See how long you stay in office after you tax energy usage to the point where the average American starts to take notice. And how do you plan on taxing the rest of the developing world when they don't follow suit? Once they realize they like having life with reliable electricity and all the conveniences and comforts of modern living, my guess is you will have a hard time getting them to reduce their energy demands. It's only a matter of time.
Do you honestly think they would reduce other taxes? More likely you'd end up just paying your existing taxes and the city would be drawing additional revenue from 'people who can't drive' (hint: this is nearly everybody), with the end result being no net gain in safety (the supposed goal of these cameras).
Houston. A ticket from a cop here is a $200+ traffic violation that goes on your driving record. A red-light camera ticket is (was, they got rid of the system) a $75 civil fine.
Don't be silly. If a person was going to run a red light while you have a green, a $75 dollar civil fine wasn't going to stop them - they were probably drunk or not paying attention. All these fines do is hit people who guess incorrectly about the length of the yellow or (correctly or incorrectly) think they won't be able to stop before it turns red. You know, everyday minor driving errors that happen to all of us and rarely hurt anybody - the kind of thing most cops won't even write a ticket for, even if they witness it.
Right, then those educated people will leave to somewhere else that doesn't have such ridiculously high taxes that are paying for schools they don't have kids in. I should know - my fiance is one of them. They could get away with this when there was a lot of established business in the area, but this is no longer the case.
It's unfortunate, really. Most people want good schools, and don't mind paying a bit higher in taxes to get it, but there is a point of diminishing returns that is often just blown right by once you get bureaucrats into the mix who start dominating politics and realize they can just raise taxes whenever they want... and you end up in an economic free-fall. It's sad because the area is nice and the schools are good. They just can't afford to keep going the way they are.
In this you are likely correct (to some extent). It doesn't help that he has the most punchable face known to man. I dare you to look at it for too long and not feel the urge to start hitting the screen.:-)
Most people I know (all over the political spectrum) don't say they haven't done anything useful. Most think they could have done their job better and the organization could be more successful if it was more about transparency and whistleblowing and less about Assange and satisfying his ego.
Any producer or provider will not 'ultimately do this' as long as the market barrier-to-entry is not too high. This can occur for a few reasons, one of which is actually the existence of regulations that favor the existing businesses (e.g., Regulatory Capture). Another reason is that the infrastructure required to support the service is incredibly expensive, which serves as a 'natural' limitation to the number of players. It seems in this case we have a bit of both. The only viable solution I see (solution being something that benefits both the market and the consumer) is to not allow the person who owns the lines to also provide service, only rent out the lines in a neutral fashion.
First, I would not like to be one of the researchers / technicians / soldiers stuck underground and trapped for an indeterminate period of time after a bomb like this drops the only entrance. Depending upon how long it takes, its entirely possible that destroying the entrance could kill off a lot of the talent necessary to make the weapons as they all starve to death or suffocate deep underground. It's a hell of a deterrent.
Second, the reconstruction efforts would have to take place on or near the surface, which is in range of more conventional weaponry (cruise missiles, JDAM bombs, etc...).
Third, though I am not generally opposed to an army owning powerful and highly specialized weapons, I get the feeling that just having these makes a first strike option against Iran seem like a more viable option. I don't like this.
But if the job of the institution is to deal with the practitioner's actions without succumbing to pressure, then it is appropriate to blame the institution as well as the practitioner. But the problem is, one of them has complete authority over the other if they choose to. It's kindof like blaming drug dealers for getting too powerful when they start buying off the cops for protection. The problem isn't entirely the drug dealers, although there are ways of dealing with them, the problem is the dirty cops. You don't make the dirty cops more powerful, as they're likely to just start doing a better job of protecting the drug dealers.
Also, we all know that people are fallible. You will never not make a government 'powerful' enough that people won't just do what is in their best interest. The point of limiting federal authority and maximizing state authority is that there are more points of failure - odds are, eventually, someone with a backbone and a genuine interest in protecting the people of their state will get elected, and then 'they' won't get what 'they' want everywhere. Also, I bet state senators would be offended you think if you only offered them 1/50th of what you would pay a federal senator to buy them off.:-)
I have a problem in that I'm fairly libertarian at the federal level and not so much at the state level. I'm against increased federal authority because it makes for a single point of failure for a governing system. If you have 50 states doing their own thing each person gets greater representation and one of them might get it right, and when people flock there others might get the message. If you look at American politics in the last, oh, sixty years, it has been all about increased federal authority regardless of party. We're pretty screwed.
Kotaku had a decent write up of why this is basically either a huge cultural misunderstanding or a naked attention-grab by PETA. Knowing the history of the organization, you decide...
So basically what you're saying is that the church still thinks I am? Meh. I was baptized at birth (without consent... lol, hard to get at that age) and confirmed. When people ask religion I still answer 'Catholic', even though it's pretty far from the truth. It's not really a big deal to me. I haven't attended church since I was... 17? Basically when I got a job that worked on Sundays.
Not sure about that one, but I don't think so. I grew up Catholic (though I'm not really anymore). Catholic schools in the south (at least the one I went to) are a bit different than the 'Christian' schools. I remember reading Genesis in our religion classes and all our teachers saying that none of this should be taken literally. I also remember learning about evolution in biology class. I don't remember anything about that specific idea, although it sounds like it could be a parable.
Web browser, e-mail client, chat program, one program can install every single one of those. The same task on Windows takes hours of downloading individual programs, running their installers, and often rebooting yet again in the middle most of the time.
To be fair, most people just use a web browser for all of those anyway.
Oh, I know. I just think it's strange that some atheists seem to think that scientific progress somehow 'belongs' to them, and that every single time science is properly applied it somehow only happened in spite of all this religion. If anything, the scientific renaissance was spurred on by the Catholic Church at the time.
Also, if an unrepentant racist serial killer gave a decent explanation of the purpose of the sacrifice of Jesus, I fail to see why he should be dismissed, as long as he remains philosophically coherent. We humans are known for having ideas of how things should be, and then doing the opposite anyway.
I hate to feed the trolls, but just so you know, the big bang theory was brought to you by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest and physics professor at Catholic University of Louvain.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, good luck with that.
See how long you stay in office after you tax energy usage to the point where the average American starts to take notice. And how do you plan on taxing the rest of the developing world when they don't follow suit? Once they realize they like having life with reliable electricity and all the conveniences and comforts of modern living, my guess is you will have a hard time getting them to reduce their energy demands. It's only a matter of time.
1) reduce electrical demands
Yeah, good luck with that.
Do you honestly think they would reduce other taxes? More likely you'd end up just paying your existing taxes and the city would be drawing additional revenue from 'people who can't drive' (hint: this is nearly everybody), with the end result being no net gain in safety (the supposed goal of these cameras).
Houston. A ticket from a cop here is a $200+ traffic violation that goes on your driving record. A red-light camera ticket is (was, they got rid of the system) a $75 civil fine.
Don't be silly. If a person was going to run a red light while you have a green, a $75 dollar civil fine wasn't going to stop them - they were probably drunk or not paying attention. All these fines do is hit people who guess incorrectly about the length of the yellow or (correctly or incorrectly) think they won't be able to stop before it turns red. You know, everyday minor driving errors that happen to all of us and rarely hurt anybody - the kind of thing most cops won't even write a ticket for, even if they witness it.
I don't really consider it a problem. I consider it a test of our commitment to the very idea of free speech.
Right, then those educated people will leave to somewhere else that doesn't have such ridiculously high taxes that are paying for schools they don't have kids in. I should know - my fiance is one of them. They could get away with this when there was a lot of established business in the area, but this is no longer the case.
It's unfortunate, really. Most people want good schools, and don't mind paying a bit higher in taxes to get it, but there is a point of diminishing returns that is often just blown right by once you get bureaucrats into the mix who start dominating politics and realize they can just raise taxes whenever they want... and you end up in an economic free-fall. It's sad because the area is nice and the schools are good. They just can't afford to keep going the way they are.
In this you are likely correct (to some extent). It doesn't help that he has the most punchable face known to man. I dare you to look at it for too long and not feel the urge to start hitting the screen. :-)
Most people I know (all over the political spectrum) don't say they haven't done anything useful. Most think they could have done their job better and the organization could be more successful if it was more about transparency and whistleblowing and less about Assange and satisfying his ego.
You still didn't...
I've always thought the best way to govern is to favor incentive over punishment. I'm sure she could think of a way to get you moving...
Any producer or provider will not 'ultimately do this' as long as the market barrier-to-entry is not too high. This can occur for a few reasons, one of which is actually the existence of regulations that favor the existing businesses (e.g., Regulatory Capture). Another reason is that the infrastructure required to support the service is incredibly expensive, which serves as a 'natural' limitation to the number of players. It seems in this case we have a bit of both. The only viable solution I see (solution being something that benefits both the market and the consumer) is to not allow the person who owns the lines to also provide service, only rent out the lines in a neutral fashion.
First, I would not like to be one of the researchers / technicians / soldiers stuck underground and trapped for an indeterminate period of time after a bomb like this drops the only entrance. Depending upon how long it takes, its entirely possible that destroying the entrance could kill off a lot of the talent necessary to make the weapons as they all starve to death or suffocate deep underground. It's a hell of a deterrent.
Second, the reconstruction efforts would have to take place on or near the surface, which is in range of more conventional weaponry (cruise missiles, JDAM bombs, etc...).
Third, though I am not generally opposed to an army owning powerful and highly specialized weapons, I get the feeling that just having these makes a first strike option against Iran seem like a more viable option. I don't like this.
But if the job of the institution is to deal with the practitioner's actions without succumbing to pressure, then it is appropriate to blame the institution as well as the practitioner. But the problem is, one of them has complete authority over the other if they choose to. It's kindof like blaming drug dealers for getting too powerful when they start buying off the cops for protection. The problem isn't entirely the drug dealers, although there are ways of dealing with them, the problem is the dirty cops. You don't make the dirty cops more powerful, as they're likely to just start doing a better job of protecting the drug dealers.
:-)
Also, we all know that people are fallible. You will never not make a government 'powerful' enough that people won't just do what is in their best interest. The point of limiting federal authority and maximizing state authority is that there are more points of failure - odds are, eventually, someone with a backbone and a genuine interest in protecting the people of their state will get elected, and then 'they' won't get what 'they' want everywhere. Also, I bet state senators would be offended you think if you only offered them 1/50th of what you would pay a federal senator to buy them off.
I have a problem in that I'm fairly libertarian at the federal level and not so much at the state level. I'm against increased federal authority because it makes for a single point of failure for a governing system. If you have 50 states doing their own thing each person gets greater representation and one of them might get it right, and when people flock there others might get the message. If you look at American politics in the last, oh, sixty years, it has been all about increased federal authority regardless of party. We're pretty screwed.
Kotaku had a decent write up of why this is basically either a huge cultural misunderstanding or a naked attention-grab by PETA. Knowing the history of the organization, you decide...
Some folks on hackernews have suggested it could be a massive salt or mineral collection operation. Not sure myself, but here is the comparison shots.
One in Israel
California
So basically what you're saying is that the church still thinks I am? Meh. I was baptized at birth (without consent... lol, hard to get at that age) and confirmed. When people ask religion I still answer 'Catholic', even though it's pretty far from the truth. It's not really a big deal to me. I haven't attended church since I was... 17? Basically when I got a job that worked on Sundays.
Not sure about that one, but I don't think so. I grew up Catholic (though I'm not really anymore). Catholic schools in the south (at least the one I went to) are a bit different than the 'Christian' schools. I remember reading Genesis in our religion classes and all our teachers saying that none of this should be taken literally. I also remember learning about evolution in biology class. I don't remember anything about that specific idea, although it sounds like it could be a parable.
Web browser, e-mail client, chat program, one program can install every single one of those. The same task on Windows takes hours of downloading individual programs, running their installers, and often rebooting yet again in the middle most of the time.
To be fair, most people just use a web browser for all of those anyway.
Oh, I know. I just think it's strange that some atheists seem to think that scientific progress somehow 'belongs' to them, and that every single time science is properly applied it somehow only happened in spite of all this religion. If anything, the scientific renaissance was spurred on by the Catholic Church at the time.
Also, if an unrepentant racist serial killer gave a decent explanation of the purpose of the sacrifice of Jesus, I fail to see why he should be dismissed, as long as he remains philosophically coherent. We humans are known for having ideas of how things should be, and then doing the opposite anyway.
I think using the term 'discussion' for what's going on up there is being a bit too generous.
I hate to feed the trolls, but just so you know, the big bang theory was brought to you by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest and physics professor at Catholic University of Louvain.
Ron Paul, if you actually consider him a Republican these days.
How so? If they didn't need a warrant to track you, they don't need one to track him, or anyone else for that matter.