The clerk knew people were pumping gas. S/he knew it was billing at an incorrect price.
At some point the attendant knew it was billing at an incorrect price.
It's not like they review every transaction as it happens. And with things like "pay at the pump", you may miss that no one is paying for a while unless you are watching closely. And if this is a typical convenience store/gas station combo, the manager given the attendant plenty of other tasks to do besides stare at the pumps.
Color me unsurprised, however. Having seen what passes for convenience store (and many other low-skill) employees in the last decade, I doubt many of them would have thought of the simple expedient of an Out of Order sign.
You get what you pay for. Even when purchasing labor.
Even ignoring this, the theft went on for 90 minutes. Was there some reason the attendant couldn't get the cops to come out in less than an hour and a half and stop people from filling up?
You're assuming the attendant figured out that it was happening immediately.
The pump dispensing free gas is going to look all that different from the other pumps at a glance, since presumably it has a pay-at-the-pump system. It probably took a while to notice no one was paying.
I think you're missing the point, which is that the government of California uses bond measures precisely because the state constitution does not allow it to run a defict
So you're completely unaware that no state can run a budget deficit.
The law and accounting practices aside
Nope. You don't get to throw those aside when it turns out your idea has a massive hole in it.
You are attempting to make California pay back all the bonds it has issued this year. That is a massive pile of intellectual dishonesty so that you can pretend California's in financial trouble. There is literally no legal mechanism to make that happen. "Setting that aside" is like saying "what if Germany won WWII?". You've left reality and gone into some fiction you like.
You shouldn't admire it. He bought into some hype about the blood of young mice being able to reduce aging in older mice.
The problem is this only worked when the circulatory systems of the mice were connected. Because that gave the old mouse access to young kindeys, liver, pancreas, and everything else. When they just did whole blood transfusions, there was no effect on the older mice.
No, he still gets to enjoy the contractual 2 gigs from those services.
1 gig. No wait, 500mb. No wait, 250mb. No wait, pay-per-use unless it's part of your "website lineup".
We've been down this road before with cable companies and the TV services they provided. We should not pretend that the same road leads to a different place.
Scroll down to page 22 to get past all the political statements and warm fuzzies. $144B in income and rollover from last budget year, minus $138B in expenses does not yield a negative number.
We're already paying for coverage of the people you describe.
Your insurance company isn't taking your premiums and putting them in an account just for you. Instead, those premiums get paid out to sick people on all plans offered by that insurance company.
It doesn't need to be anything that complicated. Just pull up a chart showing increases in wages and increases in productivity from, say, 1950 to now. They used to track rather closely. They became completely decoupled in the late 1970s.
We are producing far more while being paid the same as the 1970s. That's not how it's supposed to work.
that is because the poor and non-white are a really convenient propaganda tool - if the uneducated lock her up chanting masses of white faces learned that welfare queens don't exist and that immigrants for the most part are real hard working people with families that want nothing more than to belong to the community and not sleeper MS13 thugs they would suddenly realize that they are either being used or just plain assholes.
Or even worse, they'd stop being distracted by the sideshow and start to oppose the actual causes of their problems.
That's 100 billion dollars a year, every year, with no end date being brought up
First, it's not $100B from only the US.
Second, financial predictions so far from now are pretty difficult to be remotely accurate. Since they mostly depend on how well we did in the previous spending. That $100B, spent well means we have a lot less to spend after. Which is why I left it vague in my previous post.
What figure did you have in mind when you said "or we pay a few trillion dollars over 10-40 years from now"?
Well, the real estate that is Miami is worth about $3 trillion. So that would be completely gone. I don't have convenient numbers for every other low-lying coastal city, because there's a lot of them. But because there's a lot of them, we're probably in the double-digit-trillions.
Also difficult to figure is just how much will be destroyed, since we're veering between doing something or doing nothing. For example, Los Angeles isn't cheap, and it's gone if we do nothing. Since we've started doing some, Los Angeles is mostly safe for now but that could be reversed easily.
Then there's sending about half of our agriculture industry to Canada as farms Iowa-ish and south stop being able to produce much food due to warmer climate and drought. And it'll be hitting about when we've drained the Ogallala aquifer and similar aquifers, so irrigation won't be a good solution to that. Agriculture is just under $1T/year to our GDP, so call it another half a trillion there.
Then there's the "minor" detail that people no not peacefully starve to death. So our military is going to get a lot more use, potentially even domestically as the utter financial destruction spreads. We're spending about half a trillion every year on the DoD now. We'd probably cut way back on R&D and "non-war interventions" as things spiraled out of control, so keeping spending about the same is probably a reasonable assumption.
So yeah, even if it actually was $2T from the US, we're still getting a bargain.
Hydrogen can be used as a drop in replacement for anything running internal combustion or just combustion for heat
Not really. Burning hydrogen produces far less heat than burning an equivalent volume of hydrocarbon, because the hydrocarbons are far denser. So at a minimum, you'll need a different "burner" to get sufficient heat.
Also, hydrogen is really, really, really small. It has this unfortunate ability to pass through the walls of the tank holding it because it's so small. So to store hydrogen for any significant length of time, you need a really thick tank to help keep it in....really thick tanks and vehicles, especially airplanes, do not work well together.
Hydrocarbons are extremely useful things due to their energy density. We will continue to use hydrocarbons because of this. We don't have to get those hydrocarbons from refining oil. The methods we currently employ cost too much, but it's not like we have to invent new physics to fix that. We have to invent better processes and catalysts. Or if nothing else, oil is going to keep getting more expensive.
such as converting iron to steel (adding carbon via coke is the entire point)
So, you're actually trying to embed carbon into the metal lattice when you make steel. Ideally, you end up with zero CO2 emissions because you've trapped all the carbon in the steel.....though we aren't going to be anywhere near ideal anytime soon.
or kilning cement (CO2 is part of the chemical reaction for some types of cement), there really isn't a good means of reducing CO2
Capture or new materials are the likely solution. Co-locating our hydrocarbons-from-CO2 plant with a cement-plant-with-CO2-capture may be a good idea. The thing is, we can already do both. Again, they just cost way more. For now.
Aviation is already looking at creating electric motor planes that run on batteries.
Nothing requires kerosene (aka jet fuel) be produced from oil.
Right now, other sources of kerosene are too expensive. They won't always be.
The energy density of hydrocarbons is extremely useful. We will keep using them because they are so useful. What will change is where those hydrocarbons come from.
Slashdot Mirror
But there are restaurants that over two years later still have tape over the chip reader.
Retailers are required to have a chip reader by the credit card processors.
Retailers are not required to use the chip reader.
The clerk knew people were pumping gas. S/he knew it was billing at an incorrect price.
At some point the attendant knew it was billing at an incorrect price.
It's not like they review every transaction as it happens. And with things like "pay at the pump", you may miss that no one is paying for a while unless you are watching closely. And if this is a typical convenience store/gas station combo, the manager given the attendant plenty of other tasks to do besides stare at the pumps.
Color me unsurprised, however. Having seen what passes for convenience store (and many other low-skill) employees in the last decade, I doubt many of them would have thought of the simple expedient of an Out of Order sign.
You get what you pay for. Even when purchasing labor.
Even ignoring this, the theft went on for 90 minutes. Was there some reason the attendant couldn't get the cops to come out in less than an hour and a half and stop people from filling up?
You're assuming the attendant figured out that it was happening immediately.
The pump dispensing free gas is going to look all that different from the other pumps at a glance, since presumably it has a pay-at-the-pump system. It probably took a while to notice no one was paying.
I think you're missing the point, which is that the government of California uses bond measures precisely because the state constitution does not allow it to run a defict
So you're completely unaware that no state can run a budget deficit.
The law and accounting practices aside
Nope. You don't get to throw those aside when it turns out your idea has a massive hole in it.
You are attempting to make California pay back all the bonds it has issued this year. That is a massive pile of intellectual dishonesty so that you can pretend California's in financial trouble. There is literally no legal mechanism to make that happen. "Setting that aside" is like saying "what if Germany won WWII?". You've left reality and gone into some fiction you like.
You shouldn't admire it. He bought into some hype about the blood of young mice being able to reduce aging in older mice.
The problem is this only worked when the circulatory systems of the mice were connected. Because that gave the old mouse access to young kindeys, liver, pancreas, and everything else. When they just did whole blood transfusions, there was no effect on the older mice.
Thiel still thinks blood transfusions can work.
That's because this article is about how the EPA is blocking the release of the facts. (Or at least a report claiming to contain them)
No, he still gets to enjoy the contractual 2 gigs from those services.
1 gig. No wait, 500mb. No wait, 250mb. No wait, pay-per-use unless it's part of your "website lineup".
We've been down this road before with cable companies and the TV services they provided. We should not pretend that the same road leads to a different place.
If you consider the entire amount of the bond, then it is anything but balanced
So, if you violate all standards in accounting practices, as well as the law, you can make it out to be a deficit.
Golly, I wonder why this interpretation is not more widespread.....
It's literally in the summary.
ban ISPs from violating net neutrality by not counting the content and websites they own against subscribers' data caps
how is making AT&T- related properties not count towards my data plan cap 'bad'? I lose nothing
You are losing the services that do not pay extortion money to AT&T to become AT&T affiliated.
It's literally in the block you quoted.
ban ISPs from violating net neutrality by not counting the content and websites they own against subscribers' data caps.
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/Full...
Scroll down to page 22 to get past all the political statements and warm fuzzies. $144B in income and rollover from last budget year, minus $138B in expenses does not yield a negative number.
How long has the company been operating ?
Doesn't matter. You'll be leaving in 2-3 years.
Are they established and stable, or a startup ?
Doesn't matter. You'll be leaving in 2-3 years.
How much turnover does the company have ? Why ?
Doesn't matter. You'll be leaving in 2-3 years.
Benefits ? Insurance ? Retirement ?
Doesn't matter. You'll be leaving in 2-3 years.
(Gonna stop here, since it's getting a tad redundant)
We're already paying for coverage of the people you describe.
Your insurance company isn't taking your premiums and putting them in an account just for you. Instead, those premiums get paid out to sick people on all plans offered by that insurance company.
Locations with high levels of job hopping tend to be more productive and prosperous than locations with more stability.
Because everyone having to learn how the company works is not at all a productivity drain. Also, training is free.
It doesn't need to be anything that complicated. Just pull up a chart showing increases in wages and increases in productivity from, say, 1950 to now. They used to track rather closely. They became completely decoupled in the late 1970s.
We are producing far more while being paid the same as the 1970s. That's not how it's supposed to work.
First you have to show it does something in people.
Then you can start to figure out how many people can be affected by it.
Then you can figure out if it works in the population of people you would like it to affect.
You are complaining that they did not immediately leap to the last step. We have a history of doing that with prisoners, and its not a good history.
So, you couldn't manage to get to the second paragraph of the summary either?
Large scale immigration often displaces indigenous workers and drives down aggregate wages for the area.
More people increase demand for goods and services. So it's not as clear-cut as this statement implies.
that is because the poor and non-white are a really convenient propaganda tool - if the uneducated lock her up chanting masses of white faces learned that welfare queens don't exist and that immigrants for the most part are real hard working people with families that want nothing more than to belong to the community and not sleeper MS13 thugs they would suddenly realize that they are either being used or just plain assholes.
Or even worse, they'd stop being distracted by the sideshow and start to oppose the actual causes of their problems.
That's 100 billion dollars a year, every year, with no end date being brought up
First, it's not $100B from only the US.
Second, financial predictions so far from now are pretty difficult to be remotely accurate. Since they mostly depend on how well we did in the previous spending. That $100B, spent well means we have a lot less to spend after. Which is why I left it vague in my previous post.
What figure did you have in mind when you said "or we pay a few trillion dollars over 10-40 years from now"?
Well, the real estate that is Miami is worth about $3 trillion. So that would be completely gone. I don't have convenient numbers for every other low-lying coastal city, because there's a lot of them. But because there's a lot of them, we're probably in the double-digit-trillions.
Also difficult to figure is just how much will be destroyed, since we're veering between doing something or doing nothing. For example, Los Angeles isn't cheap, and it's gone if we do nothing. Since we've started doing some, Los Angeles is mostly safe for now but that could be reversed easily.
Then there's sending about half of our agriculture industry to Canada as farms Iowa-ish and south stop being able to produce much food due to warmer climate and drought. And it'll be hitting about when we've drained the Ogallala aquifer and similar aquifers, so irrigation won't be a good solution to that. Agriculture is just under $1T/year to our GDP, so call it another half a trillion there.
Then there's the "minor" detail that people no not peacefully starve to death. So our military is going to get a lot more use, potentially even domestically as the utter financial destruction spreads. We're spending about half a trillion every year on the DoD now. We'd probably cut way back on R&D and "non-war interventions" as things spiraled out of control, so keeping spending about the same is probably a reasonable assumption.
So yeah, even if it actually was $2T from the US, we're still getting a bargain.
Couldn't even manage to get to the second paragraph of the summary?
You bears are getting desperate.
Hydrogen can be used as a drop in replacement for anything running internal combustion or just combustion for heat
Not really. Burning hydrogen produces far less heat than burning an equivalent volume of hydrocarbon, because the hydrocarbons are far denser. So at a minimum, you'll need a different "burner" to get sufficient heat.
Also, hydrogen is really, really, really small. It has this unfortunate ability to pass through the walls of the tank holding it because it's so small. So to store hydrogen for any significant length of time, you need a really thick tank to help keep it in....really thick tanks and vehicles, especially airplanes, do not work well together.
Hydrocarbons are extremely useful things due to their energy density. We will continue to use hydrocarbons because of this. We don't have to get those hydrocarbons from refining oil. The methods we currently employ cost too much, but it's not like we have to invent new physics to fix that. We have to invent better processes and catalysts. Or if nothing else, oil is going to keep getting more expensive.
such as converting iron to steel (adding carbon via coke is the entire point)
So, you're actually trying to embed carbon into the metal lattice when you make steel. Ideally, you end up with zero CO2 emissions because you've trapped all the carbon in the steel.....though we aren't going to be anywhere near ideal anytime soon.
or kilning cement (CO2 is part of the chemical reaction for some types of cement), there really isn't a good means of reducing CO2
Capture or new materials are the likely solution. Co-locating our hydrocarbons-from-CO2 plant with a cement-plant-with-CO2-capture may be a good idea. The thing is, we can already do both. Again, they just cost way more. For now.
Aviation is already looking at creating electric motor planes that run on batteries.
Nothing requires kerosene (aka jet fuel) be produced from oil.
Right now, other sources of kerosene are too expensive. They won't always be.
The energy density of hydrocarbons is extremely useful. We will keep using them because they are so useful. What will change is where those hydrocarbons come from.
And what, specifically do we need for the remaining 27%?
Time.
Hey, how convenient!