Any casual browsing will reveal outrage after outrage from a government that behaves in a manner that reasonable people would condemn...IRS, EPA, etc.all under the cover of "it's the law". That's the problem.
Again there is a difference between the government providing a legal structure for securing mineral rights for property owners and the government claiming those rights.
Frankly, I find the idea of the government claiming that it owns the water that falls from the sky to be offensive.
To address BenJury, Dave and others, it is irrelevant that his collection system huge, amounting to small lakes. The water apparently came from rain run off. (If he dammed a local creek, that's another thing). I reject categorically the idea that the government owns water that falls from the sky, state law or not. This is the difference between the government providing the mechanisms and abusing the mechanisms.
Besides, It's Oregon for hecks sake. It hardly ever stops raining there,.
Idiots like you often confuse "smaller government" with "no government".
Government provides the legal context for property ownership. That's good. Government also interferes with your use of that land. That's bad.
Just Google "Oregon, man jailed for storing rainwater". Yes, Government is telling this guy that rain water that falls from his roof cannot be stored in a pond his land. In fact, they are putting him in jail for doing so. That's the state government. If he was able to do it, you can be sure that the EPA would be there telling him what he could or couldn't do with the pond.
That is the government that the Tea Party is against.
More nuclear power means less coal, oil and gas fired power plants, which means more electrically powered transportation and heating, which means less CO2.
I'll cut you some slack because English appears to be your second language. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Seriously, I only know a little bit of German and would be lost there without all of you knowing some English.
So you just specified a policy change that would reduce choice and force people to give things up and at the same time suggest that you don't want to implement policies that reduce choice and force people to give things up.
If we had continued with nuclear energy instead of letting it die on the cross of the litigators and regulators, CO2 emissions would probably be a fraction of what they are now.
The reason conservatives are suspicious of the entire AGW movement is that the community ignores the obvious solution in favor of the left's statist wet dream.
The problem is that when you give money to the government like that, the effectiveness plummets. Far less money actually makes it to the individual or program due to bureaucratic overhead (or is hijacked altogether).
"the shift away from hard disks towards other people's hard drives"
Fixed.
I hate the term "the cloud". It's fucking remote servers is all. I can just see some guy with 20 years experience managing network server applies for a job and HR screens him because he doesn't have "Cloud" in his resume. It's a stupid marketing term that people are taking for a technology.
Slashdot Mirror
If you own a plot on the moon, the moon dust that falls on it is yours.
The Sacketts will not be getting any money back.
Any casual browsing will reveal outrage after outrage from a government that behaves in a manner that reasonable people would condemn...IRS, EPA, etc.all under the cover of "it's the law". That's the problem.
As they say, the devil is in the details.
An EPA that fines and intimidates land owners based on their own ideology is just as bad as a land owner abusing his land.
Well, we are talking ideology here are we not?
What is the argument over the size and role of government if not a Ideological argument?
It is a reasonable claim based on recent federal law changes that would undoubtedly place his ponds under the jurisdiction of the EPA.
Again there is a difference between the government providing a legal structure for securing mineral rights for property owners and the government claiming those rights.
Frankly, I find the idea of the government claiming that it owns the water that falls from the sky to be offensive.
To address BenJury, Dave and others, it is irrelevant that his collection system huge, amounting to small lakes. The water apparently came from rain run off. (If he dammed a local creek, that's another thing). I reject categorically the idea that the government owns water that falls from the sky, state law or not. This is the difference between the government providing the mechanisms and abusing the mechanisms.
Besides, It's Oregon for hecks sake. It hardly ever stops raining there,.
I should not have called you an idiot. My apologies. in advance.
Idiots like you often confuse "smaller government" with "no government".
Government provides the legal context for property ownership. That's good. Government also interferes with your use of that land. That's bad.
Just Google "Oregon, man jailed for storing rainwater". Yes, Government is telling this guy that rain water that falls from his roof cannot be stored in a pond his land. In fact, they are putting him in jail for doing so. That's the state government. If he was able to do it, you can be sure that the EPA would be there telling him what he could or couldn't do with the pond.
That is the government that the Tea Party is against.
Automated trading is a Bad Thing.
It is a joke to call it Market. It's no more than a Vegas Slot machine.
More nuclear power means less coal, oil and gas fired power plants, which means more electrically powered transportation and heating, which means less CO2.
I'll cut you some slack because English appears to be your second language. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Seriously, I only know a little bit of German and would be lost there without all of you knowing some English.
"make sure your government is effective"
Ahhahahahahaha..
Good fucking luck with that.
So you just specified a policy change that would reduce choice and force people to give things up and at the same time suggest that you don't want to implement policies that reduce choice and force people to give things up.
Hello!
Nuclear Energy.
If we had continued with nuclear energy instead of letting it die on the cross of the litigators and regulators, CO2 emissions would probably be a fraction of what they are now.
The reason conservatives are suspicious of the entire AGW movement is that the community ignores the obvious solution in favor of the left's statist wet dream.
I do believe that most of the industrial pollution came from what are called Blue states.
It wasn't Bubba on his farm that made acid rain or polluted the rivers with mercury.
The problem is that when you give money to the government like that, the effectiveness plummets. Far less money actually makes it to the individual or program due to bureaucratic overhead (or is hijacked altogether).
SlippyToad, always bringing the discussion back to civility and calmness.
It will get Warmer.
It will get colder.
Repeat.
It is infallible.
"the shift away from hard disks towards other people's hard drives"
Fixed.
I hate the term "the cloud". It's fucking remote servers is all. I can just see some guy with 20 years experience managing network server applies for a job and HR screens him because he doesn't have "Cloud" in his resume. It's a stupid marketing term that people are taking for a technology.
The article is garbage and the latest in a long line of "we're all going to die" crap.
It will never cost $30 a meal unless the government interferes with the producers.
My electric bill would suck!
...I'll start getting at least half of the advertised speed from my AT&T DSL connection?
High Five *
I'll let you go first next time. Then we can tag team these bitches.
I"m not even going to bother give a point by point refutation.
You just agreed with every Anti-nuclear Counterpoint and you don't even understand that you did.
It was Dewhurst that derailed that law. Look what happened to him.