I already told you - it's climate for any point where the 10-million year graph and your graph looks the same (just on a different scale). The point where it deviates is where you've gone too small and weather data has overwhelmed the climate signal. That point is around 20 to 25 years. So put it at 30 to give a little buffer and make it easy to remember.
We know 300 and 30 are both climate because they look exactly the same. But the 3 year graph looks VERY different from the 30 year graph - even from the last 3 years of the 30 year graph.
For a starter - because it's double-dipping. They don't just charge YOU the extra 5 dollars, they also demand a few million from google to be placed on the menu of sites you can pay extra for.
And that is the end of competition in the content creation space - as it now becomes impossible to start a new video site without already having the millions you need to buy highspeed service from ISPs so you'll be usuable by the customers you don't have yet.
>1) Trump is not a monster Almost every campaign promise and policy he promotes is monstrous. The few that aren't - like his position on trade deals - are the ones he is least likely to actually be able to implement. So only the monstrous ideas will happen because the GOP government has to give their president something, and they sure as hell won't give him opposition to trade deals that their funders benefit from !
>2) It's premature to judge before he takes office Then why have elections at all ? Why have campaigns ?The whole point of campaigns is that it is NEVER premature to judge - the whole concept of democracy is that you are SUPPOSED to judge them BEFORE they take office.
>3) Clinton would arguably be as bad or worse. (Or better, or completely different, no one knows.) Better. Good ? Doubt it. But better is guaranteed - because Clinton didn't suck up to white supremacists and wouldn't have given themsenior cabinet posts (we're up to quite a few now - the last is Jeff Sessions -a man so incredibly racist that a GOP senate refused to confirm him as a judge because they felt he was too biassed against minorities to be one). Clinton wouldn't have appointed a black panther into her cabinet either. She's a typical middle-of-the-road politician. That's objectively better than a crazy nutjob.
>4) He won fair and square With a minority of the vote. Even so - democracy doesn't happen ONLY on election days. People have a right to protest, and the majority who rejected him have the right to protest - it's their only hope of tempering his rule so it doesn't destroy their lives. This is a very real risk for them. There are millions of people in America who are legitimately worried that he will repeal obamacare and they will lose their insurance and die when they can't afford the medications that keep them alive. There are millions of people legitimately worried that his court appointments will repeal Obergefell and their marriages will suddenly be invalid, they will lose their kids, their pensions their family tax rates - of possibly even face prosecution and jail time if Mike Pence gets his way. People protested Obama based on claims of what he would do that was never anywhere in his platform, that he never supported or attempted. In Texas when the Army held excercises people all over panicked that it was 'preparation for martial law' - even the bloody governor sent the state guard to watch them to make sure they didn't do that... weird how they didn't do that when the army did exactly the SAME thing in the Bush years. That time then governor Rick Perry welcomed them. These people now - they are protesting based on what the candidates actually promised to do. Their fears are legitimate because they didn't get pulled out of Roger Ailes's ass - but out of Trump's own fucking speeches. These people know what those policies would mean for them - and they are protesting in the hope of making it politically impossible for Trump to do those things. That too - is how democracy works.
5) Nothing so far warrants armed revolt Which is why there hasn't been any. But if Trump keeps just one of the worst of his promises - that WOULD justify armed revolt. Though, liberals tend to consider violence a last resort - we don't plan on using it as soon as we have an excuse (that's a republican gun nut thing). We'd try to get him impeached first, try to change his mind through protests and marches. We'll only start using guns when those don't work - but history has it's share of cases where that was exactly what liberals have done. Remember Malcolm X ? The black panthers ?
Don't worry, in a second-worst-case scenario you'll be allowed to show up in Germany and say you're a refugee from America next year and be allowed to stay.
In a worst case scenario there won't be a Germany to show up in, or an America to come from.
Aah, I think I get it now... and of course the long-end result is that there is no crime at all, because there is nothing worth stealing because the second great depression starved us all to death.
So really - economic conservatism is just extreme hippy environmentalism on the installment plan !
>Which was caused by regulation stifling competition and allowing too much power to accumulate in the hands of large companies. That is what regulation is these days - primarily ways to keep smaller companies from competing.
No. No. No. Get it through your thick skulls. When there is massive large-scale fraud it's NEVER caused by too MUCH regulations- it's by defintion proof of too LITTLE regulation. Fraud on a massive scale proves that fraud was more profitable than honest business and unlikely to be prosecuted - and that is too LITTLE regulation. If you had less, and somehow there was more competition this would have made NO difference ot the outcome, you would just have had a a bunch of small companies ALSO committing large scale fraud.
Competition can do a lot of things - but it can't make people not lie to get rich. The only thing that can do that is the threat of jail. If anything, competition tends to make liars become better liars.
So promise a bunch of things, half of which were happening by themselves, then do nothing but enrich himself and afterwards claim to have kept half his promises and blame congress for not letting him keep the other half.
>There are less than 10,000 white supremacists in the US. The actual KKK has about 6000 members. They are a little group of nuts. Fuck off on calling the rest of us white supremacists.
If you walk like a duck, quack like a duck, fly like a duck - you bet your ass I will roast you like a duck.
"erode the constitution" Saying the constitution applies to black people, women, gays, minorities and everybody else and is not the exclusive preserve of white men... does not count as "eroding" anything.
>If renewable energy is cheaper then why would anyone continue to use fossil fuels? Either renewable energy is more expensive or there is some aspect of renewable energy that makes it undesirable. But then whatever undesirable aspect of renewable energy that makes it nonviable is really just a restatement of saying it is too expensive.
Or, most people don't actually CHOOSE what gets used to produce power - governments and corporations decide for millions. ?And they don't have to do it to be dicks - they do it to make money. Those who already spent a lot of money building infrastructure aren't keen on seeing their revenues goes to another product (even though it's cheaper for consumers), so they lobby like hell to keep governments from investing in those newer, better, technologies.
Where people DO get to choose as consumers - they overwhelmingly choose renewables. Home solar is exploding as consumers choose to invest in renewables THEMSELVES rather than pay for fossil fuels. It's SO MUCH cheaper that even without economies of scale individuals can do the solar for themselves cheaper than large scale production can do it for everybody !
Here in South Africa the latest research suggests coal power costs R1.20 per Mw/H (that's without factoring in cost-overruns, construction delays, interest on loans during construction delays, any externalities - in other words it's an absolute best case scenario price)... solar comes in at about 62c per mw/h - half the price - and that's ACTUAL cost since construction is so much simpler that overruns are extremely rare to non-existent. And while bringing a coal plant online is 5 to 7 years in the BEST case scenario and more than 10 in the typical - a solar plant of equivalent capacity is online in two.
We've had them for decades. Trains and trams are the easiest things to do electric and we moved away from coal and diesel on them decades ago exactly because it's cheaper to use electricity.
Of course, one of the main reasons WHY there had been high levels of ice in the antarctic is BECAUSE of the reduced ice in the arctic. The ice-melt makes the oceans fresher and fresher water freeze more easily than salty water.
It's simple mathematics. Anything less than that and the climate effects are drowned out by weather events (the signal to noise ratio is too low). You can go UP from there as far as you want, the patterns remain the same - but it's useful to use the lowest feasible number because it allows us to actually study climate effects in human timescales. If we COULD study it on 3 year basis, we would.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay... so you've had one in the 20th century.
I'd argue that Lincoln would have done so if needed (not that he got the chance to) that's another in the 19th century.
Can you imagine if you could be sure of having at least 2 or 3 in every congress ?
I already told you - it's climate for any point where the 10-million year graph and your graph looks the same (just on a different scale).
The point where it deviates is where you've gone too small and weather data has overwhelmed the climate signal.
That point is around 20 to 25 years. So put it at 30 to give a little buffer and make it easy to remember.
We know 300 and 30 are both climate because they look exactly the same. But the 3 year graph looks VERY different from the 30 year graph - even from the last 3 years of the 30 year graph.
Fuck that... they'll steal the nails too.
For a starter - because it's double-dipping. They don't just charge YOU the extra 5 dollars, they also demand a few million from google to be placed on the menu of sites you can pay extra for.
And that is the end of competition in the content creation space - as it now becomes impossible to start a new video site without already having the millions you need to buy highspeed service from ISPs so you'll be usuable by the customers you don't have yet.
Somebody should tell them that in a real dog eat dog world ultimately only the fleas are happy.
The election results are pretty clear that at least 47% of the population are klan sympathisers.
>1) Trump is not a monster
Almost every campaign promise and policy he promotes is monstrous. The few that aren't - like his position on trade deals - are the ones he is least likely to actually be able to implement. So only the monstrous ideas will happen because the GOP government has to give their president something, and they sure as hell won't give him opposition to trade deals that their funders benefit from !
>2) It's premature to judge before he takes office
Then why have elections at all ? Why have campaigns ?The whole point of campaigns is that it is NEVER premature to judge - the whole concept of democracy is that you are SUPPOSED to judge them BEFORE they take office.
>3) Clinton would arguably be as bad or worse. (Or better, or completely different, no one knows.)
Better. Good ? Doubt it. But better is guaranteed - because Clinton didn't suck up to white supremacists and wouldn't have given themsenior cabinet posts (we're up to quite a few now - the last is Jeff Sessions -a man so incredibly racist that a GOP senate refused to confirm him as a judge because they felt he was too biassed against minorities to be one). Clinton wouldn't have appointed a black panther into her cabinet either. She's a typical middle-of-the-road politician. That's objectively better than a crazy nutjob.
>4) He won fair and square
With a minority of the vote. Even so - democracy doesn't happen ONLY on election days. People have a right to protest, and the majority who rejected him have the right to protest - it's their only hope of tempering his rule so it doesn't destroy their lives. This is a very real risk for them. There are millions of people in America who are legitimately worried that he will repeal obamacare and they will lose their insurance and die when they can't afford the medications that keep them alive. There are millions of people legitimately worried that his court appointments will repeal Obergefell and their marriages will suddenly be invalid, they will lose their kids, their pensions their family tax rates - of possibly even face prosecution and jail time if Mike Pence gets his way.
People protested Obama based on claims of what he would do that was never anywhere in his platform, that he never supported or attempted. In Texas when the Army held excercises people all over panicked that it was 'preparation for martial law' - even the bloody governor sent the state guard to watch them to make sure they didn't do that... weird how they didn't do that when the army did exactly the SAME thing in the Bush years. That time then governor Rick Perry welcomed them.
These people now - they are protesting based on what the candidates actually promised to do. Their fears are legitimate because they didn't get pulled out of Roger Ailes's ass - but out of Trump's own fucking speeches. These people know what those policies would mean for them - and they are protesting in the hope of making it politically impossible for Trump to do those things.
That too - is how democracy works.
5) Nothing so far warrants armed revolt
Which is why there hasn't been any. But if Trump keeps just one of the worst of his promises - that WOULD justify armed revolt. Though, liberals tend to consider violence a last resort - we don't plan on using it as soon as we have an excuse (that's a republican gun nut thing). We'd try to get him impeached first, try to change his mind through protests and marches.
We'll only start using guns when those don't work - but history has it's share of cases where that was exactly what liberals have done. Remember Malcolm X ? The black panthers ?
Don't worry, in a second-worst-case scenario you'll be allowed to show up in Germany and say you're a refugee from America next year and be allowed to stay.
In a worst case scenario there won't be a Germany to show up in, or an America to come from.
Yeah, I have close friends who moved to NZ. The most dangerous creature on the entire island is an irate sheep.
This.
There's a big difference between freaking out over imaginary panic and freaking out over the candidate's actual campaign promises.
Aah, I think I get it now... and of course the long-end result is that there is no crime at all, because there is nothing worth stealing because the second great depression starved us all to death.
So really - economic conservatism is just extreme hippy environmentalism on the installment plan !
>Which was caused by regulation stifling competition and allowing too much power to accumulate in the hands of large companies. That is what regulation is these days - primarily ways to keep smaller companies from competing.
No. No. No. Get it through your thick skulls. When there is massive large-scale fraud it's NEVER caused by too MUCH regulations- it's by defintion proof of too LITTLE regulation. Fraud on a massive scale proves that fraud was more profitable than honest business and unlikely to be prosecuted - and that is too LITTLE regulation.
If you had less, and somehow there was more competition this would have made NO difference ot the outcome, you would just have had a a bunch of small companies ALSO committing large scale fraud.
Competition can do a lot of things - but it can't make people not lie to get rich. The only thing that can do that is the threat of jail. If anything, competition tends to make liars become better liars.
So promise a bunch of things, half of which were happening by themselves, then do nothing but enrich himself and afterwards claim to have kept half his promises and blame congress for not letting him keep the other half.
Sounds about right.
Not being hacked is not an achievement when the REASON you weren't hacked is that you were sponsoring the hackers.
>There are less than 10,000 white supremacists in the US. The actual KKK has about 6000 members. They are a little group of nuts. Fuck off on calling the rest of us white supremacists.
If you walk like a duck, quack like a duck, fly like a duck - you bet your ass I will roast you like a duck.
Aaaw. Like the safe space Trump asked for after poor snowflake Mike Pence got criticised at a show ?
"erode the constitution"
Saying the constitution applies to black people, women, gays, minorities and everybody else and is not the exclusive preserve of white men... does not count as "eroding" anything.
>Donald calls this process "Draining the Swamp".
Oh he's draining that swamp alright, and dumping raw sewage where the swamp used to be.
Not anymore they aren't.
>If renewable energy is cheaper then why would anyone continue to use fossil fuels? Either renewable energy is more expensive or there is some aspect of renewable energy that makes it undesirable. But then whatever undesirable aspect of renewable energy that makes it nonviable is really just a restatement of saying it is too expensive.
Or, most people don't actually CHOOSE what gets used to produce power - governments and corporations decide for millions. ?And they don't have to do it to be dicks - they do it to make money. Those who already spent a lot of money building infrastructure aren't keen on seeing their revenues goes to another product (even though it's cheaper for consumers), so they lobby like hell to keep governments from investing in those newer, better, technologies.
Where people DO get to choose as consumers - they overwhelmingly choose renewables. Home solar is exploding as consumers choose to invest in renewables THEMSELVES rather than pay for fossil fuels. It's SO MUCH cheaper that even without economies of scale individuals can do the solar for themselves cheaper than large scale production can do it for everybody !
Here in South Africa the latest research suggests coal power costs R1.20 per Mw/H (that's without factoring in cost-overruns, construction delays, interest on loans during construction delays, any externalities - in other words it's an absolute best case scenario price)... solar comes in at about 62c per mw/h - half the price - and that's ACTUAL cost since construction is so much simpler that overruns are extremely rare to non-existent. And while bringing a coal plant online is 5 to 7 years in the BEST case scenario and more than 10 in the typical - a solar plant of equivalent capacity is online in two.
We've had them for decades. Trains and trams are the easiest things to do electric and we moved away from coal and diesel on them decades ago exactly because it's cheaper to use electricity.
Conversely, everything seems funny when you have your head up your ass.
Along the way they had a world war... and they didn't have nukes.
If the pattern repeats, do not be so sure it will have the same happy ending.
Of course, one of the main reasons WHY there had been high levels of ice in the antarctic is BECAUSE of the reduced ice in the arctic. The ice-melt makes the oceans fresher and fresher water freeze more easily than salty water.
It's simple mathematics. Anything less than that and the climate effects are drowned out by weather events (the signal to noise ratio is too low). You can go UP from there as far as you want, the patterns remain the same - but it's useful to use the lowest feasible number because it allows us to actually study climate effects in human timescales. If we COULD study it on 3 year basis, we would.