Why do you believe that the companies should be worth 25% less than last year? These are the same companies. Do you really believe that all of the companies listed are collectively worth 25% less? I'd like to see your analysis on that one.
When did I mention the 'external policy' of the USA? Never. I was simply agreeing with the fact that some things (removal of evil dictators) can only be accomplished through war. If you want to bring up things not related at all to my post, please start another thread elsewhere.
Or they could power their lightbulb for the the night, and THEN eat it for breakfast. From reading the article, it looks like all they do is boil the potato to increase it's output. I didn't see any mention of anything else that would cause the potato to be inedible.
Looks like they can have their cake and eat it too.
A believe federal law doesn't allow any emergency room to deny treatment for ANY emergency if the person can't pay. Now, the ER can go after the person for the money after treatment is done, but they aren't allowed to say "Hey, we aren't treating that bullet wound until we verify your credit card."
But how heavy was the Accord vs. the new car its engine was placed into? 13.8s in a 2,000 lb. card does not mean the engine will do 13.8s in a 4,000 lb. car.
Which is why I left the 'race' part of my census form blank for me and my family. The census is only to determine representation, and they have to represent me regardless of our race.
I also left the birth date sections blank, as I can't possibly imagine any reason to have that bit of personal info floating around.
"Because you picked out one part of my argument..."
I didn't really see and 'arguments' in your post, just assumptions and guesses about what would happen if we forced companies to put the power usage on the product package.
And I correctly pointed out that even your assumptions about how my idea (rigged tests by the companies, but no wasted tax money) is no worse than the reality of the government program (zero testing, yet still sucks up tax money). The only reason I picked that one part is because the rest of your post is just made up guesses. How do I argue with that? With my own made up guesses?
"At least they're able to find the flaws in their own system."
The fact that such an obvious flaw was standard procedure from day one troubles me. And finding flaws is easy. I'm more worried about whether or not anything will change. Given the track record of the government, I would be nothing (substantial) will change.
"...of course the numbers themselves will come from rigged "tests"..."
Good thing the EPA tests the device before they bless it with the energy star sticker. Oh, shit, that's right, they don't bother to check that the product even exists, let alone put it through a basic power test. How is the government program better than my suggestion again?
"...something with an Energy Start sticker on it, it should be a reasonably efficient device."
You didn't even bother to read the summary, did you?
"Manufacturers need only submit photos and not actual examples of their products, and they submit their own efficiency ratings, which are not independently verified by the EPA."
There is no requirement for the EPA to even check the product before they slap their precious sticker on it. So we've spent all this money for the energy star program, and it's no better than just telling the manufacturers to just print the power draw on the side of the package.
I don't mind that one government agency is checking up on another. My big question (that I already know the answer to) is: What will happen to those people who let these bogus products get through the system?
***spoiler alert*** answer: nothing
So what is the point of checking on them if no one is fired/jailed?
I don't think it is necessarily a question of HOW MUCH in taxes, but what it is spent on. Why do we even have a government agency to put a damn energy star sticker on the side of an appliance? Simply make all manufacturers print the power draw of their item on the side of the package. Done. Anyone who gives two craps about how much power something uses can look on the package. Anyone who doesn't bother to probably wouldn't care about the whole energy star thing anyways.
That money wasted on the 'energy star' bureaucracy could have been used to fill the pothole that you hit.
"The only way capitalism works is if it can keep growing"
Completely untrue, and I have no idea why I keep hearing this repeated from time to time. One guy even went so far as to put a specific number (3% growth needed for capitalism to work). Capitalism is simply the exchange of goods/money/services in an open market. Markets LIKE growth, but it is by no means a requirement for a successful market.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you believe that the companies should be worth 25% less than last year? These are the same companies. Do you really believe that all of the companies listed are collectively worth 25% less? I'd like to see your analysis on that one.
"...seizing power in a bloodless Parliament House coup..."
Well, that's a boring coup.
When did I mention the 'external policy' of the USA? Never. I was simply agreeing with the fact that some things (removal of evil dictators) can only be accomplished through war. If you want to bring up things not related at all to my post, please start another thread elsewhere.
Wish I had some points to give you.
darjen lives in some fantasy world where being pacifist will always get the result you want. Not true. See ArcherB's list.
Or they could power their lightbulb for the the night, and THEN eat it for breakfast. From reading the article, it looks like all they do is boil the potato to increase it's output. I didn't see any mention of anything else that would cause the potato to be inedible.
Looks like they can have their cake and eat it too.
PC_LOAD_AD?!?!?
What the fuck does that even mean? /me grabs baseball bat and gangsta rap CD
I'm more worried about dihydrogen oxide getting into our water supplies.
"...a massive exercise in largely useless spending."
Useless spending? By the government?
**GASP**
You might as well as for 100 gazillion dollars!
You think the robocaller will get offend if we revoke its freedom of speech?
"No, its the 2000s..."
Man, how do I break the news to him that we're in the 10's now?
A believe federal law doesn't allow any emergency room to deny treatment for ANY emergency if the person can't pay. Now, the ER can go after the person for the money after treatment is done, but they aren't allowed to say "Hey, we aren't treating that bullet wound until we verify your credit card."
"...in large part stems from its extreme shortage of prints?" ...and they are now suing people for making copies? Now THAT'S funny!
But how heavy was the Accord vs. the new car its engine was placed into? 13.8s in a 2,000 lb. card does not mean the engine will do 13.8s in a 4,000 lb. car.
Why don't they just always try that first?
I see your joking and sarcasm comprehension is at a 4th grade level.
I'll simplify it for you.
(ahem)
I... WAS... FUCKING... JOKING!!!
So, you like to check out underage girls on your lunch break, eh?
Which is why I left the 'race' part of my census form blank for me and my family. The census is only to determine representation, and they have to represent me regardless of our race.
I also left the birth date sections blank, as I can't possibly imagine any reason to have that bit of personal info floating around.
"Because you picked out one part of my argument..."
I didn't really see and 'arguments' in your post, just assumptions and guesses about what would happen if we forced companies to put the power usage on the product package.
And I correctly pointed out that even your assumptions about how my idea (rigged tests by the companies, but no wasted tax money) is no worse than the reality of the government program (zero testing, yet still sucks up tax money). The only reason I picked that one part is because the rest of your post is just made up guesses. How do I argue with that? With my own made up guesses?
"At least they're able to find the flaws in their own system."
The fact that such an obvious flaw was standard procedure from day one troubles me. And finding flaws is easy. I'm more worried about whether or not anything will change. Given the track record of the government, I would be nothing (substantial) will change.
"...of course the numbers themselves will come from rigged "tests"..."
Good thing the EPA tests the device before they bless it with the energy star sticker. Oh, shit, that's right, they don't bother to check that the product even exists, let alone put it through a basic power test. How is the government program better than my suggestion again?
"...something with an Energy Start sticker on it, it should be a reasonably efficient device."
You didn't even bother to read the summary, did you?
"Manufacturers need only submit photos and not actual examples of their products, and they submit their own efficiency ratings, which are not independently verified by the EPA."
There is no requirement for the EPA to even check the product before they slap their precious sticker on it. So we've spent all this money for the energy star program, and it's no better than just telling the manufacturers to just print the power draw on the side of the package.
I don't mind that one government agency is checking up on another. My big question (that I already know the answer to) is: What will happen to those people who let these bogus products get through the system?
***spoiler alert***
answer: nothing
So what is the point of checking on them if no one is fired/jailed?
I don't think it is necessarily a question of HOW MUCH in taxes, but what it is spent on. Why do we even have a government agency to put a damn energy star sticker on the side of an appliance? Simply make all manufacturers print the power draw of their item on the side of the package. Done. Anyone who gives two craps about how much power something uses can look on the package. Anyone who doesn't bother to probably wouldn't care about the whole energy star thing anyways.
That money wasted on the 'energy star' bureaucracy could have been used to fill the pothole that you hit.
"And never mind that while the government is the "middleman" in the spending, they are not extracting profit."
Apparently you haven't seen how much money is sucked out by public employee unions...
"The only way capitalism works is if it can keep growing"
Completely untrue, and I have no idea why I keep hearing this repeated from time to time. One guy even went so far as to put a specific number (3% growth needed for capitalism to work). Capitalism is simply the exchange of goods/money/services in an open market. Markets LIKE growth, but it is by no means a requirement for a successful market.