We're back to DogCow's point. This isn't a first order consideration. You lose far more in heat due to opening the door.
Do you want regulations banning french door refrigerators due to efficiency? If you really care about efficiency, get a chest refrigerator. The bulb's heat output isn't salient, but the air temp dump due to opening the door certainly is. A chest refrigerator avoids that.
However, mandating LEDs in regular fridges is like mandating low rolling resistance tires for H2 Hummers. LRR tires make sense on a Prius, but they are a pointless "improvement" on an H2.
And this is why feel-good measures get passed. People think they are smart enough to estimate efficiency gains by the seat of their pants and then end up promoting second or third order considerations while ignoring the first order considerations.
The next thing you know, we get a law banning incandescents in refrigerators passed alongside more subsidies for corn-based ethanol fuel.
It is evil because people have a Constitutionally-protected right to travel, and that includes transporting others.
I agree completely, provided they do so without profit. If the law were banning transporting others without profit then I agree it would be unconstitutional.
I fail to see how that condition applies here. Remember, George Washington himself put down the Whiskey Rebellion.
Correct. As you can tell, I'm in favor of safety/insurance/competence regulation of taxi service without the artificial scarcity caused by these fixed numbers of medallions. I don't care if it's called a medallion, a permit, or whatever... it's wrong to artificially restrict supply.
I am *against* what seems to be the modern startup model, which is "Let's pretend copyright/safety regulations/any other inconvenient law somehow doesn't apply to us, because our business model doesn't work otherwise. Once we raise billions by being 'disruptive' then we can afford to buy laws/regulatory capture and retcon that our actions were legal all along..."
In this group, along with Uber and Lyft, we have YouTube, AirBnb, various streaming music library startups, et al.
Do I believe copyright as it presently exists is unethical? Sure. But it galls me when someone gets rich by cheating and everybody seems to think it's innovation that gave them the edge in the market.
Maybe Bernie Madoff should have called his model "disruptive innovations in investing" instead.
Its as if you are saying "Uber is unethical, therefore I want the very things that makes the existing system evil to triumph over Uber! Go evil!"
So, from your perspective, low-cost taxi medallions available to any entity that can prove they have mechanically safe vehicles, drivers who are qualified/not debarred from transporting people, and that have adequate insurance/bonding to pay for injuries to their passengers... is evil.
Gotcha. Sorry to hear that you are opposed to market-based solutions.
Oh, please. I am no friend of the rent-seeking, regulatory-capture taxi cartel, but Uber is unethical as hell. "Herp derp, we're cheaper because we're *disruptive*, definitely it's not because we don't have to comply with applicable regulations."
The present scenario with Uber is metastable. Either all regulation of commercial transportation should be repealed, or, as I personally prefer, remove the restriction on taxi medallions and reduce the cost of these medallions to be the token amount necessary to verify the safety regulations are being met.
Either way, the playing field would be leveled and the market could work.
So, what you're saying is that the recent attempts to force a "the last massive gun rights limitations were passed under Raegan" narrative are as false as I said they were?
Yep. Not that the anti-gun lobby allows facts to get in the way of a narrative they wish to force.
As for the AWB shit, that's just retarded. I think most people understand at this point just how stupid that ban was. It was basically as pointless as the 1986 ban on civilian ownership of newly manufactured machine guns.
BTW, you don't have to "educate" me on how the history of gun control worldwide has been to disarm marginalized groups in order to enable more effective persecution. Gun control was originally pushed in the South by Democrats in order to keep the African Americans under their thumb. If you think I have a problem with armed blacks (or anyone else) then you're making baseless, incorrect assumptions. It's too bad that gun control laws prevented blacks from being able to defend themselves from lynchings and so forth.
For the record, I support gun ownership with strict background checks, regular checks for gun safety and mandatory serial numbers on firing pins.
"For the record, I support freedom of speech with strict prior restraint on publication, regular censorship of inciteful or seditious content, and mandatory review by a cultural diversity panel to ensure nothing will be perceived as libelous or offensive to anyone now or in the future."
BTW, you seem intelligent enough to understand that the microstamping firing pin concept is a completely unworkable fantasy technology, on the level of CSI's "enhance" video command. If you still support microstamping after doing a trivial amount of research, you will be implicitly outed as someone whose primary interest is a ban via setting impossible criteria... much like how Congress originally tried to ban marijuana by instituting a tax on it and then refusing to allow payment of said tax (that was unconstitutional, BTW).
Funny you should say that, because that's exactly what the majority of Congress and the President did in 1994 and tried to do again after Sandy Hook. Feinstein (the CCW-permit-holding hypocrite) is on record saying she wished she had been able to implement a complete confiscation at that the 1994 juncture.
Oh, did you mean to say "Almost no one wants to actually 'take away the ones we feel like letting you keep'?"
If so, tautologies are tautologies.
Let's not pretend there isn't a strong desire to recapitulate UK gun laws here, complete with bans and (ideally) confiscation.
I think they stopped, the last massive gun rights limitations were passed under Raegan.
Feel free to corroborate your claim. I've been seeing this "President Reagan implemented gun control" meme lately.
I'm going to stop you right here if you are referring to the Hughes Amendment poison pill to the Firearm Owners Protection Act that Charlie Rangel (D, NY) gaveled through on an obviously opposed voice vote at 3 AM.
So, what examples of Reagan's federal executive action do you have to support this ridiculous claim?
An anecdote from the Golden Gate Bridge: A man was spotted on the bridge in some rather agitated state, so the police was called, and the got him. It turned out he had decided to kill himself by jumping off the left side of the Golden Gate Bridge. (Un)fortunately he found himself on the right side.
If true, this is some sort of inverse Darwin Award: failure to be removed from the gene pool, saved by sheer stupidity. A more intelligent person would have just turned 180 degrees and jumped off with their goal condition now satisfied.
I love this idea. If you discharge 300 kJ in a quarter second, that's 1.2 megawatts.
They need to continue working on these until we have pocket-sized grenades. I'm sure a megawatt or two could be used to coax some shrapnel into substantial acceleration. Or they could easily generate high power Xrays to irradiate everyone in a certain radius.
"Welcome to the future. It's just like your time, except our suicide vests are made of supercapacitors, and while our phones are paper thin now they don't fit in your pocket because they measure 25 cm diagonally"
If you're calling bullshit on my "armchair psychology" then I suggest you look in the mirror. You are speaking with absolute certainty regarding how you would have reacted in a hypothetical scenario.
Yes, pretty much the only hope is a legal challenge, but what are the odds that will work?
Basically the law is written to allow the agency to decide whether to forbear on banning this ammo. In an Office Space-type move, ATFE "fixed the glitch". Thanks to civil service, we can't exactly directly vote to recall the bureaucrats making these decisions.
As for legislation, in this case the shoe is on the other foot for the Republicans. There aren't enough to override a veto.
They could try to tack it into must-pass legislation, but Harry Reid is all too willing to use brinksmanship over shutdowns, as demonstrated by the Homeland Security funding/immigration debacle. That is "irony" given how much they whined about these tactics when they were majority.
Oh, I read what you wrote just fine. You were just being overly dramatic. Because if you truly had sufficient rage to murder someone then you wouldn't have cared that your pencil was an apparently insufficient weapon or that you might have to walk 10m to obtain another improvised weapon.
None of this has anything to do with whether it's a wise idea to issue handguns to school kids. I'm just calling bullshit on your distorted assessment of your emotional state.
Hey, shill, remember how all those other firearm restrictions implemented in the US were immediately enforced with no grandfathering? Like when the Clinton AWB was passed and they suddenly required everyone to turn in all the "eeevul black rifles", standard capacity mags, and so on?
Oh wait, no, they grandfathered everything in circulation because Feinstein (who through stereotypical liberal hypocrisy has a CCW permit for herself), et al, couldn't summon the votes for a retroactive ban.
Same thing applies here: what's in circulation will be allowed to be sold.
What, are you 12? I presume you can grok the implication of a forward ban. Hell, you probably bought the ammo with the intention of scalping it once the supply dries up.
You are a failed pedant, and now you resort to moving the goalposts?
Fact: Obama promised to continue doing everything in his power to combat gun violence through executive action.
Fact: The ATF, a department of the executive branch, is banning commonly used sporting ammo.
Yet here you sit and shill, trying first to argue that Obama didn't use "executive orders" (which isn't what the poster said anyway), then you claim Obama didn't promise to try to implement gun control via executive action (which is either odiously disingenuous or ignorant of you), and now you are trying to claim that the stuff Obama did as part of his attempt to implement gun control... wasn't an attempt to implement gun control.
"After the legislation failed, Mr. Obama vowed to take whatever steps his administration could through executive action. He later issued 25 executive orders intended to tighten the rules for gun ownership."
Nope, not an executive order at all. Please cite the source (other than the crazy blogs). Yes I'm a gun owner.
Oh good lord. How pedantic are you trying to be?
Obama promised to implement as much gun control as he could without involving Congress, later, ATF issues new decision reclassifying commonly used sporting ammunition in order to ban it. Would you be happy if the technically incorrect term "executive order" were replaced by "Presidentially-directed regulatory policy alteration"?
I'll remind you that executive orders aren't in the Constitution, but are derived from an implicit constructive reading of the law. So, be careful how far you push the pedantry.
Seriously. If I had a gun at school, and nobody stopped me, I would have shot four or five people (at least) out of anger, and I've always had a fairly even temper. I wouldn't do that now, but I'm an adult now.
My personal perspective on armed schoolchildren aside, I can only imagine you spent significant time in juvie for your repeated vehicular, IED, knife, sharpened pencil, metal chair leg, brick, and rock assaults on your peers.
You know, because as you said, not having access to a firearm was the only thing that prevented you from using that kind of weapon to attack people.
Hopefully you were able to keep your juvenile criminal record sealed, though.
You misunderstand. His plane will go down on the way to trial, killing him in a tragic coincidence.
No, that's too obvious. He will suddenly contract aggressive, terminal cancer. And, when his DNA is analyzed, it will show he was genetically predisposed to this through a de novo mutation.
He will be too ill for trial and won't live long enough in any case. Bad luck, man!
BTW France and the UK never did repay the loans for WWI. They thought that the US was being greedy. I guess 116,000 American lives plus the billions the US spent on a war that had nothing to do with the US was not enough.
That's okay. Eisenhower broke them over the 1956 Suez Crisis. The UK, in particular, was taught a hard lesson about its new role in the world.
Interestingly, the major point of leverage against the UK was their debt held by the US government. Ike threatened to dump their debt, which would have destroyed their currency.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure how you do it where you're from, but up here in the North we generally don't barbecue from 30 feet away.
Ha, suuuurrree... next you'll tell me you light all those candles on the birthday cake one at a time rather than all at once. From across the room.
I take it you don't use a charcoal barbecue. "Taste the meat, not the heat" you say?
We're back to DogCow's point. This isn't a first order consideration. You lose far more in heat due to opening the door.
Do you want regulations banning french door refrigerators due to efficiency? If you really care about efficiency, get a chest refrigerator. The bulb's heat output isn't salient, but the air temp dump due to opening the door certainly is. A chest refrigerator avoids that.
However, mandating LEDs in regular fridges is like mandating low rolling resistance tires for H2 Hummers. LRR tires make sense on a Prius, but they are a pointless "improvement" on an H2.
And this is why feel-good measures get passed. People think they are smart enough to estimate efficiency gains by the seat of their pants and then end up promoting second or third order considerations while ignoring the first order considerations.
The next thing you know, we get a law banning incandescents in refrigerators passed alongside more subsidies for corn-based ethanol fuel.
It is evil because people have a Constitutionally-protected right to travel, and that includes transporting others.
I agree completely, provided they do so without profit. If the law were banning transporting others without profit then I agree it would be unconstitutional.
I fail to see how that condition applies here. Remember, George Washington himself put down the Whiskey Rebellion.
Correct. As you can tell, I'm in favor of safety/insurance/competence regulation of taxi service without the artificial scarcity caused by these fixed numbers of medallions. I don't care if it's called a medallion, a permit, or whatever ... it's wrong to artificially restrict supply.
I am *against* what seems to be the modern startup model, which is "Let's pretend copyright/safety regulations/any other inconvenient law somehow doesn't apply to us, because our business model doesn't work otherwise. Once we raise billions by being 'disruptive' then we can afford to buy laws/regulatory capture and retcon that our actions were legal all along..."
In this group, along with Uber and Lyft, we have YouTube, AirBnb, various streaming music library startups, et al.
Do I believe copyright as it presently exists is unethical? Sure. But it galls me when someone gets rich by cheating and everybody seems to think it's innovation that gave them the edge in the market.
Maybe Bernie Madoff should have called his model "disruptive innovations in investing" instead.
Its as if you are saying "Uber is unethical, therefore I want the very things that makes the existing system evil to triumph over Uber! Go evil!"
So, from your perspective, low-cost taxi medallions available to any entity that can prove they have mechanically safe vehicles, drivers who are qualified/not debarred from transporting people, and that have adequate insurance/bonding to pay for injuries to their passengers... is evil.
Gotcha. Sorry to hear that you are opposed to market-based solutions.
So okay then, I guess, "go evil!"
You just defended evil.
Oh, please. I am no friend of the rent-seeking, regulatory-capture taxi cartel, but Uber is unethical as hell. "Herp derp, we're cheaper because we're *disruptive*, definitely it's not because we don't have to comply with applicable regulations."
The present scenario with Uber is metastable. Either all regulation of commercial transportation should be repealed, or, as I personally prefer, remove the restriction on taxi medallions and reduce the cost of these medallions to be the token amount necessary to verify the safety regulations are being met.
Either way, the playing field would be leveled and the market could work.
This is commonly referred to as 'throwing good money after bad.'
This is more tersely called sunk cost fallacy
So, what you're saying is that the recent attempts to force a "the last massive gun rights limitations were passed under Raegan" narrative are as false as I said they were?
Yep. Not that the anti-gun lobby allows facts to get in the way of a narrative they wish to force.
As for the AWB shit, that's just retarded. I think most people understand at this point just how stupid that ban was. It was basically as pointless as the 1986 ban on civilian ownership of newly manufactured machine guns.
BTW, you don't have to "educate" me on how the history of gun control worldwide has been to disarm marginalized groups in order to enable more effective persecution. Gun control was originally pushed in the South by Democrats in order to keep the African Americans under their thumb. If you think I have a problem with armed blacks (or anyone else) then you're making baseless, incorrect assumptions. It's too bad that gun control laws prevented blacks from being able to defend themselves from lynchings and so forth.
For the record, I support gun ownership with strict background checks, regular checks for gun safety and mandatory serial numbers on firing pins.
"For the record, I support freedom of speech with strict prior restraint on publication, regular censorship of inciteful or seditious content, and mandatory review by a cultural diversity panel to ensure nothing will be perceived as libelous or offensive to anyone now or in the future."
BTW, you seem intelligent enough to understand that the microstamping firing pin concept is a completely unworkable fantasy technology, on the level of CSI's "enhance" video command. If you still support microstamping after doing a trivial amount of research, you will be implicitly outed as someone whose primary interest is a ban via setting impossible criteria... much like how Congress originally tried to ban marijuana by instituting a tax on it and then refusing to allow payment of said tax (that was unconstitutional, BTW).
Almost no one wants to actually "take them away".
Funny you should say that, because that's exactly what the majority of Congress and the President did in 1994 and tried to do again after Sandy Hook. Feinstein (the CCW-permit-holding hypocrite) is on record saying she wished she had been able to implement a complete confiscation at that the 1994 juncture.
Oh, did you mean to say "Almost no one wants to actually 'take away the ones we feel like letting you keep'?"
If so, tautologies are tautologies.
Let's not pretend there isn't a strong desire to recapitulate UK gun laws here, complete with bans and (ideally) confiscation.
I think they stopped, the last massive gun rights limitations were passed under Raegan.
Feel free to corroborate your claim. I've been seeing this "President Reagan implemented gun control" meme lately.
I'm going to stop you right here if you are referring to the Hughes Amendment poison pill to the Firearm Owners Protection Act that Charlie Rangel (D, NY) gaveled through on an obviously opposed voice vote at 3 AM.
So, what examples of Reagan's federal executive action do you have to support this ridiculous claim?
An anecdote from the Golden Gate Bridge: A man was spotted on the bridge in some rather agitated state, so the police was called, and the got him. It turned out he had decided to kill himself by jumping off the left side of the Golden Gate Bridge. (Un)fortunately he found himself on the right side.
If true, this is some sort of inverse Darwin Award: failure to be removed from the gene pool, saved by sheer stupidity. A more intelligent person would have just turned 180 degrees and jumped off with their goal condition now satisfied.
I love this idea. If you discharge 300 kJ in a quarter second, that's 1.2 megawatts.
They need to continue working on these until we have pocket-sized grenades. I'm sure a megawatt or two could be used to coax some shrapnel into substantial acceleration. Or they could easily generate high power Xrays to irradiate everyone in a certain radius.
"Welcome to the future. It's just like your time, except our suicide vests are made of supercapacitors, and while our phones are paper thin now they don't fit in your pocket because they measure 25 cm diagonally"
If you're calling bullshit on my "armchair psychology" then I suggest you look in the mirror. You are speaking with absolute certainty regarding how you would have reacted in a hypothetical scenario.
Good luck with your grasp of reality, Freud.
Yes, pretty much the only hope is a legal challenge, but what are the odds that will work?
Basically the law is written to allow the agency to decide whether to forbear on banning this ammo. In an Office Space-type move, ATFE "fixed the glitch". Thanks to civil service, we can't exactly directly vote to recall the bureaucrats making these decisions.
Hell, congress might even get off their dead asses and do something:
http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb...
As for legislation, in this case the shoe is on the other foot for the Republicans. There aren't enough to override a veto.
They could try to tack it into must-pass legislation, but Harry Reid is all too willing to use brinksmanship over shutdowns, as demonstrated by the Homeland Security funding/immigration debacle. That is "irony" given how much they whined about these tactics when they were majority.
Oh, I read what you wrote just fine. You were just being overly dramatic. Because if you truly had sufficient rage to murder someone then you wouldn't have cared that your pencil was an apparently insufficient weapon or that you might have to walk 10m to obtain another improvised weapon.
None of this has anything to do with whether it's a wise idea to issue handguns to school kids. I'm just calling bullshit on your distorted assessment of your emotional state.
Hey, shill, remember how all those other firearm restrictions implemented in the US were immediately enforced with no grandfathering? Like when the Clinton AWB was passed and they suddenly required everyone to turn in all the "eeevul black rifles", standard capacity mags, and so on?
Oh wait, no, they grandfathered everything in circulation because Feinstein (who through stereotypical liberal hypocrisy has a CCW permit for herself), et al, couldn't summon the votes for a retroactive ban.
Same thing applies here: what's in circulation will be allowed to be sold.
What, are you 12? I presume you can grok the implication of a forward ban. Hell, you probably bought the ammo with the intention of scalping it once the supply dries up.
You are a failed pedant, and now you resort to moving the goalposts?
Fact: Obama promised to continue doing everything in his power to combat gun violence through executive action.
Fact: The ATF, a department of the executive branch, is banning commonly used sporting ammo.
Yet here you sit and shill, trying first to argue that Obama didn't use "executive orders" (which isn't what the poster said anyway), then you claim Obama didn't promise to try to implement gun control via executive action (which is either odiously disingenuous or ignorant of you), and now you are trying to claim that the stuff Obama did as part of his attempt to implement gun control... wasn't an attempt to implement gun control.
Check.
You're a shill.
Obama didn't promise jack about gun control.
"After the legislation failed, Mr. Obama vowed to take whatever steps his administration could through executive action. He later issued 25 executive orders intended to tighten the rules for gun ownership."
NYT
BTW, the post you replied to said "executive action", not "executive order", you doubly-failed pedant.
Nope, not an executive order at all. Please cite the source (other than the crazy blogs). Yes I'm a gun owner.
Oh good lord. How pedantic are you trying to be?
Obama promised to implement as much gun control as he could without involving Congress, later, ATF issues new decision reclassifying commonly used sporting ammunition in order to ban it. Would you be happy if the technically incorrect term "executive order" were replaced by "Presidentially-directed regulatory policy alteration"?
I'll remind you that executive orders aren't in the Constitution, but are derived from an implicit constructive reading of the law. So, be careful how far you push the pedantry.
Seriously. If I had a gun at school, and nobody stopped me, I would have shot four or five people (at least) out of anger, and I've always had a fairly even temper. I wouldn't do that now, but I'm an adult now.
My personal perspective on armed schoolchildren aside, I can only imagine you spent significant time in juvie for your repeated vehicular, IED, knife, sharpened pencil, metal chair leg, brick, and rock assaults on your peers.
You know, because as you said, not having access to a firearm was the only thing that prevented you from using that kind of weapon to attack people.
Hopefully you were able to keep your juvenile criminal record sealed, though.
You misunderstand. His plane will go down on the way to trial, killing him in a tragic coincidence.
No, that's too obvious. He will suddenly contract aggressive, terminal cancer. And, when his DNA is analyzed, it will show he was genetically predisposed to this through a de novo mutation.
He will be too ill for trial and won't live long enough in any case. Bad luck, man!
BTW France and the UK never did repay the loans for WWI. They thought that the US was being greedy. I guess 116,000 American lives plus the billions the US spent on a war that had nothing to do with the US was not enough.
That's okay. Eisenhower broke them over the 1956 Suez Crisis. The UK, in particular, was taught a hard lesson about its new role in the world.
Interestingly, the major point of leverage against the UK was their debt held by the US government. Ike threatened to dump their debt, which would have destroyed their currency.