wrong. We pay taxes for corn subsidies to maintain a stable food supply. The US used to just buy excess corn and store it. It turns out paying subsidies have the same effect, but are cheaper the warehousing silos of rotting corn.
"would charge higher rates for people who smoke" sometime they do, but more often that cost is spread across all customers to have a competitive market. who you want to talk to is actuaries. All of them cna show smoker health issues.
"Problem solved." Except the people most at risk for smoking and eating poorly are the pour.
Having areas that don't have health care become incubators for disease.
" fund their unaffordable health care costs." of course, this has nothing to do with that, but go ahead an let you ignorance be the driver for you emotional piss ass decisions.
They health care program pays for it's self. Read that damn thing. If it's 'too long' for you then either you are illiterate or don't actually care about the issue. In either case, shut the fuck up.
In most cases, making things illegal won't work, as seen with the current dope traffic." define work.
Fewer people drank during prohibition..as a side note, domestic crime was reduced to just about 0 during the prohibition. All crime not involved with liquor went down.
So if you're goal was to reduce crime overall, prohibition worked.
If you define work as 'fewer people using it' then, yes prohibition works.
If by work you mean no one will do it again, ever. then no.
"Taxing soda won't do anything but hand over more money to the government. It won't stop a thing and people know it. " Since all other evidence points to taxing items does lead to fewer people using it.
The government has constantly worked to try and reduce smoking. TO say otherwise is, at best, willful ignorance.
subsidies are there to maintain a stable food market...and it works. Soda are marginally cheaper because of it. Less then a penny a liter.
"Don't even get me started on how US corn subsidies and NAFTA have destroyed Mexico's farming and forced millions to turn to other crops like drugs." Since it isn't true, there is nothing to start.
"because ten minutes from now they'll switch to cheap artificially sweetened drinks that are cancerous." please name a study that actual shows they are cancerous.
UP to 2.7 billion. But. lets say you're satellite you are launching hits the Space station. Bam, more then 2.7B right there. Hits another satellite and cause substantial debris. Many things.
Climate models are accurate. But you don't understand how models work. Can new data change a current view? yes. Does that mean all views are wrong? no.
The climate model is working pretty well.
And large blooms mean the situation is worse, not better. There is a lot we don't know about gravity, does that mean we should throw out the current model of gravity? A lot is unknown about germs, does this mean we throw out are model of germ theory?
" So let's implement sweeping policy changes and apply engineering measures to control the atmosphere, the water, the land." That's a extreme view sold by the jackasses at fox. we want a policy so future decision can be made with it in mind.
If you can converted back into a liquid, you can get it out of the air*. While technically in the environment, being buried thousand of feet underground is a lot better then floating around in the air.
*no, not all of it. Get back down to a reasonable level.
I have never seen a knowledgeable critique of global warming on/.
I've seem people spout ignorance, use logical fallacies, repeat lies, but never a scientifically valid critique. There have been several in mainstream science, but they where looked at and proven not to actually be valid when compared with the data. That's science.
On/.? it's just republican rhetoric repeated with worse spelling.
A good american don't take none of the gay english crap. You start teaching homophones in the class room, next thing you know they'll be wanting to destroy me way of speeking proper American.
Sorry, I just had to listen to some southern hayseed talk about his the 'gays and what not' in Oregon will destroy his 'proper' marriage in Texas.
huh, I just talk to the manager and they take care of me in no time. But, hay making up stories about carrying contract law in your pocket and making videos is fine to.
no, it's far more complex then that. I that it involves emotional manipulation, and a spend it society. Untrained humans are naturally horrible at long term thinking. People with high dopamine are especially vulnerably to this, or anything that has a quick and now feeling to the payout.. It's actually quite fascinating neurology.
Personally, I think people should have to take a basic math test in order to get there first credit account. Also, no lone should ever go longer then 15 years. at 30, or 45!!! years, people just can't grasp that. It's also one of the leading causes for house prices to be outstripping inflation costs over time. Secondly it's two income families.
Slashdot Mirror
wrong.
We pay taxes for corn subsidies to maintain a stable food supply.
The US used to just buy excess corn and store it. It turns out paying subsidies have the same effect, but are cheaper the warehousing silos of rotting corn.
the amount is too little.
The taxes should be based on something easier to calculate for the merchants.
a dollar for every groups of 12 ounce.
Making a soda cost 12 cents more for a can, won't do much.
"would charge higher rates for people who smoke"
sometime they do, but more often that cost is spread across all customers to have a competitive market.
who you want to talk to is actuaries. All of them cna show smoker health issues.
"Problem solved."
Except the people most at risk for smoking and eating poorly are the pour.
Having areas that don't have health care become incubators for disease.
" fund their unaffordable health care costs."
of course, this has nothing to do with that, but go ahead an let you ignorance be the driver for you emotional piss ass decisions.
They health care program pays for it's self. Read that damn thing. If it's 'too long' for you then either you are illiterate or don't actually care about the issue. In either case, shut the fuck up.
In most cases, making things illegal won't work, as seen with the current dope traffic."
define work.
Fewer people drank during prohibition..as a side note, domestic crime was reduced to just about 0 during the prohibition. All crime not involved with liquor went down.
So if you're goal was to reduce crime overall, prohibition worked.
If you define work as 'fewer people using it' then, yes prohibition works.
If by work you mean no one will do it again, ever. then no.
"Taxing soda won't do anything but hand over more money to the government. It won't stop a thing and people know it. "
Since all other evidence points to taxing items does lead to fewer people using it.
The government has constantly worked to try and reduce smoking. TO say otherwise is, at best, willful ignorance.
subsidies are there to maintain a stable food market...and it works. Soda are marginally cheaper because of it. Less then a penny a liter.
"Don't even get me started on how US corn subsidies and NAFTA have destroyed Mexico's farming and forced millions to turn to other crops like drugs."
Since it isn't true, there is nothing to start.
"because ten minutes from now they'll switch to cheap artificially sweetened drinks that are cancerous."
please name a study that actual shows they are cancerous.
There is no good evidence of that.
Let me know when airliners are launching things into space that could destroy satellites, destroy the ISS, and make space harder to access.
nothing make more pride then outdoorsy but stupid. Praise the lord.
UP to 2.7 billion. But. lets say you're satellite you are launching hits the Space station. Bam, more then 2.7B right there. Hits another satellite and cause substantial debris. Many things.
No!
"the dead plankton may be cooked at 70-80 degrees and transform into oil and gas."
you mean..rot?
Climate models are accurate. But you don't understand how models work.
Can new data change a current view? yes. Does that mean all views are wrong? no.
The climate model is working pretty well.
And large blooms mean the situation is worse, not better.
There is a lot we don't know about gravity, does that mean we should throw out the current model of gravity?
A lot is unknown about germs, does this mean we throw out are model of germ theory?
" So let's implement sweeping policy changes and apply engineering measures to control the atmosphere, the water, the land."
That's a extreme view sold by the jackasses at fox. we want a policy so future decision can be made with it in mind.
If you can converted back into a liquid, you can get it out of the air*. While technically in the environment, being buried thousand of feet underground is a lot better then floating around in the air.
*no, not all of it. Get back down to a reasonable level.
"Oil and coal come from organisms that didn't rot."
I had to read that twice. Of course they rotted.
Also, they rotted and stayed trapped.
I have never seen a knowledgeable critique of global warming on /.
I've seem people spout ignorance, use logical fallacies, repeat lies, but never a scientifically valid critique. There have been several in mainstream science, but they where looked at and proven not to actually be valid when compared with the data. That's science.
On /.? it's just republican rhetoric repeated with worse spelling.
The inside only sucks if you buy cheaply made crap.
That also charge 6 dollars for an HDMI cable.. and they charge 85 for an HDMI cable.
So there are a wide variety of options, just like the internet.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Torrent+Inc+-+SureConnect+Select+HDMI+Cable/4634345.p?id=1218498009024&skuId=4634345&st=hdmi%20cable&cp=1&lp=14
OK, how did you get free shipping from Amazon for a 50 cent item?
And, personally, I'll pay 20 bucks before spending a penny at wal-mart.
Of course, I would rather pay 50 cents at Amazon.
A good american don't take none of the gay english crap. You start teaching homophones in the class room, next thing you know they'll be wanting to destroy me way of speeking proper American.
Sorry, I just had to listen to some southern hayseed talk about his the 'gays and what not' in Oregon will destroy his 'proper' marriage in Texas.
huh, I just talk to the manager and they take care of me in no time.
But, hay making up stories about carrying contract law in your pocket and making videos is fine to.
These days, Frys is pretty good. 12 years ago? a figuratively fucklong nightmare of inquisition.
Of course the really issue to look at is not how difficult it is to return stuff, but 'Why are you returning so much stuff.?'
Most there stuff is quality...but that doesn't mean it's worth 60 bucks for a cable.
By quality I men end connectors and materials. not quality is in 'It magically maees the electrons better'
Music too loud? can't say no to a sales person? LIke tiles?
The confirms my suspicion:
Staples is for old and boring people.
no, it's far more complex then that. I that it involves emotional manipulation, and a spend it society.
Untrained humans are naturally horrible at long term thinking. People with high dopamine are especially vulnerably to this, or anything that has a quick and now feeling to the payout.. It's actually quite fascinating neurology.
Personally, I think people should have to take a basic math test in order to get there first credit account.
Also, no lone should ever go longer then 15 years. at 30, or 45!!! years, people just can't grasp that. It's also one of the leading causes for house prices to be outstripping inflation costs over time. Secondly it's two income families.
Did Frys have a quality Keyboard and mouse for 25 dollars? no, I didn't think so.
SO why the false comparison?> why is emotion making you're decision over actually thinking?