You misunderstand. Rockets will fly, but only those of well-connected, mega-corporations who can surmount the barriers to entry erected by the government on their behalf.
Sorry, you have it wrong. Any "right" that is contingent on forcibly taking from another, is not a right. So you do not have a right to be provided by others for your healthcare. Dignity (whatever that means) does not enter into the equation.
Having said that, applauding death due to inability to afford healthcare is very callous.
Either we (Americans) believe in our core values (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Pledge of Allegiance, due process, etc.) or we do not. Personally, I do, because these values result in desirable outcomes in the long run, even if inconvenient in the short term.
These values apply universally. There are no exemptions for non-US citizens, location outside the US or convenience to US interests.
The chilling effect you describe is intentional, until all business is chilled right out of the USA. At that point we will hear the American war cry "Unfair!"
"Comfort and habits let us be ready to forego, but I am not ready for a creed which does not care how much it destroys the liberty and security of daily life, which uses deliberately the weapons of persecution, destruction and international strife. How can I admire a policy which finds a characteristic expression in spending millions to suborn spies in every family and group at home, and to stir up trouble abroad?"
The statesman article is about convicts in prison, not about suspects in jail - big difference.
Also, so what if you have have stuff in jail? Designating harmless things as contrabrand and then declaring a problem does not wash. A deadly weapon, yes, but then who is going to jaywalk with a revolver up his ass?
Frankly, I suspect that if we decided to get serious about reducing our carbon emissions it would put millions of people to work and provide lots of entrepreneurs / venture capitalists to rake in huge piles of money.
See! You're not getting it either! Where is the peer-reviewed, worldwide scientific consensus that reducing carbon emissions is the best strategy?? There is none, just a knee-jerk statist reaction. Sheesh.
Ok, so which emissions, and how? These are not choices to be made on a whim.
OTOH, there are alternatives to emissions reduction. These issues must be resolved before potentially squandering money for little return.
The Stern review has its problems, but at least it's a start. Much more scientific and economic work must be done. I am just concerned that we are rushing to "solutions" by creating a false sense of urgency.
Europe lost maybe 20 million people or more to the effects of a multi-decade cooling due to lack of sunspots starting in the time of Galileo who discovered the spots.
See! If the Catholic Church had taken care of Galileo properly they would not had this population loss.
Global warming has been studied so carefully, scientifically and so thoroughly by so many, that I don't think that it can be denied. At least in the geological short term. The amount and speed of warming can still be debated.
However, the response to this warming insight seems to be based entirely on emotional, non-scientific and non-economic grounds. The "cure" seems to be mostly based on reversing greenhouse gas emissions, whereas alternatives or simply adapting to changed conditions are dismissed.
The King Canute's should see this as an opportunity, not a threat. Let's see the same intellectual engagement in the response to global warming as there has been to climate change itself.
The species loss you describe may be true, but you have not made a case that this is worse than the benefits from the dam.
Also, if some fish species are lost does not mean that the total fish biomass decreases. On the contrary, the dam creates a larger habitat for the remaining fish, and thus more food. I have seen this myself at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Kariba
50% of protein may come from fish, but how much of this is from the oceans, how much from rivers, how much from dams and lakes?
The point I am trying to make, is that just because you personally do not pay any taxes, or are not burdened by regulations and bureaucracy, does not mean that you should not be concerned about them.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."
Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Slashdot Mirror
You misunderstand. Rockets will fly, but only those of well-connected, mega-corporations who can surmount the barriers to entry erected by the government on their behalf.
FX:
[plane engine starting, a few misfires, backfires. It stalls, followed by lots of bits falling off]
Seagoon:
Well, what shall we build now?
McChisholm:
Ah, M-mister Seagoon! Did you no notice? A moment before it fell to bits, it rose seven feet off the ground!
Seagoon:
Correction, five feet. Two of those feet were mine!
McChisholm:
If, if you ask me, sir, we've invented the hairyplane.
FX:
[phone rings, receiver being picked up]
Seagoon:
Hello?
Grytpype-Thynne:
[speaking over telephone] I hear you've invented the aeroplane.
Seagoon:
Who's this speaking?
Grytpype-Thynne:
The Air Ministry.
The Goon Show
Series 7, Episode 15
First broadcast on January 10, 1957. Script by Spike Milligan and Larry Stephens
Thanks for the greengrocer's apostrophe, cracker!
Sorry, you have it wrong. Any "right" that is contingent on forcibly taking from another, is not a right. So you do not have a right to be provided by others for your healthcare. Dignity (whatever that means) does not enter into the equation.
Having said that, applauding death due to inability to afford healthcare is very callous.
We don't need one.
Either we (Americans) believe in our core values (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Pledge of Allegiance, due process, etc.) or we do not. Personally, I do, because these values result in desirable outcomes in the long run, even if inconvenient in the short term.
These values apply universally. There are no exemptions for non-US citizens, location outside the US or convenience to US interests.
Surely we have learned by now to be very, very skeptical of any claim by a wireless carrier?
At least is seems that some are not parroting what they are told.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/NY-Times-Actually-Bothers-to-Question-Spectrum-Crisis-119397
Bother!
I am going to The Pirate Bay now. If the papers are not there, I shall be sorely disappointed.
Is my data stored in the US?
Does the US government claim to have jurisdiction over my data? (I think I know the answer to this one).
The chilling effect you describe is intentional, until all business is chilled right out of the USA. At that point we will hear the American war cry "Unfair!"
That seems like what is supposed to happen.
Including being led away in handcuffs?
This was his best theory:
"Comfort and habits let us be ready to forego, but I am not ready for a creed which does not care how much it destroys the liberty and security of daily life, which uses deliberately the weapons of persecution, destruction and international strife. How can I admire a policy which finds a characteristic expression in spending millions to suborn spies in every family and group at home, and to stir up trouble abroad?"
(writing about Russia in 1925)
Well played! Kudos.
Agreed - homeopaths are quacks, but there is such a thing as the J-curve.
Here is an interesting example: http://www.radscihealth.org/RSH/Docs/LiuANS_Nov2002.htm
If you haven't heard, smuggling items into prisons is pretty fucking big business. And they get downright creative about it.
The statesman article is about convicts in prison, not about suspects in jail - big difference.
Also, so what if you have have stuff in jail? Designating harmless things as contrabrand and then declaring a problem does not wash. A deadly weapon, yes, but then who is going to jaywalk with a revolver up his ass?
Frankly, I suspect that if we decided to get serious about reducing our carbon emissions it would put millions of people to work and provide lots of entrepreneurs / venture capitalists to rake in huge piles of money.
See! You're not getting it either! Where is the peer-reviewed, worldwide scientific consensus that reducing carbon emissions is the best strategy?? There is none, just a knee-jerk statist reaction. Sheesh.
Ok, so which emissions, and how? These are not choices to be made on a whim.
OTOH, there are alternatives to emissions reduction. These issues must be resolved before potentially squandering money for little return.
The Stern review has its problems, but at least it's a start. Much more scientific and economic work must be done. I am just concerned that we are rushing to "solutions" by creating a false sense of urgency.
Europe lost maybe 20 million people or more to the effects of a multi-decade cooling due to lack of sunspots starting in the time of Galileo who discovered the spots.
See! If the Catholic Church had taken care of Galileo properly they would not had this population loss.
Disclaimer: I am a libertarian.
Global warming has been studied so carefully, scientifically and so thoroughly by so many, that I don't think that it can be denied. At least in the geological short term. The amount and speed of warming can still be debated.
However, the response to this warming insight seems to be based entirely on emotional, non-scientific and non-economic grounds. The "cure" seems to be mostly based on reversing greenhouse gas emissions, whereas alternatives or simply adapting to changed conditions are dismissed.
The King Canute's should see this as an opportunity, not a threat. Let's see the same intellectual engagement in the response to global warming as there has been to climate change itself.
The species loss you describe may be true, but you have not made a case that this is worse than the benefits from the dam.
Also, if some fish species are lost does not mean that the total fish biomass decreases. On the contrary, the dam creates a larger habitat for the remaining fish, and thus more food. I have seen this myself at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Kariba
50% of protein may come from fish, but how much of this is from the oceans, how much from rivers, how much from dams and lakes?
The answer is yes, and the reason is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity to compensate for variable power sources, such as wind and solar.
Personally, I think the environmental problems of dams are overstated, and those of bio, solar, wind are understated.
See http://conesteepark.com/history/a-lake-in-transition for what has happened to a 120-year-old dam in my neighborhood
“The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.” - Sheikh Yamani
Second, are there any negative effects of taking aspirin daily?
http://www.maculardegenerationassociation.org/resources/information.aspx?post=deac32fd-9c23-43de-9916-6b67da8a793d
The point I am trying to make, is that just because you personally do not pay any taxes, or are not burdened by regulations and bureaucracy, does not mean that you should not be concerned about them.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."
Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.