No, you can say many things about Doug Ford but he's definitely not a Totalitarian. He's closer to a small government conservative. He ordered the program cut because it was doing the unthinkable, it was giving money to poor people and it appears that it was actually working.
It had to be shut down before it produced conclusive results that the new Ontario Progressive Conservative government would have to cover up because it doesn't fit into their preferred narrative that the government can never help anybody for any reason.
It has cost us trillions to protect people around the world who otherwise would be dead without our help.
The problem is that in too many cases, America has spent trillions "protecting" people around the world who otherwise would be alive without American "help".
If "pro-foreign-intervention party" states are the only ones affected by foreign intervention, then nothing will change with or without additional security. Those states will still be won by that party.
After all, what's the difference between a state sending 3 Democrats and 7 Republicans to congress (with a 50-50 popular vote split, see gerrymandering) or 0 Democrats and 10 Republicans with a 3-97 hacked vote split, right? Where's the harm in letting Russians decide the outcome in a few states? Maybe they'll even pick some libertarian or green candidates to win, and won't that be fun?
I'm curious, how much does nuclear power cost? I mean on the average, don't just bring up some worst case scenario as anyone can do that to make someone look bad. I'm also curious on how much the competing "clean" energy costs. Again, on the average, don't pick best case scenarios to make yourself look good.
Wikipedia has a chart from the U.S. Energy Information Administration that lists the expected cost per MW/h of produced power:
$96.2 - Advanced Nuclear
$83.7 - Solar PV
$63.9 - Hydro
$55.8 - Wind Onshore
I used the weighted average column, so I left offshore and solar thermal off the list since apparently none are currently being built, so there's no way to reliably weight the average between the minimum and maximum cost estimates. In any case, the estimated minimums for both exceed nuclear so they would likely be more expensive if they were being built. However, you should be able to see that all three of the competitors, that are actually in use, are lower cost than nuclear.
Because you look like quite the fool. You shouldn't dismiss an argument based on your perception of the people delivering it. That's an ad hominem, and when you do that, you can miss some arguments that are truly golden...
Assuming temperatures were random (and thus the climate isn't affecting the results) and independent, I think you'd be looking at much worse odds. Let's say there were actually 1,000 record cold events as previously claimed, that means there were about 1,970 record warm events (using the 1 to 1.97 ratio). I tried to calculate the probability using those numbers, but the best answer I could get was less than a 0.0001% chance of it being random. Most of my attempts failed because the calculator couldn't handle size of the numbers involved. So, you should probably go with the actually published research in the Nature article, but I thought I'd try to ballpark the "it's a coincidence" odds. The odds are, I think, quite a bit smaller than a 0.0001% chance, but I can't figure out how much smaller right now.
You know, the laws against murder also don't give him more choice in terms of ISP... What's you point? That the law wouldn't do something that wasn't intended to do? In any case, Net Neutrality is most useful in the case where customers don't have much (if any) choice in ISP, by limiting the company's ability to subvert and distort the service it is providing to its paying customers.
How is this any different than Facebook deciding what sort of comments they are going to allow?
Well that's a big question to answer, and there are multiple reasons why it's different. It is different both in amount and kind. Let's play the analogy game. In this analogy, I'm going to pretend the Internet is a big city and that I am a visitor to the city.
With Net Neutrality, I am allowed to go anywhere I want in the city, I can talk to anyone I want (assuming they want to talk to me), I can go into the Amazon building and buy books, I can got the Facebook building a post stuff on my personal bulletin board, I can go the Netflix building and watch movies.
Without Net Neutrality, I can in theory go anywhere I want in the city, but as soon as leave my gateway into the city, there's a pair of security guards following me around all the time. If those guards decide they don't want me to talk to someone, then I'm not allowed to talk to them. If they decide I can't go to a building, then I'm not allowed to go there. If they decide that HBO is better than Netflix then I may not be allowed into the Netflix building, or they might charge me additional money to go there, or they might simply keep telling me I'm going the wrong way and prevent my from ever finding the building. Furthermore, if I pick up anything in the city, they reserve the right to search my bags and confiscate anything they think that I should not be allowed to have, no matter whether it was free or something I paid for. If they don't want me to have it, I don't get to keep it.
Which of these scenarios sounds more free to you? I think the first scenario is far better for me, because by restricting the right of the gateway to force me to take their nosy, busybody, meddling guards, I seem to have a lot more freedom. I'm not dependent on the good behaviour of guards who have repeatedly proven themselves to be completely untrustworthy. Now, maybe the guards do nothing at all or maybe they shake me down for money at every opportunity. It doesn't matter, I don't want them following me around if they're good and I really don't want them following me around if they're bad. They can potentially interfering with everything I do and really what I do in the city in none of their god damn business. I paid them for access to the city, I don't care if they think they can make more money selling limitations on what I'm allowed to do in the city.
{Petty complaints about Youtube and Facebook deleted}
In the city, if I don't like the rules at the Facebook building, I can go to the MySpace building or to the LiveJournal building or to the Reddit building or to the Slashdot building, or to any other building that I think will suit me. There are lots of alternatives. However, if I don't like the guards that the gateway is forcing on me, I have 4 choices. However, 3 of those choices are essentially the same gateway. The actual gateway owner can dictate the guards behaviour for all 3 companies. So I really only have 2 choices, and in my area both of those choices own TV networks and streaming services. They have really good reasons to not wanting me to go to the Netflix building because Netflix is undercutting their TV prices by around 90%. So I have no reason to believe that any of my options will be good.
This is the paramount problem with 'Net Neutrality'. They used the word Neutrality but its total bullshit.
No, I think you don't understand what Net Neutrality is. It's a common complaint of people who don't understand networks and routing that they don't understand why it's "neutral". I've helped manage an ISP (finance, support software tools, network configuration, data center design and construction, I had my hand in pretty much every aspect of the business), so I have a bit of knowledge about how ISP connections, finance, and networking work.
The net result is they forced carriers to absorb the co
Well, you have to think like a Know Nothing conservative. They probably think that the wind turbines will be torn down any day now and replaced with a coal plant. I mean, if you're convinced that wind energy can't work despite all the contrary evidence, then that makes sense in a twisted way. They're probably fantasizing that Donald Trump is going tear down all the wind farms, even if it's just to spite "liberals".
He let Carrier and Harley Davidson get away with sending jobs overseas after they both got fat checks from the government for keeping them here.
Actually, Trump's actions actually drove Harley Davidson to send jobs overseas. If Trump had done nothing at all, they wouldn't be opening a new factory overseas to avoid the new tariffs on motorcycles exported from the United States.
I know Trump supporters are out there on this forum.... But if any are out there willing to raise their voices I want to ask: what, if anything, will make you stop supporting him?
I can tell you two things that will cause Trump supporters to stop supporting him: He loses the election in 2020 (or is impeached before then) or he admits to raising taxes. There are few conceivable other things that would cause wide spread abandonment of Trump because in general the new Republicans only care about two things: taxes and winning. And to flip the Twain quote, we're not sure about the taxes.
That pretty much proves the OP's point. You, an avowed republican, seem to believe that number of likes/followers on twitter somehow equates to understanding tech.
I would just like to take this time to point out that, Obama has twice as many followers on Twitter as Trump does.
The difference is Trump uses Twitter a lot, and Obama not so much. The thing is this does not represent any particular mastery of technology, Trump is a loud mouth blow hard and he basically uses Twitter as a megaphone. For the way he uses it, the technology is being put to the same use as shouting in a crowded room.
Worse than that, he's claimed that ISPs have a constitutional right to limit and censor their customer's access to the Internet because he thinks the Internet is exactly the same thing as TV.
Google is the biggest spyware in the world, and people are happy to be raped and used by them...
Careful there big boy, it's not rape when it's consensual. Many people are happy to trade usage information and view ads for free services. You are free to try and convince them that the trade is inequitable, but you can't decide that for them.
Apple is completely closed and controlled by Apple and won't even let other companies use their software or create hardware for their platform and somehow you think Google is locking other companies out?
No, Google isn't locking other companies out, however, it is using the dominance of Android to give advantages to the Play Store, Google Maps and Chrome.
Would you rather Google become a closed ecosystem and ban other manufacturers from using their software?
No.
Your argument makes no sense. You are basically saying that because Google is more open it has to be even more open while Apple is completely closed so that's ok.
Yes, that's the way the law looks at it. See the legal issue isn't who is more or less open, it's about using market power to compel the behaviour of other companies. Because Google made Android available to other phone companies, and it is now pretty much the only phone operating system for most of the world's smart phones, they now have a duty to provide a level playing field for applications that run on Android. They can't use their market power in Android to give themselves advantages in other markets (such as application stores, mapping software, and browser software). Ironically, this is a problem caused by Android's success, which is actually likely partially tied to Google's policy of favouring those very same applications.
Apple isn't subject to the same issues because it's all Apple. They aren't forcing any other phone vendors to use the Apple store, Apple map software, or Safari because the don't let anyone else make iPhones. Also iPhones don't have market power because they represent about 15% of the smart phone market. Pretty much the rest is Android giving them close to 85% of the all smart phones and giving Android close to 100% domination of the smart phone OS marketplace (where Apple doesn't compete at all because no one can buy iOS for their non-Apple smart phone at any price)
I have an Android phone and I like Google as a company, but they are misusing their power here, and they should stop doing that. I think Google Play, the Play Store, and Google Maps are all good enough to compete without needing any advantages built into Android, and if competitors rise to challenge them that should actually end up being good for all of us, as competition tends to drive innovation.
Do you know what the Fallacy fallacy is? Basically, people don't lose a debate when they use a fallacy. Correctly pointing out a fallacy merely renders that particular statement meaningless, it doesn't even prove that the statement is wrong because fallacious arguments can have true conclusions.
For example:
My opponent says the sky the White House has been painted green by Ted Nugent, however, we all know that my opponent is moron and thus everything he says is wrong.
That's an ad hominem fallacy in an argument, however the conclusion of the argument is true. Ted Nugent has not painted the White House green. That's because citing a fallacy doesn't prove someone or soemthing is wrong, it only shows that the fallacious argument is invalid.
Trump isn't doing an okay job, he's doing a fantastic job and is actually delivering on his campaign promises. You're just worried that his approval ratings are steadily increasing as more and more people come to realise what a good job he's doing.
You mispelled Obama in that sentence, Trump's "economic success" was been entirely inherited from Obama's administration. You can look at the graphs yourself, the average economic growth has actually slowed a little since the end of 2016, not accelerated.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you can say many things about Doug Ford but he's definitely not a Totalitarian. He's closer to a small government conservative. He ordered the program cut because it was doing the unthinkable, it was giving money to poor people and it appears that it was actually working.
It had to be shut down before it produced conclusive results that the new Ontario Progressive Conservative government would have to cover up because it doesn't fit into their preferred narrative that the government can never help anybody for any reason.
It has cost us trillions to protect people around the world who otherwise would be dead without our help.
The problem is that in too many cases, America has spent trillions "protecting" people around the world who otherwise would be alive without American "help".
âoeBut Billy hit me firstâ is not a good argument if you want to be taken seriously.
Are you sure about that?
To be fair, they got 50 votes. So there a couple of Republicans who want to do something about it. Just not enough of them to actually matter.
Indeed. What a tragedy it would be if the candidate who got the most votes won the election...
And why they also believe there is a dragon in my garage.
If "pro-foreign-intervention party" states are the only ones affected by foreign intervention, then nothing will change with or without additional security. Those states will still be won by that party.
After all, what's the difference between a state sending 3 Democrats and 7 Republicans to congress (with a 50-50 popular vote split, see gerrymandering) or 0 Democrats and 10 Republicans with a 3-97 hacked vote split, right? Where's the harm in letting Russians decide the outcome in a few states? Maybe they'll even pick some libertarian or green candidates to win, and won't that be fun?
</sarcasm> for the humor impaired.
I'm curious, how much does nuclear power cost? I mean on the average, don't just bring up some worst case scenario as anyone can do that to make someone look bad. I'm also curious on how much the competing "clean" energy costs. Again, on the average, don't pick best case scenarios to make yourself look good.
Wikipedia has a chart from the U.S. Energy Information Administration that lists the expected cost per MW/h of produced power:
I used the weighted average column, so I left offshore and solar thermal off the list since apparently none are currently being built, so there's no way to reliably weight the average between the minimum and maximum cost estimates. In any case, the estimated minimums for both exceed nuclear so they would likely be more expensive if they were being built. However, you should be able to see that all three of the competitors, that are actually in use, are lower cost than nuclear.
Dude, did you even look at the article?
Because you look like quite the fool. You shouldn't dismiss an argument based on your perception of the people delivering it. That's an ad hominem, and when you do that, you can miss some arguments that are truly golden...
Doesn't it solve almost 15% of the problem? If we do that 6 times, the problem would be 90% solved.
Approximately 1 in 300,000 according to this article (Nature article).
Assuming temperatures were random (and thus the climate isn't affecting the results) and independent, I think you'd be looking at much worse odds. Let's say there were actually 1,000 record cold events as previously claimed, that means there were about 1,970 record warm events (using the 1 to 1.97 ratio). I tried to calculate the probability using those numbers, but the best answer I could get was less than a 0.0001% chance of it being random. Most of my attempts failed because the calculator couldn't handle size of the numbers involved. So, you should probably go with the actually published research in the Nature article, but I thought I'd try to ballpark the "it's a coincidence" odds. The odds are, I think, quite a bit smaller than a 0.0001% chance, but I can't figure out how much smaller right now.
Here you go. Over the past year, for every 1 cold record there have been 1.97 record high temperatures.
Net Neutrality laws are not supposed to give him more choice in ISPs.
You know, the laws against murder also don't give him more choice in terms of ISP... What's you point? That the law wouldn't do something that wasn't intended to do? In any case, Net Neutrality is most useful in the case where customers don't have much (if any) choice in ISP, by limiting the company's ability to subvert and distort the service it is providing to its paying customers.
How is this any different than Facebook deciding what sort of comments they are going to allow?
Well that's a big question to answer, and there are multiple reasons why it's different. It is different both in amount and kind. Let's play the analogy game. In this analogy, I'm going to pretend the Internet is a big city and that I am a visitor to the city.
With Net Neutrality, I am allowed to go anywhere I want in the city, I can talk to anyone I want (assuming they want to talk to me), I can go into the Amazon building and buy books, I can got the Facebook building a post stuff on my personal bulletin board, I can go the Netflix building and watch movies.
Without Net Neutrality, I can in theory go anywhere I want in the city, but as soon as leave my gateway into the city, there's a pair of security guards following me around all the time. If those guards decide they don't want me to talk to someone, then I'm not allowed to talk to them. If they decide I can't go to a building, then I'm not allowed to go there. If they decide that HBO is better than Netflix then I may not be allowed into the Netflix building, or they might charge me additional money to go there, or they might simply keep telling me I'm going the wrong way and prevent my from ever finding the building. Furthermore, if I pick up anything in the city, they reserve the right to search my bags and confiscate anything they think that I should not be allowed to have, no matter whether it was free or something I paid for. If they don't want me to have it, I don't get to keep it.
Which of these scenarios sounds more free to you? I think the first scenario is far better for me, because by restricting the right of the gateway to force me to take their nosy, busybody, meddling guards, I seem to have a lot more freedom. I'm not dependent on the good behaviour of guards who have repeatedly proven themselves to be completely untrustworthy. Now, maybe the guards do nothing at all or maybe they shake me down for money at every opportunity. It doesn't matter, I don't want them following me around if they're good and I really don't want them following me around if they're bad. They can potentially interfering with everything I do and really what I do in the city in none of their god damn business. I paid them for access to the city, I don't care if they think they can make more money selling limitations on what I'm allowed to do in the city.
{Petty complaints about Youtube and Facebook deleted}
In the city, if I don't like the rules at the Facebook building, I can go to the MySpace building or to the LiveJournal building or to the Reddit building or to the Slashdot building, or to any other building that I think will suit me. There are lots of alternatives. However, if I don't like the guards that the gateway is forcing on me, I have 4 choices. However, 3 of those choices are essentially the same gateway. The actual gateway owner can dictate the guards behaviour for all 3 companies. So I really only have 2 choices, and in my area both of those choices own TV networks and streaming services. They have really good reasons to not wanting me to go to the Netflix building because Netflix is undercutting their TV prices by around 90%. So I have no reason to believe that any of my options will be good.
This is the paramount problem with 'Net Neutrality'. They used the word Neutrality but its total bullshit.
No, I think you don't understand what Net Neutrality is. It's a common complaint of people who don't understand networks and routing that they don't understand why it's "neutral". I've helped manage an ISP (finance, support software tools, network configuration, data center design and construction, I had my hand in pretty much every aspect of the business), so I have a bit of knowledge about how ISP connections, finance, and networking work.
The net result is they forced carriers to absorb the co
Well, you have to think like a Know Nothing conservative. They probably think that the wind turbines will be torn down any day now and replaced with a coal plant. I mean, if you're convinced that wind energy can't work despite all the contrary evidence, then that makes sense in a twisted way. They're probably fantasizing that Donald Trump is going tear down all the wind farms, even if it's just to spite "liberals".
He let Carrier and Harley Davidson get away with sending jobs overseas after they both got fat checks from the government for keeping them here.
Actually, Trump's actions actually drove Harley Davidson to send jobs overseas. If Trump had done nothing at all, they wouldn't be opening a new factory overseas to avoid the new tariffs on motorcycles exported from the United States.
I know Trump supporters are out there on this forum.... But if any are out there willing to raise their voices I want to ask: what, if anything, will make you stop supporting him?
I can tell you two things that will cause Trump supporters to stop supporting him: He loses the election in 2020 (or is impeached before then) or he admits to raising taxes. There are few conceivable other things that would cause wide spread abandonment of Trump because in general the new Republicans only care about two things: taxes and winning. And to flip the Twain quote, we're not sure about the taxes.
That pretty much proves the OP's point. You, an avowed republican, seem to believe that number of likes/followers on twitter somehow equates to understanding tech.
I would just like to take this time to point out that, Obama has twice as many followers on Twitter as Trump does.
The difference is Trump uses Twitter a lot, and Obama not so much. The thing is this does not represent any particular mastery of technology, Trump is a loud mouth blow hard and he basically uses Twitter as a megaphone. For the way he uses it, the technology is being put to the same use as shouting in a crowded room.
You are using the public phone network, tell me again about your expectation of privacy...
In what sense is the privately owned phone network a public phone network? Especially since you doubly-emphasized that point.
Worse than that, he's claimed that ISPs have a constitutional right to limit and censor their customer's access to the Internet because he thinks the Internet is exactly the same thing as TV.
Google is the biggest spyware in the world, and people are happy to be raped and used by them...
Careful there big boy, it's not rape when it's consensual. Many people are happy to trade usage information and view ads for free services. You are free to try and convince them that the trade is inequitable, but you can't decide that for them.
Apple is completely closed and controlled by Apple and won't even let other companies use their software or create hardware for their platform and somehow you think Google is locking other companies out?
No, Google isn't locking other companies out, however, it is using the dominance of Android to give advantages to the Play Store, Google Maps and Chrome.
Would you rather Google become a closed ecosystem and ban other manufacturers from using their software?
No.
Your argument makes no sense. You are basically saying that because Google is more open it has to be even more open while Apple is completely closed so that's ok.
Yes, that's the way the law looks at it. See the legal issue isn't who is more or less open, it's about using market power to compel the behaviour of other companies. Because Google made Android available to other phone companies, and it is now pretty much the only phone operating system for most of the world's smart phones, they now have a duty to provide a level playing field for applications that run on Android. They can't use their market power in Android to give themselves advantages in other markets (such as application stores, mapping software, and browser software). Ironically, this is a problem caused by Android's success, which is actually likely partially tied to Google's policy of favouring those very same applications.
Apple isn't subject to the same issues because it's all Apple. They aren't forcing any other phone vendors to use the Apple store, Apple map software, or Safari because the don't let anyone else make iPhones. Also iPhones don't have market power because they represent about 15% of the smart phone market. Pretty much the rest is Android giving them close to 85% of the all smart phones and giving Android close to 100% domination of the smart phone OS marketplace (where Apple doesn't compete at all because no one can buy iOS for their non-Apple smart phone at any price)
I have an Android phone and I like Google as a company, but they are misusing their power here, and they should stop doing that. I think Google Play, the Play Store, and Google Maps are all good enough to compete without needing any advantages built into Android, and if competitors rise to challenge them that should actually end up being good for all of us, as competition tends to drive innovation.
Do you know what the Fallacy fallacy is? Basically, people don't lose a debate when they use a fallacy. Correctly pointing out a fallacy merely renders that particular statement meaningless, it doesn't even prove that the statement is wrong because fallacious arguments can have true conclusions.
For example:
That's an ad hominem fallacy in an argument, however the conclusion of the argument is true. Ted Nugent has not painted the White House green. That's because citing a fallacy doesn't prove someone or soemthing is wrong, it only shows that the fallacious argument is invalid.
Young child or old fool. It hardly makes a difference.
It's kind of sad that you don't understand the difference between "a new face" and "the face". Did you forget your reading glasses?
Trump isn't doing an okay job, he's doing a fantastic job and is actually delivering on his campaign promises. You're just worried that his approval ratings are steadily increasing as more and more people come to realise what a good job he's doing.
You mispelled Obama in that sentence, Trump's "economic success" was been entirely inherited from Obama's administration. You can look at the graphs yourself, the average economic growth has actually slowed a little since the end of 2016, not accelerated.