The advantage here would be that dipshits who make promises they can't keep would be yanked from office, eventually, enough people might get wise to fact that they shouldn't elect people who make promises they obviously can't keep. I might be overly optimistic, though.
The problem is that very few people those politicians uphold either the spirit or the letter of that pledge. Most people seem to believe that most politicians are faithless liars who will say anything to get elected and are never held accountable for breaking their election promises. For instance, in the last election here, we had a guy promise to lower taxes, increasing spending and balance the budget in his first year of office. Something that was clearly impossible to do and he only narrowly lost. Almost everyone believes he was lying about increasing spending (most believe he'd cut made deep cuts to some services), but people are split on whether he was lying about cutting taxes, balancing the budget or just plain stupid.
That's a good point. If they could be legally bound to uphold a public pledge, would that dilute Grover's power since there could now be a great number of different pledges? Currently, there's only one pledge that matters, "Don't raise taxes" or Americans for Tax Reform will give their money to your opponent in the next round of primaries. Could greater transparency and accountability be a bad thing?
If you don't inherently understand how forcing people to pray to your god is an infringement of their freedom of religion, you will never understand it.
Personally, I think you should entice the politicians into making the promises. What we need to do is allow the politicians to make a binding pledge and if they break any of their binding pledges, it's an automatic recall. No you may wonder, why would anyone do that, but it's a simple race to the bottom. The guys who won't win have nothing to lose from making binding pledges and the guys who might will start making binding pledges to make sure those who won't win, still won't win. It's entirely voluntarily and they have no one to blame but themselves when they're kicked from office for failing to keep a pledge. Once it's happened a few times, they'll get careful about what they promise and it'll become easier to see what they really plan to do by what the pledge to do, pledge not to do, or refuse to pledge.
I suspect it was Vista that marked the beginning of the fall.
Quite a few people got burned on new computers that weren't actually "Ready for Vista". People expect new versions of Windows to be bloated pigs on old hardware, but when it runs like a pig on brandnew hardware? That's an unforgivable sin.
Did you link the wrong thing or are you, to be kind, misreading incredibly badly? That's an article from Canada. Known as one of the anti-rights, gun control, people's utopias. There is effectively no concealed carry. There gun laws out the ass. Canada is frequently pointed out as "the way it should be!"
So, it doesn't count because it's Canada, or more people with guns shooting through a crowd of people would have somehow led to fewer people being shot?
Yet, you put in a link to a gang shooting with 25 victims, two dead. While trying to say that Concealed Carriers shoot up innocent bystanders. Way to go.
Concealed carriers don't shoot up innocent bystanders. People with guns shooting at other people often hit innocent bystanders. It doesn't matter whether it's police, criminals, or concealed carriers doing the shooting. Idiots with guns are trouble, no matter who they are.
Hey, be fair, it's entirely possible that he won't be ambushed. For instance, he could repeatedly miss his target and kill one or more innocent bystanders, like the chuckleheads on Danzig street.
The quote makes the point, and the rest isn't important to point. You're taking enjoyment out of people dying or being injured because it means (to you) that you were right.
Soldiers for Allah are doing what their religion commands them to do.
Actually, Soldiers for Allah are doing what their leaders tell them to do. Religions usually command a great many things, which are often self-contradictory and/or make no sense. It's the leaders who organize the soldiers.
I'm not terribly fond of Islam, but it's important to keep perspective. I doubt Islam is significantly more violent than Christianity by design. However, as a religion of obedience to God, it would likely have fewer internal checks against misuse.
Arctice sea-ice extent might not be as helpful as you think:
Extent
Extent defines a region as either "ice-covered" or "not ice-covered." For each data cell, it is a binary term; either the cell has ice (usually a value of "1") or the cell has no ice (usually a value of "0"). A threshold determines this labeling. A typical threshold is 15 percent, meaning that if the data cell has greater than 15 percent ice concentration, the cell is labeled as "ice-covered." The Sea Ice Index products have a threshold of 15 percent. A threshold can also be as high as 30 percent.
Extent is sometimes described in terms of area (in square kilometers) covered by at least some ice (above the threshold). Extent is different from the total area in that if a given region has a percentage of ice concentration greater than the threshold, the entire region is considered "ice-covered." Total area tells how much of the region is actually covered by ice. Arctic- or antarctic-wide sea ice extent is always a larger number than area.
If it only takes 15 percent coverage of an area for it to be considered "ice", then an arctic ice pack that is getting thinner and more spread out and thus melting faster could easly appear to be larger than it really is. After all the ice from square kilometer could be spread across 6 kilometers and though the same amount of ice is present in each scenario, the second would appear to have 6 times as much ice. Because of this problem, volume measurements tend to be more reliable and informative than sea ice extent.
The Northwest Passage has opened repeatedly since at least the early [21st] Century.
Fixed that for you. It took about 3 years to travel the "Northwest Passage" in the 1950s (they had to wait out two winters in the Canadian Arctic), and the crew that did the traversal were nearly killed several times when their ship was caught between massive iceflows. Obviously, Canadians would have noticed and have been using the shipping lanes, if they had been open regularly before now.
Read the God damned link the ONLY things that will get passed if you support AGW right now is FUCKING SCAMS, you will do NOTHING, not a God damned thing, to lower carbon by a single fucking pint, ALL YOU WILL DO is make fat fucks like Al Gore rich!
Strange because previous cap and trade systems actually reduced emissions. The point of cap and trade schemes is to make them attractive to rich assholes so they'll see a profit opportunity and support them. Regulation or taxes are both better and more effective systems, but this the United States of America we're talking about and if you don't get some of the fat rich people on your side, it's not going to happen at all, and that's even costlier than buying off the rich assholes.
You mean, by the time reality forces them to recognize there is problem, they'll deny that anything could have been done while simultaneously blaming government for the problem.
Can ballistics predict how many times private smith will hit his target during next weekend's target practice? No? Then ballistics and physics are clearly not science because they has no useful predictive ability... Or at least that what I've being told to believe by loud angry people who aren't scientists.
Of course, we haven't seen an increase in such warming-caused warping.
Are you in a position to know if we did? I'm not and I'm doubt the people who are (railway operators) have a compelling reason to publish that data.
Back in the heat wave of 2010, the German ICE system had to cancel some trips because heat warped the tracks...
It seems like your first and second statements may not be based on the same set of facts.
When I looked for information on whether there was an increase, I did find a blog post about speeds being dropped near Washington in March of last year due to unseasonable weather related to an effect of global warming (the blocking pattern in the Arctic). It is an expected effect of gobal warming. I'm just not sure if anyone is actively monitoring that effect.
There was some concern that we might be entering a natural cooling cycle or that if aerosol emissions continued to increase we could trigger an ice age (they decreased), however, even as far back as 1969 global warming was the more widely published and accepted theory. You might be confusing "scientifically illiterate reporters" with "scientists". Citation provided
I didn't write the original message. I was just confirming that the reference was valid, if not optimal.
Of course, a policy at looking at the evidence rather than deciding it's false based on the source would leave you better informed and less embarrassed.
Well, they provided a citation for it. Bush said it during a televised address to a Joint Session of Congress on September 20th, 2001:
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
Of course, if you'd looked at the reference provided you'd already know this.
Re:Collateralized vs Non-Collateralized Loans
on
Let Them Eat Teslas
·
· Score: 1
Tax money being used to support a business where the money will either be properly returned with interest, or the buyer will default and probably declare bankruptcy to avoid wage garnishment...
You can't do that with the student loans and the Tesla loans are not supported by Tax money. So I'm guessing you were confused by the summary. There is a $7,500 federal tax credit for purchasing hybrid and electrical cars and various states also have tax credits and/or a waver of sales tax for the same, but that's a different issue and not at all unique to Tesla.
If you believe in Milankovich cycles, then all this climate change stuff is due to orbital precession (and/or solar activity cycles, depending on the believer), and nothing to do with man.
Logically that's not true, the existence of one factor does not preclude the existance of others.
In particular, Milankovitch cycles should have a small cooling effect, but the effect of human activity is about ten times greater and a warming effect.
I understand this may be news to you, but those questions all have answers already. Quick answers:
1) Around -0.05C per century 2) Originally it was thought to be 1,000 years off, but newer research indicates it's probably at least 17,000 years away (possibly more than 50,000 years away). 3) Milankovitch cycles 4) We were only 1,000 years into the Interglacial period which means we were still near the peak of the Milkankovitch cycle's warming effect 5) It's difficult to say without a valid scale. 6) Not sure what you mean about contribution to "normal warming". The current warming is about 105% manmade (natural effects would be cooling us, instead of warming us). 7) We are getting warmer, even during this air temperature ENSO-related lull, the oceans have continued absorbing the additional solar energy trapped by the greenhouse effect 8) Probably not, since the major cooling mechanisms appears to be carbon sequestration and orbital changes 9) If the original estimate of 1,000 years was correct we would certainly be delaying the effect (the additional carbon we've put in the air won't be sufficiently sequestered by natural forces 1,000 years from now to return to pre-industrial levels). 17,000 years is probably to far away that todays actions will have virtually no direct affect on those temperatures. 10) About the same or slightly warmer would probably be ideal. But the rate of change is also very important, increase the temperature too quickly and species can't adapt and die off. We may not be dependant on many species, but it would be a global disaster if rice, grain, and corn production dropped substancially.
Getting warmer, with the ice melting and resultant changes? That's expected, even without AGW, and not useful to pick a better theory than the rest.
Actually, that's the opposite of what should be happening without AGW. The world should be cooling, not warming.
Slashdot Mirror
The advantage here would be that dipshits who make promises they can't keep would be yanked from office, eventually, enough people might get wise to fact that they shouldn't elect people who make promises they obviously can't keep. I might be overly optimistic, though.
The problem is that very few people those politicians uphold either the spirit or the letter of that pledge. Most people seem to believe that most politicians are faithless liars who will say anything to get elected and are never held accountable for breaking their election promises. For instance, in the last election here, we had a guy promise to lower taxes, increasing spending and balance the budget in his first year of office. Something that was clearly impossible to do and he only narrowly lost. Almost everyone believes he was lying about increasing spending (most believe he'd cut made deep cuts to some services), but people are split on whether he was lying about cutting taxes, balancing the budget or just plain stupid.
That's a good point. If they could be legally bound to uphold a public pledge, would that dilute Grover's power since there could now be a great number of different pledges? Currently, there's only one pledge that matters, "Don't raise taxes" or Americans for Tax Reform will give their money to your opponent in the next round of primaries. Could greater transparency and accountability be a bad thing?
The new drug is always worth prescribing to the company that produces it and markets it.
If you don't inherently understand how forcing people to pray to your god is an infringement of their freedom of religion, you will never understand it.
Personally, I think you should entice the politicians into making the promises. What we need to do is allow the politicians to make a binding pledge and if they break any of their binding pledges, it's an automatic recall. No you may wonder, why would anyone do that, but it's a simple race to the bottom. The guys who won't win have nothing to lose from making binding pledges and the guys who might will start making binding pledges to make sure those who won't win, still won't win. It's entirely voluntarily and they have no one to blame but themselves when they're kicked from office for failing to keep a pledge. Once it's happened a few times, they'll get careful about what they promise and it'll become easier to see what they really plan to do by what the pledge to do, pledge not to do, or refuse to pledge.
I suspect it was Vista that marked the beginning of the fall. Quite a few people got burned on new computers that weren't actually "Ready for Vista". People expect new versions of Windows to be bloated pigs on old hardware, but when it runs like a pig on brandnew hardware? That's an unforgivable sin.
Did you link the wrong thing or are you, to be kind, misreading incredibly badly? That's an article from Canada. Known as one of the anti-rights, gun control, people's utopias. There is effectively no concealed carry. There gun laws out the ass. Canada is frequently pointed out as "the way it should be!"
So, it doesn't count because it's Canada, or more people with guns shooting through a crowd of people would have somehow led to fewer people being shot?
Yet, you put in a link to a gang shooting with 25 victims, two dead. While trying to say that Concealed Carriers shoot up innocent bystanders. Way to go.
Concealed carriers don't shoot up innocent bystanders. People with guns shooting at other people often hit innocent bystanders. It doesn't matter whether it's police, criminals, or concealed carriers doing the shooting. Idiots with guns are trouble, no matter who they are.
Hey, be fair, it's entirely possible that he won't be ambushed. For instance, he could repeatedly miss his target and kill one or more innocent bystanders, like the chuckleheads on Danzig street.
She refused to denounce threats against the Premier, so she was sent home early for the day... with pay. Canada, she is a harsh mistress.
The quote makes the point, and the rest isn't important to point. You're taking enjoyment out of people dying or being injured because it means (to you) that you were right.
There's a word for people like you: Sociopath.
Soldiers for Allah are doing what their religion commands them to do.
Actually, Soldiers for Allah are doing what their leaders tell them to do. Religions usually command a great many things, which are often self-contradictory and/or make no sense. It's the leaders who organize the soldiers.
I'm not terribly fond of Islam, but it's important to keep perspective. I doubt Islam is significantly more violent than Christianity by design. However, as a religion of obedience to God, it would likely have fewer internal checks against misuse.
From the National Snow & Ice Data Center.
If it only takes 15 percent coverage of an area for it to be considered "ice", then an arctic ice pack that is getting thinner and more spread out and thus melting faster could easly appear to be larger than it really is. After all the ice from square kilometer could be spread across 6 kilometers and though the same amount of ice is present in each scenario, the second would appear to have 6 times as much ice. Because of this problem, volume measurements tend to be more reliable and informative than sea ice extent.
The Northwest Passage has opened repeatedly since at least the early [21st] Century.
Fixed that for you. It took about 3 years to travel the "Northwest Passage" in the 1950s (they had to wait out two winters in the Canadian Arctic), and the crew that did the traversal were nearly killed several times when their ship was caught between massive iceflows. Obviously, Canadians would have noticed and have been using the shipping lanes, if they had been open regularly before now.
Read the God damned link the ONLY things that will get passed if you support AGW right now is FUCKING SCAMS, you will do NOTHING, not a God damned thing, to lower carbon by a single fucking pint, ALL YOU WILL DO is make fat fucks like Al Gore rich!
Strange because previous cap and trade systems actually reduced emissions. The point of cap and trade schemes is to make them attractive to rich assholes so they'll see a profit opportunity and support them. Regulation or taxes are both better and more effective systems, but this the United States of America we're talking about and if you don't get some of the fat rich people on your side, it's not going to happen at all, and that's even costlier than buying off the rich assholes.
You mean, by the time reality forces them to recognize there is problem, they'll deny that anything could have been done while simultaneously blaming government for the problem.
Can ballistics predict how many times private smith will hit his target during next weekend's target practice? No? Then ballistics and physics are clearly not science because they has no useful predictive ability... Or at least that what I've being told to believe by loud angry people who aren't scientists.
In contrast, find me a group that's received better treatment by default than straight white men.
Rich straight white men?
I'm just saying...
Of course, we haven't seen an increase in such warming-caused warping.
Are you in a position to know if we did? I'm not and I'm doubt the people who are (railway operators) have a compelling reason to publish that data.
Back in the heat wave of 2010, the German ICE system had to cancel some trips because heat warped the tracks...
It seems like your first and second statements may not be based on the same set of facts.
When I looked for information on whether there was an increase, I did find a blog post about speeds being dropped near Washington in March of last year due to unseasonable weather related to an effect of global warming (the blocking pattern in the Arctic). It is an expected effect of gobal warming. I'm just not sure if anyone is actively monitoring that effect.
[citation needed]
There was some concern that we might be entering a natural cooling cycle or that if aerosol emissions continued to increase we could trigger an ice age (they decreased), however, even as far back as 1969 global warming was the more widely published and accepted theory. You might be confusing "scientifically illiterate reporters" with "scientists".
Citation provided
I didn't write the original message. I was just confirming that the reference was valid, if not optimal.
Of course, a policy at looking at the evidence rather than deciding it's false based on the source would leave you better informed and less embarrassed.
Oh, it must be true then.
Well, they provided a citation for it. Bush said it during a televised address to a Joint Session of Congress on September 20th, 2001:
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
Of course, if you'd looked at the reference provided you'd already know this.
Tax money being used to support a business where the money will either be properly returned with interest, or the buyer will default and probably declare bankruptcy to avoid wage garnishment...
You can't do that with the student loans and the Tesla loans are not supported by Tax money. So I'm guessing you were confused by the summary.
There is a $7,500 federal tax credit for purchasing hybrid and electrical cars and various states also have tax credits and/or a waver of sales tax for the same, but that's a different issue and not at all unique to Tesla.
If you believe in Milankovich cycles, then all this climate change stuff is due to orbital precession (and/or solar activity cycles, depending on the believer), and nothing to do with man.
Logically that's not true, the existence of one factor does not preclude the existance of others.
In particular, Milankovitch cycles should have a small cooling effect, but the effect of human activity is about ten times greater and a warming effect.
I understand this may be news to you, but those questions all have answers already. Quick answers:
1) Around -0.05C per century
2) Originally it was thought to be 1,000 years off, but newer research indicates it's probably at least 17,000 years away (possibly more than 50,000 years away).
3) Milankovitch cycles
4) We were only 1,000 years into the Interglacial period which means we were still near the peak of the Milkankovitch cycle's warming effect
5) It's difficult to say without a valid scale.
6) Not sure what you mean about contribution to "normal warming". The current warming is about 105% manmade (natural effects would be cooling us, instead of warming us).
7) We are getting warmer, even during this air temperature ENSO-related lull, the oceans have continued absorbing the additional solar energy trapped by the greenhouse effect
8) Probably not, since the major cooling mechanisms appears to be carbon sequestration and orbital changes
9) If the original estimate of 1,000 years was correct we would certainly be delaying the effect (the additional carbon we've put in the air won't be sufficiently sequestered by natural forces 1,000 years from now to return to pre-industrial levels). 17,000 years is probably to far away that todays actions will have virtually no direct affect on those temperatures.
10) About the same or slightly warmer would probably be ideal. But the rate of change is also very important, increase the temperature too quickly and species can't adapt and die off. We may not be dependant on many species, but it would be a global disaster if rice, grain, and corn production dropped substancially.
Getting warmer, with the ice melting and resultant changes? That's expected, even without AGW, and not useful to pick a better theory than the rest.
Actually, that's the opposite of what should be happening without AGW. The world should be cooling, not warming.