How bout we don't pretend the high priests have the gospel truth, and instead let accurate scientific information guide us before sacrificing trillions on the altar?
The US is reducing, and will continue to reduce, its CO2 output because the alternatives are better and cheaper. Isn't that your goal, or is your goal giving more money and power to a totalitarian state?
We won't have any meaningful influence on India and China as they industrialize, regardless.
So all we did was create tons of jobs installing all those new energy sources,
Broken windows fallacy. We benefit when people work to produce what others want and need. We get no benefit from makework.
Climate models are not even close to predicting the economic consequences of climate change. Heck, they're only giving 2-signma accuracy on stuff like worldwide temperature predictions (slightly better than random guessing, but there are social science results with better accuracy).
Handling power outages is about as basic of an IT task as they come. Basic Lock Out practices that prevent power from accidentally being turned off is also Server Maintenance 101.
For this to actually have been the cause means their IT organization was run by rank amateurs.
Bet it was the UPS being serviced. I've seen that happen twice - guy plugs in some probe, causes a GFI, and the UPS goes down hard. And echoes with the sound of silence. Often all the UPSs in the DC are chained in some stupid way and they all go down hard.
Nah, they have impractical tires and wheels, and are slung too low in order to look like a sports car (the thing they're really selling), so they're totally emasculated by any rough surface and take a week to go over a speed bump. No thanks - I don't need a fake track car, with all the downside and none of the upside.
What you call "globalist vs populist" I call "free market vs protectionist mercantilism."
There are very few "free" and equitable trade agreements. That's not really what trade agreements are about. There's about carefully negotiating "you get an unfair advantage over here, but we get an unfair advantage over there". The US forces IP agreements down other nations throats, but is quite OK with our partners protecting their local agribusiness and manufacturing. Benefits our elite at the expense of our "common man".
Anyhow, it's more than trade agreements, it's issues like immigration and whether we need to consult the UN before bombing someone.
You're proposing a cost-benefit analysis that there's just no data to back up. Oh, sure, there's plenty of qualitative hand-waving, but quantitative science? Not even close (yet - young science matures eventually).
Also, if you think foreign aid sent to government leaders will be used for the intended purpose, or any purpose other than Swiss bank account filling, I have a bridge to sell you.
yes, yes, Trump is Literally Hitler - the news has told me so every day since the election. Whatever.
But the people who support him mostly just want jobs, and more abstract want the US government to act for their benefit - stop immigration, stop trade deals that hurt our working class, and so on. Same shit with Brexit supporters. Niether Trump nor Brexit supports have any interest in invading their neighbors, and it's dickish of you to imply otherwise.
A very large part of India is so poor they don't have access to electricity, gas, or clean water. Yes, these people are responsible for a lot of the bad gasses, because they literally cook on dung set on fire. But what do you expect these people to do? Not eat? They have no other option, and we cannot expect them to solve this issue, and you cannot expect India as a country to eradicate poverty in a 5 year time-span. And even including that, India isn't actually doing that bad on improving things.
Pre-industrial people produce far less emissions than industrial. Are you really trying to claim otherwise? Burning random crap suck for particulate pollution, but we're talking about CO2. CO2 is directly related to total energy consumption. So, most of India and China are still consuming very little power indeed, and you can expect their CO2 emissions to skyrocket as that changes.
Meanwhile, the US uses more power than any other nation, and thus more CO2. We're already on the right track though - fracking has really helped eliminate coal use, and solar will come soon enough. Within a couple generations fossil fuels use will be down to mostly industrial needs, which have no easy fix (but that's a small % of today).
Not that has anything to do with the agreement we pulled out of - that was a foreign aid agreement, with nothing binding related to climate.
Not to mention that deleted kiddie porn files are not prima facie evidence of a crime, because it is only a crime if possession was willful and with the offender's knowledge (United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.). If the offender had a reasonable belief that the performers were of legal age, or that the material was not pornographic, or if the offender did not intentionally obtain that material, then it isn't a crime. That's what makes prosecution really problematic.
I don't think any part of that is true. The SCOTUS reversed the 9th Circus on that case, upholding the original conviction. Some states explicitly don't require intent in their laws - a cop can literally stuff porn in your pocket, then arrest you for possession, and your fate would be in the hands of prosecutorial discretion. Even in sane states, if the search is ruled legal, then you're going to have to convince the jury you didn't know - the burden of proof will be on you, because this is a witch hunt.
As far as parallel construction, I really wish they were more clear about "unallocated sectors". If they actually mean deleted files, that seems straightforward enough - makes total sense that someone would delete anything incriminating before handing his computer over, and that seems a natural pattern for the FBI to try to exploit. But raw, unpartitioned space on a hard drive? That's very far-fetched.
We have a word for "anti-globalist", they're called "nationalist".
Nice parroting of globalist propaganda. Kneel to your overlords, or you're literally Hitler. Good doggie, here's a biscuit!
We also have words like "populist" and "patriot", BTW.
And you can't really call Trump a "populist" movement when he didn't get the popular vote.
The two are unrelated - you know that, right? "Populism is a mode of political communication that proposes that the common people are exploited by a privileged elite, and which seeks to resolve this."
s impossible to know the foreign relations implications of this long term, except to know it can't be good.
It's great! Fuck globalism. This is just another reclamation of American sovereignty.
As others have said, we're going to reduce CO2 emissions anyway, through consumer choice and technology. This isn't about CO2, it's about global government vs national government.
And that's swiftly replacing the old "left vs right" as the axis of political division. It's all about "globalist vs populist" now, with a still-rising tide of anti-globalist sentiment. Anti-globablist moves like Brexit and Trump are just the beginning of a long swing of the pendulum away form the globalist extreme we had reached.
When climate change costs your nation money, you ought to sue the US and others for damages. I suspect international courts in 20 years will be really receptive to the idea when willful ignorance played such a big part in the US's choices around climate change denial.
Heh. International courts. How many nukes do they have?
I propose we fund the US entirely by taxing non-US citizens. Well, OK, technically it would be tribute, not tax, but it would be fun.
Who am I kidding: in a few years we'll elect a democrat who will give $1 trillion in reparations ($900 billion of which will mysteriously end up going to bankers, of course).
I wish the luxury GT coupes weren't a vanishing breed. As I finally get to the point where I might afford one, everyone seems to be exiting the market, leaving 4-door "coupes" and hard-riding sports cars.
Diesel emissions are even worse than gasoline emissions health-wise, AND the clouds of noxious smoke they leave behind are generally larger and thicker. I understand that diesel trucks are an important part of the transportation industry, but the people I'm talking about don't use them for work -- they use them to impress their white trash friends, and to beat their chests to everyone else.
OK, now I so want a VW diesel SUV - do they still sell a V10? I hear it can tow a 747 - perfect for my daily commute!
Hey, if someone wants to drive a Ford Earthfucker 5000 as a status symbol, it's his right. I hate them blocking my view, but that doesn't give me the right to stop them.
Wait, are you AmiMoJo's sock puppet or something? (He was tragically butthurt by Brexit, and still doesn't seem able to sit comfortably.)
Glad you found a place you liked. Please don't try to make the place I like exactly like your place. Different people like different things, and we all have a right to be happy.
If there's no one harmed by the dumping of hazardous waste, then obviously it was disposed of properly. Not very likely in your examples, though, is it? It's very likely to poison someone, somewhere. That's material harm to a specific person (or the high likelihood thereof), probably many people.
Contrast that with someone driving a car with lower gas mileage than some other option.
Pollution also exacts a non-voluntary cost from people.
Every action you will ever take "exacts a non-voluntary cost from people" to some degree. Freedom requires allowance for that, since you can argue that any action at all should be disallowed, on the basis that it does some trivial harm to someone, somewhere.
Try making an argument that a specific person's pollution will cause material harm to some other specific person. That's certainly true with hazardous waste, for example.
But I suspect you're actually just looking for an excuse for a new tax. Anything to make government stronger, am I right?
Slashdot Mirror
Now you're just making up numbers.
How bout we don't pretend the high priests have the gospel truth, and instead let accurate scientific information guide us before sacrificing trillions on the altar?
The US is reducing, and will continue to reduce, its CO2 output because the alternatives are better and cheaper. Isn't that your goal, or is your goal giving more money and power to a totalitarian state?
We won't have any meaningful influence on India and China as they industrialize, regardless.
So all we did was create tons of jobs installing all those new energy sources,
Broken windows fallacy. We benefit when people work to produce what others want and need. We get no benefit from makework.
Climate models are not even close to predicting the economic consequences of climate change. Heck, they're only giving 2-signma accuracy on stuff like worldwide temperature predictions (slightly better than random guessing, but there are social science results with better accuracy).
Handling power outages is about as basic of an IT task as they come. Basic Lock Out practices that prevent power from accidentally being turned off is also Server Maintenance 101.
For this to actually have been the cause means their IT organization was run by rank amateurs.
Bet it was the UPS being serviced. I've seen that happen twice - guy plugs in some probe, causes a GFI, and the UPS goes down hard. And echoes with the sound of silence. Often all the UPSs in the DC are chained in some stupid way and they all go down hard.
Nah, they have impractical tires and wheels, and are slung too low in order to look like a sports car (the thing they're really selling), so they're totally emasculated by any rough surface and take a week to go over a speed bump. No thanks - I don't need a fake track car, with all the downside and none of the upside.
What you call "globalist vs populist" I call "free market vs protectionist mercantilism."
There are very few "free" and equitable trade agreements. That's not really what trade agreements are about. There's about carefully negotiating "you get an unfair advantage over here, but we get an unfair advantage over there". The US forces IP agreements down other nations throats, but is quite OK with our partners protecting their local agribusiness and manufacturing. Benefits our elite at the expense of our "common man".
Anyhow, it's more than trade agreements, it's issues like immigration and whether we need to consult the UN before bombing someone.
You're proposing a cost-benefit analysis that there's just no data to back up. Oh, sure, there's plenty of qualitative hand-waving, but quantitative science? Not even close (yet - young science matures eventually).
Also, if you think foreign aid sent to government leaders will be used for the intended purpose, or any purpose other than Swiss bank account filling, I have a bridge to sell you.
yes, yes, Trump is Literally Hitler - the news has told me so every day since the election. Whatever.
But the people who support him mostly just want jobs, and more abstract want the US government to act for their benefit - stop immigration, stop trade deals that hurt our working class, and so on. Same shit with Brexit supporters. Niether Trump nor Brexit supports have any interest in invading their neighbors, and it's dickish of you to imply otherwise.
A very large part of India is so poor they don't have access to electricity, gas, or clean water. Yes, these people are responsible for a lot of the bad gasses, because they literally cook on dung set on fire. But what do you expect these people to do? Not eat? They have no other option, and we cannot expect them to solve this issue, and you cannot expect India as a country to eradicate poverty in a 5 year time-span. And even including that, India isn't actually doing that bad on improving things.
Pre-industrial people produce far less emissions than industrial. Are you really trying to claim otherwise? Burning random crap suck for particulate pollution, but we're talking about CO2. CO2 is directly related to total energy consumption. So, most of India and China are still consuming very little power indeed, and you can expect their CO2 emissions to skyrocket as that changes.
Meanwhile, the US uses more power than any other nation, and thus more CO2. We're already on the right track though - fracking has really helped eliminate coal use, and solar will come soon enough. Within a couple generations fossil fuels use will be down to mostly industrial needs, which have no easy fix (but that's a small % of today).
Not that has anything to do with the agreement we pulled out of - that was a foreign aid agreement, with nothing binding related to climate.
Yes, you got the reference. Or are that that guy who has to explain every joke he sees?
Nothing you said addressed the question I asked. WTF does income inequality have to do with climate change? Or foreign aid?
If you can't distinguish between nationalism, patriotism, and populism, I mourn for the state of US education. They are 3 very different things.
Not to mention that deleted kiddie porn files are not prima facie evidence of a crime, because it is only a crime if possession was willful and with the offender's knowledge (United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.). If the offender had a reasonable belief that the performers were of legal age, or that the material was not pornographic, or if the offender did not intentionally obtain that material, then it isn't a crime. That's what makes prosecution really problematic.
I don't think any part of that is true. The SCOTUS reversed the 9th Circus on that case, upholding the original conviction. Some states explicitly don't require intent in their laws - a cop can literally stuff porn in your pocket, then arrest you for possession, and your fate would be in the hands of prosecutorial discretion. Even in sane states, if the search is ruled legal, then you're going to have to convince the jury you didn't know - the burden of proof will be on you, because this is a witch hunt.
As far as parallel construction, I really wish they were more clear about "unallocated sectors". If they actually mean deleted files, that seems straightforward enough - makes total sense that someone would delete anything incriminating before handing his computer over, and that seems a natural pattern for the FBI to try to exploit. But raw, unpartitioned space on a hard drive? That's very far-fetched.
How is continuing to reduce CO2 emissions, but not paying out billions to other nations bad for the US in the long term, exactly?
We have a word for "anti-globalist", they're called "nationalist".
Nice parroting of globalist propaganda. Kneel to your overlords, or you're literally Hitler. Good doggie, here's a biscuit!
We also have words like "populist" and "patriot", BTW.
And you can't really call Trump a "populist" movement when he didn't get the popular vote.
The two are unrelated - you know that, right? "Populism is a mode of political communication that proposes that the common people are exploited by a privileged elite, and which seeks to resolve this."
Are you including the Norks in that total? :)
If we don't feel lucky yet, we need to get our missile defense right.
s impossible to know the foreign relations implications of this long term, except to know it can't be good.
It's great! Fuck globalism. This is just another reclamation of American sovereignty.
As others have said, we're going to reduce CO2 emissions anyway, through consumer choice and technology. This isn't about CO2, it's about global government vs national government.
And that's swiftly replacing the old "left vs right" as the axis of political division. It's all about "globalist vs populist" now, with a still-rising tide of anti-globalist sentiment. Anti-globablist moves like Brexit and Trump are just the beginning of a long swing of the pendulum away form the globalist extreme we had reached.
When climate change costs your nation money, you ought to sue the US and others for damages. I suspect international courts in 20 years will be really receptive to the idea when willful ignorance played such a big part in the US's choices around climate change denial.
Heh. International courts. How many nukes do they have?
I propose we fund the US entirely by taxing non-US citizens. Well, OK, technically it would be tribute, not tax, but it would be fun.
Who am I kidding: in a few years we'll elect a democrat who will give $1 trillion in reparations ($900 billion of which will mysteriously end up going to bankers, of course).
I wish the luxury GT coupes weren't a vanishing breed. As I finally get to the point where I might afford one, everyone seems to be exiting the market, leaving 4-door "coupes" and hard-riding sports cars.
Diesel emissions are even worse than gasoline emissions health-wise, AND the clouds of noxious smoke they leave behind are generally larger and thicker. I understand that diesel trucks are an important part of the transportation industry, but the people I'm talking about don't use them for work -- they use them to impress their white trash friends, and to beat their chests to everyone else.
OK, now I so want a VW diesel SUV - do they still sell a V10? I hear it can tow a 747 - perfect for my daily commute!
Hey, if someone wants to drive a Ford Earthfucker 5000 as a status symbol, it's his right. I hate them blocking my view, but that doesn't give me the right to stop them.
Wait, are you AmiMoJo's sock puppet or something? (He was tragically butthurt by Brexit, and still doesn't seem able to sit comfortably.)
Glad you found a place you liked. Please don't try to make the place I like exactly like your place. Different people like different things, and we all have a right to be happy.
If there's no one harmed by the dumping of hazardous waste, then obviously it was disposed of properly. Not very likely in your examples, though, is it? It's very likely to poison someone, somewhere. That's material harm to a specific person (or the high likelihood thereof), probably many people.
Contrast that with someone driving a car with lower gas mileage than some other option.
If only we were capable of the latter part of your statement, it might not be a bad plan.
Judging by the number of 400-horsepower diesel trucks I see on the road towing nothing, I'd say the US also has the largest population of white trash.
I drive a 400 HP sedan. It doesn't eve have a trailer hitch. The extra power is there solely to offend hippies.
Ah yes, one of those taxes that provides things "at no cost" that the progressives love so much.
Have you moved to one of those EU nations with "higher standards of living and quality of life" yet?
Pollution also exacts a non-voluntary cost from people.
Every action you will ever take "exacts a non-voluntary cost from people" to some degree. Freedom requires allowance for that, since you can argue that any action at all should be disallowed, on the basis that it does some trivial harm to someone, somewhere.
Try making an argument that a specific person's pollution will cause material harm to some other specific person. That's certainly true with hazardous waste, for example.
But I suspect you're actually just looking for an excuse for a new tax. Anything to make government stronger, am I right?