It probably happens to 100% of bulk haulers, but the shifted load is not enough to sink the ship.
why ship owners don't take the safety measures that are described in other comments here
The ship is insured and the crew are expendable.
Roughly 1% of bulk haulers sink from this, so your fix is going to have to be cheaper than the insurance premium for a 1% chance of sinking for the owners to care.
Last I checked governments actually grant permits when you apply for them, since that's a significant fundraising stream for smaller cities and towns.
Also, rejection of a permit can be appealed, to either city/town entities or the courts, where winning would be easy since the rejection was arbitrary and as a bonus, that would fund a chunk of your new ISP's rollout.
Sorry, you just described what EITHER of the two main parties (D & R) do; this is not the sole domain of Republicans
What you missed is only the Republican party has attempted to make an issue out of "States Rights". The point is the hypocrisy. Just like passing a massive unfunded tax cut means you should be laughed at if you complain about the deficit.
What was happening is car manufacturers had to make their entire fleets meet California standards
And there's a lie.
Car manufacturers had a separate "California Emissions" package that they added to cars sold in California. Much to the dismay of car enthusiasts in California, since it reduced the horsepower and torque of their cars. It also means cars in California are more expensive.
it's the federal government saying that California cannot dictate policy upon other states. States with no representation in California.
Hey look! It's another lie.
No state was forced to follow California's emissions laws. They could get cars that did not have the California emissions package.
Some states passed laws to follow California's emissions standards, but you'll note that those states passed their own laws to do so. They were not forced to do anything by California.
Just a note - offshore wind farms are probably not going to happen off California. The continental shelf is very narrow on the West coast of North America, so there isn't all that much room to put wind farms out where they are particularly good for generating power.
Only if you pretend an ISP would extend their network that 1/2 mile to service new customers.....who would suddenly be getting "great" deals from their incumbent ISP as soon as the competitor filed for permits, guaranteeing that 1/2 mile extension is a loss.
To be fair, those governments weren't terribly sane. They were brutal dictators.....who were in power because the French and British drew more-or-less random borders in the former Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI, creating countries that were utterly ungovernable by anyone other than brutal dictators.
How come we never hear any Democrat candidates harp on this issue?
How many votes would it get them? Or a Republican candidate, for that matter? Probably only a rounding error, especially since this ruling just happened and it's going to take some time for these ISPs to exploit the situation enough to attract attention.
So instead of campaigning on this narrow issue that isn't upsetting many people (yet), make it broader like repealing the laws banning municipal broadband and/or going after companies like Verizon that failed to live up to their service commitments.
Much better economy
Except it isn't much better. It's a continuation of the recovery from 2008. You'll notice there's been no inflection points you can point to where a trend reversed. Also, you're ignoring the problem we've had for the last 20 years - the vast majority of voters aren't benefiting from that better economy. Wages are flat or down depending on industry, so run-of-the-mill voters aren't particularly excited that investment bankers are making more money.
end of ISIS
They're actually still around....and not being attacked by US or US-backed forces. Assad and the Russians are the ones fighting them. We aren't talking about them because it's not US bombs falling on them.
getting our allies to pay more for their own defense
They're continuing to follow the commitments they made to George W Bush. There has been no change.
renegotiating trade deals with EU and Mexico
There's no trade deal with the EU.
The deal with Mexico is actually a US-Canada-Mexico deal, so it's not done yet either.....also nothing has been announced about that not-quite-deal that is an improvement over NAFTA, so I'm not sure why you're celebrating NAFTA version 1.2. Oooh! Now we renegotiate every 6 years instead of renegotiating whenever we want to.....hurray!!
defunding terrorism by defunding Iran
The branches of Islamic terrorism that attacked the US is funded by the Saudis, and Trump is giving the Saudis more money and guns.
tax rebates
No tax rebates have been passed. There's a massive tax cut, but it's insignificant to the vast majority of taxpayers.....and it also should result in everyone laughing at Republicans when they start crying about the deficit again.
It's almost like you guys have a media environment designed to misinform you.....
These areas have only one ISP because local governments awarded a monopoly, and prohibit competition
People aren't blaming government because this claim is false.
Local governments awarded monopolies for cable TV. Those monopolies were time-limited. They've all expired. And if you took a moment to think about it, you'd notice a cable TV monopoly is not an Internet service monopoly.
So no, this is not the ebil big govment. This is the result of the natural monopoly you get in any utility - the company that has already paid to run lines to every house has a massive competitive advantage over the companies that have not run those lines yet. And they're able to use that advantage to crush any competitor that tries to enter the market.
A free market does not prevent this from happening, and actually acts to maintain this situation. Which is why we need the ebil big govment to prevent exploiting the natural monopoly so that competitors can actually enter these markets so that they can become functional markets.
You're the one making the claim that there is a large amount of positive stories that are being ignored. Back up your claim.
Nobody will be hurt by reverting Title IX back to assuring people receive equal treatment on campus irrespective of their gender. Nobody.
Trans people are now being harmed by this, because now there is nothing requiring schools to treat them as people. Are they Nobody? There are also women being harmed by this due to removing the requirements to investigate their real complaints. Are they Nobody?
Which is a vast improvement on the situation before Devos was appointed, with young men being railroaded out of college based on spurious and frequently provably false accusations.
If it's a provably false accusation, then that's a crime and the woman also faces civil liability. You don't need to fuck over every woman and trangender person to get revenge on the girl who didn't actually want to have sex with you.
Nope. I also do not support the Right's efforts to remove all non-governmental consequences from hate speech. (ie. people get to call you a racist moron when you are a racist moron. They don't have to listen politely and then not respond)
Do you think deplatforming is a legitimate response ?
Private companies are not required to carry anyone's speech. Can you compel the Wall Street Journal to print your articles? No? Then you can't compel any digital platform to do the same.
Does the world or the country owe you a living ?
Do non-sequiturs actually make a compelling argument (unnecessary space because I apparently can't figure out punctuation) ?
No, if you're attempting to get into things like universal basic income, I support that because it's far more efficient than the status quo. Making people apply for and maintain access to a dozen programs that are only weakly targeted to their actual needs is not as good as a single program that gives them cash for whatever they actually need.
For example, poor person in a city: would like a garden but can't grow one due to not having land, so needs help with food. Doesn't need gasoline due to mass transit. Same poor person in rural area: grows garden to supplement food, but needs gasoline to get to anything because mass transit doesn't exist.
So now we either need SNAP and some sort of gasoline program, or we have one program that lets the person get what they need with the money.
"Oh, but they'd spend it on the wrong things!!!" That's their problem to solve.
Do you consider yourself a victim of large interests ?
Considering I have specific situations where large corporations actually did harm me, as demonstrated by court-ordered payments and restitution, perhaps you should rethink this as some sort of metric.
If you answered yes to any of the above you probably aren't a real American, or at the very least you don't believe in the country's social contract.
If you think that, you probably need to actually read the Constitution. Specifically, "promote the general welfare" appears more than once. Your version of the country's "social contract" did not appear until far later in the country's history.
But only Real Americans actually know what's in the founding documents, so it's not surprising people like you are not aware of it./s
For example, what specific actions taken by Trump lead to low African-American unemployment?
Also, #2 is false. Despite the grandiose claims after the Singapore meeting, North Korea has actually taken steps towards building new nuclear and rocket facilities....and Trump himself just stopped negotiations with North Korea on this subject when he told Pompeo to not attend the next summit.
Also, #3 is only good from your perspective. There's lots of people who will be hurt by it, and coverage of those is inherently negative.
Also, "things that have been welcomed by his supporters" are not in-and-of-themselves positive. For example, his supporters would be happy with ending the ACA, but the resulting large pile of dead people would probably make most people consider that a negative.
Also, being the only country on the planet with it's head so far up it's ass that we're going to lose Miami is not a positive.
Also, he wasn't involved in the Congressional negotiations over FOSTA-SESTA (aka the bill that killed Backpage). Also there's lots of sex workers who were greatly harmed by this law, and the anti-trafficking benefits are not clear - driving the industry further underground is not the same as actually reducing it.
Also, he has not negotiated any deal with Mexico yet. He's negotiated a deal with Mexico that is part of a US-Canda-Mexico trade agreement. Negotiations with Canada, and then follow-on negotiations with Mexico still have to be successful before there is a deal. Also, no one has disclosed anything in this not-quite-deal that is an improvement over NAFTA. So far the only disclosed difference is a formal schedule of renegotiations. But NAFTA did not preclude renegotiation.
Also, those "investments in US based energy production" actually mean Trump's attempt to make everyone pay higher electricity rates in order to subsidize coal and nuclear. That was proposed, but hasn't been implemented yet.
But shit, I'm not American or in America. Do your own fucking research.
As you can see above, I did. It turns out everything you listed is false or not something Trump actually did.
Are you sure you're replying the right post? I never mentioned "Real Americans" nor have heard the phrase in a long time
Yeah, the goalposts really do look better in their new location.
Now, if you actually go read your own posts, you'll find out that you were discussing what other people were saying. In that you did not hear people who live in rural areas hurling insults at people who live in urban areas. Which means what you personally said or typed is utterly and completely irrelevant. But it's a lovely fig leaf to hide under when you're starting to run into trouble.
As for not hearing the phrase in a long time, you apparently have not heard a single Republican speech in the last 40 years....especially the ones representing rural areas. Or this fellow named Trump who frequently uses the phrase "Real Americans". But again, your personal bubble of not-paying-attention-to-anything is the problem here: your blinders are why you do not see the hatred.
First, if you actually think CNBC is liberal, you really should take that hood off.
Second, positive coverage comes from positive things being accomplished. Trump hasn't been able to actually get much done, much less positive things done.
or the fact that he just reached a new trade agreement with Mexico
Here's an example of the actual problem. Trump didn't reach a new trade agreement with Mexico.
His administration completed the main negotiations of the Mexico-US part of a trade agreement between Mexico, the US and Canada. The agreement isn't done yet, because they haven't started talking to Canada yet, and negotiations with Canada are going to affect the US-Mexico part of the agreement. If Canada says "No", then there is no trade agreement with Mexico because that's what Mexico negotiated.
So while it's a step forward, claiming it is done is actually "fake news". Kinda like the trip to Singapore didn't actually result in a new denuclearization agreement between the US and North Korea, despite widespread claims to the contrary.
That's because it's hard to see everything when you have blinders on.
Just as an example, who are "Real Americans"? What do you think you're implying when you say this to imply we city folk should be second-class citizens because we're not "Real Americans"?
And that's just the most SFW example I can think of off the top of my head. Y'all have lots of people paraphrasing the Phelps clan and plenty of other hatred that let's just say should not be mentioned in polite company.
Slashdot Mirror
Since they were the ones to popularize these methods back in the 80's and 90's
Yeah! Remember when they started shooting abortion doctors at home and in their churches?
Oh wait....
Maybe you're not exactly looking at the whole field here.
Copying and pasting to r/iamverysmart
why it happens only to some ships
Citation?
It probably happens to 100% of bulk haulers, but the shifted load is not enough to sink the ship.
why ship owners don't take the safety measures that are described in other comments here
The ship is insured and the crew are expendable.
Roughly 1% of bulk haulers sink from this, so your fix is going to have to be cheaper than the insurance premium for a 1% chance of sinking for the owners to care.
Because AT&T, Verizon and all the established telecoms have such a stellar track record when it comes to snooping on people's data.
Last I checked governments actually grant permits when you apply for them, since that's a significant fundraising stream for smaller cities and towns.
Also, rejection of a permit can be appealed, to either city/town entities or the courts, where winning would be easy since the rejection was arbitrary and as a bonus, that would fund a chunk of your new ISP's rollout.
Doesn't matter how much you make if you can't control your spending... funny how the state is so wealthy yet on the verge of bankruptcy
California's running a budget surplus, and has for the last few years.
You're thinking of Kansas, the state that went so broke following supply-side economics that they violated their Constitution.
Actually, California's running a budget surplus. And has for the last few years.
Sorry, you just described what EITHER of the two main parties (D & R) do; this is not the sole domain of Republicans
What you missed is only the Republican party has attempted to make an issue out of "States Rights". The point is the hypocrisy. Just like passing a massive unfunded tax cut means you should be laughed at if you complain about the deficit.
What was happening is car manufacturers had to make their entire fleets meet California standards
And there's a lie.
Car manufacturers had a separate "California Emissions" package that they added to cars sold in California. Much to the dismay of car enthusiasts in California, since it reduced the horsepower and torque of their cars. It also means cars in California are more expensive.
it's the federal government saying that California cannot dictate policy upon other states. States with no representation in California.
Hey look! It's another lie.
No state was forced to follow California's emissions laws. They could get cars that did not have the California emissions package.
Some states passed laws to follow California's emissions standards, but you'll note that those states passed their own laws to do so. They were not forced to do anything by California.
offshore and onshore windfarms
Just a note - offshore wind farms are probably not going to happen off California. The continental shelf is very narrow on the West coast of North America, so there isn't all that much room to put wind farms out where they are particularly good for generating power.
Without a massive bank of batteries, what are we supposed to do for electricity after dark?
If only you had proposed a solution in your question.....
(one of several solutions, btw. Which will probably result in a "all of the above" implementation)
The point is that the FCC is using a standard that is utterly divorced from reality, whether or not they have price caps.
WTF? Has the government been proceeding with their ears plugged for the past decade?
It's difficult to hear with all that lobbyist money stuffed in your ears.
Only if you pretend an ISP would extend their network that 1/2 mile to service new customers.....who would suddenly be getting "great" deals from their incumbent ISP as soon as the competitor filed for permits, guaranteeing that 1/2 mile extension is a loss.
To be fair, those governments weren't terribly sane. They were brutal dictators. ....who were in power because the French and British drew more-or-less random borders in the former Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI, creating countries that were utterly ungovernable by anyone other than brutal dictators.
How come we never hear any Democrat candidates harp on this issue?
How many votes would it get them? Or a Republican candidate, for that matter? Probably only a rounding error, especially since this ruling just happened and it's going to take some time for these ISPs to exploit the situation enough to attract attention.
So instead of campaigning on this narrow issue that isn't upsetting many people (yet), make it broader like repealing the laws banning municipal broadband and/or going after companies like Verizon that failed to live up to their service commitments.
Much better economy
Except it isn't much better. It's a continuation of the recovery from 2008. You'll notice there's been no inflection points you can point to where a trend reversed. Also, you're ignoring the problem we've had for the last 20 years - the vast majority of voters aren't benefiting from that better economy. Wages are flat or down depending on industry, so run-of-the-mill voters aren't particularly excited that investment bankers are making more money.
end of ISIS
They're actually still around....and not being attacked by US or US-backed forces. Assad and the Russians are the ones fighting them. We aren't talking about them because it's not US bombs falling on them.
getting our allies to pay more for their own defense
They're continuing to follow the commitments they made to George W Bush. There has been no change.
renegotiating trade deals with EU and Mexico
There's no trade deal with the EU.
The deal with Mexico is actually a US-Canada-Mexico deal, so it's not done yet either.....also nothing has been announced about that not-quite-deal that is an improvement over NAFTA, so I'm not sure why you're celebrating NAFTA version 1.2. Oooh! Now we renegotiate every 6 years instead of renegotiating whenever we want to.....hurray!!
defunding terrorism by defunding Iran
The branches of Islamic terrorism that attacked the US is funded by the Saudis, and Trump is giving the Saudis more money and guns.
tax rebates
No tax rebates have been passed. There's a massive tax cut, but it's insignificant to the vast majority of taxpayers.....and it also should result in everyone laughing at Republicans when they start crying about the deficit again.
It's almost like you guys have a media environment designed to misinform you.....
These areas have only one ISP because local governments awarded a monopoly, and prohibit competition
People aren't blaming government because this claim is false.
Local governments awarded monopolies for cable TV. Those monopolies were time-limited. They've all expired. And if you took a moment to think about it, you'd notice a cable TV monopoly is not an Internet service monopoly.
So no, this is not the ebil big govment. This is the result of the natural monopoly you get in any utility - the company that has already paid to run lines to every house has a massive competitive advantage over the companies that have not run those lines yet. And they're able to use that advantage to crush any competitor that tries to enter the market.
A free market does not prevent this from happening, and actually acts to maintain this situation. Which is why we need the ebil big govment to prevent exploiting the natural monopoly so that competitors can actually enter these markets so that they can become functional markets.
So do your own fucking research
You're the one making the claim that there is a large amount of positive stories that are being ignored. Back up your claim.
Nobody will be hurt by reverting Title IX back to assuring people receive equal treatment on campus irrespective of their gender. Nobody.
Trans people are now being harmed by this, because now there is nothing requiring schools to treat them as people. Are they Nobody? There are also women being harmed by this due to removing the requirements to investigate their real complaints. Are they Nobody?
Which is a vast improvement on the situation before Devos was appointed, with young men being railroaded out of college based on spurious and frequently provably false accusations.
If it's a provably false accusation, then that's a crime and the woman also faces civil liability. You don't need to fuck over every woman and trangender person to get revenge on the girl who didn't actually want to have sex with you.
Do you support regulating hate speech ?
Nope. I also do not support the Right's efforts to remove all non-governmental consequences from hate speech. (ie. people get to call you a racist moron when you are a racist moron. They don't have to listen politely and then not respond)
Do you think deplatforming is a legitimate response ?
Private companies are not required to carry anyone's speech. Can you compel the Wall Street Journal to print your articles? No? Then you can't compel any digital platform to do the same.
Does the world or the country owe you a living ?
Do non-sequiturs actually make a compelling argument (unnecessary space because I apparently can't figure out punctuation) ?
No, if you're attempting to get into things like universal basic income, I support that because it's far more efficient than the status quo. Making people apply for and maintain access to a dozen programs that are only weakly targeted to their actual needs is not as good as a single program that gives them cash for whatever they actually need.
For example, poor person in a city: would like a garden but can't grow one due to not having land, so needs help with food. Doesn't need gasoline due to mass transit. Same poor person in rural area: grows garden to supplement food, but needs gasoline to get to anything because mass transit doesn't exist.
So now we either need SNAP and some sort of gasoline program, or we have one program that lets the person get what they need with the money.
"Oh, but they'd spend it on the wrong things!!!" That's their problem to solve.
Do you consider yourself a victim of large interests ?
Considering I have specific situations where large corporations actually did harm me, as demonstrated by court-ordered payments and restitution, perhaps you should rethink this as some sort of metric.
If you answered yes to any of the above you probably aren't a real American, or at the very least you don't believe in the country's social contract.
If you think that, you probably need to actually read the Constitution. Specifically, "promote the general welfare" appears more than once. Your version of the country's "social contract" did not appear until far later in the country's history.
But only Real Americans actually know what's in the founding documents, so it's not surprising people like you are not aware of it. /s
Ok, list 3 that Trump actually did.
For example, what specific actions taken by Trump lead to low African-American unemployment?
Also, #2 is false. Despite the grandiose claims after the Singapore meeting, North Korea has actually taken steps towards building new nuclear and rocket facilities....and Trump himself just stopped negotiations with North Korea on this subject when he told Pompeo to not attend the next summit.
Also, #3 is only good from your perspective. There's lots of people who will be hurt by it, and coverage of those is inherently negative.
Also, "things that have been welcomed by his supporters" are not in-and-of-themselves positive. For example, his supporters would be happy with ending the ACA, but the resulting large pile of dead people would probably make most people consider that a negative.
Also, being the only country on the planet with it's head so far up it's ass that we're going to lose Miami is not a positive.
Also, he wasn't involved in the Congressional negotiations over FOSTA-SESTA (aka the bill that killed Backpage). Also there's lots of sex workers who were greatly harmed by this law, and the anti-trafficking benefits are not clear - driving the industry further underground is not the same as actually reducing it.
Also, he has not negotiated any deal with Mexico yet. He's negotiated a deal with Mexico that is part of a US-Canda-Mexico trade agreement. Negotiations with Canada, and then follow-on negotiations with Mexico still have to be successful before there is a deal. Also, no one has disclosed anything in this not-quite-deal that is an improvement over NAFTA. So far the only disclosed difference is a formal schedule of renegotiations. But NAFTA did not preclude renegotiation.
Also, those "investments in US based energy production" actually mean Trump's attempt to make everyone pay higher electricity rates in order to subsidize coal and nuclear. That was proposed, but hasn't been implemented yet.
But shit, I'm not American or in America. Do your own fucking research.
As you can see above, I did. It turns out everything you listed is false or not something Trump actually did.
Are you sure you're replying the right post? I never mentioned "Real Americans" nor have heard the phrase in a long time
Yeah, the goalposts really do look better in their new location.
Now, if you actually go read your own posts, you'll find out that you were discussing what other people were saying. In that you did not hear people who live in rural areas hurling insults at people who live in urban areas. Which means what you personally said or typed is utterly and completely irrelevant. But it's a lovely fig leaf to hide under when you're starting to run into trouble.
As for not hearing the phrase in a long time, you apparently have not heard a single Republican speech in the last 40 years....especially the ones representing rural areas. Or this fellow named Trump who frequently uses the phrase "Real Americans". But again, your personal bubble of not-paying-attention-to-anything is the problem here: your blinders are why you do not see the hatred.
First, if you actually think CNBC is liberal, you really should take that hood off.
Second, positive coverage comes from positive things being accomplished. Trump hasn't been able to actually get much done, much less positive things done.
or the fact that he just reached a new trade agreement with Mexico
Here's an example of the actual problem. Trump didn't reach a new trade agreement with Mexico.
His administration completed the main negotiations of the Mexico-US part of a trade agreement between Mexico, the US and Canada. The agreement isn't done yet, because they haven't started talking to Canada yet, and negotiations with Canada are going to affect the US-Mexico part of the agreement. If Canada says "No", then there is no trade agreement with Mexico because that's what Mexico negotiated.
So while it's a step forward, claiming it is done is actually "fake news". Kinda like the trip to Singapore didn't actually result in a new denuclearization agreement between the US and North Korea, despite widespread claims to the contrary.
There are multiple 'good news' stories relating to the work Trump is doing.
Ok, list 3. What did we miss?
The only hate I see is coming from your post.
That's because it's hard to see everything when you have blinders on.
Just as an example, who are "Real Americans"? What do you think you're implying when you say this to imply we city folk should be second-class citizens because we're not "Real Americans"?
And that's just the most SFW example I can think of off the top of my head. Y'all have lots of people paraphrasing the Phelps clan and plenty of other hatred that let's just say should not be mentioned in polite company.