I have to unfortunately agree. Laws that encroach on private business' ability to run their busyness as they like is encroaching on the First Amendment. We don't need good and bad private business laws. That's their business.
Naw. Ever have a depressing single person coffee break? Imagine a coffee social. Hiring a competent manager that can record you coming in at 9:04 and forcing you to break at 11:04 is soul crushing. I'd rather act like I'm having a socializer for fifteen minutes.
Perhaps it would be worth it to make the distribution grid a public utility - as you say it's already paid off, often with the aid of large government subsidies. If the power companies wont play fair with independent power generation and storage entrepreneurs then perhaps it's time to cut them out of the equation. Inform them the cables have been claimed via eminent domain and will be paid for at an amount of (materials - subsidies) amortized over the next N years. They still control the bulk of power generation, at least at first, and get paid the same rates as everyone else. It would probably raise energy prices at first, but I don't see any way to get off fossils that doesn't, and it would facilitate a much faster and market-driven adaptation period.
You're forgetting the huge legacy maintenance costs. PG&E is scared shitless because the price they've been charging customers has been below the cost necessary to maintain leaky natural gas pipes. PG&E had to raise rates and is now undertaking a massive generational renovation process. The grid takes a constant life cycle maintenance plan. The fixed cost of installation is minuscule and already the risk had been borne by the installer. That's like the government saying "this Gmail experiment worked; Google thanks for the memories, eminent domain bitch."
First of all, I don't think you know what the word subsidies means. Credits and subsidies are two different devils. I honestly think someone smart explains this for each overreaching governmental naysayer. Subsidies is what solar panel producers, like Solyndra, receive. They are cash money and they are given to companies to distort the energy market. Credits are money you have earned that you don't have to pay to the government. You are paying the government less money you have earned. Its an offset to tax. Tesla makes a larger proportion of its revenue from subsidies and credits. If we were to equally apply your winners and losers strategy to all companies, lets start with companies that receive more of their revenue from the government than they do from actual sales. That's fair right? Nationalize a company that makes over 51% of its revenue from profiteering off the government?
But let's be honest with ourselves. You're not looking for equality in the name of the law. You support crony capitalism "for the right reasons." Playing fair has a lot of meanings. One definition of playing fair is not hiring lobbyists when you can't compete in a fair capitalist market. Another one that is much more subversive is a fair price. That's the fair you mean. When the government has already picked its winners and losers the producer who charges the lowest energy cost to the poor is not always the winner. You're interested in factoring in government kickbacks.
Let's do a Reductio ad absurdum. The producers aren't playing fair. They are charging the price of their costs plus profit plus government interference. Well since you plan on setting prices for the cost of energy all businesses are going to go out of business unless the government forces the cost of the inputs, oil, natural gas, silicon, et al. You can't just set the price of the end result. So let's go farther, to retrieve these natural resources takes capital and labor. Guess which one will be less costly to cut over the long run? I can make an automated natural gas miner a lot more economically efficient than I can cut the wages of employees.
Suddenly we not only have a cut in the labor force but we've subjected the poor to higher energy costs. Is that the end game? Because at this point I kinda feel that we're intentionally keeping the poor poorer with this false effort to man-make the temperature the same. Oh wait? Even if we enact these changes we don't expect to change the direction of the climate's increase (which hasn't increased for 20 years)? Wow than go ahead and explain sustaining the proletariat to me. Because you are better at it with government fiat than any capitalist selling $2 cream cheese at Walmat ever could be.
Common Situation:"Hey, they can see you right now Player 1, do you mind moving back into the bush fully?"
Player 2:"shutup and stop complaining you take this game too seriously, this is unranked."
and then you get reported and you throw your hands up in the air because half the players on this game are contrarians.
Calling out one player for treating his team as pawns in his high score strategy is also an easy way to make your whole team pissed off.
"STFU his score is 12/0/1 you are 12/12/400 he is obviously a better team player."
And then you have the LOL forums. Its a cesspool of hypocrisy and groupthink. As an experiment search for any topic a moderator started that outlines a controversial change. Find the first post that disagrees with the moderator. Then read the next ten posts. They will all defend Riot and convey varying degrees of saying the dissenting player is an idiot and rude for calling the moderator an idiot.
If you're trolling in LOL and you get put with another group of trolls do you think you care about the game? There could be some type of ven diagram that will have varying shades of grey for troll/teamplayer/cusser/asshole/nice guy/supporter/high ratio kills/deaths/low kills/deaths. It'd be a lot better than to start with a stick, find out its a bad idea and then add a weaker carrot, then dilute the stick. It just shows they are aimlessly trying to adapt their original strategy. I've played since Beta and all I've seen is a homogenization of play styles and attitudes and its not the best attitude and I'll argue to my death its a bad strategy.
Exactly, in a way. There are much smarter ways to create happy gamers instead of "We know the only right way to play LOL." The problem with Riot is they are so arrogant. Some people like to play aggressively, others don't. In most gaming communities that's okay. Not on LOL supposedly.
Use chat logs and scores/ratios to create gamer profiles. Match similar types of players together. Everyone will be happy without feeling forced to say gg after a game. What a insincere and frivolous way to measure gamer happiness.
Don't passive-aggresively ban players for a week like you're the player's parent. And at least give a reason.
All it takes is a little data analytics and leaving your neckbeard at home Riot.
"Alright so the budget this year is somewhat bleak. Regardless of the fact we privatized spaceflight (contrary to our projected economic model) we have no budget to conduct any space missions. We need an excuse to perpetuate our funding people! " "How about a worthless and biased economic study that has nothing to do with space and doesn't require Federal Economic experts, you know, like the Federal Reserve, or the Treasury? " "Genius! Just make sure you somehow game the system to be the opposite of Civilization IV's governmental hiarchy so people don't get bored and fail to realize career government work is the farthest thing from Capitalism. I want absolute monarchy, anarchy, depotism, communism, and facsism to somehow be safer than Capitalism. "
It's not the food chain or fish in general. Nor is it a necessity. It's to help the delta smelt, which isn't as important as decreasing the cost of vegetables for the poor. This does not save or hurt wetlands it's arbitrary.
Let's follow the logical conclusion then. Lower wages, less barriers to entry in employment, higher qualified prospects.:Gasp: Sooner or later this could lead to the dreaded thought that people will stop being overworked and doing the job of two.
We just had a much needed rain. To protect fish from swimming up the delta they dumped thousands of acre feet of water into the bay. I'm all for restoring wetlands but we should prioritize water for humans during droughts. The poor are the hardest hit.
Nothing is ever settled. There are axioms that can be used to conduct further science and base theories on but without constantly proving something we'll never find out if something is wrong.
People who say something is settled want the exact opposite. They don't want anyone to test their hypothesis because the findings might be different, not necessarily the opposite, but at least different from the observed original answer.
The 4.5 is throwing climate alarmists a bone. If it does rise at all it will be closer to 1.5. And again this is still a revised prediction on an estimate. Compared to real data the models have been completely false.
I wish that after their climate models were disproved time and time again they would try and find another model. That's science. But this has never been about science or the climate. Its about personal gain and subversive people's ideal society that takes away other people's rights to add to their own.
Wow you guys are really adamant that the chicken came first when it takes both environments to create government subservience. I took two seconds to lay out the two criteria that have caused this mess and I apologize for inversing the former and latter, but geese, this has happened in the past too. I get a couple people who disagree with me stating the exact same facts saying the same things.
For some reason, there's a concerted campaign happening to try to convince people that successul Open Source projects are not really open. It's an odd thing to pretend, and I'm wondering what their motive is?
Have you seen the near-identical accusations around Android being pushed to the front page here?
"One of Android's biggest draws is its roots in open source. While Android is technically very open, from a practical standpoint it's much more difficult for device makers to distance themselves from Google"
It's a very odd stance to take, so the question you have to ask yourself is: "Who benefits from this Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?". Where does the money trail lead?
For some reason, there's a concerted campaign happening to try to convince people that successul Open Source projects are not really open. It's an odd thing to pretend, and I'm wondering what their motive is?
Have you seen the near-identical accusations around Android being pushed to the front page here?
"One of Android's biggest draws is its roots in open source. While Android is technically very open, from a practical standpoint it's much more difficult for device makers to distance themselves from Google"
It's a very odd stance to take, so the question you have to ask yourself is: "Who benefits from this Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?". Where does the money trail lead?
Part of me agrees with you. Part of me knows that both those statements are true, even if they are discouraging.
Both Android and Ubuntu are shades of closed source. They have very strong organizations behind them that are explicitly controlling the message they distribute. Mark Shuttleworth's corporate culture is one of arrogance and totalitarianism. Google has a longterm-orientated business strategy but still operates under a profit motive.
It's never troubling when these issues are highlighted the actual facts are what's troubling.
Let's take an analogy to help push my argument. While the Republican party is a big disparate tent that includes many different interest groups that agree on one random platform amongst the dozen general ones (i.e. small government, and/or state rights, and/or personal freedom vs domestic spying) pointing out internal sticking points does not instantly cause supporters to become a Progressive. The same thing rings true of FOSS supporters. Pointing out that the largest Linux developers aren't pure FOSS doesn't make Linux users jump ship to a retarded OS like OSX.
I know it was satire and it's actually uncommon for progressives/environmentalists to understand the other side's argument to provide such accurate satire but unfortunately I think you raised some inconvenient questions. How much was he receiving per speaking event? What is the annual revenue of this company compared to UK Berkeley ' s Taxpayer budget? Kinda makes me wonder who is the wolf?
Wrong. One of the unmentioned portions of the popular affordable care act essentially nationalized all future student loans. The issue isn't the students burdening themselves with unconscionable debt it's the government controlling both sides of the transaction. Democrats embolden teacher's unions to push expenses higher then government loans students dangerously high amounts of money. This reduces the graduates ability to progress in life and creates subservience. No wonder the government passed bills disallowing student debt in bankruptcy.
You act like that's hard or ambiguous. When you form a club, let's say the Justin Bieber fan club, you set rules, goals, and a mission statement. The founding fathers did that, it's only the people who don't agree with personal power, liberty, and economic freedom who pretend that there are no American values.
Outlaw teachers unions (traditional unions fought against corporate management for fair wages. Who do teacher's unions fight against? Kids? ) That alone would increase the effectiveness of teachers and allow cross-philosophy teaching such as math and computer science together.
I guess that includes you because even your appeal to authority is completely false. But don't let me stop your demagoguery if that's all you wanted to do anyway.
A survey was sent out to climate scientists about a decade ago and it asked them if they believed in human made climate change. Only the respondents who bothered to mail back in the survey and if you take the time to do that you most likely agree with the global warming statement. So it's 97% (of respondent) Climate Scientists agree global warming is man made. Since non - respondent scientists were essentially not counted it's a meaningless survey.
How can they claim skeptics are the only ones cherry picking data when they are forced to do it to imagine any increase at all? Why two years? I thought respected climate scientists ignore anything under 15?
But I digress, the real reason skepticism of the theory of anthropogenic global warming has increased is because the narrative perpetually falls apart and magically the same story under a different headline takes its place. Global Warming, Climate Change, Carbon Concentrations, Freak Weather Propensity, Ocean Heat Transfers.
In science you observe a patten, create a hypothesis, test the hypothesis by controlling externalities, and then summarize. Global Warming started with solutions (taxes, less economic freedom, more centralized government power) and attempted to cherry pick data to fit the narrative. That's why there are more skeptics regardless of how fervently the media are global warming alarmists.
Maybe it's just going back to equilibrium. The nineteenth century saw an over abundance of people switching from farming to industrial jobs. People need to get back to moderately self-sufficient farming. Maybe the nineteenth and twentieth were outliers.
I'm super happy that the climatology profession has been the longest profession over tallow renderer. Since sun is the catalyst to any multiplier effect i.e. refractory clouds I'm kinda surprised they've calculated it to have sucha tiny effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me turn that around on you and ask how surveillance of your employees is regulated under interstate commerce?
I have to unfortunately agree. Laws that encroach on private business' ability to run their busyness as they like is encroaching on the First Amendment. We don't need good and bad private business laws. That's their business.
Naw. Ever have a depressing single person coffee break? Imagine a coffee social. Hiring a competent manager that can record you coming in at 9:04 and forcing you to break at 11:04 is soul crushing. I'd rather act like I'm having a socializer for fifteen minutes.
Perhaps it would be worth it to make the distribution grid a public utility - as you say it's already paid off, often with the aid of large government subsidies. If the power companies wont play fair with independent power generation and storage entrepreneurs then perhaps it's time to cut them out of the equation. Inform them the cables have been claimed via eminent domain and will be paid for at an amount of (materials - subsidies) amortized over the next N years. They still control the bulk of power generation, at least at first, and get paid the same rates as everyone else. It would probably raise energy prices at first, but I don't see any way to get off fossils that doesn't, and it would facilitate a much faster and market-driven adaptation period.
You're forgetting the huge legacy maintenance costs. PG&E is scared shitless because the price they've been charging customers has been below the cost necessary to maintain leaky natural gas pipes. PG&E had to raise rates and is now undertaking a massive generational renovation process. The grid takes a constant life cycle maintenance plan. The fixed cost of installation is minuscule and already the risk had been borne by the installer. That's like the government saying "this Gmail experiment worked; Google thanks for the memories, eminent domain bitch."
First of all, I don't think you know what the word subsidies means. Credits and subsidies are two different devils. I honestly think someone smart explains this for each overreaching governmental naysayer. Subsidies is what solar panel producers, like Solyndra, receive. They are cash money and they are given to companies to distort the energy market. Credits are money you have earned that you don't have to pay to the government. You are paying the government less money you have earned. Its an offset to tax. Tesla makes a larger proportion of its revenue from subsidies and credits. If we were to equally apply your winners and losers strategy to all companies, lets start with companies that receive more of their revenue from the government than they do from actual sales. That's fair right? Nationalize a company that makes over 51% of its revenue from profiteering off the government?
But let's be honest with ourselves. You're not looking for equality in the name of the law. You support crony capitalism "for the right reasons." Playing fair has a lot of meanings. One definition of playing fair is not hiring lobbyists when you can't compete in a fair capitalist market. Another one that is much more subversive is a fair price. That's the fair you mean. When the government has already picked its winners and losers the producer who charges the lowest energy cost to the poor is not always the winner. You're interested in factoring in government kickbacks.
Let's do a Reductio ad absurdum. The producers aren't playing fair. They are charging the price of their costs plus profit plus government interference. Well since you plan on setting prices for the cost of energy all businesses are going to go out of business unless the government forces the cost of the inputs, oil, natural gas, silicon, et al. You can't just set the price of the end result. So let's go farther, to retrieve these natural resources takes capital and labor. Guess which one will be less costly to cut over the long run? I can make an automated natural gas miner a lot more economically efficient than I can cut the wages of employees.
Suddenly we not only have a cut in the labor force but we've subjected the poor to higher energy costs. Is that the end game? Because at this point I kinda feel that we're intentionally keeping the poor poorer with this false effort to man-make the temperature the same. Oh wait? Even if we enact these changes we don't expect to change the direction of the climate's increase (which hasn't increased for 20 years)? Wow than go ahead and explain sustaining the proletariat to me. Because you are better at it with government fiat than any capitalist selling $2 cream cheese at Walmat ever could be.
Common Situation:"Hey, they can see you right now Player 1, do you mind moving back into the bush fully?"
Player 2:"shutup and stop complaining you take this game too seriously, this is unranked."
and then you get reported and you throw your hands up in the air because half the players on this game are contrarians.
Calling out one player for treating his team as pawns in his high score strategy is also an easy way to make your whole team pissed off.
"STFU his score is 12/0/1 you are 12/12/400 he is obviously a better team player."
And then you have the LOL forums. Its a cesspool of hypocrisy and groupthink. As an experiment search for any topic a moderator started that outlines a controversial change. Find the first post that disagrees with the moderator. Then read the next ten posts. They will all defend Riot and convey varying degrees of saying the dissenting player is an idiot and rude for calling the moderator an idiot.
If you're trolling in LOL and you get put with another group of trolls do you think you care about the game? There could be some type of ven diagram that will have varying shades of grey for troll/teamplayer/cusser/asshole/nice guy/supporter/high ratio kills/deaths/low kills/deaths. It'd be a lot better than to start with a stick, find out its a bad idea and then add a weaker carrot, then dilute the stick. It just shows they are aimlessly trying to adapt their original strategy. I've played since Beta and all I've seen is a homogenization of play styles and attitudes and its not the best attitude and I'll argue to my death its a bad strategy.
Exactly, in a way. There are much smarter ways to create happy gamers instead of "We know the only right way to play LOL." The problem with Riot is they are so arrogant. Some people like to play aggressively, others don't. In most gaming communities that's okay. Not on LOL supposedly.
Use chat logs and scores/ratios to create gamer profiles. Match similar types of players together. Everyone will be happy without feeling forced to say gg after a game. What a insincere and frivolous way to measure gamer happiness.
Don't passive-aggresively ban players for a week like you're the player's parent. And at least give a reason.
All it takes is a little data analytics and leaving your neckbeard at home Riot.
I vote no.
"Alright so the budget this year is somewhat bleak. Regardless of the fact we privatized spaceflight (contrary to our projected economic model) we have no budget to conduct any space missions. We need an excuse to perpetuate our funding people! "
"How about a worthless and biased economic study that has nothing to do with space and doesn't require Federal Economic experts, you know, like the Federal Reserve, or the Treasury? "
"Genius! Just make sure you somehow game the system to be the opposite of Civilization IV's governmental hiarchy so people don't get bored and fail to realize career government work is the farthest thing from Capitalism. I want absolute monarchy, anarchy, depotism, communism, and facsism to somehow be safer than Capitalism. "
It's not the food chain or fish in general. Nor is it a necessity. It's to help the delta smelt, which isn't as important as decreasing the cost of vegetables for the poor. This does not save or hurt wetlands it's arbitrary.
Let's follow the logical conclusion then. Lower wages, less barriers to entry in employment, higher qualified prospects. :Gasp: Sooner or later this could lead to the dreaded thought that people will stop being overworked and doing the job of two.
We just had a much needed rain. To protect fish from swimming up the delta they dumped thousands of acre feet of water into the bay. I'm all for restoring wetlands but we should prioritize water for humans during droughts. The poor are the hardest hit.
Nothing is ever settled. There are axioms that can be used to conduct further science and base theories on but without constantly proving something we'll never find out if something is wrong.
People who say something is settled want the exact opposite. They don't want anyone to test their hypothesis because the findings might be different, not necessarily the opposite, but at least different from the observed original answer.
The 4.5 is throwing climate alarmists a bone. If it does rise at all it will be closer to 1.5. And again this is still a revised prediction on an estimate. Compared to real data the models have been completely false.
I wish that after their climate models were disproved time and time again they would try and find another model. That's science. But this has never been about science or the climate. Its about personal gain and subversive people's ideal society that takes away other people's rights to add to their own.
Wow you guys are really adamant that the chicken came first when it takes both environments to create government subservience. I took two seconds to lay out the two criteria that have caused this mess and I apologize for inversing the former and latter, but geese, this has happened in the past too. I get a couple people who disagree with me stating the exact same facts saying the same things.
For some reason, there's a concerted campaign happening to try to convince people that successul Open Source projects are not really open. It's an odd thing to pretend, and I'm wondering what their motive is?
Have you seen the near-identical accusations around Android being pushed to the front page here?
"One of Android's biggest draws is its roots in open source. While Android is technically very open, from a practical standpoint it's much more difficult for device makers to distance themselves from Google"
It's a very odd stance to take, so the question you have to ask yourself is: "Who benefits from this Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?". Where does the money trail lead?
For some reason, there's a concerted campaign happening to try to convince people that successul Open Source projects are not really open. It's an odd thing to pretend, and I'm wondering what their motive is?
Have you seen the near-identical accusations around Android being pushed to the front page here?
"One of Android's biggest draws is its roots in open source. While Android is technically very open, from a practical standpoint it's much more difficult for device makers to distance themselves from Google"
It's a very odd stance to take, so the question you have to ask yourself is: "Who benefits from this Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?". Where does the money trail lead?
Part of me agrees with you.
Part of me knows that both those statements are true, even if they are discouraging.
Both Android and Ubuntu are shades of closed source. They have very strong organizations behind them that are explicitly controlling the message they distribute. Mark Shuttleworth's corporate culture is one of arrogance and totalitarianism. Google has a longterm-orientated business strategy but still operates under a profit motive.
It's never troubling when these issues are highlighted the actual facts are what's troubling.
Let's take an analogy to help push my argument. While the Republican party is a big disparate tent that includes many different interest groups that agree on one random platform amongst the dozen general ones (i.e. small government, and/or state rights, and/or personal freedom vs domestic spying) pointing out internal sticking points does not instantly cause supporters to become a Progressive.
The same thing rings true of FOSS supporters. Pointing out that the largest Linux developers aren't pure FOSS doesn't make Linux users jump ship to a retarded OS like OSX.
Written in LXDE
I know it was satire and it's actually uncommon for progressives/environmentalists to understand the other side's argument to provide such accurate satire but unfortunately I think you raised some inconvenient questions. How much was he receiving per speaking event? What is the annual revenue of this company compared to UK Berkeley ' s Taxpayer budget? Kinda makes me wonder who is the wolf?
Wrong. One of the unmentioned portions of the popular affordable care act essentially nationalized all future student loans. The issue isn't the students burdening themselves with unconscionable debt it's the government controlling both sides of the transaction. Democrats embolden teacher's unions to push expenses higher then government loans students dangerously high amounts of money. This reduces the graduates ability to progress in life and creates subservience. No wonder the government passed bills disallowing student debt in bankruptcy.
Always makes me laugh to hear the argument that extending unemployment benefits increases employment. They are contradictory, obviously.
You act like that's hard or ambiguous. When you form a club, let's say the Justin Bieber fan club, you set rules, goals, and a mission statement. The founding fathers did that, it's only the people who don't agree with personal power, liberty, and economic freedom who pretend that there are no American values.
Outlaw teachers unions (traditional unions fought against corporate management for fair wages. Who do teacher's unions fight against? Kids? ) That alone would increase the effectiveness of teachers and allow cross-philosophy teaching such as math and computer science together.
I guess that includes you because even your appeal to authority is completely false. But don't let me stop your demagoguery if that's all you wanted to do anyway.
A survey was sent out to climate scientists about a decade ago and it asked them if they believed in human made climate change. Only the respondents who bothered to mail back in the survey and if you take the time to do that you most likely agree with the global warming statement. So it's 97% (of respondent) Climate Scientists agree global warming is man made. Since non - respondent scientists were essentially not counted it's a meaningless survey.
How can they claim skeptics are the only ones cherry picking data when they are forced to do it to imagine any increase at all? Why two years? I thought respected climate scientists ignore anything under 15?
But I digress, the real reason skepticism of the theory of anthropogenic global warming has increased is because the narrative perpetually falls apart and magically the same story under a different headline takes its place. Global Warming, Climate Change, Carbon Concentrations, Freak Weather Propensity, Ocean Heat Transfers.
In science you observe a patten, create a hypothesis, test the hypothesis by controlling externalities, and then summarize. Global Warming started with solutions (taxes, less economic freedom, more centralized government power) and attempted to cherry pick data to fit the narrative. That's why there are more skeptics regardless of how fervently the media are global warming alarmists.
Maybe it's just going back to equilibrium. The nineteenth century saw an over abundance of people switching from farming to industrial jobs. People need to get back to moderately self-sufficient farming. Maybe the nineteenth and twentieth were outliers.
I'm super happy that the climatology profession has been the longest profession over tallow renderer. Since sun is the catalyst to any multiplier effect i.e. refractory clouds I'm kinda surprised they've calculated it to have sucha tiny effect.