How much are you paying for those externalized costs? Are they even measurable?
If we can quantify that accurately, then there's justification for imposing internalization of the costs of carbon emissions. Until then, it's just pointing fingers and saying "You are bad and should pay more because you don't ascribe to my political philosophy!"
No, that's the government acting on behalf of the media companies. So, yes, it is a problem when companies can buy laws to entrench their business methods. From what I can tell, Libertarian philosophy agrees with that and seeks to reduce/distribute the power of government so that it can't be abused like that as easily.
Couldn't somebody do that with any public wifi network as soon as they get the password? I mean, this will make it harder for the wifi provider to shut the malware server down as changing passwords won't work, but it still only allows access to join the network.
FreedomPop's plans are only cheap if you essentially don't use data. Using 10GB on their best phone plan in a month would cost $125 ($35 4GB plan + 6x $15/GB).
As long as it frustrates users of the competition's products more, yes.
Now if people decide that these sorts of shenanigans are enough to keep them from buying any of the products, that would no longer hold. Unless we start holding these companies accountable for customer hostile policies, why would we expect them to change?
Except he didn't state or even imply that anyone is "biologically unfit". All he said was that biology contributes a portion of the non-50/50 distribution of men and women in tech and high-level leadership roles. He even explicitly stated that everyone should be evaluated as individuals irrespective of their race or gender. And then went on to suggest some non-discriminatory ways to help improve diversity and reduce any unconscious/systemic bias against minorities.
His policy suggestions are to make use of population level statistical trends to help guide company policy that increases inclusiveness and diversity rather than achieving gender balance by preferential treatment and exclusion. How could you ensure that you're including a group without recognizing the differences that define the group in the fist place?
That was a suggestion about changing company policy to ensure that the opportunities exist for people with diverse personal traits (some of which happen to correlate with gender). That way more people have a choice that better suits their own unique personality. Nowhere did he say that women or men should be intentionally diverted into these roles based on stereotypes. He's advocating for the opposite of what you're claiming.
I stand by the statement since this is a hypothetical and the only way we stand a chance of peacefully changing the distribution of power between the federal government and the states is by changing the constitution itself. Personally, I would even be open to considering relaxing the 2nd amendment protections as they apply to the states as long as it was strengthened to absolutely preclude the federal government from making any laws to restrict the personal ownership of arms.
How about this: You can have a mother f'in bazooka if I can have Single Payer healthcare & college tuition for my kid. Deal?
There is a way we can all have it closer to our own way. Stop expecting that everything should be handled by the federal government.
Why shouldn't there be a state with single payer healthcare and strict gun laws and other states with less restrictive gun laws and employer based insurance or offer private high-deductible plans and low taxes? Why do those in Nebraska or New York feel that they need to tell those in Alaska or Florida what rules they need to live by? Why even have states if everything is run at the federal level?
In my opinion, agriculture covers everything from canals and reservoirs to GMO and beyond. But fundamentally my question was that if we have more turnover in the water cycle and more CO2 in the atmosphere, why would we not be able to take advantage of those increased resources? Thank you for the thoughtful response. I see that some costs will go up predictably and raising the quality of life for the developing global economies to current western standards doesn't appear sustainable, but what can't be accounted for are the novel increases in efficiency that technological development provides. I guess I'm just optimistic that the cunning monkeys that we are will be able to figure out a way. It's what we've done since we developed our first tools and our ability to develop new technology and adapt certainly doesn't seem to be slowing down any.
How is this insightful? Haven't we developed a set of technologies collectively called "Agriculture" that allow use to cope with and make use of variable weather to grow useful crops? What is changing so drastically that makes it impossible to adapt and improve our technologies to accommodate?
I have two dogs and free feed with no issues. One of them is defensive of food around new dogs, too. It just took a little time to let them get acclimated to each other and now they eat out of each other's bowls without a second thought.
I may just be lucky that my dogs have compatible personalities, though. I could see it becoming an issue if one dog is strongly food aggressive and the other is very passive. Both of mine will tell the other off when they need to.
The rules should be that the site isn't liable for user's content as long as they are just a passive medium and don't influence any of that content. If they are paying for or moderating/curating the content, then they can be held liable the same way printed media would be.
As for what sorts of speech are legal/illegal, none should be criminal, but you may face civil liability if your words directly contribute to actual harm of another.
If you're an active person in a hot climate, the ideal diet is higher in salt than someone who lives in a colder climate and rarely exercises to the point of breaking a sweat.
I live in Phoenix, AZ and giving kids their primary meal with only 600mg of salt would be dangerous. You can easily lose over a gram per hour of outdoor activity in the summer.
A 60 mile commute is not reasonable for most people, especially those of limited income. If you are making $30k or less, the odds of you having reliable transportation that can do 120 miles / day is very low. On top of that most jobs that pay that little have little to no stability or worker support, so if the employee's car breaks down once on their way to work now they likely have a car needing repair and they are out of a job.
I didn't say anything about commuting. Find a trade in that area. It may pay less, but the cost of living can be low enough to provide an equal or better standard of living while still saving.
Again, you are making a huge sweeping assumption that people are pulling in enough money to be able to saving money when they are younger. Very few people are actually in that situation right out of college or high school, for the reasons I just laid out above
True, few young people are saving, but that isn't because situations beyond their control prevent them from doing so. It's because they have failed to account for savings when choosing what career path to take and where to live.
This is some seriously basic stuff. If the jobs you can get in an area won't cover your minimum living expenses and savings simultaneously, then you need to change the equation. Either look for employment somewhere where you can live cheaper or learn a skill or trade that can command higher pay.
I'm not saying that society makes it easy to save. There are all sorts of pressures to spend every dime you make and we aren't giving kids the tools they need in school (e.g. personal finance and home economics classes). That's something I'd like to see improvement on, but it's still not an excuse.
My number for median income came from a different wikidpedia page: Personal_income_in_the_United_States. But $28k is close enough that the difference isn't really relevant.
The bigger issue is that your response has a faulty underlying assumption that it's not possible to leave a higher cost of living area. I don't know of any high-cost cities that don't have a rural area within a few dozen miles. Even sprawling metropolitan areas like Los Angeles have them within ~60 miles from the city center and that's ignoring low cost areas within the city.
And yes, compound interest favors saving when you're younger. That's a damn good reason to start saving as soon as you have income, not an excuse for delaying retirement. It's also something that people should consider when they decide whether to extend their education or join the workforce earlier. There's a lot of demand for skilled trades that don't require a post-graduate college degree.
Few people are making enough money beyond their needs to be able to save money towards retirement.
That's bullshit. Saving is a choice about whether you prioritize immediate wants or long term stability. People who choose the former later on lament that they couldn't earn enough to meet their "needs" that include brand new cars, annual vacations, and the biggest house they can make payments on in addition to the thousands each year they spend on entertainment (dining out, movies, games, TV, sports) and grown up toys (cell phones, bikes, ATVs etc). It's a way to pass off the blame for poor planning.
The cost of basic needs (food, water, basic shelter) are a fraction of the median personal income (~$30,000/yr). Sure, making more makes it easier to save. That doesn't make choosing not to any less of a choice.
Reading the book probably made the movie seem worse by comparison, but the novel is great and some of that probably did come through in the film. I understand the criticism of Crichton. He does have a certain style, but I think it worked pretty well with the content and a novel is a much better medium for this kind of psychological thriller where so much of the action takes place in the characters heads.
Sphere!? You have to be joking. That was a terrible movie. The book was great, but so much of what made it great was internal dialog and psychology that just didn't translate to film.
Close they call it the RAT (ram-air turbine). And it works for what it's designed for: power for critical systems in an in-flight emergency.
They usually prefer to run the APU in those situations, if they can. But deploying the RAT is your only option when you lose all of the engines and the APU is off.
Local libraries almost universally have a few computers with internet access available for research and things such as this. The resources to support yourself are free and readily available, if you make the effort to look for them.
Slashdot Mirror
I've read a bunch of those studies. They only thing they seem to agree on is that the error bars are large.
How much are you paying for those externalized costs? Are they even measurable?
If we can quantify that accurately, then there's justification for imposing internalization of the costs of carbon emissions. Until then, it's just pointing fingers and saying "You are bad and should pay more because you don't ascribe to my political philosophy!"
No, that's the government acting on behalf of the media companies. So, yes, it is a problem when companies can buy laws to entrench their business methods. From what I can tell, Libertarian philosophy agrees with that and seeks to reduce/distribute the power of government so that it can't be abused like that as easily.
Couldn't somebody do that with any public wifi network as soon as they get the password? I mean, this will make it harder for the wifi provider to shut the malware server down as changing passwords won't work, but it still only allows access to join the network.
A corollary of that is that hours spent doing things you enjoy, which also count as exercise, are free.
FreedomPop's plans are only cheap if you essentially don't use data. Using 10GB on their best phone plan in a month would cost $125 ($35 4GB plan + 6x $15/GB).
As long as it frustrates users of the competition's products more, yes.
Now if people decide that these sorts of shenanigans are enough to keep them from buying any of the products, that would no longer hold. Unless we start holding these companies accountable for customer hostile policies, why would we expect them to change?
Except he didn't state or even imply that anyone is "biologically unfit". All he said was that biology contributes a portion of the non-50/50 distribution of men and women in tech and high-level leadership roles. He even explicitly stated that everyone should be evaluated as individuals irrespective of their race or gender. And then went on to suggest some non-discriminatory ways to help improve diversity and reduce any unconscious/systemic bias against minorities.
His policy suggestions are to make use of population level statistical trends to help guide company policy that increases inclusiveness and diversity rather than achieving gender balance by preferential treatment and exclusion. How could you ensure that you're including a group without recognizing the differences that define the group in the fist place?
Have you read the memo?
That was a suggestion about changing company policy to ensure that the opportunities exist for people with diverse personal traits (some of which happen to correlate with gender). That way more people have a choice that better suits their own unique personality. Nowhere did he say that women or men should be intentionally diverted into these roles based on stereotypes. He's advocating for the opposite of what you're claiming.
I stand by the statement since this is a hypothetical and the only way we stand a chance of peacefully changing the distribution of power between the federal government and the states is by changing the constitution itself. Personally, I would even be open to considering relaxing the 2nd amendment protections as they apply to the states as long as it was strengthened to absolutely preclude the federal government from making any laws to restrict the personal ownership of arms.
How about this: You can have a mother f'in bazooka if I can have Single Payer healthcare & college tuition for my kid. Deal?
There is a way we can all have it closer to our own way. Stop expecting that everything should be handled by the federal government.
Why shouldn't there be a state with single payer healthcare and strict gun laws and other states with less restrictive gun laws and employer based insurance or offer private high-deductible plans and low taxes? Why do those in Nebraska or New York feel that they need to tell those in Alaska or Florida what rules they need to live by? Why even have states if everything is run at the federal level?
In my opinion, agriculture covers everything from canals and reservoirs to GMO and beyond. But fundamentally my question was that if we have more turnover in the water cycle and more CO2 in the atmosphere, why would we not be able to take advantage of those increased resources? Thank you for the thoughtful response. I see that some costs will go up predictably and raising the quality of life for the developing global economies to current western standards doesn't appear sustainable, but what can't be accounted for are the novel increases in efficiency that technological development provides. I guess I'm just optimistic that the cunning monkeys that we are will be able to figure out a way. It's what we've done since we developed our first tools and our ability to develop new technology and adapt certainly doesn't seem to be slowing down any.
How is this insightful? Haven't we developed a set of technologies collectively called "Agriculture" that allow use to cope with and make use of variable weather to grow useful crops? What is changing so drastically that makes it impossible to adapt and improve our technologies to accommodate?
The correct answer is that it's a trick question. You need A, C & D at least.
Although, if I had to pick only one, it's C. With enough capital, you can afford to buy the rest.
I have two dogs and free feed with no issues. One of them is defensive of food around new dogs, too. It just took a little time to let them get acclimated to each other and now they eat out of each other's bowls without a second thought.
I may just be lucky that my dogs have compatible personalities, though. I could see it becoming an issue if one dog is strongly food aggressive and the other is very passive. Both of mine will tell the other off when they need to.
The rules should be that the site isn't liable for user's content as long as they are just a passive medium and don't influence any of that content. If they are paying for or moderating/curating the content, then they can be held liable the same way printed media would be.
As for what sorts of speech are legal/illegal, none should be criminal, but you may face civil liability if your words directly contribute to actual harm of another.
Where do you live and how active are you?
If you're an active person in a hot climate, the ideal diet is higher in salt than someone who lives in a colder climate and rarely exercises to the point of breaking a sweat.
I live in Phoenix, AZ and giving kids their primary meal with only 600mg of salt would be dangerous. You can easily lose over a gram per hour of outdoor activity in the summer.
A 60 mile commute is not reasonable for most people, especially those of limited income. If you are making $30k or less, the odds of you having reliable transportation that can do 120 miles / day is very low. On top of that most jobs that pay that little have little to no stability or worker support, so if the employee's car breaks down once on their way to work now they likely have a car needing repair and they are out of a job.
I didn't say anything about commuting. Find a trade in that area. It may pay less, but the cost of living can be low enough to provide an equal or better standard of living while still saving.
Again, you are making a huge sweeping assumption that people are pulling in enough money to be able to saving money when they are younger. Very few people are actually in that situation right out of college or high school, for the reasons I just laid out above
True, few young people are saving, but that isn't because situations beyond their control prevent them from doing so. It's because they have failed to account for savings when choosing what career path to take and where to live.
This is some seriously basic stuff. If the jobs you can get in an area won't cover your minimum living expenses and savings simultaneously, then you need to change the equation. Either look for employment somewhere where you can live cheaper or learn a skill or trade that can command higher pay.
I'm not saying that society makes it easy to save. There are all sorts of pressures to spend every dime you make and we aren't giving kids the tools they need in school (e.g. personal finance and home economics classes). That's something I'd like to see improvement on, but it's still not an excuse.
My number for median income came from a different wikidpedia page: Personal_income_in_the_United_States. But $28k is close enough that the difference isn't really relevant.
The bigger issue is that your response has a faulty underlying assumption that it's not possible to leave a higher cost of living area. I don't know of any high-cost cities that don't have a rural area within a few dozen miles. Even sprawling metropolitan areas like Los Angeles have them within ~60 miles from the city center and that's ignoring low cost areas within the city.
And yes, compound interest favors saving when you're younger. That's a damn good reason to start saving as soon as you have income, not an excuse for delaying retirement. It's also something that people should consider when they decide whether to extend their education or join the workforce earlier. There's a lot of demand for skilled trades that don't require a post-graduate college degree.
Few people are making enough money beyond their needs to be able to save money towards retirement.
That's bullshit. Saving is a choice about whether you prioritize immediate wants or long term stability. People who choose the former later on lament that they couldn't earn enough to meet their "needs" that include brand new cars, annual vacations, and the biggest house they can make payments on in addition to the thousands each year they spend on entertainment (dining out, movies, games, TV, sports) and grown up toys (cell phones, bikes, ATVs etc). It's a way to pass off the blame for poor planning.
The cost of basic needs (food, water, basic shelter) are a fraction of the median personal income (~$30,000/yr). Sure, making more makes it easier to save. That doesn't make choosing not to any less of a choice.
Reading the book probably made the movie seem worse by comparison, but the novel is great and some of that probably did come through in the film. I understand the criticism of Crichton. He does have a certain style, but I think it worked pretty well with the content and a novel is a much better medium for this kind of psychological thriller where so much of the action takes place in the characters heads.
Sphere!? You have to be joking. That was a terrible movie. The book was great, but so much of what made it great was internal dialog and psychology that just didn't translate to film.
Close they call it the RAT (ram-air turbine). And it works for what it's designed for: power for critical systems in an in-flight emergency.
They usually prefer to run the APU in those situations, if they can. But deploying the RAT is your only option when you lose all of the engines and the APU is off.
Local libraries almost universally have a few computers with internet access available for research and things such as this. The resources to support yourself are free and readily available, if you make the effort to look for them.