Well, when you mix left wing Political Correctness, with Fundamentalist Christianity, you end up with the worst kinds of stupid. Unfortunately, nobody wants to listen to rational adults when politics is involved.
Which is why Libertarians all seem crazy. Okay, so Libertarians tend to attract all kinds of crazy, but not all of us are insane.
There is no overwhelming evidence towards AGW. The models have all failed to predict the non-growth in GW over the last decade. Only people listening to appeals to authority actually believe the models are working. And worse, the predictions (no ice cap, bad hurricanes....) all have failed. And when Sandy hits it is AGW, but when no hurricanes hit it is or worse when it is really cold "don't you know the difference between weather and climate" (apparently AGW proponents don't either).
And you have failed to prove that government can solve any problem.
"revenue-neutral carbon tax would be quite progressive"
That is impossible. First off, Government always gets its cut of the pie, so there is no such thing as "revenue-neutral" (first lie). Second, all taxes are regressive, as poor people cannot avoid them as well as rich people can.
And only liberals figure that taxing something is a right of government, and the "go to" game-plan for all progressive "solutions".
Scientific Consensus is Opinion. Global Warming is a theory.
Global Warming is a theory backed by Scientific Consensus. It is an opinion of a theory.
The problem is, people like you think that Global Warming is fact (it isn't) and the scientific consensus is proof (it isn't). But keep making that case all you want, it doesn't help convince people like me who want actual science.
The problem is, we have people using "Scientific Consensus" as equivalent to fact. It is nothing short of appeal to authority logical fallacy. Premise B-E are nothing less than speculation, but often treated as fact. The logical argument that is being made is We should do X because "might be" and "could be" reasons, without adequate probabilities being established. Probabilities can't be established because the scientific evidence is lacking for even a reasonable predictive model.
BUT I am labeled a denier because I want SCIENCE and not opinion.
a) True. The planet has been warmer and cooler than it is now. b) Humans change a lot of things. SOME of the change is caused by humans. Nobody has even come close to defining how much change is human caused; all such models have failed clearly indicating that AGW (not Climate Change) is pure speculation even if it is also scientific consensus (which by definition, isn't science) c) Key word "Might". No such proof exists, and all models that predicted horrible events have failed. d) Key word "Could". No such proof exists, and all models that predicted horrible events have failed. e) Key word "Might". No such proof exists, and all models that predicted horrible events have failed. f) Key phrase, "administered effectively by government(s)", an assumption that I reject completely as irresponsible.
Basically, you have a bunch of unproven assumptions and, worst of all, faith in government. Fix the assumptions (and "consensus" isn't facts), and replace your faith in government with healthy scientific skepticism and you might convince people like me.
Global Warming is a theory. All models used to predict actual climate changes have failed. The Al Gore "no ice cap" style Chicken Little cries are starting to get tiresome. Especially when you consider the thousands of jets used by the elites to go to Davos to listen to Al Gore spew more nonsense.
IF the AWG conspiracists REALLY TRULY believed what they were saying, THEY would lead by example, not by fiat dictates to us "common folk" while contributing more to AGW in a week than I do in a year.
Sorry, I need more evidence than "Scientific Consensus". All the AGW models have failed, miserably. Liberals think the models just need adjusting and won't consider the idea that the premise itself is flawed.
Having cars that either get really excellent fuel economy
How about fucking government not try to regulate every last bit of freedom away under imaginary threats that are "scientific consensus" and not actual, you know "facts".
AGW is not a fact, it is an opinion. All of the models used to predict GW have failed, miserably and yet it is considered "fact" by too many people who don't know what "fact" actually means.
I would suggest that exploitation would be damage. Unless there is an overt consent for VZ to profit from your browsing habits, it is nothing short of exploitation.
The NSA has a budget somewhere on the order of 40-80 billion dollars per year. No normal individual can stand up to that level of attack.
Nor should they. The government should be protecting citizen's rights, not invading them. But that is what you get when you keep voting for Republicrats.
Why do you think that being for expansion in one area means you're for expansion in all areas?
Because (D) wants expansion in area 1, but not area 2. They get expansion in area 1.
Next election, (R) wins and wants to expand in area 2, and they expand in area 2.
Wash, rinse, repeat. And if anyone proposes to cut Area 1 or 2, they are accused of "Tossing grandma off a cliff" or "Not caring about security" or "hating children" or "killing kittens and puppies"
The result is the same.
As for ISP, the problem is limited last mile options. Nothing more, nothing less. By removing the last mile from the equation, from "Comcast Franchise agreement" to Municipally owned infrastructure, we'd be pushing competition away from last mile to a CO-LO, and actually be able to increase competition, without increasing regulations.
Google Fiber is still Google Fiber. I'm talking about municipality owned infrastructure. City of ______ Fiber, owned, operated and maintained by the municipality, with the fiber being terminated in a CO-LO facility, where you could get Google, Time-Warner, Comcast, DirectTV, or whatever other options were available.
The issue is removing last mile ownership by a commercial enterprise.
Here are a couple differences between drinking too much water and too big of government: 1) the number of affected people (one vs Millions), 2) You have to try to drink too much water vs natural progression of governance.
Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy not because it isn't true, it is a logical fallacy because it isn't always true; sometimes is not good enough in logic. The question is, have you seen government that has grown too big?
Here are a few acronyms that most citizens hate: IRS, NSA, CIA, DHS....
Lastly, is there anyone that can seriously argue that government is not big enough?
Or, you can realize that Broadband is as simple as building out a new Fiber infrastructure, replacing Cable, using the model I've suggested.
Municipalities build out the infrastructure using one time Bond money, building a CO-LO facility and auction space to CONTENT and INTERNET providers. All last mile connections terminate in the CO-LO and a network technician processes connection requests from customers, "I want Time-Warner" or "I want Comcast", or "I want Google", who then patches customer to provider.
The cable is not owned by any single vendor, and there is competition for customers individually. No need for any regulation, and market forces will lower costs to the end user. AND things like the Comcast/Netflix argument simply disappears.
Well, if you keep voting for the same thing, expecting different results, who is the crazy one?
I know, how about taking the fucking power away from people we have no access to and giving it back to the people to live their lives as they see fit? Oh right, because (R) want to toss Grandma off a cliff and (D) are in bed with the Islamists (IOW... Fear Mongering).
Oh, don't forget to mention Somalia in your next reply.
The original poster implied it wasn't culturally acceptable in the US, and I was making it clear that under certain circumstances and depending on how you look at things, it is culturally acceptable, just narrower in scope.
AND if you ask me, it is always has been and will be culturally acceptable until such time as we start tossing the likes of everyone involved in things like TARP I and II in jail.
More security requires more diligence, which is often inconvenient. More security requires everyone to be secure, not just some, and that is definitely inconvenient, and requires trust that others are not putting you in danger (insecure), which requires compliance checks and verification, which is inconvenient. Technology can take the edge off the inconvenience, but isn't the panacea that everyone wants it to be.
The weakest link in security is people. Always has been, always will be.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, when you mix left wing Political Correctness, with Fundamentalist Christianity, you end up with the worst kinds of stupid. Unfortunately, nobody wants to listen to rational adults when politics is involved.
Which is why Libertarians all seem crazy. Okay, so Libertarians tend to attract all kinds of crazy, but not all of us are insane.
There is no overwhelming evidence towards AGW. The models have all failed to predict the non-growth in GW over the last decade. Only people listening to appeals to authority actually believe the models are working. And worse, the predictions (no ice cap, bad hurricanes ....) all have failed. And when Sandy hits it is AGW, but when no hurricanes hit it is or worse when it is really cold "don't you know the difference between weather and climate" (apparently AGW proponents don't either).
And you have failed to prove that government can solve any problem.
"revenue-neutral carbon tax would be quite progressive"
That is impossible. First off, Government always gets its cut of the pie, so there is no such thing as "revenue-neutral" (first lie). Second, all taxes are regressive, as poor people cannot avoid them as well as rich people can.
And only liberals figure that taxing something is a right of government, and the "go to" game-plan for all progressive "solutions".
If you want to use Food Stamps as evidence of liberal success, I think you have it. More people are on Food Stamps than ever before, SUCCESS!!!!
Oh, and by your version of reality, conservatives hate bears!
http://www.niagarafallsreporte...
Scientific Consensus is Opinion. Global Warming is a theory.
Global Warming is a theory backed by Scientific Consensus. It is an opinion of a theory.
The problem is, people like you think that Global Warming is fact (it isn't) and the scientific consensus is proof (it isn't). But keep making that case all you want, it doesn't help convince people like me who want actual science.
It was the proverbial "y'all" you. ;)
The problem is, we have people using "Scientific Consensus" as equivalent to fact. It is nothing short of appeal to authority logical fallacy. Premise B-E are nothing less than speculation, but often treated as fact. The logical argument that is being made is We should do X because "might be" and "could be" reasons, without adequate probabilities being established. Probabilities can't be established because the scientific evidence is lacking for even a reasonable predictive model.
BUT I am labeled a denier because I want SCIENCE and not opinion.
a) True. The planet has been warmer and cooler than it is now.
b) Humans change a lot of things. SOME of the change is caused by humans. Nobody has even come close to defining how much change is human caused; all such models have failed clearly indicating that AGW (not Climate Change) is pure speculation even if it is also scientific consensus (which by definition, isn't science)
c) Key word "Might". No such proof exists, and all models that predicted horrible events have failed.
d) Key word "Could". No such proof exists, and all models that predicted horrible events have failed.
e) Key word "Might". No such proof exists, and all models that predicted horrible events have failed.
f) Key phrase, "administered effectively by government(s)", an assumption that I reject completely as irresponsible.
Basically, you have a bunch of unproven assumptions and, worst of all, faith in government. Fix the assumptions (and "consensus" isn't facts), and replace your faith in government with healthy scientific skepticism and you might convince people like me.
Global Warming is a theory. All models used to predict actual climate changes have failed. The Al Gore "no ice cap" style Chicken Little cries are starting to get tiresome. Especially when you consider the thousands of jets used by the elites to go to Davos to listen to Al Gore spew more nonsense.
IF the AWG conspiracists REALLY TRULY believed what they were saying, THEY would lead by example, not by fiat dictates to us "common folk" while contributing more to AGW in a week than I do in a year.
Sorry, I need more evidence than "Scientific Consensus". All the AGW models have failed, miserably. Liberals think the models just need adjusting and won't consider the idea that the premise itself is flawed.
Proof that Liberals don't care about the poor. And why I keep saying ALL Taxes are regressive. Thanks!
Having cars that either get really excellent fuel economy
How about fucking government not try to regulate every last bit of freedom away under imaginary threats that are "scientific consensus" and not actual, you know "facts".
AGW is not a fact, it is an opinion. All of the models used to predict GW have failed, miserably and yet it is considered "fact" by too many people who don't know what "fact" actually means.
I would suggest that exploitation would be damage. Unless there is an overt consent for VZ to profit from your browsing habits, it is nothing short of exploitation.
You are completely nuts if you think there will be any significant amount** of backlash.
** Significant meaning fines, large numbers of customers quitting, or anything else that will impact bottom line of VZ
The NSA has a budget somewhere on the order of 40-80 billion dollars per year. No normal individual can stand up to that level of attack.
Nor should they. The government should be protecting citizen's rights, not invading them. But that is what you get when you keep voting for Republicrats.
Why do you think that being for expansion in one area means you're for expansion in all areas?
Because (D) wants expansion in area 1, but not area 2. They get expansion in area 1.
Next election, (R) wins and wants to expand in area 2, and they expand in area 2.
Wash, rinse, repeat. And if anyone proposes to cut Area 1 or 2, they are accused of "Tossing grandma off a cliff" or "Not caring about security" or "hating children" or "killing kittens and puppies"
The result is the same.
As for ISP, the problem is limited last mile options. Nothing more, nothing less. By removing the last mile from the equation, from "Comcast Franchise agreement" to Municipally owned infrastructure, we'd be pushing competition away from last mile to a CO-LO, and actually be able to increase competition, without increasing regulations.
Google Fiber is still Google Fiber. I'm talking about municipality owned infrastructure. City of ______ Fiber, owned, operated and maintained by the municipality, with the fiber being terminated in a CO-LO facility, where you could get Google, Time-Warner, Comcast, DirectTV, or whatever other options were available.
The issue is removing last mile ownership by a commercial enterprise.
Chicago, DC, LA ... that pretty much explains things right there. What do they all have in common? Liberal leadership
You can't buy away competition without big government collusion.
Here are a couple differences between drinking too much water and too big of government: 1) the number of affected people (one vs Millions), 2) You have to try to drink too much water vs natural progression of governance.
Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy not because it isn't true, it is a logical fallacy because it isn't always true; sometimes is not good enough in logic. The question is, have you seen government that has grown too big?
Here are a few acronyms that most citizens hate: IRS, NSA, CIA, DHS ....
Lastly, is there anyone that can seriously argue that government is not big enough?
Or, you can realize that Broadband is as simple as building out a new Fiber infrastructure, replacing Cable, using the model I've suggested.
Municipalities build out the infrastructure using one time Bond money, building a CO-LO facility and auction space to CONTENT and INTERNET providers. All last mile connections terminate in the CO-LO and a network technician processes connection requests from customers, "I want Time-Warner" or "I want Comcast", or "I want Google", who then patches customer to provider.
The cable is not owned by any single vendor, and there is competition for customers individually. No need for any regulation, and market forces will lower costs to the end user. AND things like the Comcast/Netflix argument simply disappears.
Well, if you keep voting for the same thing, expecting different results, who is the crazy one?
I know, how about taking the fucking power away from people we have no access to and giving it back to the people to live their lives as they see fit? Oh right, because (R) want to toss Grandma off a cliff and (D) are in bed with the Islamists (IOW ... Fear Mongering).
Oh, don't forget to mention Somalia in your next reply.
Autonomous drones show intent, where a drunk security guy doesn't (this case).
We keep voting the same people, same two corrupt parties into office. If that doesn't signify cultural acceptance I don't know what does.
The original poster implied it wasn't culturally acceptable in the US, and I was making it clear that under certain circumstances and depending on how you look at things, it is culturally acceptable, just narrower in scope.
AND if you ask me, it is always has been and will be culturally acceptable until such time as we start tossing the likes of everyone involved in things like TARP I and II in jail.
More security requires more diligence, which is often inconvenient. More security requires everyone to be secure, not just some, and that is definitely inconvenient, and requires trust that others are not putting you in danger (insecure), which requires compliance checks and verification, which is inconvenient. Technology can take the edge off the inconvenience, but isn't the panacea that everyone wants it to be.
The weakest link in security is people. Always has been, always will be.