It is the job of Congress to pass laws. It is the job of the President to enforce them. Yes, he could spend the next 4 years circumventing Congress to try to get pot (sort of) legalized. And then Congress would probably be (rightfully) offended at his power grab and pass a law making pot an illegal Schedule I substance just to spite him. Or, you could stop bitching about him not circumventing how our government is supposed to work for your pet issue and actually work towards getting a Congress elected to legalize it the RIGHT way. That is how democracy is supposed to work. A big issue like this would use up a lot of his political capital (look at how getting Obamacare passed has affected his ability to get things passed in Congress) and I don't think that marijuana is such a big issue right now that Obama should expend all of his political capital on it.
California's laws are bullshit to begin with. Legalized for "medical use" my ass. I have been there and seen the "doctors" who will give you a prescription IN THE DISPENSARY. If they want to legalize it, then they should. But, if they actually want to follow the laws on the books, then a lot of those dispensaries are breaking the spirit of the law if not the letter. If Obama starts going after people in Washington and Colorado, then I might say that he has overstepped (since the have actually legalized it). Maybe you want to pretend that California legalized it because legalization is your goal, but the California laws are bullshit and I can't fault Obama for fulfilling his DUTY to enforce the laws. I think what he has done has actually helped the legalization cause because it has shown how California's laws are fucked up (so that other states won't try the same half-assed laws).
Btw, I am in favor of legalizing pot. I am not in favor of halfway legalizing it and then doing half-assed enforcement. We should enforce the laws that we have. If we don't think they should be enforced, then we should change them. I want pot to be legal in fact, not just in practice.
Ahhh... the classical slippery slope argument. If we make this not-so-bad drug legal, then eventually we will make all the bad ones legal, and once that happens then it is guaranteed that we will eventually legalize raping babies.
If Pot is legalized, then Phillip-Morris SHOULD start growing marijuana and selling them. They are a business and a new market is opening up in their field. They would be stupid not to try to add it to their product line. Does that mean that cocaine, heroine, and LSD will be legalized? No. There are A LOT of people who believe that pot should be legalized but harder drugs should not be. They will most likely prevent harder drugs from being legalized for a long time (not arguing the merits of legalizing all drugs or not, just saying that your slippery slope argument is bullshit).
Most power companies are willing to pay more for solar power. Not only because it is green, but also because it is generated during the day when power companies have their peak demand. They have to power up their on-demand generators (usually natural gas) that are more expensive to operate, so any solar power they buy generally means they have to generate less of their most expensive power. Then you use power at night when the power companies are over-producing power so rates are at their cheapest. Net metering is actually pretty much a scam because you are giving them power when it is most expensive and getting it back when it is least expensive.
But, how much separation do you really need? From RTFA, I don't think that having oil mixed with the injected water would cause any problems. It would decrease the efficiency, but I would imagine that you could get the oil concentration below 5% pretty easily. And, at those concentrations it seems that the effect on efficiency would probably be negligible.
The House of Representatives controls the purse strings and it has been controlled by Republicans for the past 2 years. Have we passed a budget in that time? And why do you think we should trust republicans on fiscal matters. Don't forget that they gave us $5 trillion in debt under Bush when there wasn't a recession. And don't forget Romney's (who doesn't matter now, but still) "I will tell you the details of my plan after I get elected". If you want to argue that they all suck, then I probably can't argue with you. But, you seem to be arguing that Republicans are better and I don't know of many FACTS that back up that perception. Just out-dated stereotypes.
I agree. But, try to explain that to a Republican. They think that the only way for the economy to grow is for the rich ("job creators") to get richer.
I have found that a lot of conservatives are people who are trying to vote in their own self-interest. They aren't on welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid or food stamps so they are in favor of cutting those programs and reducing their own taxes. I instead believe that if the country does well, then I will have the opportunities to do well. So, I am in favor of strengthening our safety nets (though not enough to foster dependency) and reducing income (and wealth) inequality. Because, I think that will lead to a stronger country with a bigger middle class.
Speaking as an Obama supporter, I really did not like Pawlenty, mainly because I couldn't see him as president (I don't disagree with anything you said, though). But, I REALLY liked Huntsman. I can't say that I would have voted for him over Obama, because I believe that Obama has been a good president. But he is the republican that I would have been most likely to vote for. He was a moderate who was running his moderation as a strength. So, there is no way he could get anywhere in the Republican party, but I think that he would make a good democrat (and probably do well).
Which is too bad in the sense that if the electoral vote and popular vote were split maybe there would be some momentum to get rid of the electoral college.
I briefly thought the same thing, but overall it would not have been good. The US government already can't get anything done. If Obama had actually lost the popular vote then he would have had almost zero mandate. So, while it would have been good to have some push for a national popular vote, the country has so many problems right now (fiscal cliff, slow improvement in the economy, debt) that we need to give our leaders a mandate to fix the problems.
When Obama took office, the deficit was over $1 trillion. Go talk to any economist and he will tell you that during a recession you should NEITHER reduce spending nor raise taxes. Otherwise you risk making things worse. And Greece is a perfect example of what happens when you try austerity during a downturn (the austerity made the downturn worse, so the revenues decreased right along with their reductions in spending). If you want to reduce the deficit then you have to reduce spending or raise taxes (or wait for the economy to get better to increase revenue). I have found it very ironic that Republicans keep screaming that we are going to be just like Greece, and then keep pushing for the policies that caused Greece's economy to collapse (austerity).
It is all relative. If Obama had come into office with a balanced budget, he would have been able to maintain a deficit of a few hundred billion dollars and still stimulated the economy. Instead, he had to tack on a few hundred billion onto the trillion dollar deficit. What is not fiscally responsible is living beyond our means and running up the debt when the economy is doing well ($5 trillion added to the debt 2000-2008). If you do that, then there is a LOT less flexibility to handle emergencies (and the 2008 financial crisis WAS an emergency) in the future.
There are many excellent reasons to think that Romney would not be a good president (47%, flip-flopping on every issue, refuse to tell us his plans, tax returns) but neither the mistakes he made as a kid nor the way in which he transported his dog are things that an intelligent voter should use to decide on the next president.
He is saying the TSA is useless. If I can inside the mechanics of the plane undetected, then why are we so concerned about whether someone is bringing a screwdriver into the cabin?
When was the last time you heard of an airplane hijack after we pumped up security? Uncomfortable, yes. Bothersome - heck yeah. But we live.
When was the last time you heard of an airplane hijack after people realized they could be crashed into buildings?
Before September 11, no one had crashed a commercial airplane into a building as a terrorist attack. But, airplanes had been hijacked. Civilians were told not to interfere with a hijacking. If your plane were hijacked, you could expect to be flown to Cuba, sit around for a week or so, and then end up back in the US. That dynamic changed on September 11. AS SOON AS people realized that terrorists were flying planes into buildings, they started fighting back. That is why that plane crashed in Pennsylvania. Because the terrorists had hijacked the plane, but the passengers found out (from cell phones) what was probably going to happen and tried to take the airplane back. There is almost NO chance of a commercial flight being hijacked by terrorists now. Even if we didn't humiliate people with the TSA. Because the other 100 people on the plane would sacrifice their lives to stop them. No one would believe the hijacker WASN'T going to crash the plane into a building, so there would be no point in anyone NOT being a hero (you know you are going to die if you don't fight back, so you might as well fight back and try to live).
I fly quite often (at least a couple times per month). I would be perfectly fine with increasing my chance of dying on a plane by 0.00001% if that meant getting rid of the TSA. I would also be fine with the increased risk to my family because I believe their freedom and happiness are more important than their security.
You sir, are a coward. And it is people like you who allowed the Hitlers and Stalins commit their atrocities.
Fair enough. And I understand that companies have to phase out old software at some point. But, microsoft seems to have a habit of releasing flashy new software that turns out to be worse than the old software. It really pisses me off when I am forced to upgrade to an inferior product. If there were any alternative to windows that I could use at work, I would do it in a heartbeat. But, the software that I have to use to do my job only works on Windows. And I end up cursing Windows at least once a day. It is possible that has made me more biased against microsoft than they deserve.
You miss my point. I am fine with companies screwing things up by being "innovative" if there are other options. But, windows is pretty much a monopoly, so when they force stupid "innovations" on me then I have a right to be pissed off. I still wish my computer were running Windows XP instead of Windows 7 because I have to restart my computer a couple of times per day to keep it from bogging down. I never had that problem with XP. But, when I bought this computer, XP was not offered as an option.
TFS says that the premium ticket holders would get a full refund and get to see the concert for free. I think that they should get refunded down to the regular ticket price but still get good seats. Allowing them to see it for free seems to make it more likely there will be attempts to manipulate the system.
Fine... Innovate. That is good. But how do we decide when an "innovation" is good or bad. If Microsoft would agree to support Windows 7 (older style) next to Windows 8 (the "innovation) and let the market decide which one won, then I would say you have a point. But, Microsoft is going to try to phase out Windows 7 (like they did to Windows XP) even if people prefer Windows 7 (and XP) over Windows 8. Innovation is good when you can choose whether to use that innovation and let it live or die on its merits. It sucks when it is forced on you (regardless of whether it is good or bad).
I am pretty sure that most of the world is not buying their oil. From what I understood it is mostly China (and maybe India) that are buying their oil, and that is at a severely discounted rate.
Probably not. When people get nervous about their financial systems, they want real money that they can put their hands on. Which makes sense because if the financial system collapses, you don't want to have to depend on middlemen that could collapse as well. So, it might actually do the opposite. When this passes (not saying how long that will take, but at some point something has got to give) then the people will remember being unable to get hard currency. So, it could be that they will be LESS inclined to use electronic payments than they are now.
That was actually my first thought as well. Also, from what I understand it is just a composting toilet which are not all that complicated or expensive. The only innovative thing seems to be the poo-conveyor. Maybe that is why it is so expensive... $35k for the super fuckin' reliable conveyor, $5k for the rest.
Oh one of the "hydrogen is just a battery" trolls.
Troll? How am I trolling? Disagreeing with you is not "trolling". Do you think that hydrogen is an exploitable energy source? Because all of the proposals that I have heard are either generating it from water with electrolysis (and since the end result of burning hydrogen is water, you go complete circle) or creating it from fossil fuels. If you are creating it from fossil fuels you might as well store the fossil fuel and convert it just before putting it in a fuel cell, so there is no hydrogen economy. If you have heard of some way of actually using hydrogen as an energy source, then please let me know.
It is true that it is one of the most abundant substances in the universe. But most of it on earth has already burned (combined with oxygen - water). Once we start colonies in space, then we probably will build a hydrogen economy. But it is not practical on earth.
And, it is true that gaseous hydrogen is generally more safe than gasoline mainly because it dissipates too quickly (because it is too light) to explode, but my biggest concern is not it spontaneously combusting. I would not want to drive around my car with a canister of a noble gas (read non-combustible) under 10,000psi riding next to me in the car. Much less a combustible one.
Batteries are improving at a rapid rate. You can quick charge a battery in 15 minutes. That is about how long it takes to stop at a fast food restaurant and have a meal. And, everywhere has electricity. No matter where you go you will be able to recharge your car. The same cannot be said for hydrogen. LPG is a reasonable fuel that is cheap and burns pretty clean. But, you almost never see propane cars on the road because there is nowhere to fill them up. I just do not see hydrogen cars becoming common enough so that there are enough "hydrogen stations" to make hydrogen cars practical. Sure, in my electric car I might have to stop for the evening to charge up after my 400km. But, what do you do once your 400km are up? Knock on someones door and ask if you can borrow their garden hose (and an electrical outlet) to electrolyze some water?
So, no. I do not see any advantage to the "hydrogen economy". Ten years ago I was all for it. But then I started looking at the details and realized it was over-hyped and over-sold. I have been to L.A. I did not see the hydrogen economy (I wasn't looking for it, though - maybe I missed it). Can't afford to go to Bejing or Mexico City. So, unless you want to pay for me to fly there, then I will just have to hope that you can provide me with facts (any facts would be nice) that can convince me of the advantages of your "hydrogen economy".
Slashdot Mirror
It is the job of Congress to pass laws. It is the job of the President to enforce them. Yes, he could spend the next 4 years circumventing Congress to try to get pot (sort of) legalized. And then Congress would probably be (rightfully) offended at his power grab and pass a law making pot an illegal Schedule I substance just to spite him. Or, you could stop bitching about him not circumventing how our government is supposed to work for your pet issue and actually work towards getting a Congress elected to legalize it the RIGHT way. That is how democracy is supposed to work. A big issue like this would use up a lot of his political capital (look at how getting Obamacare passed has affected his ability to get things passed in Congress) and I don't think that marijuana is such a big issue right now that Obama should expend all of his political capital on it.
California's laws are bullshit to begin with. Legalized for "medical use" my ass. I have been there and seen the "doctors" who will give you a prescription IN THE DISPENSARY. If they want to legalize it, then they should. But, if they actually want to follow the laws on the books, then a lot of those dispensaries are breaking the spirit of the law if not the letter. If Obama starts going after people in Washington and Colorado, then I might say that he has overstepped (since the have actually legalized it). Maybe you want to pretend that California legalized it because legalization is your goal, but the California laws are bullshit and I can't fault Obama for fulfilling his DUTY to enforce the laws. I think what he has done has actually helped the legalization cause because it has shown how California's laws are fucked up (so that other states won't try the same half-assed laws).
Btw, I am in favor of legalizing pot. I am not in favor of halfway legalizing it and then doing half-assed enforcement. We should enforce the laws that we have. If we don't think they should be enforced, then we should change them. I want pot to be legal in fact, not just in practice.
Ahhh... the classical slippery slope argument. If we make this not-so-bad drug legal, then eventually we will make all the bad ones legal, and once that happens then it is guaranteed that we will eventually legalize raping babies.
If Pot is legalized, then Phillip-Morris SHOULD start growing marijuana and selling them. They are a business and a new market is opening up in their field. They would be stupid not to try to add it to their product line. Does that mean that cocaine, heroine, and LSD will be legalized? No. There are A LOT of people who believe that pot should be legalized but harder drugs should not be. They will most likely prevent harder drugs from being legalized for a long time (not arguing the merits of legalizing all drugs or not, just saying that your slippery slope argument is bullshit).
Most power companies are willing to pay more for solar power. Not only because it is green, but also because it is generated during the day when power companies have their peak demand. They have to power up their on-demand generators (usually natural gas) that are more expensive to operate, so any solar power they buy generally means they have to generate less of their most expensive power. Then you use power at night when the power companies are over-producing power so rates are at their cheapest. Net metering is actually pretty much a scam because you are giving them power when it is most expensive and getting it back when it is least expensive.
But, how much separation do you really need? From RTFA, I don't think that having oil mixed with the injected water would cause any problems. It would decrease the efficiency, but I would imagine that you could get the oil concentration below 5% pretty easily. And, at those concentrations it seems that the effect on efficiency would probably be negligible.
The House of Representatives controls the purse strings and it has been controlled by Republicans for the past 2 years. Have we passed a budget in that time? And why do you think we should trust republicans on fiscal matters. Don't forget that they gave us $5 trillion in debt under Bush when there wasn't a recession. And don't forget Romney's (who doesn't matter now, but still) "I will tell you the details of my plan after I get elected". If you want to argue that they all suck, then I probably can't argue with you. But, you seem to be arguing that Republicans are better and I don't know of many FACTS that back up that perception. Just out-dated stereotypes.
I agree. But, try to explain that to a Republican. They think that the only way for the economy to grow is for the rich ("job creators") to get richer.
I have found that a lot of conservatives are people who are trying to vote in their own self-interest. They aren't on welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid or food stamps so they are in favor of cutting those programs and reducing their own taxes. I instead believe that if the country does well, then I will have the opportunities to do well. So, I am in favor of strengthening our safety nets (though not enough to foster dependency) and reducing income (and wealth) inequality. Because, I think that will lead to a stronger country with a bigger middle class.
Speaking as an Obama supporter, I really did not like Pawlenty, mainly because I couldn't see him as president (I don't disagree with anything you said, though). But, I REALLY liked Huntsman. I can't say that I would have voted for him over Obama, because I believe that Obama has been a good president. But he is the republican that I would have been most likely to vote for. He was a moderate who was running his moderation as a strength. So, there is no way he could get anywhere in the Republican party, but I think that he would make a good democrat (and probably do well).
Which is too bad in the sense that if the electoral vote and popular vote were split maybe there would be some momentum to get rid of the electoral college.
I briefly thought the same thing, but overall it would not have been good. The US government already can't get anything done. If Obama had actually lost the popular vote then he would have had almost zero mandate. So, while it would have been good to have some push for a national popular vote, the country has so many problems right now (fiscal cliff, slow improvement in the economy, debt) that we need to give our leaders a mandate to fix the problems.
When Obama took office, the deficit was over $1 trillion. Go talk to any economist and he will tell you that during a recession you should NEITHER reduce spending nor raise taxes. Otherwise you risk making things worse. And Greece is a perfect example of what happens when you try austerity during a downturn (the austerity made the downturn worse, so the revenues decreased right along with their reductions in spending). If you want to reduce the deficit then you have to reduce spending or raise taxes (or wait for the economy to get better to increase revenue). I have found it very ironic that Republicans keep screaming that we are going to be just like Greece, and then keep pushing for the policies that caused Greece's economy to collapse (austerity).
It is all relative. If Obama had come into office with a balanced budget, he would have been able to maintain a deficit of a few hundred billion dollars and still stimulated the economy. Instead, he had to tack on a few hundred billion onto the trillion dollar deficit. What is not fiscally responsible is living beyond our means and running up the debt when the economy is doing well ($5 trillion added to the debt 2000-2008). If you do that, then there is a LOT less flexibility to handle emergencies (and the 2008 financial crisis WAS an emergency) in the future.
There are many excellent reasons to think that Romney would not be a good president (47%, flip-flopping on every issue, refuse to tell us his plans, tax returns) but neither the mistakes he made as a kid nor the way in which he transported his dog are things that an intelligent voter should use to decide on the next president.
We had one chew through a lamp cord and it dang near cooked the little beast.
Sounds delicious.
And, for the past few years we have had reverse immigration.
He is saying the TSA is useless. If I can inside the mechanics of the plane undetected, then why are we so concerned about whether someone is bringing a screwdriver into the cabin?
When was the last time you heard of an airplane hijack after we pumped up security? Uncomfortable, yes. Bothersome - heck yeah. But we live.
When was the last time you heard of an airplane hijack after people realized they could be crashed into buildings?
Before September 11, no one had crashed a commercial airplane into a building as a terrorist attack. But, airplanes had been hijacked. Civilians were told not to interfere with a hijacking. If your plane were hijacked, you could expect to be flown to Cuba, sit around for a week or so, and then end up back in the US. That dynamic changed on September 11. AS SOON AS people realized that terrorists were flying planes into buildings, they started fighting back. That is why that plane crashed in Pennsylvania. Because the terrorists had hijacked the plane, but the passengers found out (from cell phones) what was probably going to happen and tried to take the airplane back. There is almost NO chance of a commercial flight being hijacked by terrorists now. Even if we didn't humiliate people with the TSA. Because the other 100 people on the plane would sacrifice their lives to stop them. No one would believe the hijacker WASN'T going to crash the plane into a building, so there would be no point in anyone NOT being a hero (you know you are going to die if you don't fight back, so you might as well fight back and try to live).
I fly quite often (at least a couple times per month). I would be perfectly fine with increasing my chance of dying on a plane by 0.00001% if that meant getting rid of the TSA. I would also be fine with the increased risk to my family because I believe their freedom and happiness are more important than their security.
You sir, are a coward. And it is people like you who allowed the Hitlers and Stalins commit their atrocities.
Fair enough. And I understand that companies have to phase out old software at some point. But, microsoft seems to have a habit of releasing flashy new software that turns out to be worse than the old software. It really pisses me off when I am forced to upgrade to an inferior product. If there were any alternative to windows that I could use at work, I would do it in a heartbeat. But, the software that I have to use to do my job only works on Windows. And I end up cursing Windows at least once a day. It is possible that has made me more biased against microsoft than they deserve.
You miss my point. I am fine with companies screwing things up by being "innovative" if there are other options. But, windows is pretty much a monopoly, so when they force stupid "innovations" on me then I have a right to be pissed off. I still wish my computer were running Windows XP instead of Windows 7 because I have to restart my computer a couple of times per day to keep it from bogging down. I never had that problem with XP. But, when I bought this computer, XP was not offered as an option.
TFS says that the premium ticket holders would get a full refund and get to see the concert for free. I think that they should get refunded down to the regular ticket price but still get good seats. Allowing them to see it for free seems to make it more likely there will be attempts to manipulate the system.
Fine... Innovate. That is good. But how do we decide when an "innovation" is good or bad. If Microsoft would agree to support Windows 7 (older style) next to Windows 8 (the "innovation) and let the market decide which one won, then I would say you have a point. But, Microsoft is going to try to phase out Windows 7 (like they did to Windows XP) even if people prefer Windows 7 (and XP) over Windows 8. Innovation is good when you can choose whether to use that innovation and let it live or die on its merits. It sucks when it is forced on you (regardless of whether it is good or bad).
I am pretty sure that most of the world is not buying their oil. From what I understood it is mostly China (and maybe India) that are buying their oil, and that is at a severely discounted rate.
Probably not. When people get nervous about their financial systems, they want real money that they can put their hands on. Which makes sense because if the financial system collapses, you don't want to have to depend on middlemen that could collapse as well. So, it might actually do the opposite. When this passes (not saying how long that will take, but at some point something has got to give) then the people will remember being unable to get hard currency. So, it could be that they will be LESS inclined to use electronic payments than they are now.
That was actually my first thought as well. Also, from what I understand it is just a composting toilet which are not all that complicated or expensive. The only innovative thing seems to be the poo-conveyor. Maybe that is why it is so expensive... $35k for the super fuckin' reliable conveyor, $5k for the rest.
Oh one of the "hydrogen is just a battery" trolls.
Troll? How am I trolling? Disagreeing with you is not "trolling". Do you think that hydrogen is an exploitable energy source? Because all of the proposals that I have heard are either generating it from water with electrolysis (and since the end result of burning hydrogen is water, you go complete circle) or creating it from fossil fuels. If you are creating it from fossil fuels you might as well store the fossil fuel and convert it just before putting it in a fuel cell, so there is no hydrogen economy. If you have heard of some way of actually using hydrogen as an energy source, then please let me know.
It is true that it is one of the most abundant substances in the universe. But most of it on earth has already burned (combined with oxygen - water). Once we start colonies in space, then we probably will build a hydrogen economy. But it is not practical on earth.
And, it is true that gaseous hydrogen is generally more safe than gasoline mainly because it dissipates too quickly (because it is too light) to explode, but my biggest concern is not it spontaneously combusting. I would not want to drive around my car with a canister of a noble gas (read non-combustible) under 10,000psi riding next to me in the car. Much less a combustible one.
Batteries are improving at a rapid rate. You can quick charge a battery in 15 minutes. That is about how long it takes to stop at a fast food restaurant and have a meal. And, everywhere has electricity. No matter where you go you will be able to recharge your car. The same cannot be said for hydrogen. LPG is a reasonable fuel that is cheap and burns pretty clean. But, you almost never see propane cars on the road because there is nowhere to fill them up. I just do not see hydrogen cars becoming common enough so that there are enough "hydrogen stations" to make hydrogen cars practical. Sure, in my electric car I might have to stop for the evening to charge up after my 400km. But, what do you do once your 400km are up? Knock on someones door and ask if you can borrow their garden hose (and an electrical outlet) to electrolyze some water?
So, no. I do not see any advantage to the "hydrogen economy". Ten years ago I was all for it. But then I started looking at the details and realized it was over-hyped and over-sold. I have been to L.A. I did not see the hydrogen economy (I wasn't looking for it, though - maybe I missed it). Can't afford to go to Bejing or Mexico City. So, unless you want to pay for me to fly there, then I will just have to hope that you can provide me with facts (any facts would be nice) that can convince me of the advantages of your "hydrogen economy".
I think that urine is bad for them as well. That is why this system has the fancy poo-conveyor. So that they can separate out the urine.