Nobody is calling for the industry to be destroyed though. What people are calling for (and vast majorities of Americans support) is some sensible laws that prevent guns from falling into the hands of people that shouldn't be handling guns, as well as limits on the types of guns and magazines available.
Your other analogies don't really hold - cars, baseball bats, computers, etc are all used for other useful things except killing. Even looking at cars, we've had a huge reduction in deaths over time due to an increase of safety regulations imposed on manufacturers. Why can't the same be done for guns, which are made for one thing only - killing.
Now don't misunderstand me, I'm a gun owner, hunter and I go to the range regularly, so I have no problem with guns being owned and used for hunting/sporting purposes. But an AR-15 style rifle has absolutely no place in civilian hands. Similarly, magazine sizes greater than about 5-6 rounds should be restricted - if you need more than 1-2 shots to take down an animal, you need to go spend more time at the range.
Good article here about the downfall of Sears https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0.... Some of it is certainly due to the sorry state of retail these days, but a large portion of it seems to be due to mismanagement and greed by the new owner of the company.
If you think about it, Sears was the original Amazon with their mail order catalog - you would think that based on that history, they should have been in a good position to compete with Amazon in direct internet sales. But instead of investing in this area, the company was raided as someones personal piggy bank, leading us to the current situation.
So in what way does your sister-in-law's Master's in Chemistry or the EE of your friend make them experts on climate systems? This is the thing that drives me nuts about the whole climate 'debate'. Everyone thinks they're an expert, just because we all have some experience with weather.
If your sister-in-law or EE friend had strong opinions of loop quantum gravity which flew in the face of scientific understanding, would you go with their opinion over that of all the physicists in the field exploring this theory? So why do we go with what is essentially laymen's opinions of climate science over what pretty much all climate scientists throughout the world are saying?
Ugh why are you plugging your 1/8" phone jack into your audio system? Do you also enjoy lo-fi? If you were a true audiophile, you wouldn't rely on the shitty DAC in the phone (even going through an external amp). Instead, you'd buy a standalone DAC and run your device's digital output to that and then out to an amp if you desired.
No, if the warship was traveling heading 135 as required by Rule 10, and the tanker is east of the warship, traveling heading roughly 225, then it would be approaching from the port side of the warship.
Where do you get from that that the tanker made a turn into the warship? The warship was crossing NW to SE perpendicular to the separation zone as required, and the tanker hit the warship in the port quarter. The sharp change in course is during and after the collision when the tanker was dragged sideways by the warship's momentum.
Seems plausible that the McCain was crossing the TSS perpendicularly (as permitted by Rule 10), from NW to SE, and during the transit, didn't see the Hyundai Global racing up from behind on the inside, and so had to cut power to avoid a collision with her, and instead got smacked by Alnic MC. If that is the case, Hyundai Global bears some blame for racing way too fast in the shipping lane, and entering the separation zone where they shouldn't be.
Kind of... the two only have a relationship to each other if you make assumptions about the distribution of samples. In a normal distribution, you'd expect the two to be close, but in other situations, they could be completely unrelated. However, knowing both the mean and median can provide information about the nature of the distribution (e.g. is it heavily weighted one way or another, are there outliers, etc).
I've lived in both the US and France, and made drastically different amounts in each country. What I've found is that salaries are hard to directly compare from country to country, without factoring in all the externalities. In my case, I'm now making more than twice what I made in France, but I definitely don't feel that way. It seemed like I had more money at the end of the month in France than I do in the US. But looking at the whole picture, I can see why.
In France, heath costs, schooling, retirement/pensions, lunches, public transport and many other things are subsidized and handled by the government in ways that they are not in the US. In effect, by society handling those things, it lowered the cost for everyone. Here in the US, I have to worry about putting enough aside for retirement, for paying for health care, etc which can take a big chunk of my salary, not to mention my peace of mind. Add in things like more expensive services (internet is 3x more expensive in the US for an inferior quality), requirement to own a car, etc, its no wonder my dollar seems more stretched...
Tax breaks that benefit a specific sector or segment of society are indeed subsidies, since they represent foregone government revenues, meaning they are a cost to government. At the end of the day, it has the same effect as handing out money to those sectors. Its like if you owed me $20, and I said I'll give you a break - just give me $10 versus if you owed me $20, gave me the $20, and I gave you $10 back because I was generous. At the end of the day, I only have $10 of the $20 I was owed, and you have $10 you originally wouldn't have.
Also, you should look up what credit for nonconventional fuel production is - it doesn't lend your argument credence if you don't understand what the various breaks are. Nonconventional fuel production covers fuel production from oil from shale and tar sands; gas from geopressurized brine, Devonian shale, coal seams, biomass and coal-based synthetic fuels. Coal producers have been the primary beneficiaries of this credit, which is $14B from 2002-2008.
So tell me, how much money was spent on these boogeyman "green" energy "investments"? What was the bankruptcy rate of those companies? Citation needed...
There are many sources regarding energy subsidies that can be found with a Google search. Here is a thorough paper which looks at the subsidies in various categories: http://www.misi-net.com/public...
As for specifics, subsidies range from depletion allowances, energy specific accelerated depreciation allowances, exploration and development expensing, credit for production of nonconventional fuels, reduced government take from federal oil and gas leasing, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is that what they meant to say is that passage through the event horizon would violate causality, not determinism.
Please explain how you can drive a truck through hallways and classrooms in a school.
Nobody is calling for the industry to be destroyed though. What people are calling for (and vast majorities of Americans support) is some sensible laws that prevent guns from falling into the hands of people that shouldn't be handling guns, as well as limits on the types of guns and magazines available.
Your other analogies don't really hold - cars, baseball bats, computers, etc are all used for other useful things except killing. Even looking at cars, we've had a huge reduction in deaths over time due to an increase of safety regulations imposed on manufacturers. Why can't the same be done for guns, which are made for one thing only - killing.
Now don't misunderstand me, I'm a gun owner, hunter and I go to the range regularly, so I have no problem with guns being owned and used for hunting/sporting purposes. But an AR-15 style rifle has absolutely no place in civilian hands. Similarly, magazine sizes greater than about 5-6 rounds should be restricted - if you need more than 1-2 shots to take down an animal, you need to go spend more time at the range.
The only types I see shrieking "How dare you politicize this tragedy" every time theres a shooting is rightwingers.
I'd say obstruction of justice is pretty illegal...
Too bad part of the proposed FCC net neutrality repeal prevents states and localities from putting in place their own net neutrality rules...
Good article here about the downfall of Sears https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0.... Some of it is certainly due to the sorry state of retail these days, but a large portion of it seems to be due to mismanagement and greed by the new owner of the company.
If you think about it, Sears was the original Amazon with their mail order catalog - you would think that based on that history, they should have been in a good position to compete with Amazon in direct internet sales. But instead of investing in this area, the company was raided as someones personal piggy bank, leading us to the current situation.
So in what way does your sister-in-law's Master's in Chemistry or the EE of your friend make them experts on climate systems? This is the thing that drives me nuts about the whole climate 'debate'. Everyone thinks they're an expert, just because we all have some experience with weather.
If your sister-in-law or EE friend had strong opinions of loop quantum gravity which flew in the face of scientific understanding, would you go with their opinion over that of all the physicists in the field exploring this theory? So why do we go with what is essentially laymen's opinions of climate science over what pretty much all climate scientists throughout the world are saying?
Wow, first YTMND link I've seen in years - didn't realize that site was still around! Brings back memories of hours spent on that site...
Interesting, but what do you think about the state of haberdashers these days?
Oh my... you still use wired headphones when you're out and about?
It has Qi wireless charging, so you don't need the lightning connector to charge...
Well at least electric cars don't require any vespene gas, otherwise we'd really be in trouble!
Or it is science, properly applying the range of uncertainty in the models.
Reading from context, I believe the GP was talking about radiation from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the atomic bombs dropped there, and not Fukushima.
Ugh why are you plugging your 1/8" phone jack into your audio system? Do you also enjoy lo-fi? If you were a true audiophile, you wouldn't rely on the shitty DAC in the phone (even going through an external amp). Instead, you'd buy a standalone DAC and run your device's digital output to that and then out to an amp if you desired.
Read up on compass directions, then we can discuss...
No, if the warship was traveling heading 135 as required by Rule 10, and the tanker is east of the warship, traveling heading roughly 225, then it would be approaching from the port side of the warship.
Where do you get from that that the tanker made a turn into the warship? The warship was crossing NW to SE perpendicular to the separation zone as required, and the tanker hit the warship in the port quarter. The sharp change in course is during and after the collision when the tanker was dragged sideways by the warship's momentum.
Seems plausible that the McCain was crossing the TSS perpendicularly (as permitted by Rule 10), from NW to SE, and during the transit, didn't see the Hyundai Global racing up from behind on the inside, and so had to cut power to avoid a collision with her, and instead got smacked by Alnic MC. If that is the case, Hyundai Global bears some blame for racing way too fast in the shipping lane, and entering the separation zone where they shouldn't be.
Kind of... the two only have a relationship to each other if you make assumptions about the distribution of samples. In a normal distribution, you'd expect the two to be close, but in other situations, they could be completely unrelated. However, knowing both the mean and median can provide information about the nature of the distribution (e.g. is it heavily weighted one way or another, are there outliers, etc).
I've lived in both the US and France, and made drastically different amounts in each country. What I've found is that salaries are hard to directly compare from country to country, without factoring in all the externalities. In my case, I'm now making more than twice what I made in France, but I definitely don't feel that way. It seemed like I had more money at the end of the month in France than I do in the US. But looking at the whole picture, I can see why.
In France, heath costs, schooling, retirement/pensions, lunches, public transport and many other things are subsidized and handled by the government in ways that they are not in the US. In effect, by society handling those things, it lowered the cost for everyone. Here in the US, I have to worry about putting enough aside for retirement, for paying for health care, etc which can take a big chunk of my salary, not to mention my peace of mind. Add in things like more expensive services (internet is 3x more expensive in the US for an inferior quality), requirement to own a car, etc, its no wonder my dollar seems more stretched...
Wow talk about conflating things. That article claims that loans and loan guarantees are subsidies, which is pretty much the opposite of a subsidy.
Tax breaks that benefit a specific sector or segment of society are indeed subsidies, since they represent foregone government revenues, meaning they are a cost to government. At the end of the day, it has the same effect as handing out money to those sectors. Its like if you owed me $20, and I said I'll give you a break - just give me $10 versus if you owed me $20, gave me the $20, and I gave you $10 back because I was generous. At the end of the day, I only have $10 of the $20 I was owed, and you have $10 you originally wouldn't have.
Also, you should look up what credit for nonconventional fuel production is - it doesn't lend your argument credence if you don't understand what the various breaks are. Nonconventional fuel production covers fuel production from oil from shale and tar sands; gas from geopressurized brine, Devonian shale, coal seams, biomass and coal-based synthetic fuels. Coal producers have been the primary beneficiaries of this credit, which is $14B from 2002-2008.
So tell me, how much money was spent on these boogeyman "green" energy "investments"? What was the bankruptcy rate of those companies? Citation needed...
There are many sources regarding energy subsidies that can be found with a Google search. Here is a thorough paper which looks at the subsidies in various categories: http://www.misi-net.com/public...
As for specifics, subsidies range from depletion allowances, energy specific accelerated depreciation allowances, exploration and development expensing, credit for production of nonconventional fuels, reduced government take from federal oil and gas leasing, etc.