The roads, the police, the military, etc. benefit everyone. You personally own the solar system that everyone else paid 30% or more for. That is the problem.
The roads benefit everyone, and so cleaner cars will to then right?
The solar system I have on my roof saves your tax dollars having to be invested in additional infrastructure since the 10% load taken by personal solar power installations across the country has meant less power stations needing to be built with taxpayer money. And all those industries involved with solar power are earning more income and paying more taxes, and keeping the economy going.
The relationship is not as simple as 1:1, but the point is that the benefits of subsidies are not always as obvious on the surface.
personally and morally judge people that you fail to actually make a rational argument. You're going to have to stop stroking your hate boner for a second and just be rational. Otherwise its going to be too easy for me to just label you a raging idiot and move on.
Pro tip: When you learn to discuss the points at hand instead of personal attacks then you can play with the big kids,
No... that's your misunderstanding. I was saying they were going to be giving similar opportunities and those opportunites could have been used to obtain similar rewards.
That's because you clearly have little understanding of the huge differences between Korea and Vietnam. If you did you wouldn't make such preposterous claims.
1. Search Engine companies are still bound by relevant laws as they should be.
Where is Bing mentioned? Yahoo? Duckduckgo? Literally any of the over 700 search engines...
2. The law applies to everyone, but most likely they only care about Google since no-one else uses the others. Seriously, I know precisely zero people that use a search engine other than Google, and I know a lot of people.
At some point in our past we decided that eye-for-an-eye was not a workable approach to justice
Speak for yourself. For some offences, and with suitable qualification, I and a lot of others have no problem with euthanising animals from our society.
It is proven to work because it 100% guarantees a recidivism rate of 0% for those offenders.
and three lifetimes plus hundreds of years for an offense of twelve hours, no matter how awful those twelve hours may have been, goes so far beyond eye-for-an-eye...
And here you lose all credibility. Luckily for the rest of us, criminal activity is not judged on a per hour basis.
Well, your comment does include the solution. Algae can be grown at most latitudes and in most water. The waste from the process can be composted safely anywhere. What's not to like?
Distribution of Vehicles and Persons per Household
Is this vehicles built, vehicles registered, or actual vehicles registered to indivuduals (as opposed to businesses)?
Also note that this is "vehicles" rather than "cars" so implies all the trucks, buses, tractors and boats that the transport dept has to deal with, including a huge chunk of business vehicles not used as personal transport.
The issue I have is that we're spending government money to buy YOU a solar system that you personally benefit from. It increases the value of your home and saves you money at taxpayer's expense.
But if you want to get pedantic, everything you do is at taxpayer expense, since taxpayers keep the borders secure, the water clean, and provide all the bits and pieces of everyday life that allow each of us to pursue our own personal interests.
>Think of it this way. Imagine if the government was willing to pay $400 of the payment.
Then you could say, "OMG, go lease a Leaf, they are only $40 a month!".
But that would be silly, wouldn't it?
Er, no. If it cost me $40/month then yes I'd be out on the streets telling everyone about it. Nothing silly about that, and nothing silly about stimulus packages when used appropriately either.
You keep pitching that, but the government is just handing you other people's money.
They aren't 'just' passing money around. These incentives are helping to encourage a new industry that is generating new jobs, and putting food on people's tables. Those people also pay taxes and buy stuff which helps put food on other people's tables, and in turn generates more tax.
And let's not even go into the possible lives saved through less pollution in our cities.
So yeah you can pretend this is some evil conspiracy to simply redistribute wealth, which you will have no part of, or you can use the incentive for its intended purpose, supporting new technology and new industry, and giving everyone involved a leg up to help keep the country moving.
Cost and looks. That's all the magic there is in the formula.
Every electric vehicle I've seen except the Telsa looks like a turkey and costs twice as much as it's equivalent fossil fuel variant. Why would I bother?
Suggesting I'm racist for saying Vietnam could have been a first world country...
No you implied that Vietnam and Korea are the same, simply because they were both involved in conflict with the US. Now you're trying to wiggle out it with some personal attack.
Typical....
Quite clearly the US administration doesn't either.
You're so fixated on the details that you don't see the wider picture.
I see that the terrorists are winning. Or is that all part of the masterplan when Iraq was invaded 12 years and a trillion dollars ago?
First... shut up... just for the sake of argument.
That's a good strategy. Let me know how that works out,
Second, actually back out from the situation and see it in the context of the proceeding 30 years... yes that exceeds the duration of the cold war to that point but understanding why the US got into the cold war is related to the build up to WW2.
I have, and it's still the most massive, poorly thought-out blunder in US military history, even bigger than Vietnam.
Third, grasp that the US whatever you might think of the US... the US saw itself at that point in time as "arsenal of freedom"... as the guardian and champion of the west.
No it didn't. The administration previous to Idiot & co dealt with the exact same problem yet had a whole lot more success.
Fourth, every war that isn't just reacting to an attack like Afghanistan happens according to a grander strategy.
And some of those are bad strategies
And even in those cases we come up with strategies very quickly. The whole concept of fighting terrorism by removing all their safe harbors in the world was a quick improvised strategy that the US came up with literally within weeks of being hit in 9/11.
Iraq was never a safe harbour for terrorists. Saddam had a reputation of executing extremists, and was recognised as a " a source for moderation in the region" - US Secretary of State James Kelly.
The idea of dismantling Saddam with no end-game was the worst excuse for a strategy I have ever heard of.
Even Republicans agree with this now.
And that encourages the US to put pressure on any state sponsors to either stop sponsoring terrorism or do something so they can't or otherwise stop doing it.
So they did something that made it a lot worse? That is your idea of strategy so awesome the rest of the world can't possibly understand it?
Vietnam specifically was encouraged by domino theory with the worry being that if vietnam fell the whole region would fall.
Once you understand that the US thinks in terms of these strategies, our actions become more comprehensible.
Yes we all know what they thought back in the 60's, but a lot of us learnt from that mistake. Well most of us except a few idiots running the show in 2001. They did the impossible and created an even bigger fuck-up than Vietnam
You might not agree with it still and it could well be stupid. BUT you at least understand what the US was thinking at the time. Very few commentators on US foreign policy especially as regards our wars are aware of how we actually think. And as such their analysis is not actually worth anything.
Which is why you continue to embarass yourselves with such ridiculous excuses for 'strategy'. Pro tip: learn from your mistakes, and you might win once in a while.
2,000 F-35s at 50k feet are just fine, and immune to drone attacks,
You don't have 2000, you have 150, because they cost so damn much. This is sort of my point. Any defence needs aircraft numbers in the thousands. Like the B2, the F35 will be too expensive to use and therefore pointless.
Almost none of aerial warfare since the Battle of Britain has turned on which side had better planes. It's all been about protecting your ground-based facilities.
That's right. The US has had the best planes since WW2 yet still hasn't won any major war since. Why do you think that is? Planes aren't such great defence against IEDs and suicide bombers.
Let me put on my evil villain hat and play this out (just for the sake of the discussion)
With a Drone swarm, you don't necessarily need a base, or an airfield. If I was an evil dictator, I'd have my forces already infiltrating the enemy nation as regular immigrants. Each agent could have a small drone in their garage, and launch it off their local street in a co-ordinated attack.
To add some diversity to the strategy I could have launchers built inside container ships and airliners, along with regular aircraft carriers or even frigates. 10,000 drones is then quite feasible, and mostly unstoppable with something like a F35 (Or F16, or B2 or other).
I'd have a similar strategy for micro drone subs to take out major maritime targets.
The swarm strategy is not designed to win dogfights, it bypasses the enemy defence altogether and hits targets before any reasonable defence is useful. (and can accept a massive attrition rate while still succeeding in its mission)
It might sound far-fetched but so did Pearl Harbour and 9/11 before it happened.
The issue seems to lie in the fact that established olde-worlde distributors own the right to all content, and continue to gain ownership of new content, so therefore have too much input into the conversation.
This war needs to be fought on two fronts, one the technical which seems more than capable of delivering, the other is to convince new producers not to sign over rights to anyone involved with the old 20th century distribution model. If there existed a distributor with a big enough war chest to buy new TV shows, movies and music, they could then be legally distributed through channels like Global Mode. As more content is added it becomes a legitimate competition to the old way of doing things. More content, wider distribution, bigger audience. This effectively ends the old industry monopoly and any legal avenue for shutting such a service down. The only catch is lower profits for individual producers, but ultimately I believe would be healthier situation for the industry as a whole.
It would effectively be like Uber for media.
Yes, but the F35 doesn't have that luxury, as demonstrated by USAF tests. So in a real world combat situation today, the F16 beats both the F35 and the Sopwith Camel.
I'm sure they'll fix the issues and in another 10 or so years the F35 will be fantastic. The unfortunate part is that by then we'll no longer need fighter planes, since drones will be able to maintain an air shield much more effectively and cheaply.
$1Trillion can buy you 400,000 Predator Drones. How do you think the F35 would cope with that sort of opposition?
but it's fighting and 1500-2000 fifth Gen fighters are more then the Chinese can handle.
Well about 150 at this stage. And the Chinese won't be fighting them because they'll all be on the ground with software issues.
It's no big deal because the rest of the fleet is more than capable of taking care of any other air force in the world right now, but it begs the question, why do we need these?
In an age of Drones and IEDs, what good as a super fighter in a modern war? Fair enough if you've got nothing, but if you've already got the biggest and best air force, then wouldn't that money be better spent elsewhere?
If I was a foreign force, I'd be investing in swarm technology. How will a $Trillion plane cope with 100,000 small disposable drones in a dogfight?
Never to their actual profit so far as I can see. Vietnam could have been South Korea.
You're showing your ignorance now. There's a shit-ton of cultural reasons why that wouldn't be the case, and to be unaware of that actually sounds a little racist.
Regardless, the US achieved its strategic goals and lost nothing it actually cared about.
Oh dear, The US lost 50000 of it's people for no reason and retreated with it's tail between it's legs in what is the biggest embarrassment in military history. Until Iraq.
I have friends in the military, they still laugh at the US military today because of it. Great hardware, piss poor execution. And it that wasn't bad enough, they went and repeated the same mistake in the Middle East.
Don't take this as American bashing, the world needs a strong America, and I'll happily take an American as an ally over most others, I just think there's some really poor decisions being made along the way. And because those decisions affect the rest of us, they need to lift their game.
Slashdot Mirror
The roads, the police, the military, etc. benefit everyone. You personally own the solar system that everyone else paid 30% or more for. That is the problem.
The roads benefit everyone, and so cleaner cars will to then right?
The solar system I have on my roof saves your tax dollars having to be invested in additional infrastructure since the 10% load taken by personal solar power installations across the country has meant less power stations needing to be built with taxpayer money. And all those industries involved with solar power are earning more income and paying more taxes, and keeping the economy going.
The relationship is not as simple as 1:1, but the point is that the benefits of subsidies are not always as obvious on the surface.
That's the Austerity myth. If you spend money on growing your economy, you can actually spend more and tax less.
You grow the numbers, but that doesn't make people wealthier...
If it did, then we should go out and spend $50 trillion tomorrow.
Uh, there's more to it that just blindly spending money. The point is that Austerity is not the answer.
personally and morally judge people that you fail to actually make a rational argument. You're going to have to stop stroking your hate boner for a second and just be rational. Otherwise its going to be too easy for me to just label you a raging idiot and move on.
Pro tip: When you learn to discuss the points at hand instead of personal attacks then you can play with the big kids,
No... that's your misunderstanding. I was saying they were going to be giving similar opportunities and those opportunites could have been used to obtain similar rewards.
That's because you clearly have little understanding of the huge differences between Korea and Vietnam. If you did you wouldn't make such preposterous claims.
What part of the crime did you find heinous?
I find it arrogant for any group to tell another they can't handle the truth, so to speak.
Like classifying Pornography as R18 you mean?
Stop going after search engines.
1. Search Engine companies are still bound by relevant laws as they should be.
Where is Bing mentioned? Yahoo? Duckduckgo? Literally any of the over 700 search engines...
2. The law applies to everyone, but most likely they only care about Google since no-one else uses the others. Seriously, I know precisely zero people that use a search engine other than Google, and I know a lot of people.
Regarding the above though, you could just as easily say the same about anyone whose brain is broken enough to want to torture another human being.
No you couldn't. Thinking about something and acting on it are quite clearly distinct concepts, and the law recognises this.
The simple fact of the matter is that humans have all sorts of impulses and desires which would be..
Your argument is based on a flimsy assumption. Don't try and equate this with real offences that have real victims.
At some point in our past we decided that eye-for-an-eye was not a workable approach to justice
Speak for yourself. For some offences, and with suitable qualification, I and a lot of others have no problem with euthanising animals from our society.
It is proven to work because it 100% guarantees a recidivism rate of 0% for those offenders.
and three lifetimes plus hundreds of years for an offense of twelve hours, no matter how awful those twelve hours may have been, goes so far beyond eye-for-an-eye...
And here you lose all credibility. Luckily for the rest of us, criminal activity is not judged on a per hour basis.
Well, your comment does include the solution. Algae can be grown at most latitudes and in most water. The waste from the process can be composted safely anywhere. What's not to like?
Unproven at any sort of scale, that's what.
Distribution of Vehicles and Persons per Household
Is this vehicles built, vehicles registered, or actual vehicles registered to indivuduals (as opposed to businesses)?
Also note that this is "vehicles" rather than "cars" so implies all the trucks, buses, tractors and boats that the transport dept has to deal with, including a huge chunk of business vehicles not used as personal transport.
So the "expense of the 2nd car" is already there.
Not conclusively.
The issue I have is that we're spending government money to buy YOU a solar system that you personally benefit from. It increases the value of your home and saves you money at taxpayer's expense.
But if you want to get pedantic, everything you do is at taxpayer expense, since taxpayers keep the borders secure, the water clean, and provide all the bits and pieces of everyday life that allow each of us to pursue our own personal interests.
>Think of it this way. Imagine if the government was willing to pay $400 of the payment.
Then you could say, "OMG, go lease a Leaf, they are only $40 a month!".
But that would be silly, wouldn't it?
Er, no. If it cost me $40/month then yes I'd be out on the streets telling everyone about it. Nothing silly about that, and nothing silly about stimulus packages when used appropriately either.
How about we also remove all those oil subsidies
Sure, I'd be happy to remove them all... except, there aren't any...
Well apart from the Trillions of dollars spent securing the oil. There is that cost that we all pay right?
I generally don't like encouraging such things however... the more the government spends, the more they have to tax.
That's the Austerity myth. If you spend money on growing your economy, you can actually spend more and tax less.
You keep pitching that, but the government is just handing you other people's money.
They aren't 'just' passing money around. These incentives are helping to encourage a new industry that is generating new jobs, and putting food on people's tables. Those people also pay taxes and buy stuff which helps put food on other people's tables, and in turn generates more tax.
And let's not even go into the possible lives saved through less pollution in our cities.
So yeah you can pretend this is some evil conspiracy to simply redistribute wealth, which you will have no part of, or you can use the incentive for its intended purpose, supporting new technology and new industry, and giving everyone involved a leg up to help keep the country moving.
Cost and looks. That's all the magic there is in the formula.
Every electric vehicle I've seen except the Telsa looks like a turkey and costs twice as much as it's equivalent fossil fuel variant. Why would I bother?
Suggesting I'm racist for saying Vietnam could have been a first world country...
No you implied that Vietnam and Korea are the same, simply because they were both involved in conflict with the US. Now you're trying to wiggle out it with some personal attack.
Typical....
You don't understand there is a strategy.
Quite clearly the US administration doesn't either.
You're so fixated on the details that you don't see the wider picture.
I see that the terrorists are winning. Or is that all part of the masterplan when Iraq was invaded 12 years and a trillion dollars ago?
First... shut up... just for the sake of argument.
That's a good strategy. Let me know how that works out,
Second, actually back out from the situation and see it in the context of the proceeding 30 years... yes that exceeds the duration of the cold war to that point but understanding why the US got into the cold war is related to the build up to WW2.
I have, and it's still the most massive, poorly thought-out blunder in US military history, even bigger than Vietnam.
Third, grasp that the US whatever you might think of the US... the US saw itself at that point in time as "arsenal of freedom"... as the guardian and champion of the west.
No it didn't. The administration previous to Idiot & co dealt with the exact same problem yet had a whole lot more success.
Fourth, every war that isn't just reacting to an attack like Afghanistan happens according to a grander strategy.
And some of those are bad strategies
And even in those cases we come up with strategies very quickly. The whole concept of fighting terrorism by removing all their safe harbors in the world was a quick improvised strategy that the US came up with literally within weeks of being hit in 9/11.
Iraq was never a safe harbour for terrorists. Saddam had a reputation of executing extremists, and was recognised as a " a source for moderation in the region" - US Secretary of State James Kelly.
The idea of dismantling Saddam with no end-game was the worst excuse for a strategy I have ever heard of.
Even Republicans agree with this now.
And that encourages the US to put pressure on any state sponsors to either stop sponsoring terrorism or do something so they can't or otherwise stop doing it.
So they did something that made it a lot worse? That is your idea of strategy so awesome the rest of the world can't possibly understand it?
Vietnam specifically was encouraged by domino theory with the worry being that if vietnam fell the whole region would fall.
Once you understand that the US thinks in terms of these strategies, our actions become more comprehensible.
Yes we all know what they thought back in the 60's, but a lot of us learnt from that mistake. Well most of us except a few idiots running the show in 2001. They did the impossible and created an even bigger fuck-up than Vietnam
You might not agree with it still and it could well be stupid. BUT you at least understand what the US was thinking at the time. Very few commentators on US foreign policy especially as regards our wars are aware of how we actually think. And as such their analysis is not actually worth anything.
Which is why you continue to embarass yourselves with such ridiculous excuses for 'strategy'. Pro tip: learn from your mistakes, and you might win once in a while.
2,000 F-35s at 50k feet are just fine, and immune to drone attacks,
You don't have 2000, you have 150, because they cost so damn much. This is sort of my point. Any defence needs aircraft numbers in the thousands. Like the B2, the F35 will be too expensive to use and therefore pointless.
Almost none of aerial warfare since the Battle of Britain has turned on which side had better planes. It's all been about protecting your ground-based facilities.
That's right. The US has had the best planes since WW2 yet still hasn't won any major war since. Why do you think that is? Planes aren't such great defence against IEDs and suicide bombers.
Let me put on my evil villain hat and play this out (just for the sake of the discussion)
With a Drone swarm, you don't necessarily need a base, or an airfield. If I was an evil dictator, I'd have my forces already infiltrating the enemy nation as regular immigrants. Each agent could have a small drone in their garage, and launch it off their local street in a co-ordinated attack.
To add some diversity to the strategy I could have launchers built inside container ships and airliners, along with regular aircraft carriers or even frigates. 10,000 drones is then quite feasible, and mostly unstoppable with something like a F35 (Or F16, or B2 or other).
I'd have a similar strategy for micro drone subs to take out major maritime targets.
The swarm strategy is not designed to win dogfights, it bypasses the enemy defence altogether and hits targets before any reasonable defence is useful. (and can accept a massive attrition rate while still succeeding in its mission)
It might sound far-fetched but so did Pearl Harbour and 9/11 before it happened.
The issue seems to lie in the fact that established olde-worlde distributors own the right to all content, and continue to gain ownership of new content, so therefore have too much input into the conversation.
This war needs to be fought on two fronts, one the technical which seems more than capable of delivering, the other is to convince new producers not to sign over rights to anyone involved with the old 20th century distribution model. If there existed a distributor with a big enough war chest to buy new TV shows, movies and music, they could then be legally distributed through channels like Global Mode. As more content is added it becomes a legitimate competition to the old way of doing things. More content, wider distribution, bigger audience. This effectively ends the old industry monopoly and any legal avenue for shutting such a service down. The only catch is lower profits for individual producers, but ultimately I believe would be healthier situation for the industry as a whole.
It would effectively be like Uber for media.
Yes, but the F35 doesn't have that luxury, as demonstrated by USAF tests. So in a real world combat situation today, the F16 beats both the F35 and the Sopwith Camel.
I'm sure they'll fix the issues and in another 10 or so years the F35 will be fantastic. The unfortunate part is that by then we'll no longer need fighter planes, since drones will be able to maintain an air shield much more effectively and cheaply.
$1Trillion can buy you 400,000 Predator Drones. How do you think the F35 would cope with that sort of opposition?
but it's fighting and 1500-2000 fifth Gen fighters are more then the Chinese can handle.
Well about 150 at this stage. And the Chinese won't be fighting them because they'll all be on the ground with software issues.
It's no big deal because the rest of the fleet is more than capable of taking care of any other air force in the world right now, but it begs the question, why do we need these?
In an age of Drones and IEDs, what good as a super fighter in a modern war?
Fair enough if you've got nothing, but if you've already got the biggest and best air force, then wouldn't that money be better spent elsewhere? If I was a foreign force, I'd be investing in swarm technology. How will a $Trillion plane cope with 100,000 small disposable drones in a dogfight?
Never to their actual profit so far as I can see. Vietnam could have been South Korea.
You're showing your ignorance now. There's a shit-ton of cultural reasons why that wouldn't be the case, and to be unaware of that actually sounds a little racist.
Regardless, the US achieved its strategic goals and lost nothing it actually cared about.
Oh dear, The US lost 50000 of it's people for no reason and retreated with it's tail between it's legs in what is the biggest embarrassment in military history. Until Iraq.
I have friends in the military, they still laugh at the US military today because of it. Great hardware, piss poor execution. And it that wasn't bad enough, they went and repeated the same mistake in the Middle East.
Don't take this as American bashing, the world needs a strong America, and I'll happily take an American as an ally over most others, I just think there's some really poor decisions being made along the way. And because those decisions affect the rest of us, they need to lift their game.