If the government does then it's us as taxpayers. But lets be real...none of that shit ever gets cleaned up! You're just trying to say "see, we HAVE to have bigger, more intrusive government". I don't know whether to mod you insane or just plain stupid. Ah, WTF, I'll do both, JACKASS!
Is it just my opinion, or have crazies come out of the woodwork since Obama came along?
I'm wondering what the hell the federal government is doing mandating what kinds of light bulbs we can buy and use?!?!
They can regulate how much we pollute the air in our neighbor's yard. As for the specific type of light bulb, well, I'm glad they were smart enough to point out the real problems, namely the inefficiency and pollution of those light bulbs rather than simply saying "incandescent bad, CFL good". . "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Oliver Wendell Holmes
Yes, this is a new tax to replace the old one, which will be going away in 11 years. Do you honestly think that was his master plan? To squeeze an extra hundred dollars out of us 11 years from now?
We don't even know if the new law will be implemented or how. This is just a report saying that that is what the government would need to cover their costs.
In every RPG I've ever played you start out pretty weak and helpless, and work your way up to being an unstoppable demigod. Starting the next game out with god like powers is going to ruin a lot of the game.
The only RPG I've really found character importation to be nice on was the Quest for Glory series. It helped that that series was mostly a point in click adventure game though, and being all powerful doesn't get you through the game alone.
It seemed to work pretty well in the original dot hack series, but that was because in each game, a new server would open up, with more powerful enemies.
If I said "24 hour days", then that would be assuming that people wake up in the middle of the night to take their medicine. For the sake of fairness, I was only counting the time when people are awake.
The directions for Tylenol maximum strength say to take 1000mg every 4-6 hours, which adds up to 3,000 to 4,000 in a sixteen hour day (assuming that you don't wait four to six hours before you take your first dose). The packaging says to take no more than 4,000mg in a day, but the maximum safe allowance (according to tfa) is 2,000 mg per day.
. So, it's not just stupid people who don't follow the directions. It's also people who follow them to the letter.
Anyone taking medicine should know they have to check for drug interactions and overdoses.
But the recommended dosage of Tylenol extra strength (1000 mg every 4-6 hours) can be enough to cause live damage, if you really take it every four to six hours for a 16 hour day. The "maximum" dosage is 4000 mg per day, which is 4 times the safe limit. If following the directions causes liver damage, then it's an unsafe product.
In order to treat these conditions, ECT is the tool of choice these days. It has its own detractors (me inclusive) for I do not see how inducing a seizure helps an individual.
from your wikipedia link (emphasis mine):
Today, ECT is most often used as a treatment for severe major depression which has not responded to other treatment,[1] and is also used in the treatment of mania (often in bipolar disorder), catatonia and schizophrenia.
Also:
today, an estimated 1 million people worldwide receive ECT every year
To put that in context, Zoloft has been prescribed 29 million times in 2007. I would not call ECT a "tool of choice", so much as a "last resort".
My post was speculation, to prove a point that there are far too many factors to just jump on one. As for you post, well, my suggestions also do not account for global warming, the deficit, or the popularity of Carlos Mencia. You cannot dismiss an idea simply because you can find a single scenario which it does not explain.
You may want to reread those posts. Ok, hybrid SUVs are technically hybrids, but they are not high mileage vehicles. If we have high mileage vehicles and nobody uses them, then that is not the William Jevons effect.
Oh, I'd love it if they did it during "emmissions checking." I live in Indiana, where we don't such a "big brother" concept.
Bill
I thought Tennessee was the only state that didn't have emissions checking. In Tennessee, if you can get the vehicle on the road, then they won't say anything.
I sense a new meme coming on. Any time any cost goes up, someone yells "but Obama <<messianic reference optional>> promised not to raise taxes on 95% of us". It doesn't matter if the price is a speeding ticket, a fine for violating environmental laws, or getting mugged at a bowling alley. It's all Obama lies!
. So this report, which Obama did not write, says that 11 years from now, one tax will be replaced with another, which will indirectly cause you to pay about $200 more than you would be under the gas tax. I don't think he was guaranteeing that your cost of living would stay the same forever.
I am not an economist, but, it seems like this would be related to the rate of consumption, as well as the efficiency. If we, as a nation, could squeeze twice as many miles per gallon out of petroleum, would we our daily commute double? Would we double our travel time, or speed? I'm sure there would be a few more road trips, but I can't see anyone saying "gas is cheap, let's drive twice as far", because they still have to commit twice as much of their day to do so.
We really do not know why that we are less violent than the US of the past (I am usually the one who has to assert your point to religious people who assert the we are now more violent than ever). Off the top of my head, possibilities include:
Violent games, movies,etc
A more sedentary lifestyle. Maybe we are less aggressive.
Gun control
Better law enforcement technology - You're more likely to get caught
More police on the streets
Better education
Better standard of living. More poverty==more crime
I'm not claiming to be a sociologist, or to say THIS IS THE REASON. I don't know. I'm just pointing out that it is hard to draw a concusion, because of the differences in the society of today, and of 150 years ago.
First of all, the OP is not recommending we ban anything.
We've had violent games and movies for a long time now. Take a look at the blood and gore in horror films. It currently does and will continue to outdo any realism a game can provide for some time to come.
Take a look at games where we play murderers.
People do not participate in violent movies. The viewer is not actively engaged in the same way he or she is with a video game. As for the "Murder games", if there are any that actually are about murder, rather than solving the mystery, then these are not very realistic. It doesn't take much to break the fourth wall, and video games are coming up with a complete experience in ways that no traditional media can.
The solution is simple. You need to educate children about the difference between fiction and reality. It's really not that hard.
Will there be people who copy the fiction and commit murder? Sure. They're mentally unstable and would find some other reason to do it anyway.
I don't think this is about the children. This is about saying "if you want to lose weight, don't visit the bakery". Previously, there was a post on slashdot about a rape simulator, where the player controls the rapist and one of the characters getting raped is underage. Would it be reasonable to assume that there is no difference between the people who play that game and those who don't? Is it possible that playing that game often enough would make you just a little bit creepy?
. THAT is the point of this article. Does a hyper realistic simulation in which we flagrantly violate social norms change us in any way?
I can think of one scenario in which the OP's thinking would be valid (of course there could be many more). In my home, I can only pick up a signal in certain spots. I would say that reception is sketchy in 50% of the house, and non-existent in 25%. So, it may make sense, if I cared enough to do it, to find one spot where the phone gets good reception and either use a bluetooth headset, or a PC solution as a way of making and receiving calls when in dead zones, or, if the range isn't quite good enough, to put the phone in the one spot of the living room where I know I can get a signal, and not have to worry about dropped calls, if I wander into the dining room.
If you want to talk about the children of an author who has been dead for twenty years, that is a different story, however.
Then in what year do you think songs written by, say, Michael Jackson should enter the public domain?
I believe that originally the standard was that you could renew once every twelve years, so long as you were alive. Of course, if those songs entered the public domain any time in the first half of this century, that would be an improvement over what we have now. (Who knows, they may not enter the public domain in this century at all. Typically copyright laws get extended once every twenty years).
so it's another case of environmentalists not liking ANY energy source.
I have heard this argument so many times before. It goes like this. "I just made up an imaginary environmentalist. I hate that asshole. We could invest in solar, but he's a real son of a bitch and he's going to gripe no matter what I do. So, just to spite this guy, I'm going to sit on my thumb and hope that global warming kills him first. Imaginary piece of crap!" . So, there's some environmentalist somewhere you don't like. Screw him! The point is that alternative energy is difficult, not impossible. Cap and trade will give businesses an incentive to develop cleaner methods, and as for energy dependency, sticking with gas and coal forever is not an option.
1. New products will need to be designed that use their energy more efficiently. Which produces jobs. 2. Industries will have to buy new products to increase their efficiency to stay within limits. 3. People who have jobs from 1 will be spending money again.
I got an idea. We can come and break every window in your house. Better yet, we'll break every window in every house on your block. Think of the jobs created when those windows have to get fixed!
Why do i suspect that your house is full of broken windows that have never been fixed?
Slashdot Mirror
If the government does then it's us as taxpayers. But lets be real...none of that shit ever gets cleaned up! You're just trying to say "see, we HAVE to have bigger, more intrusive government". I don't know whether to mod you insane or just plain stupid. Ah, WTF, I'll do both, JACKASS!
Is it just my opinion, or have crazies come out of the woodwork since Obama came along?
I'm wondering what the hell the federal government is doing mandating what kinds of light bulbs we can buy and use?!?!
They can regulate how much we pollute the air in our neighbor's yard. As for the specific type of light bulb, well, I'm glad they were smart enough to point out the real problems, namely the inefficiency and pollution of those light bulbs rather than simply saying "incandescent bad, CFL good".
.
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Oliver Wendell Holmes
No one do anything newsworthy for a week.
We tried that. It backfired when the networks re branded it as reality programming.
Yes, this is a new tax to replace the old one, which will be going away in 11 years. Do you honestly think that was his master plan? To squeeze an extra hundred dollars out of us 11 years from now?
We don't even know if the new law will be implemented or how. This is just a report saying that that is what the government would need to cover their costs.
In every RPG I've ever played you start out pretty weak and helpless, and work your way up to being an unstoppable demigod. Starting the next game out with god like powers is going to ruin a lot of the game.
The only RPG I've really found character importation to be nice on was the Quest for Glory series. It helped that that series was mostly a point in click adventure game though, and being all powerful doesn't get you through the game alone.
It seemed to work pretty well in the original dot hack series, but that was because in each game, a new server would open up, with more powerful enemies.
Where do you live that has 16 hour days?
If I said "24 hour days", then that would be assuming that people wake up in the middle of the night to take their medicine. For the sake of fairness, I was only counting the time when people are awake.
The directions for Tylenol maximum strength say to take 1000mg every 4-6 hours, which adds up to 3,000 to 4,000 in a sixteen hour day (assuming that you don't wait four to six hours before you take your first dose). The packaging says to take no more than 4,000mg in a day, but the maximum safe allowance (according to tfa) is 2,000 mg per day.
.
So, it's not just stupid people who don't follow the directions. It's also people who follow them to the letter.
Anyone taking medicine should know they have to check for drug interactions and overdoses.
But the recommended dosage of Tylenol extra strength (1000 mg every 4-6 hours) can be enough to cause live damage, if you really take it every four to six hours for a 16 hour day. The "maximum" dosage is 4000 mg per day, which is 4 times the safe limit. If following the directions causes liver damage, then it's an unsafe product.
In order to treat these conditions, ECT is the tool of choice these days. It has its own detractors (me inclusive) for I do not see how inducing a seizure helps an individual.
from your wikipedia link (emphasis mine):
Today, ECT is most often used as a treatment for severe major depression which has not responded to other treatment,[1] and is also used in the treatment of mania (often in bipolar disorder), catatonia and schizophrenia.
Also:
today, an estimated 1 million people worldwide receive ECT every year
To put that in context, Zoloft has been prescribed 29 million times in 2007. I would not call ECT a "tool of choice", so much as a "last resort".
My post was speculation, to prove a point that there are far too many factors to just jump on one. As for you post, well, my suggestions also do not account for global warming, the deficit, or the popularity of Carlos Mencia. You cannot dismiss an idea simply because you can find a single scenario which it does not explain.
You may want to reread those posts. Ok, hybrid SUVs are technically hybrids, but they are not high mileage vehicles. If we have high mileage vehicles and nobody uses them, then that is not the William Jevons effect.
If it is C++ then why does it require you to install Java during install?
Sliced bread is an 8? Wow, I always wanted to score with an eight, and now there are a dozen of them in my pantry.
Oh, I'd love it if they did it during "emmissions checking." I live in Indiana, where we don't such a "big brother" concept.
Bill
I thought Tennessee was the only state that didn't have emissions checking. In Tennessee, if you can get the vehicle on the road, then they won't say anything.
I sense a new meme coming on. Any time any cost goes up, someone yells "but Obama <<messianic reference optional>> promised not to raise taxes on 95% of us". It doesn't matter if the price is a speeding ticket, a fine for violating environmental laws, or getting mugged at a bowling alley. It's all Obama lies!
.
So this report, which Obama did not write, says that 11 years from now, one tax will be replaced with another, which will indirectly cause you to pay about $200 more than you would be under the gas tax. I don't think he was guaranteeing that your cost of living would stay the same forever.
I am not an economist, but, it seems like this would be related to the rate of consumption, as well as the efficiency. If we, as a nation, could squeeze twice as many miles per gallon out of petroleum, would we our daily commute double? Would we double our travel time, or speed? I'm sure there would be a few more road trips, but I can't see anyone saying "gas is cheap, let's drive twice as far", because they still have to commit twice as much of their day to do so.
Do you want government officials coming by your house regularly to demand that you show them your odometer?
We really do not know why that we are less violent than the US of the past (I am usually the one who has to assert your point to religious people who assert the we are now more violent than ever). Off the top of my head, possibilities include:
I'm not claiming to be a sociologist, or to say THIS IS THE REASON. I don't know. I'm just pointing out that it is hard to draw a concusion, because of the differences in the society of today, and of 150 years ago.
First of all, the OP is not recommending we ban anything.
We've had violent games and movies for a long time now. Take a look at the blood and gore in horror films. It currently does and will continue to outdo any realism a game can provide for some time to come.
Take a look at games where we play murderers.
People do not participate in violent movies. The viewer is not actively engaged in the same way he or she is with a video game. As for the "Murder games", if there are any that actually are about murder, rather than solving the mystery, then these are not very realistic. It doesn't take much to break the fourth wall, and video games are coming up with a complete experience in ways that no traditional media can.
The solution is simple. You need to educate children about the difference between fiction and reality. It's really not that hard.
Will there be people who copy the fiction and commit murder? Sure. They're mentally unstable and would find some other reason to do it anyway.
I don't think this is about the children. This is about saying "if you want to lose weight, don't visit the bakery". Previously, there was a post on slashdot about a rape simulator, where the player controls the rapist and one of the characters getting raped is underage. Would it be reasonable to assume that there is no difference between the people who play that game and those who don't? Is it possible that playing that game often enough would make you just a little bit creepy?
.
THAT is the point of this article. Does a hyper realistic simulation in which we flagrantly violate social norms change us in any way?
I can think of one scenario in which the OP's thinking would be valid (of course there could be many more). In my home, I can only pick up a signal in certain spots. I would say that reception is sketchy in 50% of the house, and non-existent in 25%. So, it may make sense, if I cared enough to do it, to find one spot where the phone gets good reception and either use a bluetooth headset, or a PC solution as a way of making and receiving calls when in dead zones, or, if the range isn't quite good enough, to put the phone in the one spot of the living room where I know I can get a signal, and not have to worry about dropped calls, if I wander into the dining room.
Trust a slashdot user to logically connect my post to the GP in CLEARLY the wrong way. I love it!
I tip my hat to you sir!
That whooshing sound you hear is available to listeners inside the U.S. only due to licensing restrictions.
aw, crap. Please don't tell me we've patented stupidity.
If you want to talk about the children of an author who has been dead for twenty years, that is a different story, however.
Then in what year do you think songs written by, say, Michael Jackson should enter the public domain?
I believe that originally the standard was that you could renew once every twelve years, so long as you were alive. Of course, if those songs entered the public domain any time in the first half of this century, that would be an improvement over what we have now. (Who knows, they may not enter the public domain in this century at all. Typically copyright laws get extended once every twenty years).
So are we sticking with gas and oil to spite these people, or to appease them?
so it's another case of environmentalists not liking ANY energy source.
I have heard this argument so many times before. It goes like this. "I just made up an imaginary environmentalist. I hate that asshole. We could invest in solar, but he's a real son of a bitch and he's going to gripe no matter what I do. So, just to spite this guy, I'm going to sit on my thumb and hope that global warming kills him first. Imaginary piece of crap!"
.
So, there's some environmentalist somewhere you don't like. Screw him! The point is that alternative energy is difficult, not impossible. Cap and trade will give businesses an incentive to develop cleaner methods, and as for energy dependency, sticking with gas and coal forever is not an option.
I got an idea. We can come and break every window in your house. Better yet, we'll break every window in every house on your block. Think of the jobs created when those windows have to get fixed!
Why do i suspect that your house is full of broken windows that have never been fixed?