Yeah that was my first thought (albeit stated a bit over-dramatically). It's not like the Koch bros funding republicans is any secret. I'd imagine most billionaires run concerted efforts based on their policies. For me this topic boils down to: is google funding Dems and its resulting privacy implications worse than big Oil funding Reps and its resulting climate implications? Not really because to me a long term stable environment is a per-requisite to even consider fighting about online privacy.
Wasn't the later life version of Tesla broke? In any case its good that we have a bunch of/. commenters to tell Musk he's wrong otherwise he'd be in real trouble.
Certain things are simply done better through centralized government management - road systems, police, military defense, and health care. Privatizing stuff like that has disastrous results.
100% agree. I'm lucky in that my employer pays my health insurance but I'd be perfectly fine with single payer like the rest of the world. Neither Socialism or Free Market are a magic fix for every possible scenario (especially when humans are involved) so its in our best interests to pick and choose. I'm guessing as the left and right get further apart we will continue to have your "cloth patchwork" on pretty much every big societal issue until automation makes everything free (aka basic salary) in a few decades.
This is also false. At the time Obamacare was proposed, the competing Republican plan was to do a Medicaid expansion (similar to what the Obamacare expansion ended up being) but to leave private insurance alone.
I thought it was give a $2500 tax break to individuals by taking the tax break away from employers:
Obamacare hasn't helped anyone. The "millions of poor people" who supposedly benefited from it qualified for medicaid to begin with.
Doesn't mean they got it. One of the big things Obamacare did was expand medicaid so those people that qualified actually received healthcare. Everyone's beef was using the individual mandate to make it happen (ask congress for $100B to give more poor people insurance? yeah that would have worked out so much better). Sure it needs some work but its not like everything was roses under the status quo. I assume you're firmly dug in to your opinion on it but if you look at some of the data that is rolling in, Obamacare has largely done what it set out to do, which is get more people health insurance (+30M so far). Plenty of anecdotes abound about financial ruin...just as there were before Obamacare but none of the disaster scenarios have come true or even seem plausible anymore.
Also, I don't think any candidate would have had the experience to deal with a historically antagonistic congress like Obama did for 8 years. Hell, democrats even voted for Bush and cheney's war.
Anyway, I don't expect you to give this post any credence but maybe lighten up a bit and don't deal so much in absolutes. Life is generally more complicated than goodthing/badthing.
Or work charging. Or anywhere you can run a 2cm cable to. If every car took 20 min to "refuel" but a refueling station had the footprint of the head-on space between 2 parking spaces instead of massive underground storage tanks I'm sure someone could figure out how to avoid grinding to a halt.
But Sanders doesn't have a chance, given Hillary's super delegates.
Go watch John Oliver's take on the primarys. Take away the super delegates, 10K of her votes in close primarys and another 100K just for fun and she'd still have more primary votes than Bernie....oh, and Trump.
Not that the primary system is all roses, it could certainly use reform. But when your candidate spends the first 3/4 of the primary cycle issuing vague threats if he doesn't win due to perceived unfairness and then immediately says he doesn't care because he won, there is little chance of anything changing. Basically this shows that no matter how "anti-establishment" your candidate is, if they happen to win they immediately become the establishment.
The GOP presidential candidate called, he wants his false equivalencies back!
And to answer your question, its in the summary:
New York Medical College Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy Stuart Newman calls the use of chimeras as entering unsettling ground which damages "our sense of humanity."
I don't know what an evolutionary biologist can be, if not left wing.
Don't forget the vast majority of coal deposits come from trees that existed for about 50M years before bacteria evolved to digest lignin. Now trees mostly just rot. I suppose alge will still create oil deposits but half of our easy fuel will probably never be replenished.
And how is 300M years from now even relevant? We need to make some major changes in the next 30 to make it through the next 300 if we want to maintain (or improve) current standards of living.
FYI, for equivalent time frames, cars in Europe emit more CO2 than all volcanoes on earth. That's just cars in Europe. Nevermind power plants, cement production...or all the bigger CO2 emitters in the whole rest of the world. Also, volcanic CO2 is part of that balanced system you referenced. Human CO2 emissions are not. We could change that by increasing forest growth as you say but unfortunately the opposite is happening. Best to slow down fossil fuel use with the intent of ending it entirely, asap.
Well put! Your post is well reasoned enough to entertain the thought of sustainable fossil fuel use. However I'd have to add one more condition. For additional photosynthesis needed to offset the additional CO2, the current deforestation trends would also have to be reversed. I suppose massive algae blooms could also take care of it but that would cause a whole host of other problems.
I've spent countless hours of my life watching terrible shows like sex and the city to meet imposed requirements of "quality time", and I know I'm not alone.
And it never occurred to you to come up with an alternative?
Oh quit your belly aching. You said yourself you haven't spent any of your own money on it so whats the big deal if other people do? I get that maybe you end up seeing a bunch of annoying ads but all this complaining is only hurting you.
"Where the fuck did all that good stuff I enjoyed go to?"
TV! Apparently there are something like 400 scripted stories currently in production in the "TV" format (I'm including all the Netflix/hulus/etc here). Its the most in history and yes many are derivative lowest common denominator types but there is indeed room for your niche. Maybe not a blockbuster budget but I'll go out on a limb and guess you're the type that doesn't need $300M worth of special effects.
And if you know exactly what you like and can't find ANYTHING new worthwhile to you, then freaking write it yourself! You can publish that too for anyone to read!
Tesla SolarCity SpaceX...... $4.9 billion in government support
Finally the Gov has done something to get it's money's worth! With SpaceX's launch cost already ~$100M cheaper than ULA (1st link googling) they'll make their investment back in about 2 years! (23 launches in 2014) And thats just for SpaceX alone. Tesla is solving the chicken/egg problem for electric vehicles and solar city is encouraging the market for energy storage. Those $5B are probably the best tax dollars ever spent on one conglomerate (Musk). I say double that and see what his people come up with!
then we know that their "disappearance" is due to subduction since it couldn't be cause by rising sea levels.
Do "we" really know that or did you just pick something out of the "hat of earth's physical effects not including global warming"? Scientists know quite a bit about plate tectonics including where major faultlines are and how to measure drift and subduction. You want to find something other than rising sea levels to blame it on? Great! Go find it. Don't just pick it.
At least on the liberal side there *is* still a road to walk. Conservatives have already arrived. Maybe we will all get there eventually...or maybe this cycle is the wake up call we needed to bring moderation back into fashion.
Slashdot Mirror
maybe we can consolidate schools and prisons . . . ?
Simpsons did it!
Yeah that was my first thought (albeit stated a bit over-dramatically). It's not like the Koch bros funding republicans is any secret. I'd imagine most billionaires run concerted efforts based on their policies. For me this topic boils down to: is google funding Dems and its resulting privacy implications worse than big Oil funding Reps and its resulting climate implications? Not really because to me a long term stable environment is a per-requisite to even consider fighting about online privacy.
...when technical decisions are made for political reasons.
Yeah, thats the problem with North Korea...
Wasn't the later life version of Tesla broke? In any case its good that we have a bunch of /. commenters to tell Musk he's wrong otherwise he'd be in real trouble.
Certain things are simply done better through centralized government management - road systems, police, military defense, and health care. Privatizing stuff like that has disastrous results.
100% agree. I'm lucky in that my employer pays my health insurance but I'd be perfectly fine with single payer like the rest of the world. Neither Socialism or Free Market are a magic fix for every possible scenario (especially when humans are involved) so its in our best interests to pick and choose. I'm guessing as the left and right get further apart we will continue to have your "cloth patchwork" on pretty much every big societal issue until automation makes everything free (aka basic salary) in a few decades.
This is also false. At the time Obamacare was proposed, the competing Republican plan was to do a Medicaid expansion (similar to what the Obamacare expansion ended up being) but to leave private insurance alone.
I thought it was give a $2500 tax break to individuals by taking the tax break away from employers:
http://www.heritage.org/resear...
Although the last line in the description does have something about "encouraging medicaid expansion". Is there another proposal that I missed?
Plenty of anecdotes abound about financial ruin...
Obamacare hasn't helped anyone. The "millions of poor people" who supposedly benefited from it qualified for medicaid to begin with.
Doesn't mean they got it. One of the big things Obamacare did was expand medicaid so those people that qualified actually received healthcare. Everyone's beef was using the individual mandate to make it happen (ask congress for $100B to give more poor people insurance? yeah that would have worked out so much better). Sure it needs some work but its not like everything was roses under the status quo. I assume you're firmly dug in to your opinion on it but if you look at some of the data that is rolling in, Obamacare has largely done what it set out to do, which is get more people health insurance (+30M so far). Plenty of anecdotes abound about financial ruin...just as there were before Obamacare but none of the disaster scenarios have come true or even seem plausible anymore.
Also, I don't think any candidate would have had the experience to deal with a historically antagonistic congress like Obama did for 8 years. Hell, democrats even voted for Bush and cheney's war.
Anyway, I don't expect you to give this post any credence but maybe lighten up a bit and don't deal so much in absolutes. Life is generally more complicated than goodthing/badthing.
Think flesh vaporizing arcing explosions -- not my idea of fun.
Yeah, that sounds way worse that flesh vaporizing gasoline explosions...
https://www.google.com/#q=gas+...
To be useful electric cars REQUIRE home charging.
Or work charging. Or anywhere you can run a 2cm cable to. If every car took 20 min to "refuel" but a refueling station had the footprint of the head-on space between 2 parking spaces instead of massive underground storage tanks I'm sure someone could figure out how to avoid grinding to a halt.
In other news, my dad's defense of all the ridiculous things I've asked him about trump is "he doesn't really mean it".
Interesting on how building a $24B border wall funded through extortion (I think?) to keep out murderers,rapists, etc is "prattle" and
"Strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in the current system.
Hold irresponsible dealers and manufacturers accountable.
Keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill." (hillaryclinton.com)
is "foaming at the mouth" in your mind.
Fine, but he just said he's not qualified to have an informative opinion,
If Hawking were to check the dictionary he'd be plenty qualified to label trump as a demagogue. The definition is basically trump's picture:
"a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument."
But Sanders doesn't have a chance, given Hillary's super delegates.
Go watch John Oliver's take on the primarys. Take away the super delegates, 10K of her votes in close primarys and another 100K just for fun and she'd still have more primary votes than Bernie....oh, and Trump.
Not that the primary system is all roses, it could certainly use reform. But when your candidate spends the first 3/4 of the primary cycle issuing vague threats if he doesn't win due to perceived unfairness and then immediately says he doesn't care because he won, there is little chance of anything changing. Basically this shows that no matter how "anti-establishment" your candidate is, if they happen to win they immediately become the establishment.
The GOP presidential candidate called, he wants his false equivalencies back!
And to answer your question, its in the summary:
New York Medical College Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy Stuart Newman calls the use of chimeras as entering unsettling ground which damages "our sense of humanity."
I don't know what an evolutionary biologist can be, if not left wing.
Note: You started this partisan bickering....
Don't forget the vast majority of coal deposits come from trees that existed for about 50M years before bacteria evolved to digest lignin. Now trees mostly just rot. I suppose alge will still create oil deposits but half of our easy fuel will probably never be replenished.
And how is 300M years from now even relevant? We need to make some major changes in the next 30 to make it through the next 300 if we want to maintain (or improve) current standards of living.
Touche', but going from being called "TYRANNOSAURUS REX!!!" to "bird brain" is a pretty sad fate....
FYI, for equivalent time frames, cars in Europe emit more CO2 than all volcanoes on earth. That's just cars in Europe. Nevermind power plants, cement production...or all the bigger CO2 emitters in the whole rest of the world. Also, volcanic CO2 is part of that balanced system you referenced. Human CO2 emissions are not. We could change that by increasing forest growth as you say but unfortunately the opposite is happening. Best to slow down fossil fuel use with the intent of ending it entirely, asap.
btw, I heartily approve of your sig.
Well put! Your post is well reasoned enough to entertain the thought of sustainable fossil fuel use. However I'd have to add one more condition. For additional photosynthesis needed to offset the additional CO2, the current deforestation trends would also have to be reversed. I suppose massive algae blooms could also take care of it but that would cause a whole host of other problems.
I've spent countless hours of my life watching terrible shows like sex and the city to meet imposed requirements of "quality time", and I know I'm not alone.
And it never occurred to you to come up with an alternative?
Oh quit your belly aching. You said yourself you haven't spent any of your own money on it so whats the big deal if other people do? I get that maybe you end up seeing a bunch of annoying ads but all this complaining is only hurting you.
"Where the fuck did all that good stuff I enjoyed go to?"
TV! Apparently there are something like 400 scripted stories currently in production in the "TV" format (I'm including all the Netflix/hulus/etc here). Its the most in history and yes many are derivative lowest common denominator types but there is indeed room for your niche. Maybe not a blockbuster budget but I'll go out on a limb and guess you're the type that doesn't need $300M worth of special effects.
And if you know exactly what you like and can't find ANYTHING new worthwhile to you, then freaking write it yourself! You can publish that too for anyone to read!
Tesla SolarCity SpaceX...... $4.9 billion in government support
Finally the Gov has done something to get it's money's worth! With SpaceX's launch cost already ~$100M cheaper than ULA (1st link googling) they'll make their investment back in about 2 years! (23 launches in 2014) And thats just for SpaceX alone. Tesla is solving the chicken/egg problem for electric vehicles and solar city is encouraging the market for energy storage. Those $5B are probably the best tax dollars ever spent on one conglomerate (Musk). I say double that and see what his people come up with!
then we know that their "disappearance" is due to subduction since it couldn't be cause by rising sea levels.
Do "we" really know that or did you just pick something out of the "hat of earth's physical effects not including global warming"? Scientists know quite a bit about plate tectonics including where major faultlines are and how to measure drift and subduction. You want to find something other than rising sea levels to blame it on? Great! Go find it. Don't just pick it.
At least on the liberal side there *is* still a road to walk. Conservatives have already arrived. Maybe we will all get there eventually...or maybe this cycle is the wake up call we needed to bring moderation back into fashion.
Great! If you're skeptical that means someone else is being ambitious. Something we could use much more of in fields other than new chat apps.