(1) The Obama decision was made with input from (and the endorsement of) car manufacturers.
Rather disingenuous thing to say. At the time the "endorsement" happened, the Obama administration owned two of the big three, or was just finishing off selling their last shares, if memory serves. It's hard to call that an independent endorsement when the fate of the company was very clearly being menaced by the government.
(2) Long term plans and regulations, as a matter of both law and public policy, are not subject to the chief executive's whims. This makes sense, because how would business proceed if regulations were substantially overhauled every 4 years?
1. Sorry, no. Elections have consequences. The Constitutional mechanisms allow the House to turn over entirely and 1/3 or the Senate to turn over every 2 years.
That's the check on whims. If anything, this is an argument for Congress delegating fewer powers to regulatory agencies that aren't accountable to voters.
2. That's also an argument for fewer regulations so that elections cause fewer disruptions
California politicians are responsible for turning a prosperous equitable place into the state with the nation's largest homeless rate, the nation's craiziest housing prices, and the nation's most insane building codes. Remember the good old-fashioned screw-in light bulb? They made them illegal, no matter what the technology of the bulb.
As for Tesla...it's easy to get 0 gallons per mile when you don't make any cars. They've been in business for the better part of a decade and they have made fewer cars total than Ford, GM, Toyota, or VW sell in one year. Actually strike that...fewer cars than the big boys sell one type of in a given year. Because it's fantasy, not technology. Take away the government subsidies for Richie Rich to buy them and they'll probably be down to zero in short order.
The last election's consequence is a return to normal policy with input from all stakeholders, including manufacturers. This is contrasted with policy dictated by zealots and academics with no skin in the game.
If any research like that occurs at universities at all, it's out in the open. The national security value-added of slapping an ITAR restriction on a piece of equipment or on a research topic is questionable if you're generating publications on it or letting people access it with only a warning not to let foreign nationals handle it while securing it with nothing more than a locked cabinet. And the kicker is there's nothing that stops the Chinese from going to school in another western country without such restrictive conditions on the very same equipment or research topics you're locking away here.
That's not the question. The question is whether you want it happening in Lake Michigan or some body of water whose name you can't pronounce in mainland China or some third-world country. If you want your gizmos, it'll happen somewhere. The only question is who gets the income from making it.
And how many people will fit in there? How much cargo volume? Is it a small number that you make up for with speed so you can make multiple trips in the time it would take a big American gas-guzzler to make one?
all because of those evil Republicans? Puh-lease. 50mpg is not a realistic number for fuel consumption on anything you'd be willing to buy. Hell, you'd just about need to replace all cars with motorcycles for 50mpg to be fleet average. It's a number Obama's people pulled out of their asses so they could slowly kill personal car ownership and pack everyone nose-to-tail into cities.
Explain to the class how you think it is that a minimum wage drone on the other side of the planet is going to fix your sink when the faucet starts leaking, or how an "AI robot" is going to build forms for the concrete staircase you want built on your back porch?
"Many Amazon Warehouse Workers are on Food Stamps"
Now why is that? Why is it that Amazon can pay such low wages and still get people to work for them? Is it because they know that Government will subsidize their workers for them, so they can pay them shit? Bingo!
Get rid of the food stamps, suddenly Amazon and everyone else has to pay more to get workers.
And the moment Ms. SJW fires or fails to promote a heterosexual white man with a penis, there will be no way to prove ze didn't do it out of spite for heterosexual white men with penises. And plenty or reasons to suspect ze did.
Grow the fuck up. There are no religious tests for government offices in this country. That cuts both ways, as it's meant to.
The myth of the free and open internet got the last nail in its coffin, in part because of Cloudflare deciding whose traffic they were and were not going to carry. It was fun while it lasted, but c'est la vie.
It's not weird. It's intentional. The intent is to require broad geographic as well as popular consensus to pass laws that apply to the entire country, thereby protecting minority rights from the tyranny of a 50%+1 majority concentrated in any one place.
Yes and no. Yes in that the poles aren't "dumping" any more heat than they normally would be. They're just being heated by convection less and reflecting sunlight a little more. No in that if the heat stays at the equator, it'll radiate out to space faster. Remember: radiated power goes like T^4, but temperature drop is roughly linear with energy lost, meaning that the poles get colder at the expense of equatorial regions getting warmer, but the global average temperature doesn't increase and with more reflective poles will eventually decrease. Then the polar caps refreeze, the currents pick up and the whole thing starts over.
That's one of them-there feedback mechanisms that cools the poles in the event they get too hot. I recall hearing about it twenty years ago, in the context of "No, the world won't end because of global warming, the planet has feedback mechanisms to dump excess heat. That's how it's still nice and comfy here after billions of years."
You mean "people saying things I don't like" but on the telephone?
Looks like we've found this month's troll farm directives. Last month it was guns. But too many people were making too many cogent counter-arguments on too many platforms, so this month the orders from on high are to label all communication media as avenues for "hate speech."
Well that's my point...social media platforms and web hosting services sure do act like public accommodations and hide behind the user content shield of the DMCA.
"I believe God made man and woman to be with each other" is not hate, it is religion. If you interpret that as hate, that's in your head.
"I don't believe in making women cover themselves in sheets or requiring them to have male escorts" is the opposite of hate.
The list goes on. If you feel hate where none exists, that's all on you. I am not responsible for navigating around the minefield of other people's mental states.
And regardless...people are entitled to their opinions. No one gets to reach into their heads and deem thoughts "hateful" or "criminal" based on nothing besides their own opinion.
If someone doesn't want to let gays onto their private property while inviting all others, it's a crime. If someone doesn't want to let blacks onto their private property while inviting all others, it's a crime. But if someone doesn't want to let Republicans onto their property while inviting all others...it's not a crime but if the entrance has a big fat sign that says 'ALL ARE WELCOME' but have secret police roaming around inside to boot out undesirables then it's a violation of their terms of service. And if the terms of service say in fine print that 'ALL' doesn't include Republicans, it's still legal but it's a shitty thing to do and they should be shamed for not respecting the cultural value of freedom of speech.
Here they get to hide behind "hate speech" which is an invented concept. It doesn't meet the "fist/nose" test, the "crowded theatre" test or anything else. It's just "I don't like you therefore you don't get a platform" which while all nice and legal is still shameful.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm fired up about California mandating that everyone replace not only their light bulbs but also their lighting fixtures.
(1) The Obama decision was made with input from (and the endorsement of) car manufacturers.
Rather disingenuous thing to say. At the time the "endorsement" happened, the Obama administration owned two of the big three, or was just finishing off selling their last shares, if memory serves. It's hard to call that an independent endorsement when the fate of the company was very clearly being menaced by the government.
(2) Long term plans and regulations, as a matter of both law and public policy, are not subject to the chief executive's whims. This makes sense, because how would business proceed if regulations were substantially overhauled every 4 years?
1. Sorry, no. Elections have consequences. The Constitutional mechanisms allow the House to turn over entirely and 1/3 or the Senate to turn over every 2 years. That's the check on whims. If anything, this is an argument for Congress delegating fewer powers to regulatory agencies that aren't accountable to voters.
2. That's also an argument for fewer regulations so that elections cause fewer disruptions
California politicians are responsible for turning a prosperous equitable place into the state with the nation's largest homeless rate, the nation's craiziest housing prices, and the nation's most insane building codes. Remember the good old-fashioned screw-in light bulb? They made them illegal, no matter what the technology of the bulb.
As for Tesla...it's easy to get 0 gallons per mile when you don't make any cars. They've been in business for the better part of a decade and they have made fewer cars total than Ford, GM, Toyota, or VW sell in one year. Actually strike that...fewer cars than the big boys sell one type of in a given year. Because it's fantasy, not technology. Take away the government subsidies for Richie Rich to buy them and they'll probably be down to zero in short order.
The last election's consequence is a return to normal policy with input from all stakeholders, including manufacturers. This is contrasted with policy dictated by zealots and academics with no skin in the game.
If any research like that occurs at universities at all, it's out in the open. The national security value-added of slapping an ITAR restriction on a piece of equipment or on a research topic is questionable if you're generating publications on it or letting people access it with only a warning not to let foreign nationals handle it while securing it with nothing more than a locked cabinet. And the kicker is there's nothing that stops the Chinese from going to school in another western country without such restrictive conditions on the very same equipment or research topics you're locking away here.
That's not the question. The question is whether you want it happening in Lake Michigan or some body of water whose name you can't pronounce in mainland China or some third-world country. If you want your gizmos, it'll happen somewhere. The only question is who gets the income from making it.
Some people believe their own propaganda too much for their own good. We're not all gonna die.
And how many people will fit in there? How much cargo volume? Is it a small number that you make up for with speed so you can make multiple trips in the time it would take a big American gas-guzzler to make one?
all because of those evil Republicans? Puh-lease. 50mpg is not a realistic number for fuel consumption on anything you'd be willing to buy. Hell, you'd just about need to replace all cars with motorcycles for 50mpg to be fleet average. It's a number Obama's people pulled out of their asses so they could slowly kill personal car ownership and pack everyone nose-to-tail into cities.
"Elections have consequences" is not an attempt at compromise, nor is it a negotiating tactic if the strategy is to not negotiate.
Knowing the Nobel committee, they'll give it to the Dear Leader for having his mountain collap--I mean having the courage to move mountains for peace.
Explain to the class how you think it is that a minimum wage drone on the other side of the planet is going to fix your sink when the faucet starts leaking, or how an "AI robot" is going to build forms for the concrete staircase you want built on your back porch?
America needs less social engineering, not more of it. And we certainly don't need to export it.
A scam to pay for a lie? Sounds legit.
"Many Amazon Warehouse Workers are on Food Stamps"
Now why is that? Why is it that Amazon can pay such low wages and still get people to work for them? Is it because they know that Government will subsidize their workers for them, so they can pay them shit? Bingo!
Get rid of the food stamps, suddenly Amazon and everyone else has to pay more to get workers.
Lyft now admits how much it overcharges their customers.
And the moment Ms. SJW fires or fails to promote a heterosexual white man with a penis, there will be no way to prove ze didn't do it out of spite for heterosexual white men with penises. And plenty or reasons to suspect ze did.
Grow the fuck up. There are no religious tests for government offices in this country. That cuts both ways, as it's meant to.
The myth of the free and open internet got the last nail in its coffin, in part because of Cloudflare deciding whose traffic they were and were not going to carry. It was fun while it lasted, but c'est la vie.
It's not weird. It's intentional. The intent is to require broad geographic as well as popular consensus to pass laws that apply to the entire country, thereby protecting minority rights from the tyranny of a 50%+1 majority concentrated in any one place.
Yes and no. Yes in that the poles aren't "dumping" any more heat than they normally would be. They're just being heated by convection less and reflecting sunlight a little more. No in that if the heat stays at the equator, it'll radiate out to space faster. Remember: radiated power goes like T^4, but temperature drop is roughly linear with energy lost, meaning that the poles get colder at the expense of equatorial regions getting warmer, but the global average temperature doesn't increase and with more reflective poles will eventually decrease. Then the polar caps refreeze, the currents pick up and the whole thing starts over.
That's one of them-there feedback mechanisms that cools the poles in the event they get too hot. I recall hearing about it twenty years ago, in the context of "No, the world won't end because of global warming, the planet has feedback mechanisms to dump excess heat. That's how it's still nice and comfy here after billions of years."
You mean "people saying things I don't like" but on the telephone?
Looks like we've found this month's troll farm directives. Last month it was guns. But too many people were making too many cogent counter-arguments on too many platforms, so this month the orders from on high are to label all communication media as avenues for "hate speech."
Well that's my point...social media platforms and web hosting services sure do act like public accommodations and hide behind the user content shield of the DMCA.
False.
"I believe God made man and woman to be with each other" is not hate, it is religion. If you interpret that as hate, that's in your head.
"I don't believe in making women cover themselves in sheets or requiring them to have male escorts" is the opposite of hate.
The list goes on. If you feel hate where none exists, that's all on you. I am not responsible for navigating around the minefield of other people's mental states.
And regardless...people are entitled to their opinions. No one gets to reach into their heads and deem thoughts "hateful" or "criminal" based on nothing besides their own opinion.
If someone doesn't want to let gays onto their private property while inviting all others, it's a crime. If someone doesn't want to let blacks onto their private property while inviting all others, it's a crime. But if someone doesn't want to let Republicans onto their property while inviting all others...it's not a crime but if the entrance has a big fat sign that says 'ALL ARE WELCOME' but have secret police roaming around inside to boot out undesirables then it's a violation of their terms of service. And if the terms of service say in fine print that 'ALL' doesn't include Republicans, it's still legal but it's a shitty thing to do and they should be shamed for not respecting the cultural value of freedom of speech.
Here they get to hide behind "hate speech" which is an invented concept. It doesn't meet the "fist/nose" test, the "crowded theatre" test or anything else. It's just "I don't like you therefore you don't get a platform" which while all nice and legal is still shameful.