I don't have to explain anything — I'm trying to neither convince nor force others into changing their way of life. You do. So, the burden of proof is on you.
If you wish to offer citations to satisfy my earlier challenge, go ahead. Each entry will have two links: one to a publicized prediction, the other — to its confirmation several years later. Follow-ups not containing such entries will be returned unopened.
Many "cool and new" technologies started out with a rather dismissive and arrogant attitude towards predecessors — only to then encounter the same problems as other did before and have to solve them in a hurry, shooting yourself in the same extremity (with the same gun), and stepping on the same rake.
From my experience, Ruby is especially bad at it. Release 1.9.2 not quite compatible with 1.9.1? What?!
The news-bit about Mr. Nye's call to prosecute "deniers" was submitted to Slashdot yesterday, but did not make it. He was quoted as:
“In these cases, for me, as a taxpayer and voter, the introduction of this extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen,” Mr. Nye said. “So I can see where people are very concerned about this and they’re pursuing criminal investigations as well as engaging in discussions like this.”
When the opponents of the supposedly scientific theory you like are not merely wrong or even stupid, but are criminals, you immediately stop being a scientist even if you ever were one (and Mr. Nye was an engineer before becoming an entertainer). You become a totalitarian asshole...
If Governor Palin is wrong, it is was when she compares herself to him.
They are talking about going a lot further and actually campaigning against someone.
I understand. My argument is, a government in a country with the First Amendment can't do anything about it.
I'd be happy to see Trump on the ballot come November — and in office come January, and I think his haters are fools. But it is their right to oppose him — and whichever law says otherwise should be abolished...
if they were to give sweetheart rates for advertising to one side of the other, i'd have a problem
Why? Yes, there are laws against that sort of thing, but let's stick to pure ethical reasons...
If the First Amendment allows me to spend hours each day talking (or posting on the Internet) about a candidate on the street myself, why shouldn't my paying somebody else to do it be similarly protected?
Because I happened to be rich? Fine — what about the good looking people, or those with a better voice? Should they be barred from using their gift to a candidate's advantage?
US election law isn't really equipped to deal with an entity with FB size and reach
NY Times and other national newspapers had a similar reach within the US only a short while ago... And their electoral endorsements mattered — and were actively sought-out by the politicians. Maybe, not so much any more, but there was never anything illegal or even unethical about it. You have an opinion — you voice it. If you happen to have a bigger megaphone, good for you...
Is that unlawful coordination?
Why can the media endorse a candidate, but not other corporations?
People — and de-jure "persons" like corporations — ought to be able to support whoever they want. Any attempts to limit such activities and speech not only violate the First Amendment, they create numerous opportunities for corruption. Because, if you have to regulate them, you inevitably allow the regulators to treat some as more equal than others. It happens to the supposedly neutral private regulators, and it is only worse, when government officials do it.
If you told me 20 years ago, that a self-identified "Democratic Socialist" (and a bona-fide Communist underneath) will soon have a fair shot at becoming President of the US, I would've dismissed it with the same derision... But today's youth does not care any more — the Socialism/Communism's 100 years of failure (and mass-murder) are not taught in schools.
Two, it is a pointless claim because there are no democrats currently in Washington who are willing to propose anything that even slightly resembles an initiative to "give control of healthcare to the government".
Currently is the caveat-emptor, is not it? Look on this very board — numerous people speak in favor of "single payer", and they all vote...
Even the most socialized of all medical systems still give the physicians at least as much autonomy as our system does.
TFA is not about "authority" — it is about incompetence. When doctors become government-employees — as they are in Cuba so beloved by the likes of Bernie Sanders and Michael Moore, and other worker paradises — the healthcare will suck just as it does there.
It will continue to suck. Which will allow the next "progressive" President to claim "the market approach has failed" — and turn to a government-owned (euphemistically called "single payer") system. Obama himself would've done it — with enthusiastic support from morons like certain anonymous cowards replying to you — but "the nation was not ready" so he simply laid down the ground work for the future:
"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House."
In other words, you are just parroting standard slashdot conservative FUD.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them
Whether Obama himself is "in on it", there is little doubt that the trillions of dollars worth of coal in the ground in USA will not be mined by some people eventually. That those people are currently among enthusiastic supporters of all politicians driving the today's miners out of business is not at all far-fetched.
What do you think should happen to people who have knowingly endangered public safety because they were paid to repeat (and publish) lies?
Thank you for providing me with another exhibit. When your opponents are not merely wrong, but are enemies of the people, achieving 100% agreement becomes trivial. USSR, North Korea, Saddam Hussein's Iraq are all good examples of this serene unanimity.
A RICO investigation was conducted into the lies publicly told by cigarette companies
False. Tobacco companies got in trouble because their customers were disproportionally suffering of nasty diseases. Nothing of the kind can be demonstrated for "victims" of climate-skeptics.
Speech — including lies — is protected by the First Amendment. Keep your totalitarian hands off my Constitution, asshole.
Maybe, he sincerely believes, coal is a poison and should go away. But it is far more likely, that he — or some of his more pragmatic allies in the party — are simply scheming to buy the companies for pennies on the dollar and then politically rehabilitate the fuel with the help of politicians grateful for their donations. And even ask taxpayers for assistance. Seriously, wouldn't Department of Energy be happy to issue grants and low-interest loans to something with "Green Coal" or "Clear Coal" on the first page of their brochure?
the Obama administration's environmental regulations raised operational costs
And if the denounced non-scientists insist on voicing their ridiculous opposition, we prosecute them as racketeers. Surely, such felons can not be considered "experts", can they be?
Totally And Permanently Disabled. That is, medically incapable of any sort of gainful employment.
Neither are the two equivalent (a legless veteran can still write software or work telephones), nor is gainful employment a requirement for solvency — one could have wealth and/or other sources of income: inheritance, family support, disability insurance, etc.
I'm guessing that involves more than a 35% drop in after tax employment income.
Wrong. The 35% drop I cited is average for people, who were disabled at least 10 years — that's as close to "permanent" as it gets with the current rate of scientific and engineering development. You are welcome to cite a different source, but "your guessing" is not acceptable.
what would be the point in needling such a person to pay off the student loan?
The point is three-fold: a) to collect the money owed from those, who are not in fact insolvent despite disability; b) to discourage cheaters from faking disability — a majorfraud-magnet, which the "benevolent" government officials have no incentive to fight; c) to encourage people to get and carry disability insurance.
The actions of police have no bearing on whether an inference is sound.
There have been no actual actions of police anyway. But there have been calls for actions. Which means, the inference is unconvincing and the inferrers — unscientific (and totalitarian).
But we knew that already — Climate Science is notoriously short on scientific statements, that have come out true. Falsifiable, but not falsified in due time.
Just try to cite any... Here are the rules: your list of scientific statements must have two links per entry: the first link pointing at a prediction made, the second — to its confirmation with reasonable accuracy (say, 80%, if quantifiable). The two links in each entry must be several years apart — "predictions" publicized after coming true do not count. The predictions need to be at least marginally useful — something promising, for example, that the temperatures will rise or fall aren't.
The rules are reasonable, but you will not be able to succeed — many have tried. Depending on your personality, you may make several attempts omitting some of the requirements, and then give up (calling me names is optional).
We already covered it, in the U.S., if you have to go on disability, it pretty much does mean insolvency
No, we did not "cover" it. You made this unsubstantiated claim, that's all. It remains unsubstantiated. But, hey, here, I'll help you out:
Ten years after disability onset, a person with a chronic and severe disability on average experiences a 79 percent decline in earnings, a 35 percent decline in after-tax income, a 24 percent decline in food and housing consumption and a 22 percent decline in food consumption.
So, a 35% decline in after-tax income. That sucks, but it does not automatically mean, a person can't pay his debts! And that's average — some are better off than others, but our government "forgives" them all...
You seem to be pointedly dodging the question
No, I told you — all of the insolvent ought to be treated the same. Now you have dodged my question several times: why should not single parents be "forgiven" too? Their median income is 2/3rds (per adult) that of a married family — no data for "after tax" income.
As for nationalizing the program, that has nothing to do with creating the situation in question here
It has everything to do with it. I will not be automatically forgiven my credit-card debt, for example, if I become disabled — because the bank is controlled by the people, whose money will be on the line. But a nationalized institution spends money of the captive taxpayers and so can afford to be "generous".
The general welfare clause deals with government spending power and not power in general.
Ah, Ok. One wonders, why none of Madison's contemporaries have pointed the clause out to him... He was not the only the only author of the Constitution still alive then...
Perhaps, they all agreed — even if some of them genuinely wanted to help the refugees anyway?
And those with the voice, can get more research funding. Is not it nice, when the government is picking winners?
Climate science has a harder problem to address, but is as rigorous as is reasonable in the circumstances.
I wonder, what you mean by "rigorous" here. Lysenko, for example, rigorously persecuted adherents of the reactionary Mendelian genetics. And, when their activities endangered the favor he held with the government, denounced them as "enemies of the people".
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have to explain anything — I'm trying to neither convince nor force others into changing their way of life. You do. So, the burden of proof is on you.
If you wish to offer citations to satisfy my earlier challenge, go ahead. Each entry will have two links: one to a publicized prediction, the other — to its confirmation several years later. Follow-ups not containing such entries will be returned unopened.
Many "cool and new" technologies started out with a rather dismissive and arrogant attitude towards predecessors — only to then encounter the same problems as other did before and have to solve them in a hurry, shooting yourself in the same extremity (with the same gun), and stepping on the same rake.
From my experience, Ruby is especially bad at it. Release 1.9.2 not quite compatible with 1.9.1? What?!
Published packages ("gems") not signed. Huh?
So, when I hear about yet another problem in that world, all I can do is shrug...
The news-bit about Mr. Nye's call to prosecute "deniers" was submitted to Slashdot yesterday, but did not make it. He was quoted as:
When the opponents of the supposedly scientific theory you like are not merely wrong or even stupid, but are criminals, you immediately stop being a scientist even if you ever were one (and Mr. Nye was an engineer before becoming an entertainer). You become a totalitarian asshole...
If Governor Palin is wrong, it is was when she compares herself to him.
Probably. They are just awfully hard to find. Forget individual scientists, we can't even identify successful scientific theories about climate...
And by "successful" I mean a) verifiable; b) falsifiable; c) verified; d) not falsified.
Try to list any successful climate predictions publicized before they came true within 80% of predicted values (if quantifiable)...
I understand. My argument is, a government in a country with the First Amendment can't do anything about it.
I'd be happy to see Trump on the ballot come November — and in office come January, and I think his haters are fools. But it is their right to oppose him — and whichever law says otherwise should be abolished...
Are they? What about other activities — such as selectively printing readers' letters or (not so) subtly editorializing when reporting news?
You can neither stop nor even limit it without running into the First Amendment — better to not even try, it will be worse...
Why? Yes, there are laws against that sort of thing, but let's stick to pure ethical reasons...
If the First Amendment allows me to spend hours each day talking (or posting on the Internet) about a candidate on the street myself, why shouldn't my paying somebody else to do it be similarly protected?
Because I happened to be rich? Fine — what about the good looking people, or those with a better voice? Should they be barred from using their gift to a candidate's advantage?
NY Times and other national newspapers had a similar reach within the US only a short while ago... And their electoral endorsements mattered — and were actively sought-out by the politicians. Maybe, not so much any more, but there was never anything illegal or even unethical about it. You have an opinion — you voice it. If you happen to have a bigger megaphone, good for you...
Why can the media endorse a candidate, but not other corporations?
People — and de-jure "persons" like corporations — ought to be able to support whoever they want. Any attempts to limit such activities and speech not only violate the First Amendment, they create numerous opportunities for corruption. Because, if you have to regulate them, you inevitably allow the regulators to treat some as more equal than others. It happens to the supposedly neutral private regulators, and it is only worse, when government officials do it.
If you told me 20 years ago, that a self-identified "Democratic Socialist" (and a bona-fide Communist underneath) will soon have a fair shot at becoming President of the US, I would've dismissed it with the same derision... But today's youth does not care any more — the Socialism/Communism's 100 years of failure (and mass-murder) are not taught in schools.
Currently is the caveat-emptor, is not it? Look on this very board — numerous people speak in favor of "single payer", and they all vote...
TFA is not about "authority" — it is about incompetence. When doctors become government-employees — as they are in Cuba so beloved by the likes of Bernie Sanders and Michael Moore, and other worker paradises — the healthcare will suck just as it does there.
And we are on our way — by many indications, Obamacare was designed to fail, and is failing as "CO-OPs" go bankrupt, and major commercial insurers threaten to withdraw. It did not "bend the curve" of the costs either — the grows of healthcare costs is accelerating.
It will continue to suck. Which will allow the next "progressive" President to claim "the market approach has failed" — and turn to a government-owned (euphemistically called "single payer") system. Obama himself would've done it — with enthusiastic support from morons like certain anonymous cowards replying to you — but "the nation was not ready" so he simply laid down the ground work for the future:
You seem like the kind, who'd be trying t
The US housing prices firmed up after TFA came out, as millions of progressives decided to cancel their plans to move to Canada after all...
Coal is incredibly cheap. What makes it unaffordable for would-be users are the regulations designed to kill off such use.
Oh, Obama was blatantly open about it:
Whether Obama himself is "in on it", there is little doubt that the trillions of dollars worth of coal in the ground in USA will not be mined by some people eventually. That those people are currently among enthusiastic supporters of all politicians driving the today's miners out of business is not at all far-fetched.
Thank you for providing me with another exhibit. When your opponents are not merely wrong, but are enemies of the people, achieving 100% agreement becomes trivial. USSR, North Korea, Saddam Hussein's Iraq are all good examples of this serene unanimity.
False. Tobacco companies got in trouble because their customers were disproportionally suffering of nasty diseases. Nothing of the kind can be demonstrated for "victims" of climate-skeptics.
Speech — including lies — is protected by the First Amendment. Keep your totalitarian hands off my Constitution, asshole.
The Administration may have failed to bring America's gasoline prices to the European levels. But the promise to bankrupt the coal-industry is coming fulfilled.
Maybe, he sincerely believes, coal is a poison and should go away. But it is far more likely, that he — or some of his more pragmatic allies in the party — are simply scheming to buy the companies for pennies on the dollar and then politically rehabilitate the fuel with the help of politicians grateful for their donations. And even ask taxpayers for assistance. Seriously, wouldn't Department of Energy be happy to issue grants and low-interest loans to something with "Green Coal" or "Clear Coal" on the first page of their brochure?
As the old adage goes:
The little scheme involves immense PROFIT to the well-connected cronies, who snatch the struggling businesses between the 2nd and the 3rd step.
With carefully redefined terms, it is possible to make any statement truthful. For example, if we denounce any "skeptic" as not an expert (and worse), the above-quoted statement automatically truthful.
And if the denounced non-scientists insist on voicing their ridiculous opposition, we prosecute them as racketeers. Surely, such felons can not be considered "experts", can they be?
Problem solved — 100% unanimity achieved...
Neither are the two equivalent (a legless veteran can still write software or work telephones), nor is gainful employment a requirement for solvency — one could have wealth and/or other sources of income: inheritance, family support, disability insurance, etc.
Wrong. The 35% drop I cited is average for people, who were disabled at least 10 years — that's as close to "permanent" as it gets with the current rate of scientific and engineering development. You are welcome to cite a different source, but "your guessing" is not acceptable.
The point is three-fold: a) to collect the money owed from those, who are not in fact insolvent despite disability; b) to discourage cheaters from faking disability — a major fraud-magnet, which the "benevolent" government officials have no incentive to fight; c) to encourage people to get and carry disability insurance.
It is not, even though police have (ab)used it, because it removes an important safeguard.
I do not like it in the least, but I don't think, it has much relation to the law in TFA.
Citations missing.
There have been no actual actions of police anyway. But there have been calls for actions. Which means, the inference is unconvincing and the inferrers — unscientific (and totalitarian).
But we knew that already — Climate Science is notoriously short on scientific statements, that have come out true. Falsifiable, but not falsified in due time.
Just try to cite any... Here are the rules: your list of scientific statements must have two links per entry: the first link pointing at a prediction made, the second — to its confirmation with reasonable accuracy (say, 80%, if quantifiable). The two links in each entry must be several years apart — "predictions" publicized after coming true do not count. The predictions need to be at least marginally useful — something promising, for example, that the temperatures will rise or fall aren't.
The rules are reasonable, but you will not be able to succeed — many have tried. Depending on your personality, you may make several attempts omitting some of the requirements, and then give up (calling me names is optional).
No, we did not "cover" it. You made this unsubstantiated claim, that's all. It remains unsubstantiated. But, hey, here, I'll help you out:
So, a 35% decline in after-tax income. That sucks, but it does not automatically mean, a person can't pay his debts! And that's average — some are better off than others, but our government "forgives" them all...
No, I told you — all of the insolvent ought to be treated the same. Now you have dodged my question several times: why should not single parents be "forgiven" too? Their median income is 2/3rds (per adult) that of a married family — no data for "after tax" income.
It has everything to do with it. I will not be automatically forgiven my credit-card debt, for example, if I become disabled — because the bank is controlled by the people, whose money will be on the line. But a nationalized institution spends money of the captive taxpayers and so can afford to be "generous".
Ah, Ok. One wonders, why none of Madison's contemporaries have pointed the clause out to him... He was not the only the only author of the Constitution still alive then...
Perhaps, they all agreed — even if some of them genuinely wanted to help the refugees anyway?
Strangely enough, you chose to ignore the question completely. Especially weird for somebody with the qualifications you claim in your signature.
Given that your first response here was rather off-topic as well, I'm not continuing...
And those with the voice, can get more research funding. Is not it nice, when the government is picking winners?
I wonder, what you mean by "rigorous" here. Lysenko, for example, rigorously persecuted adherents of the reactionary Mendelian genetics. And, when their activities endangered the favor he held with the government, denounced them as "enemies of the people".
Something that could never happen in a free country. Right?
Is it really a reliable scientific theory, if police are called on to silence its opponents?
Citation missing.
So, are you for or against CEOs entering politics? Or does it depend — as it evidently does for most "progressives" — on which CEOs?