Like your bank, medical, insurance, mortgage, employment, social security, credit card, Facebook, eBay and Amazon records. Put them on a flash drive buried in your back yard and the NSA has no chance. Good luck with that.
Almost beats last weekend's New York Times article: "The federal government created the market in special credits tied to ethanol eight years ago when it required refiners to mix ethanol into gasoline or buy credits from companies that do so. The idea was to push refiners to use the cleaner, renewable fuel, or force them to buy the credits. A few worried that Wall Street would set out to exploit this young market, fears the government dismissed.
Margo T. Oge, who oversaw the creation of the ethanol credit program at the E.P.A., says..."The last thing we wanted in implementing this program is to get price increases for the consumer”.
I am well aware that paper checks are easily traceable. In fact, all transactions are, even cash when it hits the system. I am also aware that my obtuseness is but a pinprick in the hide of mega-corporations.
My aim is just to demonstrate that lack of trust is bad for the system. Maybe if everyone else did the same thing, business would stand up for their paying customers, instead of rolling over for faceless spies.
Terrorist culture-jamming has exceeded all expectations, now it is my turn.
Many companies with which I do business (insurance, bank, utilities, medical, credit card, etc.) asked me to switch to paperless billing and notifications. In the spirit of progress I did so.
But now, with all the government snooping, I am changing back, forcing all these companies to snail mail all their paperwork. And I mail them paper checks. It my small protest against their collusion with the NSA.
If they can assure me that they are not willing to share my data with the government, and that my https interactions are not being hacked, I might relent.
Also, I have noticed that they want to send you all legal communications over the internet, but will not reciprocate and allow you to do the same with them.
I'm sorry, but your reply makes no sense to me. Who is "they" who would be the defacto [sic] government use their intervention to stifle innovation? Corporations? How? If that is what you mean, it is the complete opposite of libertarian policy.
"...the rich have nothing to stop them creating barriers..." How do they create barriers? By government intervention? Again, not libertarian. By other means? Then please provide examples.
You make made a series of statements which are not connected to any logic.
You are letting the perfect drive out the good. Bad things will still happen in a free system, but they will be fewer than in a regulated system. There is a role for governments, to protect common-law rights and enforce contracts, minute regulation is a Fatal Conceit
Show me an example of an evil monopoly or vulture capitalist that has endured without government intervention.
I await your response.
On the other hand, I can show you many examples of unintended consequences that backfired. Dollars to doughnuts that the original legislation mandating dealer car sales was in response to some perceived market malfunction.
If you drill down, you will see that "social sciences" are included, which is what boosts this cluster. Including "social" as a science fails the whole thing. They might as well have included the Dismal Science.
.. as far as the economic analysis? Seriously? We're going to worry about the economic impact of reducing our CO2 emissions...?
Sorry, but yes. It is quite possible that the cure may be worse than the disease. If you feel strongly that something should be done, without weighing the pros and cons carefully, I feel justified in calling you a religious nut.
I'm not saying that reducing emissions should never happen, just that all factors and alternatives should be considered, unintended consequences evaluated.
Hysterical people running around as if the planet is on fire will not make good decisions.
"There is only one reason to consider deploying a scheme with even a tiny chance of causing such a catastrophe: if the risks of not deploying it were clearly higher. "
Why does this caution not apply to policies and regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
You are discussing HOW it should be done, having conveniently decided, without justification, WHAT should be done, i.e. reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Please, first prove that reducing GHG emissions is the best strategy. After that we can discuss how to do so.
Increase taxes on fossil fuel, lower taxes on income, fund basic research and other promising but currently unprofitable research into energy saving and energy production and distribution.
You have unilaterally decided what needs to be done, and want to argue about how it should be done.
Methinks you should first, scientifically, prove that the actions you so blithely assume as a given, have the best outcome.
And before you do that, get unanimous consensus on what "best outcome" means.
Return when you have finished this task I have set you.
Slashdot Mirror
Like your bank, medical, insurance, mortgage, employment, social security, credit card, Facebook, eBay and Amazon records. Put them on a flash drive buried in your back yard and the NSA has no chance. Good luck with that.
1. Who gets to choose the appointee from the applications received?
If anyone inside the current system has a say (and that includes Congress and the President), the selected person will have no credibility.
2. Are background checks and/or security clearances required?
If so, then all credible candidates are probably excluded.
...they are all hooked up to the internet with little thought to security.
Citation and motivation, please.
This capital and wealth that is being hoarded, where is it? Buried in the back yard? Under mattresses?
Are you threatening violence because some people are not spending their money as you would like?
Almost beats last weekend's New York Times article: "The federal government created the market in special credits tied to ethanol eight years ago when it required refiners to mix ethanol into gasoline or buy credits from companies that do so. The idea was to push refiners to use the cleaner, renewable fuel, or force them to buy the credits. A few worried that Wall Street would set out to exploit this young market, fears the government dismissed.
Margo T. Oge, who oversaw the creation of the ethanol credit program at the E.P.A., says..."The last thing we wanted in implementing this program is to get price increases for the consumer”.
I am well aware that paper checks are easily traceable. In fact, all transactions are, even cash when it hits the system. I am also aware that my obtuseness is but a pinprick in the hide of mega-corporations.
My aim is just to demonstrate that lack of trust is bad for the system. Maybe if everyone else did the same thing, business would stand up for their paying customers, instead of rolling over for faceless spies.
Terrorist culture-jamming has exceeded all expectations, now it is my turn.
Many companies with which I do business (insurance, bank, utilities, medical, credit card, etc.) asked me to switch to paperless billing and notifications. In the spirit of progress I did so.
But now, with all the government snooping, I am changing back, forcing all these companies to snail mail all their paperwork. And I mail them paper checks. It my small protest against their collusion with the NSA.
If they can assure me that they are not willing to share my data with the government, and that my https interactions are not being hacked, I might relent.
Also, I have noticed that they want to send you all legal communications over the internet, but will not reciprocate and allow you to do the same with them.
I'm sorry, but your reply makes no sense to me. Who is "they" who would be the defacto [sic] government use their intervention to stifle innovation? Corporations? How? If that is what you mean, it is the complete opposite of libertarian policy.
"...the rich have nothing to stop them creating barriers..." How do they create barriers? By government intervention? Again, not libertarian. By other means? Then please provide examples.
You make made a series of statements which are not connected to any logic.
You are letting the perfect drive out the good. Bad things will still happen in a free system, but they will be fewer than in a regulated system. There is a role for governments, to protect common-law rights and enforce contracts, minute regulation is a Fatal Conceit
Show me an example of an evil monopoly or vulture capitalist that has endured without government intervention.
I await your response.
On the other hand, I can show you many examples of unintended consequences that backfired. Dollars to doughnuts that the original legislation mandating dealer car sales was in response to some perceived market malfunction.
What regulators do, is get captured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
The default status should be that you pay no taxes. It is up to the government to prove that you should pay.
DC, Maryland, and Virginia are a leading cluster.
If you drill down, you will see that "social sciences" are included, which is what boosts this cluster. Including "social" as a science fails the whole thing. They might as well have included the Dismal Science.
DNFTT
This is how social security numbers started.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/restore-united-states%E2%80%99-human-rights-record-and-grant-clemency-pvt-bradley-manning/L7zHZv4r
Mod informative.
Dear Comcast, we were never confused.
This should be mandatory reading to pass high school: http://perc.org/articles/eight-great-myths-recycling-no-28
.. as far as the economic analysis? Seriously? We're going to worry about the economic impact of reducing our CO2 emissions...?
Sorry, but yes. It is quite possible that the cure may be worse than the disease. If you feel strongly that something should be done, without weighing the pros and cons carefully, I feel justified in calling you a religious nut.
I'm not saying that reducing emissions should never happen, just that all factors and alternatives should be considered, unintended consequences evaluated.
Hysterical people running around as if the planet is on fire will not make good decisions.
"There is only one reason to consider deploying a scheme with even a tiny chance of causing such a catastrophe: if the risks of not deploying it were clearly higher. "
Why does this caution not apply to policies and regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
T...we want to make a significant dent in AGW before it's too late.
Where is your scientific and economic proof that this is the appropriate response?
You are discussing HOW it should be done, having conveniently decided, without justification, WHAT should be done, i.e. reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Please, first prove that reducing GHG emissions is the best strategy. After that we can discuss how to do so.
Increase taxes on fossil fuel, lower taxes on income, fund basic research and other promising but currently unprofitable research into energy saving and energy production and distribution.
You have unilaterally decided what needs to be done, and want to argue about how it should be done.
Methinks you should first, scientifically, prove that the actions you so blithely assume as a given, have the best outcome.
And before you do that, get unanimous consensus on what "best outcome" means.
Return when you have finished this task I have set you.
I wish that a similar amount of scientific effort would go into deciding what (if anything) to do about it.
Instead there is a rush to reduce greenhouse gases, without any scientific or economic analysis to ascertain whether this is the optimal response.