I guess that you fail to consider that the "shitload" of CO2 (from all sources, including man-made) account for a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So if 0.5% constitutes a "shitload", what would you call the other 99.5%?
And since you brought up observations of Mars and Venus, perhaps you can explain how the recent warming trend has also been detected on Mars? That would lead the cause of warming to be something the planets have in common - the Sun. Empirical measurements show solar output higher, so wouldn't you think that the most likely explanation would be the most logical one, rather than simple-minded "explanations" of processes that we don't nearly understand?
The current GW argument is now framed as an impossibly illogical syllogism. First they accused those with evidence against the claimed warming trend to be flat-earthers. But now that undeniable evidence shows the cracks in their warming theory, they rephrase their position as "climate change", but they do not change their conclusions. They still require massive programs to further control, tax and regulate virtually every activity.
So now they equate any climate change at all as "proof" of their models and their theories. Nobody denies that the climate changes, in ways both known and unknown, but that in no way implies that their interpretation of these changes supports their theory of anthropogenic global warming and its theoretical effects. So they have cleverly posed an irrefutable argument: Believe in "climate change" - yes or no. Neither "yes" as they interpret it is true nor is "no".
When a government job is created, it is not stimulative. It is a transfer from taxpayers to another taxpayer, and since government activity is never 100% efficient, there are significant losses. A direct transfer payment (without government meddling) would AT LEAST be 100% efficient.
Not that it makes the plan a good idea. In order for any "stimulus" to work, it must generate more jobs or economic activity than it costs. There is very, very little in this package that does this.
It's actually quite easy to spend $800b, just don't let the government do it. If you must "stimulate", just send a check to the people that you are taking the money from in the first place. That would be almost $3000 apiece for every man, woman and child in the USA.
OK, but wouldn't Amazon also be a party that is misleading the people? They want the benefit of providing "user" reviews for their potential customers, but they don't vet the reviewers.
Yes, and the figures popularized by the government agencies would have created an unstable device. Gee, what a shame if someone trying to build a real one should find themselves blown to bits.
Facts are correct but your conclusions are backwards. We could have kept up those incendiary bombing raids until Japan was turned into a cinder. The Tokyo bombings did NOT break their spirit, and that's why the nukes were brought in. The cost of developing those two bombs greatly exceeded the cost of a few bomber missions, and we would have been hard pressed to deploy many more nukes than the two that were already employed.
You poor pathetic product of revisionist history.
1) Citation? Some projections were made by people that had no knowledge of the nuke project.
2) America soldiers had first-hand experience that Japanese solders were fanatical killing machines, resorting to suicidal raids, and outright suicide or execution of their own soldiers and civilians. Read.
3) Japan ultimately surrendered without conditions. There was a capitulation treaty that was unacceptable to both parties. And the ultimate proof is this: Nagasaki. Even after Hiroshima, Japan refused to surrender.
4) If you mean by "successful" that it killed a lot of people, I guess you are right. However, the firebombing did little to end the war. Keep in mind that in one night, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more than 100,000 people - more than were killed directly in BOTH atomic bomb attacks. If that's not proof that the atom bomb was the instrument that ended the war, you are an ill-educated idiot.
5) These "cowards" walked willingly into the European front and stood with the bravest in defeating an enemy that was truly immoral. Ever hear of concentration camps, imbecile? And the Pacific campaign was considered a desperate mission likely to fail. That is why the west coast of the USA was preparing for a Japanese invasion. To imply that any of these brave soldiers had a shred of cowardice proves you a pathetic troll or a brainwashed monkey.
The Star Trek approach was possible because the answers were clear and unambiguous. Slavery bad. Prejudice bad. Aggression bad. The questions posed by BSG are much less clear-cut. When does hating your enemy cross the line into racism, abuse or prejudice? When is killing really murdering? What is the balance between struggling to survive vs. human rights and freedoms? Not easy questions.
If you want to stop all the subsidies, are you also as willing to stop all of the regulations that the auto industry is subject to? From the beginning, cars were subject to the whims of the government. Early laws required that a man waving a flag walk in front of every car in order to warn pedestrians and horse-drawn carriages. Since then, the regulations may not be as silly, but they are much more numerous. All of that affects the free-market aspects of the industry, and the net effect is absolutely not in their favor.
The road system benefits the people that use them, and surely you would prefer to travel on a 6 lane highway than a rutted dirt road. To say this was done for the benefit of the car makers is ridiculous.
The problems with public transportation are not just technical. There are stereotypes that need to be overcome. In many areas of California, the public transportation system is most useful to the poor who cannot afford even an inexpensive automobile. Just as paying for groceries with food stamps stigmatizes the shopper, riding a means of transportation catering to the poor, and assorted misfits is not something easily accepted. Just making the service better will help, but it won't solve the perception problem.
I hate to burst your bubble about public transportation, but it's not all it's cracked up to be WRT pollution and energy savings. New York City is a nearly-ideal setup for public transportation - dense population, extensive rail and bus systems already in place, overtaxed road system, public acceptance, heavy subsidies. Yet according to the MTA, the NYC public transit system uses more energy per commuter mile than the US average for automobiles. MORE. That's not to say that if all those bus and rail commuters drove instead that there would be net savings (New York being New York), but the slam dunk argument that public transportation systems are the magic solution is incorrect. Also most public transportation gets its energy from coal-fired electricity plants and diesel-powered buses. Many "clean" or "green" public transportation programs are feel-good public relations campaigns more that pollution or energy savers.
Really bad logic and facts, there. You don't buy a new car with the intent of getting the car for free via fuel savings. You buy a car for transportation, and there is value in that benefit. Your "break even" point is imaginary. Cars don't last forever, and people pay for the depreciation of the car until it is used up and junked. If you can save some of your operating expenses over timee by swapping for a smaller or more efficient vehicle, that simply reduces your expenses. The cost of the vehicle itself does not correlate with fuel efficiency.
Next, you can't whine about "saving energy" by not purchasing consumer products on one hand, and then complain about failing industry on the other. Mindless consumerism is wasteful, but curtailing purchases for no good reason can lead to economic depression.
And yes OF COURSE it's a hand-out to the auto companies. But as long as the government hand-outs are being made, at least this one offers a concrete benefit to the public. Compared to the other bail-out programs, this one at least makes some sense.
Many fuel efficient cars are not sold here because they run on DIESEL FUEL. But taxes on diesel fuel in the USA make those vehicles even more expensive than a gas equivalent. For this, blame the federal and state governments for tacking on enough taxes to make diesel fuel cost $1 or more per gallon than gasoline. This renders these vehicles uneconomical to run in the USA.
And the tiny metro cars (e.g. Smart Cars) have no problem with crash tests. The vans and trucks outside the USA are just as heavy as they are here, so the risk of being crushed by a "super-heavy" vehicle is the same. The difference is that the USA has more stringent safety standards - again, it's the government rules and regulations that frame the problem.
Please cite a state where people "technically" should have a commercial license for driving a big car. You may think that they "SHOULD" require different licensing than a hatchback, but I don't think there's much logic behind that, other than to somehow penalize drivers of cars that you don't like.
Yeah, I got two license keys as well. Three actually. The first was using Firefox. The page with the key and the download button came right up, but the download buttons did nothing. Microsoft deprecating Firefox? Impossible!
So repeat the process with IE and again no problem getting a key. But when I hit the download button not only did it start the process, it refreshed the page with a different key. Still don't know if either or both are valid.
"Carbon Neutrality" is not an inexact science. The amount of carbon offsets to be purchased is the amount needed for the PR department to declare the company as "carbon neutral".
Eisenhower intentionally forced the military to stand down from launching an orbiting satellite, ostensibly to promote the USA as using space only for "peaceful" purposes. But his real worry was that Russia would object to an orbiting military satellite from the USA, and take such an action as a provocation to the escalating arms race. By permitting Russia to launch Sputnik first, this left the USA free to launch its own satellite, and it short-circuited any claim that Russia would have had about trespassing.
The USA had an orbit-ready satellite literally hidden in a closet, but Presidential orders forbade them from attempting a launch. The civil space program (nee NASA) were years behind the military programs, but for public relations purposes, the President wanted the USA's satellite launched with its scientific payload as part of the International Geophysical Year program, showcasing American advances in science.
But the poor performance of the civil space program caused much embarrassment to the USA until Kennedy killed two birds with one stone. With his "we will go to the moon" mandate came massive funds and other resources for the civil program, and, turning Eisenhower's goal on its ear, the "space race" accelerated the arms race tremendously.
I had a Panasonic key system and my employee left some default passwords in place. It was hacked to route incoming calls to a new outgoing line, and $14,000 worth of calls were made to Indonesia. It took many discussions with Verizon, threats back and forth, and some letters to the FCC to get Verizon to drop the charges.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess that you fail to consider that the "shitload" of CO2 (from all sources, including man-made) account for a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So if 0.5% constitutes a "shitload", what would you call the other 99.5%?
And since you brought up observations of Mars and Venus, perhaps you can explain how the recent warming trend has also been detected on Mars? That would lead the cause of warming to be something the planets have in common - the Sun. Empirical measurements show solar output higher, so wouldn't you think that the most likely explanation would be the most logical one, rather than simple-minded "explanations" of processes that we don't nearly understand?
The current GW argument is now framed as an impossibly illogical syllogism. First they accused those with evidence against the claimed warming trend to be flat-earthers. But now that undeniable evidence shows the cracks in their warming theory, they rephrase their position as "climate change", but they do not change their conclusions. They still require massive programs to further control, tax and regulate virtually every activity.
So now they equate any climate change at all as "proof" of their models and their theories. Nobody denies that the climate changes, in ways both known and unknown, but that in no way implies that their interpretation of these changes supports their theory of anthropogenic global warming and its theoretical effects. So they have cleverly posed an irrefutable argument: Believe in "climate change" - yes or no. Neither "yes" as they interpret it is true nor is "no".
When a government job is created, it is not stimulative. It is a transfer from taxpayers to another taxpayer, and since government activity is never 100% efficient, there are significant losses. A direct transfer payment (without government meddling) would AT LEAST be 100% efficient.
Not that it makes the plan a good idea. In order for any "stimulus" to work, it must generate more jobs or economic activity than it costs. There is very, very little in this package that does this.
I guess you haven't read the current legislation...
It's actually quite easy to spend $800b, just don't let the government do it. If you must "stimulate", just send a check to the people that you are taking the money from in the first place. That would be almost $3000 apiece for every man, woman and child in the USA.
Shoulda told that to the people that made The Preacher's Wife with Denzel Washington, or the latest Honeymooners remake.
OK, but wouldn't Amazon also be a party that is misleading the people? They want the benefit of providing "user" reviews for their potential customers, but they don't vet the reviewers.
Who cares? Nothing made by Bose is any good anyway.
Yes, and the figures popularized by the government agencies would have created an unstable device. Gee, what a shame if someone trying to build a real one should find themselves blown to bits.
Sure there is. All you need is an RC car and a plastic bottle filled with green shampoo.
1.21 gigawatts?
Yeah, on eBay for less than $40. Half the cost of the controller alone in the "geek" version from TFA.
Facts are correct but your conclusions are backwards. We could have kept up those incendiary bombing raids until Japan was turned into a cinder. The Tokyo bombings did NOT break their spirit, and that's why the nukes were brought in. The cost of developing those two bombs greatly exceeded the cost of a few bomber missions, and we would have been hard pressed to deploy many more nukes than the two that were already employed.
You poor pathetic product of revisionist history. 1) Citation? Some projections were made by people that had no knowledge of the nuke project.
2) America soldiers had first-hand experience that Japanese solders were fanatical killing machines, resorting to suicidal raids, and outright suicide or execution of their own soldiers and civilians. Read.
3) Japan ultimately surrendered without conditions. There was a capitulation treaty that was unacceptable to both parties. And the ultimate proof is this: Nagasaki. Even after Hiroshima, Japan refused to surrender.
4) If you mean by "successful" that it killed a lot of people, I guess you are right. However, the firebombing did little to end the war. Keep in mind that in one night, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more than 100,000 people - more than were killed directly in BOTH atomic bomb attacks. If that's not proof that the atom bomb was the instrument that ended the war, you are an ill-educated idiot.
5) These "cowards" walked willingly into the European front and stood with the bravest in defeating an enemy that was truly immoral. Ever hear of concentration camps, imbecile? And the Pacific campaign was considered a desperate mission likely to fail. That is why the west coast of the USA was preparing for a Japanese invasion. To imply that any of these brave soldiers had a shred of cowardice proves you a pathetic troll or a brainwashed monkey.
The Star Trek approach was possible because the answers were clear and unambiguous. Slavery bad. Prejudice bad. Aggression bad. The questions posed by BSG are much less clear-cut. When does hating your enemy cross the line into racism, abuse or prejudice? When is killing really murdering? What is the balance between struggling to survive vs. human rights and freedoms? Not easy questions.
If you want to stop all the subsidies, are you also as willing to stop all of the regulations that the auto industry is subject to? From the beginning, cars were subject to the whims of the government. Early laws required that a man waving a flag walk in front of every car in order to warn pedestrians and horse-drawn carriages. Since then, the regulations may not be as silly, but they are much more numerous. All of that affects the free-market aspects of the industry, and the net effect is absolutely not in their favor.
The road system benefits the people that use them, and surely you would prefer to travel on a 6 lane highway than a rutted dirt road. To say this was done for the benefit of the car makers is ridiculous.
The problems with public transportation are not just technical. There are stereotypes that need to be overcome. In many areas of California, the public transportation system is most useful to the poor who cannot afford even an inexpensive automobile. Just as paying for groceries with food stamps stigmatizes the shopper, riding a means of transportation catering to the poor, and assorted misfits is not something easily accepted. Just making the service better will help, but it won't solve the perception problem.
I hate to burst your bubble about public transportation, but it's not all it's cracked up to be WRT pollution and energy savings. New York City is a nearly-ideal setup for public transportation - dense population, extensive rail and bus systems already in place, overtaxed road system, public acceptance, heavy subsidies. Yet according to the MTA, the NYC public transit system uses more energy per commuter mile than the US average for automobiles. MORE. That's not to say that if all those bus and rail commuters drove instead that there would be net savings (New York being New York), but the slam dunk argument that public transportation systems are the magic solution is incorrect. Also most public transportation gets its energy from coal-fired electricity plants and diesel-powered buses. Many "clean" or "green" public transportation programs are feel-good public relations campaigns more that pollution or energy savers.
Really bad logic and facts, there. You don't buy a new car with the intent of getting the car for free via fuel savings. You buy a car for transportation, and there is value in that benefit. Your "break even" point is imaginary. Cars don't last forever, and people pay for the depreciation of the car until it is used up and junked. If you can save some of your operating expenses over timee by swapping for a smaller or more efficient vehicle, that simply reduces your expenses. The cost of the vehicle itself does not correlate with fuel efficiency.
Next, you can't whine about "saving energy" by not purchasing consumer products on one hand, and then complain about failing industry on the other. Mindless consumerism is wasteful, but curtailing purchases for no good reason can lead to economic depression.
And yes OF COURSE it's a hand-out to the auto companies. But as long as the government hand-outs are being made, at least this one offers a concrete benefit to the public. Compared to the other bail-out programs, this one at least makes some sense.
Many fuel efficient cars are not sold here because they run on DIESEL FUEL. But taxes on diesel fuel in the USA make those vehicles even more expensive than a gas equivalent. For this, blame the federal and state governments for tacking on enough taxes to make diesel fuel cost $1 or more per gallon than gasoline. This renders these vehicles uneconomical to run in the USA.
And the tiny metro cars (e.g. Smart Cars) have no problem with crash tests. The vans and trucks outside the USA are just as heavy as they are here, so the risk of being crushed by a "super-heavy" vehicle is the same. The difference is that the USA has more stringent safety standards - again, it's the government rules and regulations that frame the problem.
Please cite a state where people "technically" should have a commercial license for driving a big car. You may think that they "SHOULD" require different licensing than a hatchback, but I don't think there's much logic behind that, other than to somehow penalize drivers of cars that you don't like.
Looks to me more like the ship in George Pal's "When Worlds Collide": http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3091372032/tt0044207
Yeah, I got two license keys as well. Three actually. The first was using Firefox. The page with the key and the download button came right up, but the download buttons did nothing. Microsoft deprecating Firefox? Impossible!
So repeat the process with IE and again no problem getting a key. But when I hit the download button not only did it start the process, it refreshed the page with a different key. Still don't know if either or both are valid.
"Carbon Neutrality" is not an inexact science. The amount of carbon offsets to be purchased is the amount needed for the PR department to declare the company as "carbon neutral".
Eisenhower intentionally forced the military to stand down from launching an orbiting satellite, ostensibly to promote the USA as using space only for "peaceful" purposes. But his real worry was that Russia would object to an orbiting military satellite from the USA, and take such an action as a provocation to the escalating arms race. By permitting Russia to launch Sputnik first, this left the USA free to launch its own satellite, and it short-circuited any claim that Russia would have had about trespassing.
The USA had an orbit-ready satellite literally hidden in a closet, but Presidential orders forbade them from attempting a launch. The civil space program (nee NASA) were years behind the military programs, but for public relations purposes, the President wanted the USA's satellite launched with its scientific payload as part of the International Geophysical Year program, showcasing American advances in science.
But the poor performance of the civil space program caused much embarrassment to the USA until Kennedy killed two birds with one stone. With his "we will go to the moon" mandate came massive funds and other resources for the civil program, and, turning Eisenhower's goal on its ear, the "space race" accelerated the arms race tremendously.
Just my .02 cents.
I had a Panasonic key system and my employee left some default passwords in place. It was hacked to route incoming calls to a new outgoing line, and $14,000 worth of calls were made to Indonesia. It took many discussions with Verizon, threats back and forth, and some letters to the FCC to get Verizon to drop the charges.