That works only when you conveniently exclude those with entirely rational concerns about nuclear power by labelling anyone with such concerns "irrational".
If you're screaming that the world is going to end due to carbon emissions and unwilling use the safest known form of power that is scalable and has low carbon emissions then yeah I'd call that irrational.
There are actually quite a number of environmentalists who have suggested that we should use nuclear power in order to get off of fossil fuels.
Anecdotal of course but my personal experience with the environmentalists I've met or heard speaking publicly suggest that this approach is rather rare. Usually I hear hysterical fear mongering combined with suggestions that would effectively end modern civilization for the majority of citizens. Apparently environmentalism and an understanding of basic math aren't particularly compatible.
Take transport: why does it take > 30 kW to move around one ~80kg bag of flesh&bones? Because it's too cheap. Why don't we insulate homes more? Because the alternative is too cheap. Ad nauseam.
Ok, so we slap a huge tax on it and now it's expensive. Result: Most people are now too poor to afford much of anything. Congratulations on massively increasing wealth disparity and lowering standards of living.
Yes, we should ensure that all energy production is forced to internalize its costs so that true economic decisions can be made, no that's not the same as cranking the prices so high no one does any of those things any more.
I disagree. Police should have effective weapons, and almost never use them.
Police should indeed have effective weapons, however unlike the military, the primary purpose of weaponry for the police is subdual not killing. If there are non-lethal or less-lethal options that are sufficiently effective to accomplish their mission they should be using them. The SWAT team probably needs lethal ammo, but I fail to see why patrol officers do.
Nobody *wants* to pay taxes, but you can't have all the stuff a government provides for free
No argument there.
Taxes are, unfortunately, a necessary evil, but the benefits they can provide should result in a net positive for the society.
Only if they're spent in a prudent way, which is far from assured. I do agree that most medical care is not something well handled by the free market though the ACA is a pretty terrible solution even if it is slightly better than the even more horrible system we had before.
There is a big difference between taxation at gunpoint vs. voluntary contributions. For things which are nearly universally required and are poorly solved by the private sector government can be the least bad answer, that doesn't mean they're a good answer to everything.
I agree with much of what you say, but really you're doing as most Americans have been conditioned to do and that's avoid the real fucking problem here because it's been turned into such a touchy vitriol filled subject making it a no go area - America's gun culture.
The problem wasn't that he had a gun, the problem is that he used it inappropriately. You can use a billy club to kill someone, that doesn't mean cops should be prevented from having them. I would however support a ban on lethal ammo for patrol officers, they should be packing rubber bullets.
That happened with this one as well. It doesn't show the previous action which led up to the officer and the suspect being out in the middle of the grass after a traffic stop. It doesn't show where the officer and the suspect were involved in a tussle as claimed by the officer, during which the suspect reportedly took the officer's stun gun.
And if he shot the guy during the altercation I'd be totally fine with that. Shooting him as he's running away isn't proper police procedure nor is it justified. The officer's life was no longer in danger. Tasering him as he was running away would have acceptable though.
They're also against market manipulation which the current system is. In general the party line would be that immigration should be easy which would make the H1B program superfluous.
All taxes are bad, some are worse than others. Overall though we're stuck with some form of taxation if we want a government so there isn't much we can do about it but try and minimize the damage.
Oh BTW out of curiosity, If you were one of those people that reflexively shouted "Worst President Ever" how do you react to Obama's name at this point ?
I'd do much reflexively when it comes to politics, however out of the presidents I'm familiar with during my life (Carter to Obama, I'm really too young to remember Ford or Nixon even if I was around) then yeah I'd have to say Bush Jr. was the worst. (Carter was pretty terrible in a different sort of way) Although I voted for Obama, that didn't mean I liked him much, especially the second time, it's just that the other choice was even worse.
The problem is the right left spectrum can be interpreted a lot of different ways. (politics is more complicated than a single axis value, big surprise) I don't particularly agree with your interpretation but I see where you're coming from.
And I'd agree with you, but if the choice is only between Title II or Not Title II, then as lame as it is I'll take Title II. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, it's a mistake environmentalists make all the time.
And back then it tended to be true, however conditions have changed. Labor no longer has much bargaining power so capital is taking an ever larger share of the pie. Growing the whole pie only helps if you don't change the size the of the slices at the same time.
There's always one idiot who falls back on the claim that Communism just hasn't been done correctly yet.
If you use Marx's terminology then technically they're right, the farthest we've ever gotten is dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the phase before communism. Nitpicking aside, I agree with what you were trying to say, centrally planned utopias just don't match up with human behavior and so will never be a successful model.
For the death penalty? I'd want to be darn sure everything was thoroughly discussed and we left no stone unturned, both so that I could sleep properly afterwards and so that they guy doesn't get out of it on some silly technicality. I've done jury duty and though it wasn't a capital case we took the job pretty seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
That works only when you conveniently exclude those with entirely rational concerns about nuclear power by labelling anyone with such concerns "irrational".
If you're screaming that the world is going to end due to carbon emissions and unwilling use the safest known form of power that is scalable and has low carbon emissions then yeah I'd call that irrational.
There are actually quite a number of environmentalists who have suggested that we should use nuclear power in order to get off of fossil fuels.
Anecdotal of course but my personal experience with the environmentalists I've met or heard speaking publicly suggest that this approach is rather rare. Usually I hear hysterical fear mongering combined with suggestions that would effectively end modern civilization for the majority of citizens. Apparently environmentalism and an understanding of basic math aren't particularly compatible.
What if we just stop wasting resources?
Take transport: why does it take > 30 kW to move around one ~80kg bag of flesh&bones? Because it's too cheap. Why don't we insulate homes more? Because the alternative is too cheap. Ad nauseam.
Ok, so we slap a huge tax on it and now it's expensive. Result: Most people are now too poor to afford much of anything. Congratulations on massively increasing wealth disparity and lowering standards of living.
Yes, we should ensure that all energy production is forced to internalize its costs so that true economic decisions can be made, no that's not the same as cranking the prices so high no one does any of those things any more.
I disagree. Police should have effective weapons, and almost never use them.
Police should indeed have effective weapons, however unlike the military, the primary purpose of weaponry for the police is subdual not killing. If there are non-lethal or less-lethal options that are sufficiently effective to accomplish their mission they should be using them. The SWAT team probably needs lethal ammo, but I fail to see why patrol officers do.
Government can work with business, but must always have the final say.
Which I agree with but it's not what I would describe as "symbiosis".
Using non-lethal force to subdue a suspect who just assaulted a police officer and is now fleeing the crime scene seems pretty reasonable to me.
Nobody *wants* to pay taxes, but you can't have all the stuff a government provides for free
No argument there.
Taxes are, unfortunately, a necessary evil, but the benefits they can provide should result in a net positive for the society.
Only if they're spent in a prudent way, which is far from assured. I do agree that most medical care is not something well handled by the free market though the ACA is a pretty terrible solution even if it is slightly better than the even more horrible system we had before.
CS is not a core subject, it's specialist training. Logic, sure that would make a nice core subject.
There is a big difference between taxation at gunpoint vs. voluntary contributions. For things which are nearly universally required and are poorly solved by the private sector government can be the least bad answer, that doesn't mean they're a good answer to everything.
I agree with much of what you say, but really you're doing as most Americans have been conditioned to do and that's avoid the real fucking problem here because it's been turned into such a touchy vitriol filled subject making it a no go area - America's gun culture.
The problem wasn't that he had a gun, the problem is that he used it inappropriately. You can use a billy club to kill someone, that doesn't mean cops should be prevented from having them. I would however support a ban on lethal ammo for patrol officers, they should be packing rubber bullets.
That happened with this one as well. It doesn't show the previous action which led up to the officer and the suspect being out in the middle of the grass after a traffic stop. It doesn't show where the officer and the suspect were involved in a tussle as claimed by the officer, during which the suspect reportedly took the officer's stun gun.
And if he shot the guy during the altercation I'd be totally fine with that. Shooting him as he's running away isn't proper police procedure nor is it justified. The officer's life was no longer in danger. Tasering him as he was running away would have acceptable though.
So you're suggesting that Pearl Harbor should have been investigated by the FBI instead of getting a response from the Pentagon?
They're also against market manipulation which the current system is. In general the party line would be that immigration should be easy which would make the H1B program superfluous.
All taxes are bad, some are worse than others. Overall though we're stuck with some form of taxation if we want a government so there isn't much we can do about it but try and minimize the damage.
Oh BTW out of curiosity, If you were one of those people that reflexively shouted "Worst President Ever" how do you react to Obama's name at this point ?
I'd do much reflexively when it comes to politics, however out of the presidents I'm familiar with during my life (Carter to Obama, I'm really too young to remember Ford or Nixon even if I was around) then yeah I'd have to say Bush Jr. was the worst. (Carter was pretty terrible in a different sort of way) Although I voted for Obama, that didn't mean I liked him much, especially the second time, it's just that the other choice was even worse.
The problem is the right left spectrum can be interpreted a lot of different ways. (politics is more complicated than a single axis value, big surprise) I don't particularly agree with your interpretation but I see where you're coming from.
Then apparently you don't have a practical understanding of what it means for government and corporations to be buddies.
And I'd agree with you, but if the choice is only between Title II or Not Title II, then as lame as it is I'll take Title II. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, it's a mistake environmentalists make all the time.
And back then it tended to be true, however conditions have changed. Labor no longer has much bargaining power so capital is taking an ever larger share of the pie. Growing the whole pie only helps if you don't change the size the of the slices at the same time.
That's the real problem. To get people to use such a language you would have to get them to change the fundamental way they think.
Which if you're going to bother designing a new language should be a primary objective.
Number of native speakers is irrelevant. Cap weighted number of speakers is the relevant metric if you want to determine the dominant language.
Perhaps they should be campaigning to close the road rather than the observatory then?
There's always one idiot who falls back on the claim that Communism just hasn't been done correctly yet.
If you use Marx's terminology then technically they're right, the farthest we've ever gotten is dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the phase before communism. Nitpicking aside, I agree with what you were trying to say, centrally planned utopias just don't match up with human behavior and so will never be a successful model.
What Osama orchestrated wasn't a crime, it was an act of war, different rules apply.
For the death penalty? I'd want to be darn sure everything was thoroughly discussed and we left no stone unturned, both so that I could sleep properly afterwards and so that they guy doesn't get out of it on some silly technicality. I've done jury duty and though it wasn't a capital case we took the job pretty seriously.
He's in jail because he stole from rich people, that's not allowed.