Close. More bad weather is influenced (not caused, there is a difference) by climate change. But weather is still just weather.
Think of it like a colleague being an asshole - the way he acts today is weather, the way he is is climate.
The way someone acts in just one day does not tell you what kind of person he is. Anyone can have a bad day. Or a good day.
The way that someone acts over time tells you the way he is.
Someone can be at a given moment and still be an asshole, but someone being an asshole definitely has <i>more</i> days with crappy behavior over time.
Weather is not climate, like a randomly picked single action does not indicate who you are. But weather is influenced by climate change, like someone becoming meaner will act mean in more instances.
I know this is not a perfect simile, since personality changes influence punctual behavior in a much more direct manner than climate change influences the rate of incidence of extreme weather instances, but this is the best I can come up with at this moment.
Weather is not climate - the fact that at the moment is cold or hot outside does not mean that the climate has gotten colder or hotter.
Climate, on the other hand, influences weather. In this case, an increase in the average temperature of the Earth leads to more instances of "extreme weather" - storms, floods, heat waves and cold spells.
Climate influences weather, but weather is not climate.Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
I get your point, but the example you used might not be optimal. Where I am now (Belgium) when there is one line the system is as follows - people waiting in line get a prompt to which register they should go once they reach the top of the line. But that register is one that is already serving one customer, so that you have the time to arrived put your stuff from the cart on the belt before the clerk finishes with the previous customer. So, at any one point at every register there is one customer served and another one preparing to be served, and there is no loss of productivity because of that, while the waiting time still remains equal for everyone.
Great, you just accused him of being a communist and, ergo, an evil person. I think you might have skipped a step where you explain how his idea equals communism, which, as far as I know, has something to do with who owns the means of production.
You ask why J.K. Rowling should pay more than others for the books she sold. Well, she benefited more than others from the fact that there are such things as people who can read, for one, which is something that is supported by the state. The more you have, the more you take advantage of the things that society has to offer, such as infrastructure for transporting books, for example, and law enforcement for contracts and copyrights, and so on.
J.K. Rowling will not starve, ever, even if taxes for amounts over 1 million go to 80%. She would not have less money than the less successful authors, just her tax bill would be bigger, total percentage wise, than theirs.
Progressive taxation is not anti-capitalistic in any way. We can argue how steep the curve should be, but no tax loopholes at least should be something we all agree on.
But you do not directly elect them in the Cabinet. In my (EU member) country the process is pretty much the same, except there is no obligation that the Prime Minister or anyone from the Cabinet is an MP. The President nominates the PM at the suggestion of the party or coalition that has the majority, said PM then nominates all ministers from wherever he wants. Usually MPs or former MPs, but very often not. The Parliament approves the Government via a vote, and can revoke it the same way.
The Commision is assumed by the European Parliament via vote (they actually vote for each Commissioner separately), and can be revoked the same way. So, for me, there is no significant difference from the national norm.
As regards TTIP, it is stuck mostly because the EP is threatening to block it when it comes to the vote. Pressure from NGOs such as yours (I assume that what it is) is helping a lot. EU MPs listen to them also, not only to industry lobbyists. If you watch the hearings organised by the Parliament you will see that the invited speakers are from both sides on any issues - otherwise the hearings actually would not have a purpose.
So keep up what you are doing, it is working. Just know that if your organisation decided so, it could have done it at the EU level. There is actually a significant anti-TTIP lobby in Brussels, and it has been working for years on this.
As you can see, the role of the Council in this is at this point a formality. The political parties designate each a leading candidate before the elections, and the party that wins the elections, in the case the European People's Party, gets to nominate its lead candidate for the post of President of the Commission. The Parliament then has to elect this candidate.
You can even find a picture of Junker's campaign bus from 2014 if you bother to look at the page.
Here is the direct link: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Laophorium_Ioannis_Claudii_Juncker_anno_2014.jpg
As to the second part, I was simply referring to your definitions:
"Voting regularly for the representatives who chose, write, amend and rescind laws and regulations is borderline democratic. Anything less is not democratic."
Well, the UK does not vote regularly for all its representatives in the Parliament, who are the ones who chose, write, amend and rescind laws and regulations. Therefore, per the second part, the UK is not democratic.
Whoa, the goalposts have taken a huge jump backwards.
I am sorry. I thought this was about comparing the EU legislative process, of which you seemed highly uninformed, with the national processes. The Commission is elected in much the same way as national governments are. I do not know of any EU country where people elect their Prime Minister or ministers. And, make no mistake, the Commission is more or less the EU Government.
Your issue is with democracy itself. Most EU countries are borderline democratic, according to your definition. And the UK is not, since one of its Parliament's chambers is unelected, and so is its head of state.
Well, guess what, the EU is democratic, even if only borderline according to you. It is even more democratic than some of its member states. Definitely more democratic than the UK.
Except that a more accurate analogy in this case is a 1000 membership fee, and you get 350 right back (don't ask why, it's accounting) and then you get the services. Now, if those services are worth 650 to you or not, it is your decision to make.
No need to be rude. The text was "We send the EU 350 million a week. Let's fund our NHS instead."
Does it say that all the money would be going to the NHS? Not directly, no.
Does it suggest it though? I would say yes. That's the thing with suggestions - not everyone interprets them the same.
At first reading I interpreted it the same way. Only reading it again I realised that it's a very slick lawyerly trick of saying something without actually saying it, and thus committing to it.
Given that the first part of the claim was false anyway, and they (Leave) knew it, and Nigel (UKIP) knew it (just watch him never mentioning the amount per week, only per day or per year, avoiding to put them straight), I am not surprised by this development anyway. And by the way, even Nigel's more realistic figure is considered to be inflated.
Want a more truthful statement? "We are supposed to send the EU 350 million per week. We don't actually send that much, since we get a rebate that no other EU country gets, and most of what we send is coming back anyway. But we could just not send anything and spend it here. Some of it on the NHS."
Wait, that's not going going to fit on a side of a bus and no one reads that much anyway. My mistake.
In what way do borders keep the peace? Borders are the direct result of wars, and are constantly disputed in, you guessed it, wars.
The last time someone tried to erect a new border in the US it lead to an horrific war that marks the country to this day.
Removing borders in Europe has lead to the longest peace period it's had in its entire history.
Bringing borders back in Yugoslavia took a bloodshed of terrible proportions. Those countries liked their newfound liberty and autonomy so much that they now want to remove those borders again by joining the EU. Some of them already have.
And examining your argument, individual liberty must not exist today anyway, since everyone lives under some form of government. So what are we protecting, really?
I am sorry, but perhaps you should read up on the EU legislative procedure. It is complicated, as you would expect, given that it is supposed to protect the national interests of the Member States, but the Cliff's notes is this:
The Council, which is comprised by the ministers of the governments of member states, and has a rotating 6 months presidency cycling all member states, sets the agenda - The Commission writes the legislative proposal - both the Council and the Parliament modify it - the three parties have to come to the negotiating table (several times if necessary) and agree on a compromise. If there is no compromise, the legislation fails.
The Commission is comprised of commissioners nominated by each Member State, and a president nominated by all of them, and each of them have to obtain the approval of the Parliament. The Parliament itself is comprised of MEPs directly elected by the population of the EU. Yes, perhaps i would be better if only the Parliament decided the legislation, but, as I have said, it is that way in order to protect the specific interest of some member states being pushed on the others.
But the system itself is democratic, since you have directly elected members voting on legislation, and said legislation can not pass without their vote. The Commission is less powerful than you think, and less unelected than you know.
I would love if you were right, but unfortunately I think you are not. As mentioned before, smartphone updates are being delayed or denied by carriers, and that is not illegal nor have I heard of any serious intention of making it so.
Even driving a car with an emission defeat device is not illegal, unless you installed it as an aftermarket part, such as those designed for "rolling coal". All those Volkswagens running around with their factory installed defeat devices are doing it legally.
And how would such a law work, anyway? I have a fully patched XP machine - that would it still be legal to connect to the internet.
If the law makes illegal to connect unsupported devices, then the market would be thrown upside down. IOT would probably die on the vine. Interesting, but unlikely to say the least.
The law does not see a single mother as an unfit parent. Single females or males can even adopt,so the law sees them fit. I fail to see how a two-mother household would be worse. Or how a two-father household would not be even better, according to your argument.
The argument about homosexuality being learned and changeable are not relevant here. Also, if sexuality is on a scale, as Kinsey says, your anecdotes do not even prove your point.
I think the relevant part there is "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Thus the states cannot discriminate - which is not offering equal protection - between same-sex and different sex married citizens.
Also, homosexual behavior may have a felony in 1868. It is not now. So this behavior, now legal, gets access to the same protections the other legal (heterosexual) behavior gets. No, they were not thinking about this specific instance, but the framework they put in place still applies to it now. Apparently it was a pretty good framework.
I am not american, so some details may escape me, but this my interpretation on this matter.
The idea that I tried to convey is that preventative protection would still damage your property.
Also, the problem with roads is the fact that they are a monopoly, and as such the prices would become unreasonable, sooner or later, everywhere.
And the vote with your pocketbook does not really work also because people are naturally reluctant to give up any cash that they feel they don't absolutely have to, especially for something as remote as national defense. The might of the American army would become history in a flash, and like it or not a lot of what makes America great comes from the fact that it is the greatest military power in the entire history. The effects would not become visible only overseas, but back home and very nasty and very soon. Like any great enterprise, the army can not be simply wound down. The conservation costs alone for all the equipment are staggering. If you would cut the funding tomorrow in half, the entire thing would just implode.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how your idea is even remotely workable. Subscription for fire services would lead to firemen standing around letting your house burn over an unpaid subscription (as it has already happened), and you would also be left open to blackmail from those who know who paid the subscription and who didn't. Also, if your neighbor is irresponsible and does not pay, and his house catches fire, your house might catch fire as well. The firemen will either wait until your house lights up and then get to work, so you still get some water damage, or extinguish the fire anyway in order to remove the danger for you and the rest of the neighborhood. Great, you and everybody else just paid to save the house of your lousy neighbor.
All roads becoming toll roads is also a terrible idea. This is a natural monopoly, because it is not viable to have at least two roads to every destination. Think the cable subscription is bad? You can at least give up cable. What if you can't get to work because the road toll has just increased a third time this year. Or if you are in an emergency and you can't afford to pay the toll for the road to the hospital. Toll highways have a place, because usually there is at least one other alternative and you can do a cost-benefit analysis before deciding if you will pay the toll or take the other route. But tolls on every road is just begging to be abused.
A la carte tax is not an option, because a lot of things would just not get paid for. For example the army - guess how many people would take exception to paying for that, and it is not a small percentage in your tax total. Even most of the vocal supporters would just take the opportunity to keep more money for themselves.
So yes, you and I and everybody must pay for a lot of things that we find absurd and completely unjustifiable, because the alternative to that is much worse.
My thermostat adjust to half of a degree Celsius. In my experience, it's more than enough; my preferred temperature is 24, and over 26 gets really stuffy. This depends, of course, in large part on the humidity of the air. So no, Celsius does not deprive you of the ability to adjust your thermostat. Also, the temperature can vary from point to point in the room to even more than 1 degree, depending on the heating solution used, so any extra precision is in fact only placebo if the temperature is not, in fact, uniform.
As for the human temperature, the human thermometers measure to tenths of a degree; anything under 37.4 is considered a sub-fever, indicating that something is wrong but not yet severe, over 38 things are serious, over 39 drastic measures are required, at close to 42 the brain starts dieing. On the other hand, anything under 37 is considered normal, down to about 36; less than that might mean another set of problems entirely. Doctors are not impeded in their abilities to diagnose diseases by the Celsius scale. If they thought so, the precision of the thermometer would just go to two decimal points, but since nobody makes one of those for human use I presume that the doctors consider it unnecessary. I would rather defer to their expertise than to yours.
I find it extremely shirt-sighted the claim that the metric system is impractical, when in fact it is being used, every day, by the vast majority of the people on earth. It's basically denial-ism. The imperial system is not unusable, it's just different, but the claims of it being somehow better are just wishful thinking. Again, this is my opinion, but I bet there are more who share it than the ones who share yours.
I have no idea about the political tendencies of Forbes, but in the TFA (not in the Slashdot summary though, go figure) the numbers were not low balled.
To quote, "This leads to a range of between 15 percent (50% x 30%) and 30 percent (60% x 50%) voting for annexation."
So, Forbes' article did not low ball the numbers (even if the data source seems highly suspect), the Slashdot summary did.
What makes this an incredible bad idea is that it gives the government a very powerful method to thwart dissent.
In view of the recent events in Ukraine, where protestors or suspected protestors have received a threatening text message from their phone company, saying "Dear subscriber, you are registered as a participant in a mass disturbance", one can easily imagine that this technology which is to be used purportedly to stop car chases can and most certainly will be used to stop private transport in cases of massive anti-government protests.
The power that this will give the government over the population is extraordinary. This is therefore a very bad idea and a serious threat to democracy and needs to be stopped.
Most likely answer: laptops with unsupported video cards, or desktops with other unsupported hardware, such as tv tuners, old scanners or printers. The system might be able to run Windows 7 very well, but it does no good if the video card has no drivers for 7.
I must disagree with your rationale for wanting dogs banned in urban areas (because that's what I deduce from your wording that you want). There are already laws in place for dealing with those aspects that annoy you, respectively noise and littering.
The fact that there are inconsiderate people out there is not, in itself, sufficient to call for an outright ban.
I lived close to a bar, and I can tell you a thing or two about noise, street fights and vomit on the sidewalk. I still did not consider asking for a ban on all bars within urban areas. I did, however, call the police when i considered it appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
Close. More bad weather is influenced (not caused, there is a difference) by climate change. But weather is still just weather.
Think of it like a colleague being an asshole - the way he acts today is weather, the way he is is climate.
The way someone acts in just one day does not tell you what kind of person he is. Anyone can have a bad day. Or a good day.
The way that someone acts over time tells you the way he is.
Someone can be at a given moment and still be an asshole, but someone being an asshole definitely has <i>more</i> days with crappy behavior over time.
Weather is not climate, like a randomly picked single action does not indicate who you are. But weather is influenced by climate change, like someone becoming meaner will act mean in more instances.
I know this is not a perfect simile, since personality changes influence punctual behavior in a much more direct manner than climate change influences the rate of incidence of extreme weather instances, but this is the best I can come up with at this moment.
Weather is not climate - the fact that at the moment is cold or hot outside does not mean that the climate has gotten colder or hotter.
Climate, on the other hand, influences weather. In this case, an increase in the average temperature of the Earth leads to more instances of "extreme weather" - storms, floods, heat waves and cold spells.
Climate influences weather, but weather is not climate.Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
I get your point, but the example you used might not be optimal. Where I am now (Belgium) when there is one line the system is as follows - people waiting in line get a prompt to which register they should go once they reach the top of the line. But that register is one that is already serving one customer, so that you have the time to arrived put your stuff from the cart on the belt before the clerk finishes with the previous customer. So, at any one point at every register there is one customer served and another one preparing to be served, and there is no loss of productivity because of that, while the waiting time still remains equal for everyone.
Great, you just accused him of being a communist and, ergo, an evil person. I think you might have skipped a step where you explain how his idea equals communism, which, as far as I know, has something to do with who owns the means of production.
You ask why J.K. Rowling should pay more than others for the books she sold. Well, she benefited more than others from the fact that there are such things as people who can read, for one, which is something that is supported by the state. The more you have, the more you take advantage of the things that society has to offer, such as infrastructure for transporting books, for example, and law enforcement for contracts and copyrights, and so on.
J.K. Rowling will not starve, ever, even if taxes for amounts over 1 million go to 80%. She would not have less money than the less successful authors, just her tax bill would be bigger, total percentage wise, than theirs.
Progressive taxation is not anti-capitalistic in any way. We can argue how steep the curve should be, but no tax loopholes at least should be something we all agree on.
But you do not directly elect them in the Cabinet. In my (EU member) country the process is pretty much the same, except there is no obligation that the Prime Minister or anyone from the Cabinet is an MP. The President nominates the PM at the suggestion of the party or coalition that has the majority, said PM then nominates all ministers from wherever he wants. Usually MPs or former MPs, but very often not. The Parliament approves the Government via a vote, and can revoke it the same way.
The Commision is assumed by the European Parliament via vote (they actually vote for each Commissioner separately), and can be revoked the same way. So, for me, there is no significant difference from the national norm.
As regards TTIP, it is stuck mostly because the EP is threatening to block it when it comes to the vote. Pressure from NGOs such as yours (I assume that what it is) is helping a lot. EU MPs listen to them also, not only to industry lobbyists. If you watch the hearings organised by the Parliament you will see that the invited speakers are from both sides on any issues - otherwise the hearings actually would not have a purpose.
So keep up what you are doing, it is working. Just know that if your organisation decided so, it could have done it at the EU level. There is actually a significant anti-TTIP lobby in Brussels, and it has been working for years on this.
But you do not vote for the UK government either. And I doubt that they do not have meetings with lobbyists.
Oh, wait, they do:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/12/lobbying-10-ways-corprations-influence-government
It is obvious that you can. Especially since there is no EU president. The EU does not have a head of state.
The Commissioners are nominated by the Member States, and subject to the vote of the Parliament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Commission#Elections
As you can see, the role of the Council in this is at this point a formality. The political parties designate each a leading candidate before the elections, and the party that wins the elections, in the case the European People's Party, gets to nominate its lead candidate for the post of President of the Commission. The Parliament then has to elect this candidate.
You can even find a picture of Junker's campaign bus from 2014 if you bother to look at the page.
Here is the direct link:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Laophorium_Ioannis_Claudii_Juncker_anno_2014.jpg
As to the second part, I was simply referring to your definitions:
"Voting regularly for the representatives who chose, write, amend and rescind laws and regulations is borderline democratic.
Anything less is not democratic."
Well, the UK does not vote regularly for all its representatives in the Parliament, who are the ones who chose, write, amend and rescind laws and regulations. Therefore, per the second part, the UK is not democratic.
Whoa, the goalposts have taken a huge jump backwards.
I am sorry. I thought this was about comparing the EU legislative process, of which you seemed highly uninformed, with the national processes. The Commission is elected in much the same way as national governments are. I do not know of any EU country where people elect their Prime Minister or ministers. And, make no mistake, the Commission is more or less the EU Government.
Your issue is with democracy itself. Most EU countries are borderline democratic, according to your definition. And the UK is not, since one of its Parliament's chambers is unelected, and so is its head of state.
Well, guess what, the EU is democratic, even if only borderline according to you. It is even more democratic than some of its member states. Definitely more democratic than the UK.
The EU Parliament is elected by the EU citizens. You identify the core problem as being who the people vote. What are we supposed to do about that?
Except that a more accurate analogy in this case is a 1000 membership fee, and you get 350 right back (don't ask why, it's accounting) and then you get the services. Now, if those services are worth 650 to you or not, it is your decision to make.
No need to be rude. The text was "We send the EU 350 million a week. Let's fund our NHS instead."
Does it say that all the money would be going to the NHS? Not directly, no.
Does it suggest it though? I would say yes. That's the thing with suggestions - not everyone interprets them the same.
At first reading I interpreted it the same way. Only reading it again I realised that it's a very slick lawyerly trick of saying something without actually saying it, and thus committing to it.
Given that the first part of the claim was false anyway, and they (Leave) knew it, and Nigel (UKIP) knew it (just watch him never mentioning the amount per week, only per day or per year, avoiding to put them straight), I am not surprised by this development anyway. And by the way, even Nigel's more realistic figure is considered to be inflated.
Want a more truthful statement? "We are supposed to send the EU 350 million per week. We don't actually send that much, since we get a rebate that no other EU country gets, and most of what we send is coming back anyway. But we could just not send anything and spend it here. Some of it on the NHS."
Wait, that's not going going to fit on a side of a bus and no one reads that much anyway. My mistake.
In what way do borders keep the peace? Borders are the direct result of wars, and are constantly disputed in, you guessed it, wars.
The last time someone tried to erect a new border in the US it lead to an horrific war that marks the country to this day.
Removing borders in Europe has lead to the longest peace period it's had in its entire history.
Bringing borders back in Yugoslavia took a bloodshed of terrible proportions. Those countries liked their newfound liberty and autonomy so much that they now want to remove those borders again by joining the EU. Some of them already have.
And examining your argument, individual liberty must not exist today anyway, since everyone lives under some form of government. So what are we protecting, really?
I am sorry, but perhaps you should read up on the EU legislative procedure. It is complicated, as you would expect, given that it is supposed to protect the national interests of the Member States, but the Cliff's notes is this:
The Council, which is comprised by the ministers of the governments of member states, and has a rotating 6 months presidency cycling all member states, sets the agenda - The Commission writes the legislative proposal - both the Council and the Parliament modify it - the three parties have to come to the negotiating table (several times if necessary) and agree on a compromise. If there is no compromise, the legislation fails.
The Commission is comprised of commissioners nominated by each Member State, and a president nominated by all of them, and each of them have to obtain the approval of the Parliament. The Parliament itself is comprised of MEPs directly elected by the population of the EU. Yes, perhaps i would be better if only the Parliament decided the legislation, but, as I have said, it is that way in order to protect the specific interest of some member states being pushed on the others.
But the system itself is democratic, since you have directly elected members voting on legislation, and said legislation can not pass without their vote. The Commission is less powerful than you think, and less unelected than you know.
I would love if you were right, but unfortunately I think you are not. As mentioned before, smartphone updates are being delayed or denied by carriers, and that is not illegal nor have I heard of any serious intention of making it so.
Even driving a car with an emission defeat device is not illegal, unless you installed it as an aftermarket part, such as those designed for "rolling coal". All those Volkswagens running around with their factory installed defeat devices are doing it legally.
And how would such a law work, anyway? I have a fully patched XP machine - that would it still be legal to connect to the internet.
If the law makes illegal to connect unsupported devices, then the market would be thrown upside down. IOT would probably die on the vine. Interesting, but unlikely to say the least.
The law does not see a single mother as an unfit parent. Single females or males can even adopt,so the law sees them fit. I fail to see how a two-mother household would be worse. Or how a two-father household would not be even better, according to your argument.
The argument about homosexuality being learned and changeable are not relevant here. Also, if sexuality is on a scale, as Kinsey says, your anecdotes do not even prove your point.
I think the relevant part there is "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Thus the states cannot discriminate - which is not offering equal protection - between same-sex and different sex married citizens.
Also, homosexual behavior may have a felony in 1868. It is not now. So this behavior, now legal, gets access to the same protections the other legal (heterosexual) behavior gets. No, they were not thinking about this specific instance, but the framework they put in place still applies to it now. Apparently it was a pretty good framework.
I am not american, so some details may escape me, but this my interpretation on this matter.
The FM app usually has an option to switch the audio from the headphones to the speaker.
The idea that I tried to convey is that preventative protection would still damage your property.
Also, the problem with roads is the fact that they are a monopoly, and as such the prices would become unreasonable, sooner or later, everywhere.
And the vote with your pocketbook does not really work also because people are naturally reluctant to give up any cash that they feel they don't absolutely have to, especially for something as remote as national defense. The might of the American army would become history in a flash, and like it or not a lot of what makes America great comes from the fact that it is the greatest military power in the entire history. The effects would not become visible only overseas, but back home and very nasty and very soon. Like any great enterprise, the army can not be simply wound down. The conservation costs alone for all the equipment are staggering. If you would cut the funding tomorrow in half, the entire thing would just implode.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how your idea is even remotely workable. Subscription for fire services would lead to firemen standing around letting your house burn over an unpaid subscription (as it has already happened), and you would also be left open to blackmail from those who know who paid the subscription and who didn't. Also, if your neighbor is irresponsible and does not pay, and his house catches fire, your house might catch fire as well. The firemen will either wait until your house lights up and then get to work, so you still get some water damage, or extinguish the fire anyway in order to remove the danger for you and the rest of the neighborhood. Great, you and everybody else just paid to save the house of your lousy neighbor.
All roads becoming toll roads is also a terrible idea. This is a natural monopoly, because it is not viable to have at least two roads to every destination. Think the cable subscription is bad? You can at least give up cable. What if you can't get to work because the road toll has just increased a third time this year. Or if you are in an emergency and you can't afford to pay the toll for the road to the hospital. Toll highways have a place, because usually there is at least one other alternative and you can do a cost-benefit analysis before deciding if you will pay the toll or take the other route. But tolls on every road is just begging to be abused.
A la carte tax is not an option, because a lot of things would just not get paid for. For example the army - guess how many people would take exception to paying for that, and it is not a small percentage in your tax total. Even most of the vocal supporters would just take the opportunity to keep more money for themselves.
So yes, you and I and everybody must pay for a lot of things that we find absurd and completely unjustifiable, because the alternative to that is much worse.
My thermostat adjust to half of a degree Celsius. In my experience, it's more than enough; my preferred temperature is 24, and over 26 gets really stuffy. This depends, of course, in large part on the humidity of the air. So no, Celsius does not deprive you of the ability to adjust your thermostat. Also, the temperature can vary from point to point in the room to even more than 1 degree, depending on the heating solution used, so any extra precision is in fact only placebo if the temperature is not, in fact, uniform.
As for the human temperature, the human thermometers measure to tenths of a degree; anything under 37.4 is considered a sub-fever, indicating that something is wrong but not yet severe, over 38 things are serious, over 39 drastic measures are required, at close to 42 the brain starts dieing. On the other hand, anything under 37 is considered normal, down to about 36; less than that might mean another set of problems entirely. Doctors are not impeded in their abilities to diagnose diseases by the Celsius scale. If they thought so, the precision of the thermometer would just go to two decimal points, but since nobody makes one of those for human use I presume that the doctors consider it unnecessary. I would rather defer to their expertise than to yours.
I find it extremely shirt-sighted the claim that the metric system is impractical, when in fact it is being used, every day, by the vast majority of the people on earth. It's basically denial-ism. The imperial system is not unusable, it's just different, but the claims of it being somehow better are just wishful thinking. Again, this is my opinion, but I bet there are more who share it than the ones who share yours.
I have no idea about the political tendencies of Forbes, but in the TFA (not in the Slashdot summary though, go figure) the numbers were not low balled.
To quote, "This leads to a range of between 15 percent (50% x 30%) and 30 percent (60% x 50%) voting for annexation."
So, Forbes' article did not low ball the numbers (even if the data source seems highly suspect), the Slashdot summary did.
What makes this an incredible bad idea is that it gives the government a very powerful method to thwart dissent.
In view of the recent events in Ukraine, where protestors or suspected protestors have received a threatening text message from their phone company, saying "Dear subscriber, you are registered as a participant in a mass disturbance", one can easily imagine that this technology which is to be used purportedly to stop car chases can and most certainly will be used to stop private transport in cases of massive anti-government protests.
The power that this will give the government over the population is extraordinary. This is therefore a very bad idea and a serious threat to democracy and needs to be stopped.
Most likely answer: laptops with unsupported video cards, or desktops with other unsupported hardware, such as tv tuners, old scanners or printers. The system might be able to run Windows 7 very well, but it does no good if the video card has no drivers for 7.
I must disagree with your rationale for wanting dogs banned in urban areas (because that's what I deduce from your wording that you want). There are already laws in place for dealing with those aspects that annoy you, respectively noise and littering.
The fact that there are inconsiderate people out there is not, in itself, sufficient to call for an outright ban.
I lived close to a bar, and I can tell you a thing or two about noise, street fights and vomit on the sidewalk. I still did not consider asking for a ban on all bars within urban areas. I did, however, call the police when i considered it appropriate.