Because the agreement does not include binding emission targets, or binding financial commitments beyond those contained in the UNFCCC, and can be implemented on the basis of existing law, President Obama chose to approve it by executive action.
So nothing binding on the US, thus there should be zero problem with the US changing its targets and its financial commitments. There was nothing there to begin with. Just a big show. Per the FAQ you posted.
And? I didn't say there was a problem, I was pointing out that not participating is just foolishness.
Remember, Trump's reason for withdrawing from the agreement was that it was "totally unfair to the United States". As you correctly note that there's no possible way for the agreement to actually be unfair to the United States. What the treaty actually requires is that all signers set goals, work towards reaching the goals they set and report their progress.
Cool - so the Paris Accord required countries to which we give the money to invest it into infrastructure? It's an entirely voluntary agreement to begin with, and missing the goals has no penalties... So we just give at least (it's a floor, not a ceiling) $100 billion a year and hope for the best?
$100 billion is what all of the developed countries (and not just developed countries, China is providing $3 billion as well, and the city of Paris volunteered $1 million euros, in addition to France's contribution) have agreed to provide to the developing countries to help them achieve reduction goals. The U.S. contribution was $400 million a year.
If you think it's just the United States contributing that money, then you've been misled and you should really take a look at why your chosen information sources are deceiving you.
An trotting out the race card only cheapens your argument. I don't hate Obama because he is a democrat or a because he is black. That is just BS and you know it. What I know is that his presidency was a disaster. I know it and you know it. You just don't want to admit it. So who is living in fantasy land?
No, you're living a fantasy land. I don't know whether you're lying or you're just so terribly ignorant of actual real facts that you believe your own bullshit, but by every objective measure he was a pretty good president. Everything you claim was wrong with it is actual political propaganda that you have swallowed without thinking about it.
When you trotted out the race card that shows you have no real argument. Just a lot of BS and a axe to grind because you got spanked in 2016. No, we are done here too.
I'm not a Democrat, you feeble minded fool, and I have no side in your moronic American politics, but what I don't like is ignorant shits like you who try to lie to me. It's transparently obvious that you have an unreasoning hatred of Obama and it's completely clear it's because he wasn't on your team. Frankly, I have no use for brainless twits like you.
How about investing in something else that actually does more than a one-time bump of revenue, like infrastructure?
Yeah. How about investing in infrastructure? What do you think every other country in the world is going to be doing with that money? Did you stop, for even one second, to think about this? The whole point is to upgrade infrastructure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (to benefit everyone on this planet) and to build infrastructure to protect vulnerable populations (in their own countries) from the effects of Climate Change.
Actually, it does no such thing. The over all worse presidents since WWII would be Lyndon B Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter. An this is by expert option. Popular option doesn't even enter into the picture yet. With the media that is obviously against Trump you can't count on a unbias option pole. An also these are the same poles and people that predicted Hillary would win by a landslide. An we all know what happened there.
It's time to take your partisan cry-baby pants off and put on the big boy pants now. Popular opinion means the popular opinion now, biased coverage or not, this is what the popular opinion poll is saying. Screaming about how unfair it is that Trump is unpopular with the majority of Americans is just a waste of time.
Make no mistake Obama was a charismatic leader. Everybody bought his bullshit line about change. Oh we got change alright. Our healthcare system was destroyed, boarders where left wide open, and the national debit was doubled. Once all the hype surrounding his presidency has died down in a few decades and his legacy is examined Obama will be regarded as one of the worse if not the worse in history.
Here you're just spouting fantasy opinions. I hate to break it you, but it's highly unlikely that Obama will be moved out of the top third unless America gets a string of spectacularly good presidents. Hating him because he's black or a Democrat isn't going to change the opinions of the people who don't share your particular prejudices.
Yes, his argument is that it's an easy way for the United States to subsidize and invest in it's own economy to improve it's international competitiveness and Trump doesn't want to do that because "Climate Change was invented by the Chinese".
If you think that's a stupid decision only a moron would make, it's because it is.
I would also like to see the data that you have that says Trump is an ineffective leader. Every indicator that isn't filtered through a anti Trump filter seems to show that we are doing just fine. The GPA is up, illegal immigration is down, and for millions haven't lost health insurance.
So despite the doom and gloom predictions it seems Trump is a effective leader and we are doing just fine.
And what exactly has Trump done to make the GDP go up, illegal immigration go down, or prevent millions from losing their health insurance?
The GDP continues to go up thanks to Barrack Obama's economic policies which Trump has not yet bothered to change, and millions haven't lost their health insurance thanks to John McCain's refusal to do what Trump wants, which is the opposite of good leadership on Trump's behalf. The illegal immigration thing might however, be true. Anecdotally, it appears that fewer immigrants, illegal or otherwise, want to live in Trump's America.
That's a bit hyperbolic, I think, Trump would have to be able to top both James Buchanan who helped trigger the civil war, and Andrew Johnson who refused to support the rights of former slaves after winning the civil war to take the title as worst President. So far Trump is just terrible, he'll really need to step up his game if we wants to truly make it to the bottom of the list.
If Trump died today (of natural causes), I think he'd likely be ranked around 35th (out of 44 presidents) in American history by expert opinion. Popular opinion does, however, already give him the nod as the worst president since World War 2. Amusingly the same poll found Barack Obama was the second place pick among respondents for both best President since World War 2 (after Reagan) and worst President since World War 2 (after Trump). Expert opinions seem to put Obama at around 12th-15th overall, and 4th or 5th since World War 2.
Sure it does, but it is amusing to see libertarians try to justify how this time it's good for the government to do what their ideology says it should never be allowed to do.
Personally, I do not even have a particularly solid opinion on the matter that he was discussing in that memo. But I find it quite telling that one side (Mr. Damore) cites studies and such (as biased and wrong as they might be), while all the other side does is whine and say "it can't be true". Well, if the latter is the case, go right ahead and cite some studies that clearly show Mr. Damore is wrong. Or shut the fuck up.
Uh oh. It looks like you've been tricked by the propaganda. Mr. Damore does cite a few studies but that doesn't make his arguments well researched or well supported. Appeals to Authority are fallacious if the authority isn't an expert on the topic or there is no consensus of expert opinion on the topic. Mr. Damore's citations generally fall into the latter category where multiple experts have indicated that he cherry-picked studies with outlier results or troublesomely flawed methodologies to justify his positions. There were a lot of stories, like this one, looking at where his paper falls short on the facts.
I read Damore's paper and found it hamfisted and littered with evidence of the author's shallow understanding of the topics he was writing about. I wasn't particularly offended by it, but then again I wasn't targeted by Damore. However, Damore set himself up for failure by writing about something he knows very little about and he even used a title, "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber", that set him up for failure. Generally, if you want people to listen to what you have to say, it's a good idea not to offend them with your opening line.
Damore cluelessly and artlessly insulted his employers, insulted his peers and boorishly prattled on about his own superiority. I think that's actually a charitable characterisation of his writing, because I am sure that there are many other people who not be so kind. If you're white and male you should consider whether you're also blithely oblivious to racist and sexist subtexts.
Perhaps the worst thing about his paper is that he failed to address any pro-diversity arguments in any way, presenting his argument like there wasn't even an other side to debate. There is an impression that Damore considered non-white, non-male peers to be inherently inferior, unless specifically proven otherwise to him.
1. Facebook and Twitter are not private companies. They are traded publicly (ticker symbols FB and TWTR.) But whether they're public or private has nothing to do with whether they can be treated as a public utility. They don't own pipes or wires that run up to your house.
From context it's clear he means privately-owned company, and it's perfectly acceptable terminology in North America to call either Facebook or Twitter a private company even though they are traded publicly. The opposite, a public company would be one that is owned by the government, like the U.S. Postal Service and NASA, though I am not actually sure that either is exactly a company, but you should get the idea.
2. I call bullshit on your claim of "calls on conservative sides" to treat these companies as utilities. I haven't heard any.
And besides, that would be a really stupid move on the part of conservatives, many of whom want to kill Net Neutrality.
As far as I can tell, most conservatives want to keep Net Neutrality, except for the trolls and the people who don't even know what it is, but oppose it because liberals want it.
Do you think they could turn Facebook and Twitter into utilities, while at the same time say that the companies who provide the networks they use are not utilities?
Most likely the actual Republican leadership doesn't want to do any such thing, because it would fly in the face of their aggressively anti-regulation posturing. However, they may want their base to want them to do it, so they can use the threat of regulation against Facebook and Twitter to induce "good behaviour".
That's just it, I don't want to be a racist bigot king at all.
Then wake up to the fact that you are helping people to be racist bigots.
As long as the group isn't "criminal" or "rapist", or something similar, their group isn't my business, except they keep making it my business.
But so many people in the world think I should be forced to do work for them against my will. Their rights override my rights, for some reason, when I really don't even care what group someone is a part of.
And here you are actively encouraging the discrimination and the victimization of minority groups. The bakers in your example decided to discriminate against members of the public based on proscribed reasons. Reasons that are proscribed because they were actively and maliciously used to harass, impoverish, belittle, and dehumanize their fellow Americans. Do you understand that it's illegal because white people used to drive black people out their neighbourhood by denying the right to buy food, clothes and everything else? Do you understand the history behind the law? Do you really want to stand up for bakers who refuse to sell cakes to people based on the colour of their skin or the genitals of their spouse? When it's really none of their god damn business who the cake is for?
As long as the group isn't "criminal" or "rapist", or something similar, their group isn't my business, except they keep making it my business.
That's a bald face lie because here you are making it your business, quite voluntarily. The only person making it your business is you, and I'm pretty sure everyone else wants you to just stop lying to yourself.
What about a comedy spy tv show? Make a show with the worst spies possible, something similar to Johnny English or Frank Drebin.
Of course, there have been a few spy comedies. Some, like InSecurity, were not well loved, and others, like Chuck, were. They even tried to revive Get Smart as a TV Show, in the 90s. It didn't go well. A new Get Smart TV show could be amazing, but Steve Carrell's too busy to do a TV show, right now.
For some reason, I don't feel like now would be the right time for a comedic spy show (other than the one taking place in the White House), but maybe we'll be surprised.
So, to disprove human-caused global warming, not only does it need to be shown to not happen, but the natural warming previously known as "we are not in an ice age anymore" needs to stop also, returning us to the ice age.
Don't worry, the "natural warming" because "we are not in an ice age anymore" actually stopped thousands of years ago. The temperature has been on a long slow decline since then. If you removed the human influence from the global temperature it would start declining again.
That's a lemming argument.
"Most scientists agree on anthropogenic global warming, so it must be true."
That's an illiterate argument. He said we don't throw away theories, we replace them with theories that do a better job of explaining the evidence. Then you have to play the role of moron and accuse him of bandwagoning for the crime of explaining how the real world works to you. Congratulations, you've embarrassed yourself and everyone who agrees with you.
Oh Jesus. The first link contained a personal accusation from the author that climate scientists are trying to hide Milankovitch cycles, and you don't think it's trolling?
Pretty much, although I think it looks like the drivers will become security guards who have to travel between cities.
The maintenance and repair functions will likely be handled the way they are now, which, I think, means tow trucks and garages for repairs. I'm not sure how most shipping companies currently handle vehicle maintenance (in-house or outsourced). It seems likely there would likely be fewer guards than there currently are drivers, which will driven by cost-cutting measures.
The interesting parts will probably concern government inspection of cargo, how does the shipping company comply with government demands if there's no human presence in the truck. Remote override of the destination? That's potentially away for hackers to steal cargo...
Kristian Saucier destroyed evidence that, ironically, would have helped his defence. He was warned by one of his fellow sailors that what he was doing was illegal and then he tried to cover it up. David Petraeus knowingly and willfully shared classified information with his reporter girlfriend then knowingly and deliberately lied about it to investigators. Sandy Berger removed classified information from a secure location by stuffing it in his underwear, then lied about it to investigators.
Out of your three examples, Kristian Saucier is only one who actually did jail time, which doesn't bode well for the truthiness of your claim that she'd be serving a life sentence, especially considering that unlike all three of the above examples, the FBI concluded that Hillary hadn't knowingly lied about her actions and hadn't attempted to destroy evidence.
I see no reasonable basis where you can honestly claim that a lesser infraction with no compounding interference (as the FBI reported) would receive a much harsher punishment than the best examples you can come up with.
The problem is that when you give people this free stuff, they have absolutely zero gratitude for it. Because fuck you, that's why. In order for people to feel they own something, they have to work for it. Then they feel a sense of ownership. Give people something for free, and they abuse the shit out of it, because why not? Take, take, take and never give. The system only exists for them to exploit and the idea of contributing sounds absurd. They have no pride.
Do you have any actual evidence to support your assertions?
I'm not entirely inclined to disagree with you, but I strongly suspect the attitude you describe actually only applies to a minority of actual people. Moral hazards apply when there is benefit in unethical behaviour and little or no punishment of it. When the "free stuff" is education and health care, I'm not seeing the clear benefit in unethical behaviour, nor am I seeing where they would be a lack of punishment for abuse of those services. It seems like the threat of moral hazard would be very dependent on the implementation details.
I tend to believe that as societal goods, both health care and education should be subsidized. I tend to believe that higher education, university and college should not be totally free, for similar reasons as you. But I think the fees should be minimal and far below the current American fees because as an American you should want more highly trained and profitable workers in your country as opposed to unemployable welfare recipients. The fees should be used to weed out the people who don't actually want to be there to learn (not that will always work when parents can pay for everything) for the benefit of those who are there to learn. A for-profit health care system, however, is just a bad idea. It doesn't matter how much money a Typhoid Mary makes or can afford to pay for medical treatment, her victims would still get sick and die. Making it harder for patient 0 in an outbreak to get treatment isn't going to help anyone regardless of how much money they make.
I should probably also clarify that I'm only talking about the overall insurance system that shouldn't be for profit in health care, for profit health care research, hospitals and doctors seem entirely reasonable. It's just that making access to health care dependent on personal wealth is short-sighted and ultimately self-defeating.
Slashdot Mirror
From your link:
Because the agreement does not include binding emission targets, or binding financial commitments beyond those contained in the UNFCCC, and can be implemented on the basis of existing law, President Obama chose to approve it by executive action.
So nothing binding on the US, thus there should be zero problem with the US changing its targets and its financial commitments. There was nothing there to begin with. Just a big show. Per the FAQ you posted.
And? I didn't say there was a problem, I was pointing out that not participating is just foolishness.
Remember, Trump's reason for withdrawing from the agreement was that it was "totally unfair to the United States". As you correctly note that there's no possible way for the agreement to actually be unfair to the United States. What the treaty actually requires is that all signers set goals, work towards reaching the goals they set and report their progress.
FaceID reminds me of this xkcd comic.
Except that you no longer need the wrench...
FAQ
Cool - so the Paris Accord required countries to which we give the money to invest it into infrastructure? It's an entirely voluntary agreement to begin with, and missing the goals has no penalties... So we just give at least (it's a floor, not a ceiling) $100 billion a year and hope for the best?
$100 billion is what all of the developed countries (and not just developed countries, China is providing $3 billion as well, and the city of Paris volunteered $1 million euros, in addition to France's contribution) have agreed to provide to the developing countries to help them achieve reduction goals. The U.S. contribution was $400 million a year.
If you think it's just the United States contributing that money, then you've been misled and you should really take a look at why your chosen information sources are deceiving you.
Here's a good FAQ for the agreement.
An trotting out the race card only cheapens your argument. I don't hate Obama because he is a democrat or a because he is black. That is just BS and you know it. What I know is that his presidency was a disaster. I know it and you know it. You just don't want to admit it. So who is living in fantasy land?
No, you're living a fantasy land. I don't know whether you're lying or you're just so terribly ignorant of actual real facts that you believe your own bullshit, but by every objective measure he was a pretty good president. Everything you claim was wrong with it is actual political propaganda that you have swallowed without thinking about it.
When you trotted out the race card that shows you have no real argument. Just a lot of BS and a axe to grind because you got spanked in 2016. No, we are done here too.
I'm not a Democrat, you feeble minded fool, and I have no side in your moronic American politics, but what I don't like is ignorant shits like you who try to lie to me. It's transparently obvious that you have an unreasoning hatred of Obama and it's completely clear it's because he wasn't on your team. Frankly, I have no use for brainless twits like you.
How about investing in something else that actually does more than a one-time bump of revenue, like infrastructure?
Yeah. How about investing in infrastructure? What do you think every other country in the world is going to be doing with that money? Did you stop, for even one second, to think about this? The whole point is to upgrade infrastructure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (to benefit everyone on this planet) and to build infrastructure to protect vulnerable populations (in their own countries) from the effects of Climate Change.
Actually, it does no such thing. The over all worse presidents since WWII would be Lyndon B Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter. An this is by expert option. Popular option doesn't even enter into the picture yet. With the media that is obviously against Trump you can't count on a unbias option pole. An also these are the same poles and people that predicted Hillary would win by a landslide. An we all know what happened there.
It's time to take your partisan cry-baby pants off and put on the big boy pants now. Popular opinion means the popular opinion now, biased coverage or not, this is what the popular opinion poll is saying. Screaming about how unfair it is that Trump is unpopular with the majority of Americans is just a waste of time.
Make no mistake Obama was a charismatic leader. Everybody bought his bullshit line about change. Oh we got change alright. Our healthcare system was destroyed, boarders where left wide open, and the national debit was doubled. Once all the hype surrounding his presidency has died down in a few decades and his legacy is examined Obama will be regarded as one of the worse if not the worse in history.
Here you're just spouting fantasy opinions. I hate to break it you, but it's highly unlikely that Obama will be moved out of the top third unless America gets a string of spectacularly good presidents. Hating him because he's black or a Democrat isn't going to change the opinions of the people who don't share your particular prejudices.
It's more effective than being snarky from momma's basement.
Actually, it probably isn't.
Yes, his argument is that it's an easy way for the United States to subsidize and invest in it's own economy to improve it's international competitiveness and Trump doesn't want to do that because "Climate Change was invented by the Chinese".
If you think that's a stupid decision only a moron would make, it's because it is.
I would also like to see the data that you have that says Trump is an ineffective leader. Every indicator that isn't filtered through a anti Trump filter seems to show that we are doing just fine. The GPA is up, illegal immigration is down, and for millions haven't lost health insurance.
So despite the doom and gloom predictions it seems Trump is a effective leader and we are doing just fine.
And what exactly has Trump done to make the GDP go up, illegal immigration go down, or prevent millions from losing their health insurance?
The GDP continues to go up thanks to Barrack Obama's economic policies which Trump has not yet bothered to change, and millions haven't lost their health insurance thanks to John McCain's refusal to do what Trump wants, which is the opposite of good leadership on Trump's behalf. The illegal immigration thing might however, be true. Anecdotally, it appears that fewer immigrants, illegal or otherwise, want to live in Trump's America.
That's a bit hyperbolic, I think, Trump would have to be able to top both James Buchanan who helped trigger the civil war, and Andrew Johnson who refused to support the rights of former slaves after winning the civil war to take the title as worst President. So far Trump is just terrible, he'll really need to step up his game if we wants to truly make it to the bottom of the list.
If Trump died today (of natural causes), I think he'd likely be ranked around 35th (out of 44 presidents) in American history by expert opinion. Popular opinion does, however, already give him the nod as the worst president since World War 2. Amusingly the same poll found Barack Obama was the second place pick among respondents for both best President since World War 2 (after Reagan) and worst President since World War 2 (after Trump). Expert opinions seem to put Obama at around 12th-15th overall, and 4th or 5th since World War 2.
California law trumps his employment contract
Sure it does, but it is amusing to see libertarians try to justify how this time it's good for the government to do what their ideology says it should never be allowed to do.
Personally, I do not even have a particularly solid opinion on the matter that he was discussing in that memo. But I find it quite telling that one side (Mr. Damore) cites studies and such (as biased and wrong as they might be), while all the other side does is whine and say "it can't be true". Well, if the latter is the case, go right ahead and cite some studies that clearly show Mr. Damore is wrong. Or shut the fuck up.
Uh oh. It looks like you've been tricked by the propaganda. Mr. Damore does cite a few studies but that doesn't make his arguments well researched or well supported. Appeals to Authority are fallacious if the authority isn't an expert on the topic or there is no consensus of expert opinion on the topic. Mr. Damore's citations generally fall into the latter category where multiple experts have indicated that he cherry-picked studies with outlier results or troublesomely flawed methodologies to justify his positions. There were a lot of stories, like this one, looking at where his paper falls short on the facts.
I read Damore's paper and found it hamfisted and littered with evidence of the author's shallow understanding of the topics he was writing about. I wasn't particularly offended by it, but then again I wasn't targeted by Damore. However, Damore set himself up for failure by writing about something he knows very little about and he even used a title, "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber", that set him up for failure. Generally, if you want people to listen to what you have to say, it's a good idea not to offend them with your opening line.
Damore cluelessly and artlessly insulted his employers, insulted his peers and boorishly prattled on about his own superiority. I think that's actually a charitable characterisation of his writing, because I am sure that there are many other people who not be so kind. If you're white and male you should consider whether you're also blithely oblivious to racist and sexist subtexts.
Perhaps the worst thing about his paper is that he failed to address any pro-diversity arguments in any way, presenting his argument like there wasn't even an other side to debate. There is an impression that Damore considered non-white, non-male peers to be inherently inferior, unless specifically proven otherwise to him.
1. Facebook and Twitter are not private companies. They are traded publicly (ticker symbols FB and TWTR.) But whether they're public or private has nothing to do with whether they can be treated as a public utility. They don't own pipes or wires that run up to your house.
From context it's clear he means privately-owned company, and it's perfectly acceptable terminology in North America to call either Facebook or Twitter a private company even though they are traded publicly. The opposite, a public company would be one that is owned by the government, like the U.S. Postal Service and NASA, though I am not actually sure that either is exactly a company, but you should get the idea.
2. I call bullshit on your claim of "calls on conservative sides" to treat these companies as utilities. I haven't heard any.
Do you recognize the name Steve Bannon?
And besides, that would be a really stupid move on the part of conservatives, many of whom want to kill Net Neutrality.
As far as I can tell, most conservatives want to keep Net Neutrality, except for the trolls and the people who don't even know what it is, but oppose it because liberals want it.
Do you think they could turn Facebook and Twitter into utilities, while at the same time say that the companies who provide the networks they use are not utilities?
Most likely the actual Republican leadership doesn't want to do any such thing, because it would fly in the face of their aggressively anti-regulation posturing. However, they may want their base to want them to do it, so they can use the threat of regulation against Facebook and Twitter to induce "good behaviour".
That's just it, I don't want to be a racist bigot king at all.
Then wake up to the fact that you are helping people to be racist bigots.
As long as the group isn't "criminal" or "rapist", or something similar, their group isn't my business, except they keep making it my business.
But so many people in the world think I should be forced to do work for them against my will. Their rights override my rights, for some reason, when I really don't even care what group someone is a part of.
And here you are actively encouraging the discrimination and the victimization of minority groups. The bakers in your example decided to discriminate against members of the public based on proscribed reasons. Reasons that are proscribed because they were actively and maliciously used to harass, impoverish, belittle, and dehumanize their fellow Americans. Do you understand that it's illegal because white people used to drive black people out their neighbourhood by denying the right to buy food, clothes and everything else? Do you understand the history behind the law? Do you really want to stand up for bakers who refuse to sell cakes to people based on the colour of their skin or the genitals of their spouse? When it's really none of their god damn business who the cake is for?
As long as the group isn't "criminal" or "rapist", or something similar, their group isn't my business, except they keep making it my business.
That's a bald face lie because here you are making it your business, quite voluntarily. The only person making it your business is you, and I'm pretty sure everyone else wants you to just stop lying to yourself.
What about a comedy spy tv show? Make a show with the worst spies possible, something similar to Johnny English or Frank Drebin.
Of course, there have been a few spy comedies. Some, like InSecurity, were not well loved, and others, like Chuck, were. They even tried to revive Get Smart as a TV Show, in the 90s. It didn't go well. A new Get Smart TV show could be amazing, but Steve Carrell's too busy to do a TV show, right now.
For some reason, I don't feel like now would be the right time for a comedic spy show (other than the one taking place in the White House), but maybe we'll be surprised.
I hate to break this to you, but it already was.
When someone is making such an obviously false claim, it's hard to credit it as "honest research".
So, to disprove human-caused global warming, not only does it need to be shown to not happen, but the natural warming previously known as "we are not in an ice age anymore" needs to stop also, returning us to the ice age.
Don't worry, the "natural warming" because "we are not in an ice age anymore" actually stopped thousands of years ago. The temperature has been on a long slow decline since then. If you removed the human influence from the global temperature it would start declining again.
You don't have to take my word for it, but the Holocene optimum happened about 7,500 years ago.
That's a lemming argument. "Most scientists agree on anthropogenic global warming, so it must be true."
That's an illiterate argument. He said we don't throw away theories, we replace them with theories that do a better job of explaining the evidence. Then you have to play the role of moron and accuse him of bandwagoning for the crime of explaining how the real world works to you. Congratulations, you've embarrassed yourself and everyone who agrees with you.
Oh Jesus. The first link contained a personal accusation from the author that climate scientists are trying to hide Milankovitch cycles, and you don't think it's trolling?
Pretty much, although I think it looks like the drivers will become security guards who have to travel between cities.
The maintenance and repair functions will likely be handled the way they are now, which, I think, means tow trucks and garages for repairs. I'm not sure how most shipping companies currently handle vehicle maintenance (in-house or outsourced). It seems likely there would likely be fewer guards than there currently are drivers, which will driven by cost-cutting measures.
The interesting parts will probably concern government inspection of cargo, how does the shipping company comply with government demands if there's no human presence in the truck. Remote override of the destination? That's potentially away for hackers to steal cargo...
Kristian Saucier destroyed evidence that, ironically, would have helped his defence. He was warned by one of his fellow sailors that what he was doing was illegal and then he tried to cover it up. David Petraeus knowingly and willfully shared classified information with his reporter girlfriend then knowingly and deliberately lied about it to investigators. Sandy Berger removed classified information from a secure location by stuffing it in his underwear, then lied about it to investigators.
Out of your three examples, Kristian Saucier is only one who actually did jail time, which doesn't bode well for the truthiness of your claim that she'd be serving a life sentence, especially considering that unlike all three of the above examples, the FBI concluded that Hillary hadn't knowingly lied about her actions and hadn't attempted to destroy evidence.
I see no reasonable basis where you can honestly claim that a lesser infraction with no compounding interference (as the FBI reported) would receive a much harsher punishment than the best examples you can come up with.
If her name was Hillary Johnson she'd be in prison serving an effective life sentence.
If her name was Hillary Johnson, you wouldn't care enough to lie about her.
The problem is that when you give people this free stuff, they have absolutely zero gratitude for it. Because fuck you, that's why. In order for people to feel they own something, they have to work for it. Then they feel a sense of ownership. Give people something for free, and they abuse the shit out of it, because why not? Take, take, take and never give. The system only exists for them to exploit and the idea of contributing sounds absurd. They have no pride.
Do you have any actual evidence to support your assertions?
I'm not entirely inclined to disagree with you, but I strongly suspect the attitude you describe actually only applies to a minority of actual people. Moral hazards apply when there is benefit in unethical behaviour and little or no punishment of it. When the "free stuff" is education and health care, I'm not seeing the clear benefit in unethical behaviour, nor am I seeing where they would be a lack of punishment for abuse of those services. It seems like the threat of moral hazard would be very dependent on the implementation details.
I tend to believe that as societal goods, both health care and education should be subsidized. I tend to believe that higher education, university and college should not be totally free, for similar reasons as you. But I think the fees should be minimal and far below the current American fees because as an American you should want more highly trained and profitable workers in your country as opposed to unemployable welfare recipients. The fees should be used to weed out the people who don't actually want to be there to learn (not that will always work when parents can pay for everything) for the benefit of those who are there to learn. A for-profit health care system, however, is just a bad idea. It doesn't matter how much money a Typhoid Mary makes or can afford to pay for medical treatment, her victims would still get sick and die. Making it harder for patient 0 in an outbreak to get treatment isn't going to help anyone regardless of how much money they make.
I should probably also clarify that I'm only talking about the overall insurance system that shouldn't be for profit in health care, for profit health care research, hospitals and doctors seem entirely reasonable. It's just that making access to health care dependent on personal wealth is short-sighted and ultimately self-defeating.