If you read that, you'll see I oppose a carbon tax.
Only because you prefer "regulation" — which is even worse for its arbitrariness.
So, your claim seems unsupported.
But you would not deny being a Socialist either. Which is curious, because this would've been a perfect opportunity to do so. Instead, you chose to remain coy.
Why wouldn't you simply state for the record, that you do not approve of Socialism?
Your favoring of regulation to smother an activity you dislike certainly indicates that you are one. Modern Socialists have shifted from the Marx' "government must own means of productions" to the seemingly milder "government must regulate means of production". It is more convenient that way — being owners, government officials may be asked inconvenient questions about the failures (as is the case with public schools, for example).
But when you regulate something to death (such as rail-roads, mortgage-lending, air-travel, or healthcare, or Internet-service, or indeed, the power-industry) the blame falls on the "evil KKKapitalists", who nominally own the banks, airlines, hospitals, ISPs, and electric plants. You can then "save" them with subsidies and bailouts, which, naturally, give you a right to attach additional strings and impose more regulation. Voila, government control of the means of production (and service-provision) is further solidified...
A couple plants in Belgium have bad safety records
How the fook is this bombastic claim a "+5 Informative" without even an attempt at a citation?
MDSolar is, obviously, pushing solar electricity — which competeswithnuclearhehates — but the rest of us, presumably, aren't so biased.
Has/. been infected with sock-puppets upmodding the masters and downmodding opponents? That would explain the overall trend towards Socialism here — which, incidentally, MDSolar also shares.
I suppose, since the pardon, should it be necessary to use, has already been drawn up. An indictment won't last all of five seconds.
I'm pretty sure, a pardon can not be issued before conviction (and sentencing) — quite a bit more seconds will last between a indictment and that.
In fact, one suspects, Obama is throttling the FBI now to ensure, the conviction happens after the President's time in office so that he wouldn't be in the unfortunate position of having — out of party collegiality — to pardon a crook she despises.
Although manufacturing productivity has jumped tremendously over the last several decades, the overall global pool of manufacturing jobs is shrinking
The number of jobs is shrinking because of the productivity gains. There is no paradox here. If today's worker can produce as much as 10 people could 100 years ago, then you only need 10% of the workers you used to need then. Maybe, you can find useful work for 20% or 30% — to provide for improved lifestyles... But you don't need them all.
And that's a good thing. I wouldn't wish a factory job on anyone... (Software factories included, before you ask.)
Are you under the misapprehension that producing fine-grained projections of global temperature is the only thing that climate scientists do?
I have no idea, what "climate scientists" do. But I note, that, yet again, you are unable to list successful predictions made by them.
If a prediction comes in within its own error margin, that is a successful test
Hysterical... Is not it wonderful, when one can set his own criteria for success? If only real life worked that way. How about, I "predict", Donald Trump will live from 1 to 1000 more years? Is it a prediction usable to prove my scientific prowess (or psychic abilities)?
See? This is why being "marginally useful" is another requirement I placed into my challenge. You failed.
For the rest of your post — TLDR. It is not in the requested format and I've already spent too much time convincing you, an "A" is an "A".
From the point of view of much of Europe, Sanders is the only Presidential candidate who's more or less centrist, the rest being seriously right-wing.
Which explains, why most of Europe can not achieve America's standards of living even without the military capable of, for example, keeping Russia at bay.
The further to the Left, the worse off the country.
The "terrrrist" part didn't help the FBI against Apple — much as I, for one, wanted to see Tim Cook sent to jail over the same contempt of a court-order.
Just the other day, a poll was conducted by Harvard University showing a majority of young people do not support capitalism. Are the times they are a changin' or are people starting to wake up?
"Wake up"? Fall asleep is more like it. If only 37% of highschool seniors are prepared for college Math and Reading, why should their ignorance of Socialism's 100 years of failure be taken as anything other than a similar lapse of their educators?
If you are more concerned with formatting than content, that's your own issue.
Ah, but it is not. If the formatting is reasonable, but you still can not satisfy it — and not for lack of time, obviously — then you have a problem.
I insist on these rules, because without them I can demonstrate ultimate predictive powers too — by writing down multiple contradictory predictions today, and only publishing successful ones tomorrow. Having posted aplenty, you never objected to the format — because it is reasonable. You just can't satisfy it.
We see scary predictions published — even on Slashdot — about once a week. With decades of this behind us, some — most! — of them should've come true already. Evidently, none have...
They published in different years, and the period their predictions covered were generally through to the year 2000. It would be harder to find a model that did not show warming, in point of fact.
Excellent! Year 2000 is well behind us. Where are their successful predictions? If they published before the Internet age, you can satisfy my challenge by posting links to the later scientists citing those pre-Internet ones — before those predictions happened to come true.
Mostly though we're just recently getting to the point of being able to make specific temperature forecasts
Khmm, does this mean, you admit, no predictions I seek have been made until "just recently"? Would be an awesome admission on your part...
Many people predicted warming, which has since then occurred.
Again, you are appealing to the authority of experts — begging the question of whether they really are experts. If they are, where are their successful predictions?
If you'd care to specify what part of the theory you find insufficiently well supported
I find the entire discipline of "Climate Science" to be insufficiently established for any governmental policy-changes to be based on it. My evidence for this is the inability of the discipline's adherents — such as yourself — to cite any successful predictions. Lack of time is, obviously, not the reason. Nor is ignorance. The most reasonable explanation is, none have been made.
You mentioned Newton's vs. Einstein's theories — but the former did give us verifiable predictions anyway. You need to approach a considerable fraction of the c for Einstein's corrections to become necessary. Should not Climate Science, its first practitioners working in 19th century, have something remotely similar to offer? The challenge I put forth asked for correctness of just 80% for any cited prediction — a Physicist would've had no problem coming up with citations even before Einstein. But you do...
Your demands for citations are cute. If they're not in the right format, you won't read them. I'm sure that will make them go away.
The format is perfectly reasonable — you do not disagree. And yet, despite replying here yet again — and putting a considerable amount of effort in crafting the reply too — you are unable to complete the challenge.
The challenge, which would've been trivial, if Climate Science were a reputable scientific discipline with notable achievements.
The burden of proof is on those who are challenging the accepted facts.
Begging the question — are these facts really accepted? By who? By scientists? Who are they and what successful predictions have they made? Go back to square one...
You have your predictions
No, I do not. You listed some failed ones — and offered reasons (and excuses) for the failures. That's all. If I missed something — sorry. Would you mind listing them in the format I asked for?
Not a single one of those cities are submerged because of rising sea levels due to warming [emphasis mine -mi].
You are most likely correct!! Which means, that it is not enough to simply point at a sinking island today either. One has to prove, the island is, indeed, submerging due to warming.
But Patrick Kursawe above does not offer any such proof. He simply implies "island nations" will be wiped out — to the applause of the moderators. Do we agree, that they are wrong?
No, Arrhenius was pretty clear about the warming effects.
Citations, please — a link to his prediction(s) followed by a link to their confirmation(s).
Frankly I don't know why you would mention these cooling papers
To illustrate, that we've seen both kinds of predictions, and that the climate science has a long way to go to establish its credibility. These cooling papers came after Arrhenius, did not they?
As far as the citations you want, I'd ask you to read the latest IPCC report...
Links, please. The format I described is perfectly reasonable.
However, you're also reversing the burden of proof. Basic physical laws suggest that a higher partial pressure of CO2 will warm the Earth, and simple laboratory experiments show a strong positive feedback from H2O.
Great! And this was all known this for decades (if not centuries), right? How come you have not offered the citations I asked for yet?
What is your competing theory... ?
I don't have to offer my own theory — because I do not seek to convince and/or compel you to alter your way of life. You seek to do that to me, so the burden of proof is on you.
Once again, if you wish to further explore this topic, you'll have to offer citations in the format I described. Any follow-ups not containing that will be returned unopened. Thank you.
Your condescending "presumption" is both incorrect and irrelevant to the discussion.
Incidentally, while I note speculation that Kodiak may have been connected by glaciation to the mainland during the last ice age, I'm not finding any information about the last time there was a land bridge.
But, whether the islands of the Kodiak were connected to mainland by land or by ice is not very relevant to this discussion — because the ancient disappearance of the ice would've been blamed on human sins by the same shamans just as well.
Should you wish to continue arguing for credibility of today's "climate science", please, follow-up under this other post of mine with the citations I ask for in it.
Climate scientists are the same as "shamans" because you, on an emotional level, do not like their conclusions.
No, they are the same as shamans, because they seem unable to make a successful scientific predictions. Try to find and cite any — you'll see for yourself.
Here are the rules:
Each citation must contain two links: one to a prediction, the second — to the prediction coming true within, say, 80% of the predicted value (if it were quantifiable).
The two links must be several years apart from each other — lauding a prediction after it came true is not acceptable.
Each prediction needs to be marginally useful: things like "temperature will rise or fall" does not qualify.
I've been challenging various alarmists with the above and got nothing interesting back (except name-calling and down-modding)...
It's gotta hurt when you're literally stealing tactics of creationists.
Huh? Darling, it is you and yours doing it — using religious arguments to promote "action on global warming" — not me.
Sea levels rise, storm floods now start flooding areas
And it used to happen all the time. There are entire cities, that went under water long before the infamous "hockey stick". Tasmania and Kodiak Island used to be connected to mainland until very recently.
Did shamans of those days blame the sins of the humans — such as burning too many fires — for it? Probably...
Goldman Sachs has functioned like a run-of-the-mill investment bank
Which mill is it, that produces investment banks? The following was written 70 years ago (!):
Dying metaphors. A newly invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically "dead" (e.g. iron resolution) has in effect reverted to being an ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness. But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves. Examples are: Ring the changes on, take up the cudgel for, toe the line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on the order of the day, Achilles' heel, swan song, hotbed. Many of these are used without knowledge of their meaning (what is a "rift," for instance?), and incompatible metaphors are frequently mixed, a sure sign that the writer is not interested in what he is saying. Some metaphors now current have been twisted out of their original meaning without those who use them even being aware of the fact. For example, toe the line is sometimes written as tow the line. Another example is the hammer and the anvil, now always used with the implication that the anvil gets the worst of it. In real life it is always the anvil that breaks the hammer, never the other way about: a writer who stopped to think what he was saying would avoid perverting the original phrase.
— George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946
“I’m not talking about closing the Internet. I’m talking about parts of Syria, parts of Iraq, where ISIS is, spotting it. Now, you could close it. What I like even better than that, is getting our smartest and getting our best, to infiltrate their Internet, so, that we know exactly where they’re going, exactly where they’re going to be. I like that better.”
Nice to know, somebody somewhere was listening... Time, perhaps, for NY Times itself to apologize for or, at least, correct their own piece calling Trump's (and, Clinton's) proposals a "fantasy".
If you look at the salary of teachers, you will find out, that's not the teachers who caused a quadruplication of costs
Though I mentioned teachers unions (not teachers), I really do not care for the internal workings of this giant cartel we have called "public schools system" — much like I do not care, who is paid what inside Apple, or Google, or Coca-Cola.
iPhones and Androids keep getting revolutionary better every few years, while remaining as affordable as the very first generation. Perhaps, it is unfair to demand similar performance from schools — maybe, we ought to expect progress closer to that of automotive, or pharmaceutical, or construction, or airplane industry from them.
But there is certainly no excuse for the observed quadrupling of the price without any improvement (where there is no decrease!) in quality. And the most obvious feature, that sets public schools aside from most of the other industries, is the captive customers — the parents, who are forced to pay for these awfully overpriced and under-performing establishments even if they are buying (or would like to buy) from a competing provider.
Unions are organizations, which openly and blatantly work coordinate to maintain and raise the prices of what their members are selling — their labor. Their official goals are to have 100% of each profession belong to their respective union so that no employer — a buyer of labor — would be able to buy from any other supplier. Cartels — or wanna-be cartels.
When goods-manufacturers or service-providers try the same collusion with each other, we — rightfully — apply trust-busting laws to them. When, for example, Staples tried to merge with Office Depot, the government blocked the deal on the grounds, that the resulting entity would have a monopoly power in the office supplies market. Why, then, would we not only allow, but encourage monopoly in the healthcare, firefighting, law-enforcement, construction, education and other labor markets?
The same trust-busting laws and monopoly-prevention rules ought to apply to all. But it gets worse — when the union-members use blatantly illegalmethods to fight for their monopoly, they are handled with soft gloves and their crimes are investigated individually (if at all). Instead, of course, anti-racketeering laws ought to apply — because the crimes are committed on behalf of a corrupt organization.
I've been out of work for months and months (in the past, even years at a time). there is no one to speak for me
Maybe, you just need counseling. Maybe, you are an entitled prick, who believes, the rest of the world owes you a living. Whatever it is, your personal sob-story makes no argument — speak for your own self.
The public school system has no monopoly, whose lies have you been listening to, fool?
It is a monopoly, because everybody must pay them. That they don't have to provide service to some of these captive "customers" in return for their money, only makes it worse.
Private schools exist... Home schooling
Yes, you can choose different education for your children, but you still must pay for the public schools. This is, what makes it a monopoly.
They simply can't compete
They can, and do — but the system is rigged. Customers, who wish to use the competition, must still give money to the public schools — that's what makes the competition unaffordable to most families.
Imagine yourself choosing, from where to order pizza — and then finding out, that even if you order from joint B, you still have to give $10 to the joint A... That's what the current state of "competition" is in the primary education market — and that is why pizza joint A would've had a monopoly, if the same principle were applied to restaurants.
The immediate solution to that is something called school vouchers — which would give parents a proper choice. Of course, the idea is being fought tooth-and-nail by the teaching establishment, who would be threatened by competition...
True, but if your goal is to change where the money goes, that isn't the place to start...:)
The per-pupil costs of public schools has quadrupled since the 1960-ies (inflation-adjusted), while the education quality remains the target of well-deserved mockery.
What competing service-provider could possibly afford to quadruple their prices without any observable improvement in quality?
The solution is to end the monopoly of the public school system (and the teachers' unions, that control their staff)...
I'm all for individual anonymity, but do you really think corporations and government organizations like PACs deserve anonymity protection?
(For the record, PACs are not governmental organizations.)
I don't see any difference between you, a "mon and pop" shop, a bigger corporation, or any other organization (except government-sponsored ones) in this regard. Either we are all entitled to ("deserve" as you put it) anonymity, or no one is. The EFF's argument is equally applicable to all entities.
Besides, how would anyone charged with enforcement of your rule even know, whether they are dealing with an individual or an organization? Don't they need to break the suspect's anonymity just to find out, whether he should be a suspect to begin with? Such a need to violate sexual privacy was deemed sufficient in the past to abolish various sex-related laws, for example.
but once you're getting paid for services, that's a whole other ballgame.
Why? Suppose, I'm a big fan of John Doe. I wish I could spend 10 hours every day talking him up on the street corner. Unfortunately, having children and mortgage, I can not afford to do it. Then comes someone else, who is also a fan of the man, and offers to pay me to promote the guy.
Why am I only entitled to anonymity in the former case, but not the latter?
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim (that's you!)
The claim being discussed is that humans are largely responsible for Global Warming and must take immediate action to stop it.
That is the claim you and other alarmists are making — and the burden of proving it is on you.
You and yours accept this burden and attempt to prove the claim by pointing at "science" and "experts", who make scary projections for the short- and medium-term future of the climate. You have no proof, other than this appeal to authority of yours...
I say, Ok, appeal to authority is not necessarily wrong, if the authority in question really is an expert. But if it really is a reliable science and the experts making the dire predictions today are trustworthy, where are their past predictions? The idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming is at least 30 years old — surely there must've been some predictions made earlier, that were due on or before 2016.
I've been asking this question for a while, but no one was able to offer a good example of such a prediction. Which is why the claim I actually made, which I quote here with the part you chose to cut off emphasized for clarity, said:
Meanwhile, I'm sorry to say, none of the similar predictions of the past have come true — at least, none that the adherents of the Climate Science are able to cite today.
Now you demand, I prove this inability of the adherents to cite successful predictions. But your demand is invalid — I'm not making a "claim" of my own, I'm merely pointing out, you haven't done your duty to prove your original claim. And if you wish to be formal about it, I didn't say you can not prove it. Only that you haven't been able to so far.
Meanwhile, you are so sure of yourself, you wish to end the debate by criminalizing opposition — and that's why I'm not just arguing with you, but also calling you an asshole. I'm tired of the former, though, and will now simply limit myself to the latter.
Slashdot Mirror
Only because you prefer "regulation" — which is even worse for its arbitrariness.
But you would not deny being a Socialist either. Which is curious, because this would've been a perfect opportunity to do so. Instead, you chose to remain coy.
Why wouldn't you simply state for the record, that you do not approve of Socialism?
Your favoring of regulation to smother an activity you dislike certainly indicates that you are one. Modern Socialists have shifted from the Marx' "government must own means of productions" to the seemingly milder "government must regulate means of production". It is more convenient that way — being owners, government officials may be asked inconvenient questions about the failures (as is the case with public schools, for example).
But when you regulate something to death (such as rail-roads, mortgage-lending, air-travel, or healthcare, or Internet-service, or indeed, the power-industry) the blame falls on the "evil KKKapitalists", who nominally own the banks, airlines, hospitals, ISPs, and electric plants. You can then "save" them with subsidies and bailouts, which, naturally, give you a right to attach additional strings and impose more regulation. Voila, government control of the means of production (and service-provision) is further solidified...
How the fook is this bombastic claim a "+5 Informative" without even an attempt at a citation?
MDSolar is, obviously, pushing solar electricity — which competes with nuclear he hates — but the rest of us, presumably, aren't so biased.
Has /. been infected with sock-puppets upmodding the masters and downmodding opponents? That would explain the overall trend towards Socialism here — which, incidentally, MDSolar also shares.
I'm pretty sure, a pardon can not be issued before conviction (and sentencing) — quite a bit more seconds will last between a indictment and that.
In fact, one suspects, Obama is throttling the FBI now to ensure, the conviction happens after the President's time in office so that he wouldn't be in the unfortunate position of having — out of party collegiality — to pardon a crook she despises.
The number of jobs is shrinking because of the productivity gains. There is no paradox here. If today's worker can produce as much as 10 people could 100 years ago, then you only need 10% of the workers you used to need then. Maybe, you can find useful work for 20% or 30% — to provide for improved lifestyles... But you don't need them all.
And that's a good thing. I wouldn't wish a factory job on anyone... (Software factories included, before you ask.)
I have no idea, what "climate scientists" do. But I note, that, yet again, you are unable to list successful predictions made by them.
Hysterical... Is not it wonderful, when one can set his own criteria for success? If only real life worked that way. How about, I "predict", Donald Trump will live from 1 to 1000 more years? Is it a prediction usable to prove my scientific prowess (or psychic abilities)?
See? This is why being "marginally useful" is another requirement I placed into my challenge. You failed.
For the rest of your post — TLDR. It is not in the requested format and I've already spent too much time convincing you, an "A" is an "A".
Which explains, why most of Europe can not achieve America's standards of living even without the military capable of, for example, keeping Russia at bay.
The further to the Left, the worse off the country.
The "terrrrist" part didn't help the FBI against Apple — much as I, for one, wanted to see Tim Cook sent to jail over the same contempt of a court-order.
"Wake up"? Fall asleep is more like it. If only 37% of highschool seniors are prepared for college Math and Reading, why should their ignorance of Socialism's 100 years of failure be taken as anything other than a similar lapse of their educators?
Ah, but it is not. If the formatting is reasonable, but you still can not satisfy it — and not for lack of time, obviously — then you have a problem.
I insist on these rules, because without them I can demonstrate ultimate predictive powers too — by writing down multiple contradictory predictions today, and only publishing successful ones tomorrow. Having posted aplenty, you never objected to the format — because it is reasonable. You just can't satisfy it.
We see scary predictions published — even on Slashdot — about once a week. With decades of this behind us, some — most! — of them should've come true already. Evidently, none have...
Excellent! Year 2000 is well behind us. Where are their successful predictions? If they published before the Internet age, you can satisfy my challenge by posting links to the later scientists citing those pre-Internet ones — before those predictions happened to come true.
Khmm, does this mean, you admit, no predictions I seek have been made until "just recently"? Would be an awesome admission on your part...
Again, you are appealing to the authority of experts — begging the question of whether they really are experts. If they are, where are their successful predictions?
I find the entire discipline of "Climate Science" to be insufficiently established for any governmental policy-changes to be based on it. My evidence for this is the inability of the discipline's adherents — such as yourself — to cite any successful predictions. Lack of time is, obviously, not the reason. Nor is ignorance. The most reasonable explanation is, none have been made.
You mentioned Newton's vs. Einstein's theories — but the former did give us verifiable predictions anyway. You need to approach a considerable fraction of the c for Einstein's corrections to become necessary. Should not Climate Science, its first practitioners working in 19th century, have something remotely similar to offer? The challenge I put forth asked for correctness of just 80% for any cited prediction — a Physicist would've had no problem coming up with citations even before Einstein. But you do...
The format is perfectly reasonable — you do not disagree. And yet, despite replying here yet again — and putting a considerable amount of effort in crafting the reply too — you are unable to complete the challenge.
The challenge, which would've been trivial, if Climate Science were a reputable scientific discipline with notable achievements.
Begging the question — are these facts really accepted? By who? By scientists? Who are they and what successful predictions have they made? Go back to square one...
No, I do not. You listed some failed ones — and offered reasons (and excuses) for the failures. That's all. If I missed something — sorry. Would you mind listing them in the format I asked for?
So, not only the reality, fiction also has a Right-wing bias?
You are most likely correct!! Which means, that it is not enough to simply point at a sinking island today either. One has to prove, the island is, indeed, submerging due to warming.
But Patrick Kursawe above does not offer any such proof. He simply implies "island nations" will be wiped out — to the applause of the moderators. Do we agree, that they are wrong?
Citations, please — a link to his prediction(s) followed by a link to their confirmation(s).
To illustrate, that we've seen both kinds of predictions, and that the climate science has a long way to go to establish its credibility. These cooling papers came after Arrhenius, did not they?
Links, please. The format I described is perfectly reasonable.
Great! And this was all known this for decades (if not centuries), right? How come you have not offered the citations I asked for yet?
I don't have to offer my own theory — because I do not seek to convince and/or compel you to alter your way of life. You seek to do that to me, so the burden of proof is on you.
Once again, if you wish to further explore this topic, you'll have to offer citations in the format I described. Any follow-ups not containing that will be returned unopened. Thank you.
Maybe — and first they thought, we are dangerously cooling the Earth.
Your condescending "presumption" is both incorrect and irrelevant to the discussion.
I heard it from a guide explaining, why Kodiak bears are so similar to, but quite the same as the mainland grizzlies. Like the humans trapped in Tasmania for thousands of years, Kodiak bears used to mate with other grizzlies sufficiently recently to not have become separate species. Contrast them with the pink iguanas found on one of the Galapagos islands — those critters got separated millions of years ago and are already a separate species.
But, whether the islands of the Kodiak were connected to mainland by land or by ice is not very relevant to this discussion — because the ancient disappearance of the ice would've been blamed on human sins by the same shamans just as well.
Should you wish to continue arguing for credibility of today's "climate science", please, follow-up under this other post of mine with the citations I ask for in it.
No, they are the same as shamans, because they seem unable to make a successful scientific predictions. Try to find and cite any — you'll see for yourself.
Here are the rules:
I've been challenging various alarmists with the above and got nothing interesting back (except name-calling and down-modding)...
Huh? Darling, it is you and yours doing it — using religious arguments to promote "action on global warming" — not me.
And it used to happen all the time. There are entire cities, that went under water long before the infamous "hockey stick". Tasmania and Kodiak Island used to be connected to mainland until very recently.
Did shamans of those days blame the sins of the humans — such as burning too many fires — for it? Probably...
Which mill is it, that produces investment banks? The following was written 70 years ago (!):
Contrary to numerous reports echoing each other mocking Donald Trump (but, curiously, not Hillary Clinton) of wanting to "shut down the Internet", his actual proposal was different. Specifically, it was just this:
Nice to know, somebody somewhere was listening... Time, perhaps, for NY Times itself to apologize for or, at least, correct their own piece calling Trump's (and, Clinton's) proposals a "fantasy".
Though I mentioned teachers unions (not teachers), I really do not care for the internal workings of this giant cartel we have called "public schools system" — much like I do not care, who is paid what inside Apple, or Google, or Coca-Cola.
iPhones and Androids keep getting revolutionary better every few years, while remaining as affordable as the very first generation. Perhaps, it is unfair to demand similar performance from schools — maybe, we ought to expect progress closer to that of automotive, or pharmaceutical, or construction, or airplane industry from them.
But there is certainly no excuse for the observed quadrupling of the price without any improvement (where there is no decrease!) in quality. And the most obvious feature, that sets public schools aside from most of the other industries, is the captive customers — the parents, who are forced to pay for these awfully overpriced and under-performing establishments even if they are buying (or would like to buy) from a competing provider.
Unions are organizations, which openly and blatantly work coordinate to maintain and raise the prices of what their members are selling — their labor. Their official goals are to have 100% of each profession belong to their respective union so that no employer — a buyer of labor — would be able to buy from any other supplier. Cartels — or wanna-be cartels.
When goods-manufacturers or service-providers try the same collusion with each other, we — rightfully — apply trust-busting laws to them. When, for example, Staples tried to merge with Office Depot, the government blocked the deal on the grounds, that the resulting entity would have a monopoly power in the office supplies market. Why, then, would we not only allow, but encourage monopoly in the healthcare, firefighting, law-enforcement, construction, education and other labor markets?
The same trust-busting laws and monopoly-prevention rules ought to apply to all. But it gets worse — when the union-members use blatantly illegal methods to fight for their monopoly, they are handled with soft gloves and their crimes are investigated individually (if at all). Instead, of course, anti-racketeering laws ought to apply — because the crimes are committed on behalf of a corrupt organization.
Maybe, you just need counseling. Maybe, you are an entitled prick, who believes, the rest of the world owes you a living. Whatever it is, your personal sob-story makes no argument — speak for your own self.
It is a monopoly, because everybody must pay them. That they don't have to provide service to some of these captive "customers" in return for their money, only makes it worse.
Yes, you can choose different education for your children, but you still must pay for the public schools. This is, what makes it a monopoly.
They can, and do — but the system is rigged. Customers, who wish to use the competition, must still give money to the public schools — that's what makes the competition unaffordable to most families.
Imagine yourself choosing, from where to order pizza — and then finding out, that even if you order from joint B, you still have to give $10 to the joint A... That's what the current state of "competition" is in the primary education market — and that is why pizza joint A would've had a monopoly, if the same principle were applied to restaurants.
The immediate solution to that is something called school vouchers — which would give parents a proper choice. Of course, the idea is being fought tooth-and-nail by the teaching establishment, who would be threatened by competition...
The per-pupil costs of public schools has quadrupled since the 1960-ies (inflation-adjusted), while the education quality remains the target of well-deserved mockery.
What competing service-provider could possibly afford to quadruple their prices without any observable improvement in quality?
The solution is to end the monopoly of the public school system (and the teachers' unions, that control their staff)...
The school district says it will pay about $18,000 annually for SnapTrends
I guess this is really a great thing since the school district has all that excess money that they can't find a use for.
Seriously, is not it wonderful, the schools finally do not need to hold a bake-sale to get the money they need?
Ah, and perfect timing too — because schools are no longer allowed to hold bake-sales.
(For the record, PACs are not governmental organizations.)
I don't see any difference between you, a "mon and pop" shop, a bigger corporation, or any other organization (except government-sponsored ones) in this regard. Either we are all entitled to ("deserve" as you put it) anonymity, or no one is. The EFF's argument is equally applicable to all entities.
Besides, how would anyone charged with enforcement of your rule even know, whether they are dealing with an individual or an organization? Don't they need to break the suspect's anonymity just to find out, whether he should be a suspect to begin with? Such a need to violate sexual privacy was deemed sufficient in the past to abolish various sex-related laws, for example.
Why? Suppose, I'm a big fan of John Doe. I wish I could spend 10 hours every day talking him up on the street corner. Unfortunately, having children and mortgage, I can not afford to do it. Then comes someone else, who is also a fan of the man, and offers to pay me to promote the guy.
Why am I only entitled to anonymity in the former case, but not the latter?
The claim being discussed is that humans are largely responsible for Global Warming and must take immediate action to stop it.
That is the claim you and other alarmists are making — and the burden of proving it is on you.
You and yours accept this burden and attempt to prove the claim by pointing at "science" and "experts", who make scary projections for the short- and medium-term future of the climate. You have no proof, other than this appeal to authority of yours...
I say, Ok, appeal to authority is not necessarily wrong, if the authority in question really is an expert. But if it really is a reliable science and the experts making the dire predictions today are trustworthy, where are their past predictions? The idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming is at least 30 years old — surely there must've been some predictions made earlier, that were due on or before 2016.
I've been asking this question for a while, but no one was able to offer a good example of such a prediction. Which is why the claim I actually made, which I quote here with the part you chose to cut off emphasized for clarity, said:
Now you demand, I prove this inability of the adherents to cite successful predictions. But your demand is invalid — I'm not making a "claim" of my own, I'm merely pointing out, you haven't done your duty to prove your original claim. And if you wish to be formal about it, I didn't say you can not prove it. Only that you haven't been able to so far.
Meanwhile, you are so sure of yourself, you wish to end the debate by criminalizing opposition — and that's why I'm not just arguing with you, but also calling you an asshole. I'm tired of the former, though, and will now simply limit myself to the latter.