But, how much energy is required to get the gasoline in your car. Remember that gasoline has to be refined from oil, which is quite energy intensive. And, if the oil comes from tar sands then a lot of energy is required to extract it. Also you sometimes have to transport it across oceans, and once it is here it is transported through pipelines (which are pretty efficient), but to get to a gas station it is usually shipped on a truck. While with coal you basically dig it up and ship it out (usually on rail directly to the power plant, so there is no refining, and almost no transportation inefficiency. You have the added inefficiency of the grid, but Transportation and Distribution losses of the power grid are not really that big at around 6-8%.
I don't get why people have this huge obsession with hydrogen. Hydrogen is a battery, that is all. It is a way of storing energy to be used later. But, it is an inefficient battery. To get it into a compact form that is practical for storage requires very high pressures (~10,000psi), which require a lot of energy to create. And it has to be very pure to not degrade the fuel cell you are using to create electricity from and. And then you have to make sure that the containment vessel doesn't explode in an accident (or just if it gets old). And all the associated dangers of filling it up from a filling station with high pressure.
And in actuality big oil DOES want hydrogen to be the replacement for oil. With an electric car you can go home and plug it in (and plug it in at work if you can get a hook-up). You could drive 50 miles every day and never go to a "gas" station. But you aren't going to produce hydrogen at home. Once every week or two you are going to go to the "gas" station to fill up on hydrogen. And some company (most likely ones that already have the distribution network in place for other fuels - like oil) will provide the hydrogen to that "gas" station. And the government can tax and control it. And financial types can manipulate the price of it as they do with oil.
And as I said, hydrogen is just a battery. So you still need to use an energy source to create it. So, if it is made from coal (or made from electricity produced from coal), it is still not environmentally friendly. I can see fuel cells in our future being used to convert biofuels (or even fossil fuels to begin with) to electricity at with high efficiency (>60%). But I just cannot see any advantage to the "hydrogen economy", not even considering how much capital and resources will necessary to convert our current "fossil fuel economy" to a "hydrogen economy".
Why does it have to have a default. When I buy a plane ticket, I am always required to select an option for "trip insurance". I never select to have trip insurance because it is a waste of money, but I have to select one or the other. I have to make a decision about whether I want it or not. They could do the same thing when you install IE (or when you start it up for the first time). Then, the advertisers could not claim that the users did not make a choice, and the non-technical users who benefit from tracking will have that option enabled.
The big problem we have now is not energy production. It is energy storage. We need to shift energy consumption to when we have a surplus of production. If you can have your electric water heater (there are electric tank water heaters) only heat up at night when electricity is cheap, then you are shifting energy consumption and making the system more efficient. It would be worthwhile loss in efficiency (heat loss from the tank). On demand water heaters cannot shift energy consumption, so while they may be a little more energy efficient, they would be much less grid efficient.
So, once the "smart grid" has been deployed, we might move AWAY from on demand water heaters and back to tanks.
Nope... that is not enough. If you were out protesting the war, then you might deserve a pass on responsibility. But, the fact is that a little under 50% of the people in this country voted for Bush. As you point out, you funded the war by paying taxes. If you don't want to be responsible for the actions of our government, then you should give up citizenship and leave the country. As much as Republicans might want to believe to the contrary, you cannot blame "government" for anything. Government exists because the people support it (that whole "social contract" thing). If government does wrong, then the people are to blame for either voting for the people who did it, or for being too apathetic and letting other people vote in the people who did it.
T-Mobile also has a pay-as-you-go plan that tends to be $10 more per month but does not require signing a 2-year contract. But, at this point you might just want to go with simple mobile or other company that piggybacks on the big carrier's network.
Libertarian ideologies aside, the Ron Paul camp was very successful at using the Republican bylaws to get their delegates elected. I hope someone does a poll to figure out how many delegates are Ron Paul supporters, because it will be a much higher number than the percentage of the delegates he is supposed to have. He definitely did not get enough to be nominated, but based upon what I have seen I believe in their strategies when it comes to the rules.
Btw, I am not a libertarian or a Ron Paul supporter. And, I don't think that their use of the rules is going to make any difference because they just do not have enough votes. But, I think it would be a bad idea to ignore the strategies they came up with.
Herman Cain was not elected, or even nominated, and was also a joke. I don't think having a black man run for the nomination that was so obviously ignorant of anything that happened outside of the US and whose whole platform consisted of a tax plan with a catchy name did anything good towards getting people to see whites and blacks on equal terms. Its probably a move in the right direction, but I really wish they could have found a black person who actually had a chance of becoming president.
And, it doesn't matter where Obama's ancestry is from. He looks different from what people normally think of as a president (not an old white man) so they are uncomfortable with it.
Have you seen Romney's transcripts? I googled as hard as I could and was unable to find a link to them. Also, have you seen his birth certificate? Obama released his in June 2008, so we are already past that point this election cycle. I find it strange that you find the college transcripts so important for Obama, but are uninterested in seeing them for Romney. Could it be that subconsciously you assume that Romney did fine in college because he is white, but that you have reservations about whether Obama could get a college degree because he is black? Or are you just a partisan hack who just wants to protect Romney and dig up dirt on Obama?
People are so eager to see Romney's tax returns for the same reason they wanted to see Obama's birth certificate. They are uncomfortable because he is not like them. Obama is black (and from Hawaii). Romney is rich. They want to see more details because they are nervous that these people do not understand them. They are both (or both in their own ways seem to be) foreign to the American people. The Obama administration is just taking advantage of that with this tax stuff because they think that there is something in Romney's tax returns that will turn people against him (amnesty on a swiss bank account, extremely low tax rate, deductions on things that only rich people can use). But the basic demand by the American people to know their President is legitimate. Romney has every right not to release his tax returns. But I think the American people will punish him for it at the polls because they don't want to elect someone who does not want to be open and honest about his life.
From hearing what the Ron Paul camp was planning, I think it is possible that the candidates that are pledged to Romney could "show up late" or possibly just not vote during the first two votes. Regardless, I do not know the rules but I can't imagine Republicans would set up their system so that they would be stuck with a candidate that they do not want. Just in case something comes out after the delegates are already pledged.
I hope that someone reads these comments who actually knows (and responds), because I would like to know for sure.
The big argument that I heard against Condi was that she was Pro-Choice. It is probably not the only thing that disqualifies them (probably just that fact that they are a woman is a major factor) but I do think it is a part. Especially since Romney promised to pick a VP that was Pro-Life (or Anti-Choice?).
I think that Romney is just concerned about actually getting the nomination. I am sure you saw how much he got attacked over the past couple of days (by conservatives) over acknowledging that RomneyCare existed. This tax return issue is really hurting him, and I believe that if his poll numbers keep dropping and he does not release his taxes by the convention there is a very good chance that there will be a contested convention. Republicans really like Ryan, though, so having him as VP makes it more likely that Romney will actually get nominated.
I do believe that racism does play a part, but I do not think it is intentional racism. Some people are just uncomfortable with Obama because of his skin color, but I think most of them try very hard not to be racist. That is why the whole birther thing gained so much traction. It was a reason for them to feel uncomfortable with him that they did not think was morally wrong. Basically, I am saying that people do not want to be racist, but subconsciously they are. So, when the birther thing popped up they latched on to it as a way to explain their feeling of discomfort that was not racism. And, I believe this all happens subconsciously. Which I think is actually very significant progress. The racists (and I am not trying to use the term derogatorily but as a statement of fact) realize that racism is wrong and don't actually want to be racist. But, they can't help it because that is what they grew up with.
As an example, my fiance's grandmother is racist as hell. She just doesn't trust black people. But, if you call her out on it then she will realize that she is being racist and try not to be. But it is so ingrained in her that she will probably be a racist till the day she dies. It is one of those things that only time will fix (basically the old generations need to die and the new generations, who did not grow up to be racist, will take their place).
But, I do agree with you. There is no point in telling these people (closet racists) not to be racist because they are already doing their best. Really, the only way to fix this problem is to elect a few more black presidents. Because, over time, people will get used to it. Actually, the best thing would be for Republicans to elect a black president. Currently, any racists (against black people) in the Democratic party would have dealt with it (at least mostly) because they would have supported President Obama and had to come to terms with any discomfort. So, if the Republicans elect a black President, a lot of the racists will have to face their racism and will most likely get over it.
Colin Powell would have been a terrible choice. He has lost most of his credibility because he was the Secretary of State under George W. Bush who helped to get us into Iraq (he claimed to the UN that they had weapons of mass destruction). So, either he is dishonest or was manipulated. I personally believe the latter, but either way he is not someone you want to be next in line to be POTUS (especially if POTUS is McCain because he would be more likely to die of natural causes because of his age). Though, he was MUCH better than Palin, but that is a pretty low bar.
There is nothing wrong with banning abortion, as long as you don't take away a woman's liberty in the process. I would be fine with banning abortions if the anti-abortion coalition (Republican party, churches, or whomever - just not the government because we can't afford it) would set up "non-abortion clinics" that would induce labor instead of performing an abortion. That way a woman could keep her liberty (old white men would not be forcing her to carry a child to term that she does not want). Of course, the anti-abortion coalition would be financially responsible for ensuring that the children they deliver are taken care of until they become self-sufficient adults. And, if they have any health problems due to being born early then the anti-abortion coalition would be responsible for their healthcare (we shouldn't socialize those costs into Obamacare).
Though, Republicans would never agree to this because it is contrary to their values. The main two are "socialize risks and privatize rewards" and "every life is precious until it is born, then it is a leech on society and we should let it die".
Democrats also want to get rid of abortions. But, they don't want to ban them. They want to make them unnecessary by making it possible to only get pregnant if you want to. Republicans, on the other hand, love unwanted pregnancies. And STDs. They are God's punishments for having sex. That is why they hate both birth control and abortions. You are circumventing God's will that you be punished with a child. If you don't believe me, look up the controversy over the HPV vaccine. They don't want to prevent cancer in girls because that is one of the ways that girls are punished for having sex. If there is not the risk of cancer, then more girls might have sex, so we can't give them the vaccine.
Same as why they are in favor of allowing abortions in the case of rape. They don't want to punish that woman with a child because she didn't do anything to deserve to be punished. If they truly believed that the child is a life, then they would not want to kill the child for the sins of its father.
I personally believe that all children are a gift, and that if you are using them as a punishment then you are doing it wrong.
You can sue anyone, anywhere (in the US), for anything. Whether you will win (or whether the judge will throw your case out) is a different question. My opinion would be that you should be able to sue FB if they set everything to be world visible. But, I am sure that is a topic that could be debated at length.
No. If they can access the information legally without my password, then they are welcome to it because it is public information. But, if they need my password to get the information, then it isn't really public information so they should not have access to it.
Then you could sue, because even in "right to work" states, there are laws protecting workers.
There are not yet laws protecting workers from their employers requiring their login for social media. That is why they are proposing this law in Illinois. To create those protections. Which, from your previous posts, you seem to indicate you are opposed to (or think is unnecessary?). I am a little confused about what your position actually is.
I believe in voting with your dollars, and do not believe that a business should getting involved in politics. I am in favor of gay marriage, so I don't want to support Chick-Fil-A.
But, all of this talk about Chick-Fil-A these past few days has made me REALLY want a chicken sandwich. I don't know how much longer I can hold out.
I guess, at least when it comes to chicken sandwiches, any publicity is good publicity.
I basically use the same good password for all of my important accounts, and the same bad password for the ones I don't really care about. So, all it would take is for one of my bank/credit card/loan websites to get hacked and then they could conceivably access all of my accounts. Since I am using that one password anyway, it would be better to have only one point of failure.
ps. I know I should have a different password for each site, but that is too frickin hard.
This is the sentiment that I have a very hard time understanding. It is almost like you believe you are fighting against some sort of God or Supreme being that is "the government." I guess that makes sense, since conservatives actually worship the free market like a God (or a false idol - ironic that is the religious conservatives doing that). That is why they are always talking about the "invisible hand of the market" (God's invisible hand? Maybe they believe that God actually controls the free market).
Progressives, on the other hand (this one is figurative, not invisible), have faith in the ability of people to work together for the good of the whole. That is what government is. It is not some maniacally laughing evil force in a dark room somewhere. It is a social contract where the people pool their resources (money) and freedoms (agree to submit to laws and regulations) to make an environment that everyone benefits from.
Conservatives are arguing against government (or collectivism). That is why this article from the WSJ was made. To try to say that there is NOTHING that government does to help our economy. Progressives (in the US at least) are not arguing FOR government (at least not like conservatives are arguing against it). I do not know of any progressives that want everything to be government controlled. I do know of conservatives who are arguing nothing should be government controlled, and they have a sizable following (libertarians).
I have always believed that all of these things are just tools, and that you should always try to use the best tool for the job. Capitalism and free markets are very efficient and powerful tools when they are used in the right situations. But, collectivism (public infrastructure, public investment) can be a more efficient tool than free markets in other situations. The problem I see is the conservatives have become ideological in this argument. I would expect that in an honest debate they would believe that private solutions would be more effective for more things than I would (or that in solutions that require a mix of public and private they would lean more towards the public side than I would). But, the argument recently hasn't been about where we draw the line between public and private. Conservatives have started to believe that public solutions are NEVER a proper tool, that private solutions are ALWAYS the correct solution. This is just ideology, not reality. The method by which the internet was created support that.
I don't know of anyone that is arguing the government invented the full internet. The argument is that the internet would not exist in its current format if not for government (or, more accurately, government investment). And the format that it would exist in would not be even close to the current implementation in its usefulness and ability to spur the economy (efficiency boost).
The reason this argument started is that conservatives have been arguing that all productivity and innovation comes from capitalism. And, from that, they argue that a person's success is solely due to their intelligence and hard work and not due to infrastructure and opportunities that are provided by our society (government). From that is it not a big leap to their argument for a flat tax rate or a flat tax. If a person's success is solely due to that person, then why should they pay more to support society?
Obama and Democrats have countered that argument by saying that there are many instances of the government providing great opportunities that lead to more efficiency in the economy (economic growth) that would not have been created by market forces alone (the internet is the most striking example of this). If that is the case, then while intelligence and hard work are important in success, opportunities provided government are also an important part. The two compliment each other. Without a hard working and intelligent populace, government investment would not get much of a return. And, without government, a lot of the hard work and intelligence would be wasted on competitive methods in places where public collaboration is much more efficient and effective. And, it follows that it is "fair" to tax more successful people at a higher rate because they are able to get more benefits from the opportunities that government helps support.
So, I am basically trying to say that it is only the conservatives that are arguing for one over the other (putting the modem before the router, or vice versa). They are basically trying to argue that government investment is useless ("Government cannot create jobs"). The democrats are arguing that the sum of the parts is more than the whole and that every private enterprise in the US has benefited from the government (be it through investment in science, the construction and maintenance of public infrastructure, or through regulation and the rule of law).
People on the left don't assume that scientists never do anything wrong. We just believe that peer review (sorry, you're a rightwinger so I will provide you with a link so you can find out what it is) is an effective form of weeding out bad science. This is similar to how you believe the free market is effective at weeding out inefficient business. Once those "christian scientists" go through the peer review process (or actually learn what the scientific method is - see null hypothesis), then intelligent people might actually start listening to them.
Slashdot Mirror
But, how much energy is required to get the gasoline in your car. Remember that gasoline has to be refined from oil, which is quite energy intensive. And, if the oil comes from tar sands then a lot of energy is required to extract it. Also you sometimes have to transport it across oceans, and once it is here it is transported through pipelines (which are pretty efficient), but to get to a gas station it is usually shipped on a truck. While with coal you basically dig it up and ship it out (usually on rail directly to the power plant, so there is no refining, and almost no transportation inefficiency. You have the added inefficiency of the grid, but Transportation and Distribution losses of the power grid are not really that big at around 6-8%.
I don't get why people have this huge obsession with hydrogen. Hydrogen is a battery, that is all. It is a way of storing energy to be used later. But, it is an inefficient battery. To get it into a compact form that is practical for storage requires very high pressures (~10,000psi), which require a lot of energy to create. And it has to be very pure to not degrade the fuel cell you are using to create electricity from and. And then you have to make sure that the containment vessel doesn't explode in an accident (or just if it gets old). And all the associated dangers of filling it up from a filling station with high pressure.
And in actuality big oil DOES want hydrogen to be the replacement for oil. With an electric car you can go home and plug it in (and plug it in at work if you can get a hook-up). You could drive 50 miles every day and never go to a "gas" station. But you aren't going to produce hydrogen at home. Once every week or two you are going to go to the "gas" station to fill up on hydrogen. And some company (most likely ones that already have the distribution network in place for other fuels - like oil) will provide the hydrogen to that "gas" station. And the government can tax and control it. And financial types can manipulate the price of it as they do with oil.
And as I said, hydrogen is just a battery. So you still need to use an energy source to create it. So, if it is made from coal (or made from electricity produced from coal), it is still not environmentally friendly. I can see fuel cells in our future being used to convert biofuels (or even fossil fuels to begin with) to electricity at with high efficiency (>60%). But I just cannot see any advantage to the "hydrogen economy", not even considering how much capital and resources will necessary to convert our current "fossil fuel economy" to a "hydrogen economy".
Why does it have to have a default. When I buy a plane ticket, I am always required to select an option for "trip insurance". I never select to have trip insurance because it is a waste of money, but I have to select one or the other. I have to make a decision about whether I want it or not. They could do the same thing when you install IE (or when you start it up for the first time). Then, the advertisers could not claim that the users did not make a choice, and the non-technical users who benefit from tracking will have that option enabled.
The big problem we have now is not energy production. It is energy storage. We need to shift energy consumption to when we have a surplus of production. If you can have your electric water heater (there are electric tank water heaters) only heat up at night when electricity is cheap, then you are shifting energy consumption and making the system more efficient. It would be worthwhile loss in efficiency (heat loss from the tank). On demand water heaters cannot shift energy consumption, so while they may be a little more energy efficient, they would be much less grid efficient.
So, once the "smart grid" has been deployed, we might move AWAY from on demand water heaters and back to tanks.
Nope... that is not enough. If you were out protesting the war, then you might deserve a pass on responsibility. But, the fact is that a little under 50% of the people in this country voted for Bush. As you point out, you funded the war by paying taxes. If you don't want to be responsible for the actions of our government, then you should give up citizenship and leave the country. As much as Republicans might want to believe to the contrary, you cannot blame "government" for anything. Government exists because the people support it (that whole "social contract" thing). If government does wrong, then the people are to blame for either voting for the people who did it, or for being too apathetic and letting other people vote in the people who did it.
T-Mobile also has a pay-as-you-go plan that tends to be $10 more per month but does not require signing a 2-year contract. But, at this point you might just want to go with simple mobile or other company that piggybacks on the big carrier's network.
Libertarian ideologies aside, the Ron Paul camp was very successful at using the Republican bylaws to get their delegates elected. I hope someone does a poll to figure out how many delegates are Ron Paul supporters, because it will be a much higher number than the percentage of the delegates he is supposed to have. He definitely did not get enough to be nominated, but based upon what I have seen I believe in their strategies when it comes to the rules.
Btw, I am not a libertarian or a Ron Paul supporter. And, I don't think that their use of the rules is going to make any difference because they just do not have enough votes. But, I think it would be a bad idea to ignore the strategies they came up with.
Herman Cain was not elected, or even nominated, and was also a joke. I don't think having a black man run for the nomination that was so obviously ignorant of anything that happened outside of the US and whose whole platform consisted of a tax plan with a catchy name did anything good towards getting people to see whites and blacks on equal terms. Its probably a move in the right direction, but I really wish they could have found a black person who actually had a chance of becoming president.
And, it doesn't matter where Obama's ancestry is from. He looks different from what people normally think of as a president (not an old white man) so they are uncomfortable with it.
Have you seen Romney's transcripts? I googled as hard as I could and was unable to find a link to them. Also, have you seen his birth certificate? Obama released his in June 2008, so we are already past that point this election cycle. I find it strange that you find the college transcripts so important for Obama, but are uninterested in seeing them for Romney. Could it be that subconsciously you assume that Romney did fine in college because he is white, but that you have reservations about whether Obama could get a college degree because he is black? Or are you just a partisan hack who just wants to protect Romney and dig up dirt on Obama?
People are so eager to see Romney's tax returns for the same reason they wanted to see Obama's birth certificate. They are uncomfortable because he is not like them. Obama is black (and from Hawaii). Romney is rich. They want to see more details because they are nervous that these people do not understand them. They are both (or both in their own ways seem to be) foreign to the American people. The Obama administration is just taking advantage of that with this tax stuff because they think that there is something in Romney's tax returns that will turn people against him (amnesty on a swiss bank account, extremely low tax rate, deductions on things that only rich people can use). But the basic demand by the American people to know their President is legitimate. Romney has every right not to release his tax returns. But I think the American people will punish him for it at the polls because they don't want to elect someone who does not want to be open and honest about his life.
From hearing what the Ron Paul camp was planning, I think it is possible that the candidates that are pledged to Romney could "show up late" or possibly just not vote during the first two votes. Regardless, I do not know the rules but I can't imagine Republicans would set up their system so that they would be stuck with a candidate that they do not want. Just in case something comes out after the delegates are already pledged.
I hope that someone reads these comments who actually knows (and responds), because I would like to know for sure.
The big argument that I heard against Condi was that she was Pro-Choice. It is probably not the only thing that disqualifies them (probably just that fact that they are a woman is a major factor) but I do think it is a part. Especially since Romney promised to pick a VP that was Pro-Life (or Anti-Choice?).
I think that Romney is just concerned about actually getting the nomination. I am sure you saw how much he got attacked over the past couple of days (by conservatives) over acknowledging that RomneyCare existed. This tax return issue is really hurting him, and I believe that if his poll numbers keep dropping and he does not release his taxes by the convention there is a very good chance that there will be a contested convention. Republicans really like Ryan, though, so having him as VP makes it more likely that Romney will actually get nominated.
I do believe that racism does play a part, but I do not think it is intentional racism. Some people are just uncomfortable with Obama because of his skin color, but I think most of them try very hard not to be racist. That is why the whole birther thing gained so much traction. It was a reason for them to feel uncomfortable with him that they did not think was morally wrong. Basically, I am saying that people do not want to be racist, but subconsciously they are. So, when the birther thing popped up they latched on to it as a way to explain their feeling of discomfort that was not racism. And, I believe this all happens subconsciously. Which I think is actually very significant progress. The racists (and I am not trying to use the term derogatorily but as a statement of fact) realize that racism is wrong and don't actually want to be racist. But, they can't help it because that is what they grew up with.
As an example, my fiance's grandmother is racist as hell. She just doesn't trust black people. But, if you call her out on it then she will realize that she is being racist and try not to be. But it is so ingrained in her that she will probably be a racist till the day she dies. It is one of those things that only time will fix (basically the old generations need to die and the new generations, who did not grow up to be racist, will take their place).
But, I do agree with you. There is no point in telling these people (closet racists) not to be racist because they are already doing their best. Really, the only way to fix this problem is to elect a few more black presidents. Because, over time, people will get used to it. Actually, the best thing would be for Republicans to elect a black president. Currently, any racists (against black people) in the Democratic party would have dealt with it (at least mostly) because they would have supported President Obama and had to come to terms with any discomfort. So, if the Republicans elect a black President, a lot of the racists will have to face their racism and will most likely get over it.
Colin Powell would have been a terrible choice. He has lost most of his credibility because he was the Secretary of State under George W. Bush who helped to get us into Iraq (he claimed to the UN that they had weapons of mass destruction). So, either he is dishonest or was manipulated. I personally believe the latter, but either way he is not someone you want to be next in line to be POTUS (especially if POTUS is McCain because he would be more likely to die of natural causes because of his age). Though, he was MUCH better than Palin, but that is a pretty low bar.
There is nothing wrong with banning abortion, as long as you don't take away a woman's liberty in the process. I would be fine with banning abortions if the anti-abortion coalition (Republican party, churches, or whomever - just not the government because we can't afford it) would set up "non-abortion clinics" that would induce labor instead of performing an abortion. That way a woman could keep her liberty (old white men would not be forcing her to carry a child to term that she does not want). Of course, the anti-abortion coalition would be financially responsible for ensuring that the children they deliver are taken care of until they become self-sufficient adults. And, if they have any health problems due to being born early then the anti-abortion coalition would be responsible for their healthcare (we shouldn't socialize those costs into Obamacare).
Though, Republicans would never agree to this because it is contrary to their values. The main two are "socialize risks and privatize rewards" and "every life is precious until it is born, then it is a leech on society and we should let it die".
Democrats also want to get rid of abortions. But, they don't want to ban them. They want to make them unnecessary by making it possible to only get pregnant if you want to. Republicans, on the other hand, love unwanted pregnancies. And STDs. They are God's punishments for having sex. That is why they hate both birth control and abortions. You are circumventing God's will that you be punished with a child. If you don't believe me, look up the controversy over the HPV vaccine. They don't want to prevent cancer in girls because that is one of the ways that girls are punished for having sex. If there is not the risk of cancer, then more girls might have sex, so we can't give them the vaccine.
Same as why they are in favor of allowing abortions in the case of rape. They don't want to punish that woman with a child because she didn't do anything to deserve to be punished. If they truly believed that the child is a life, then they would not want to kill the child for the sins of its father.
I personally believe that all children are a gift, and that if you are using them as a punishment then you are doing it wrong.
You can sue anyone, anywhere (in the US), for anything. Whether you will win (or whether the judge will throw your case out) is a different question. My opinion would be that you should be able to sue FB if they set everything to be world visible. But, I am sure that is a topic that could be debated at length.
No. If they can access the information legally without my password, then they are welcome to it because it is public information. But, if they need my password to get the information, then it isn't really public information so they should not have access to it.
Then you could sue, because even in "right to work" states, there are laws protecting workers.
There are not yet laws protecting workers from their employers requiring their login for social media. That is why they are proposing this law in Illinois. To create those protections. Which, from your previous posts, you seem to indicate you are opposed to (or think is unnecessary?). I am a little confused about what your position actually is.
I believe in voting with your dollars, and do not believe that a business should getting involved in politics. I am in favor of gay marriage, so I don't want to support Chick-Fil-A.
But, all of this talk about Chick-Fil-A these past few days has made me REALLY want a chicken sandwich. I don't know how much longer I can hold out.
I guess, at least when it comes to chicken sandwiches, any publicity is good publicity.
I wish I had mod points.
I basically use the same good password for all of my important accounts, and the same bad password for the ones I don't really care about. So, all it would take is for one of my bank/credit card/loan websites to get hacked and then they could conceivably access all of my accounts. Since I am using that one password anyway, it would be better to have only one point of failure.
ps. I know I should have a different password for each site, but that is too frickin hard.
This is the sentiment that I have a very hard time understanding. It is almost like you believe you are fighting against some sort of God or Supreme being that is "the government." I guess that makes sense, since conservatives actually worship the free market like a God (or a false idol - ironic that is the religious conservatives doing that). That is why they are always talking about the "invisible hand of the market" (God's invisible hand? Maybe they believe that God actually controls the free market).
Progressives, on the other hand (this one is figurative, not invisible), have faith in the ability of people to work together for the good of the whole. That is what government is. It is not some maniacally laughing evil force in a dark room somewhere. It is a social contract where the people pool their resources (money) and freedoms (agree to submit to laws and regulations) to make an environment that everyone benefits from.
Conservatives are arguing against government (or collectivism). That is why this article from the WSJ was made. To try to say that there is NOTHING that government does to help our economy. Progressives (in the US at least) are not arguing FOR government (at least not like conservatives are arguing against it). I do not know of any progressives that want everything to be government controlled. I do know of conservatives who are arguing nothing should be government controlled, and they have a sizable following (libertarians).
I have always believed that all of these things are just tools, and that you should always try to use the best tool for the job. Capitalism and free markets are very efficient and powerful tools when they are used in the right situations. But, collectivism (public infrastructure, public investment) can be a more efficient tool than free markets in other situations. The problem I see is the conservatives have become ideological in this argument. I would expect that in an honest debate they would believe that private solutions would be more effective for more things than I would (or that in solutions that require a mix of public and private they would lean more towards the public side than I would). But, the argument recently hasn't been about where we draw the line between public and private. Conservatives have started to believe that public solutions are NEVER a proper tool, that private solutions are ALWAYS the correct solution. This is just ideology, not reality. The method by which the internet was created support that.
I don't know of anyone that is arguing the government invented the full internet. The argument is that the internet would not exist in its current format if not for government (or, more accurately, government investment). And the format that it would exist in would not be even close to the current implementation in its usefulness and ability to spur the economy (efficiency boost).
The reason this argument started is that conservatives have been arguing that all productivity and innovation comes from capitalism. And, from that, they argue that a person's success is solely due to their intelligence and hard work and not due to infrastructure and opportunities that are provided by our society (government). From that is it not a big leap to their argument for a flat tax rate or a flat tax. If a person's success is solely due to that person, then why should they pay more to support society?
Obama and Democrats have countered that argument by saying that there are many instances of the government providing great opportunities that lead to more efficiency in the economy (economic growth) that would not have been created by market forces alone (the internet is the most striking example of this). If that is the case, then while intelligence and hard work are important in success, opportunities provided government are also an important part. The two compliment each other. Without a hard working and intelligent populace, government investment would not get much of a return. And, without government, a lot of the hard work and intelligence would be wasted on competitive methods in places where public collaboration is much more efficient and effective. And, it follows that it is "fair" to tax more successful people at a higher rate because they are able to get more benefits from the opportunities that government helps support.
So, I am basically trying to say that it is only the conservatives that are arguing for one over the other (putting the modem before the router, or vice versa). They are basically trying to argue that government investment is useless ("Government cannot create jobs"). The democrats are arguing that the sum of the parts is more than the whole and that every private enterprise in the US has benefited from the government (be it through investment in science, the construction and maintenance of public infrastructure, or through regulation and the rule of law).
Don't forget Truthiness.
Posting to undo butterfinger mod.
People on the left don't assume that scientists never do anything wrong. We just believe that peer review (sorry, you're a rightwinger so I will provide you with a link so you can find out what it is) is an effective form of weeding out bad science. This is similar to how you believe the free market is effective at weeding out inefficient business. Once those "christian scientists" go through the peer review process (or actually learn what the scientific method is - see null hypothesis), then intelligent people might actually start listening to them.
Or, the politician needs to give a good reason why their views have changed other than "Because I am more likely to be elected".