After all, a market that makes nothing can't afford maintenance and other costs and collapses.
You mean like nuclear power? http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/de...
Or petroleum? Or NatGas? Or Hydroelectric?
From another article:
http://www.misi-net.com/publications/NEI-1011.pdf
On energy incentives, and an tl;dr version from Wikipedia:
A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI) estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period.
The percentage is higher for renewables, which given the much smaller percentage of use, and of course the fact that renewables wasn't even on the map during that time. cite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Corn based Ethanol production and the Alcohol credit for the FET is subsidized to the tune of almost 17 billion a year, renewable is 5 billion.
My point is that it's all subsidized. That the government subsidizes new power production isn't anathema to me in principle, but it would seem that the well established technologies shouldn't be getting subsidies. If you need to be subsidizing oil, natural gas, or coal for 60 plus years, they should be abandoned, right?. Or perhaps something else at play? Regardless, calling this "regressive political income redistribution in support of a putatively progressive cause." while apparently finding all of th others is hypocricy at t's finest.
This should be settled by the market. It's a simple supply and demand issue. People who sunk a bunch a money into it knowing that things could change should consider it an important, if expensive, lesson on economics.
Yes, just like nuclear power.
The harder people push back against ads, the more arrogant and "Fuck You" the advertisers become. It's really getting to the point where finding information on the internet is looking for the proverbial needle in the haystack because of all the advertising pitfalls, page rank gaming, etc.. and the search engines simply aren't up to the task of sorting out what you need anymore. It's all noise.
You figure the advertisers are going to win after the internet becomes unusable? I'm not going to turn off my adblocker to look at sites that won't let me in because I'm using one. It isn't the right solution. If the customer becomes the enemy, then the advertiser shouldn't be too surprised if the customer treats them like the enemy.
I have no responsibility to break through my smartphone's data cap just because someone thinks I should be forced to see ad's about what some housewife in Pennsylvania discovered that is driving the insurance companies crazy.
Already, without ad blocking I personally consider the internet unusable. Making adblockers illegal will simply drive me away.
My effective, useful Internet has shrunk to about five websites. Every time I open the door to another website it seems I spend about 5 minutes waiting for it to render, then I have to update AdBlock to block all the invasive advertising, because the advertisers are desperately trying to end run around blocking. Shutting down all JavaScript speeds things up, but breaks a lot of sites. And when I finally find the information, I find that it is incomplete, un-cited, low quality.
I'm really starting to wonder whether having internet is truly indispensable. I could text instead of email, go to the bank in person, get information out of dead tree books. I would miss Slashdot as it is an outlet for my snarkiness, but I could just be snarky to my wife (that's what they're for, right?).
The problem is that we've pretty much killed it. Allowing the prime use of the internet to be commercial interests and that anything they do is just fine, we've just about done it in. I did an analysis a few years abo on what just noscript does. And there have been sites I've gone to that have had 50 or more javascripts that run when I listed them. The surprise finding was that the biggest abuser is facebook. They are tracking the living hell out of people. Facebook is tracking you even if you aren't on facebook. Google is in there as well. Big difference is that google doesn't try to obscure that they re doing it. There are other trackers as well. The only innocuous script was a font rendering one.
So if a site doesn't work for me, it's seldom my problem. I realize that all too many websites look at the user as the enemy, and have no desire to contract Intertoobz VD.