This is something that can be easily figured out with statistics. Accident rates and serious injuries per miles driven in autopilot vs human. Unfortunately most people make decisions with gut feelings not detailed statistical analysis and politicians take advantage are very eager to score easy points with the mindless masses
And there's a logical reason for that. If you average out the life expectancy of the average human (70 years), would you opt to live for this many years plus one (71), or take your chances on making to the average in your local area (mine is 82)?
Surely 71 would be an improvement overall? Unless you are 72 or older that is...
.
For the past eight years the left has bitched and moaned about the right not respecting election results. So it is time to cowboy up, shut the fuck up and STOP FUCKING RIOTING LIKE A BUNCH OF SPOILED BRATS. Protest all you want but dont burn down homes and beat people to death just because your 'team' lost.
Drumph did not 'win', Clinton lost. This was all vote against Hillary. All the left had to do was put a paper bag up for President and it would have been President elect paper bag right now. So maybe stop blaming 'others' and start looking at yourself and what you were trying to support.
That's great, but maybe point your anger elsewhere. I am not a Hillary voter/supporter, I merely pointed out that Hillary in fact got the most votes.
Exaggerations of petroleum externalities are some of the most blatant propaganda out there.
What exaggeration? Fossil fuels are generally burnt as they are consumed, and that pollution costs lives. If those lives were included in the purchase price of fossil fuel it would cost more than non-fossil fuel options.
That's just factually wrong. The main political division in 19th century England was between the food producers and industrialists.
Right. So think about for a moment, politics in England prevented more food from being produced in England. Since this wasn't limiting food production in say China or the US, it is purely an issue of distribution. Just as politics in Africa prevents those starving kids from accessing the surplus food we have here.
Food only became plentiful in the 20th century...
When transport technology made it cheap and easy to distribute. There has always been enough food for survival growing on trees, in the ground, roaming fields, or swimming in the oceans, we've just never been able to get it where it needs to go most.
And furthermore, the problem stems mostly with developing nations and not the industrialized ones.
So the average Chinese person emits about a quarter the greenhouse gases that an American person does, and you're saying they are the problem? That's some awesome cognitive dissonance you got going on there bud...
Yeah, everyone switches to a substitute fuel that becomes comparatively less expensive long, long, long before they "run out" of the original fuel.
Maybe, maybe not. Right now we have no suitable substitute for oil. If it ran out in the next 10 years there is no complete substitute available (in some uses cases maybe, but not all). We know the peak oil argument, just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it can't happen prior to the next gen tech being ready. This is why we need to invest in new technology, so we do have substitutes when we need them. These things don't invent themselves.
No they won't. Pay attention and think for one minute.
The last bit costs an infinite amount to get to. No one will ever spend even close to an infinite amount. So there will always be considerably more than the last bit available.
Ok, ok, technically not run out, but for all intents and purposes it is no longer available for most people. The end result is the same.
The fact that the CO2 level in the atmosphere has been growing more slowly than expected, based on how much CO2 is being created due to human activity, is not new knowledge. We've known that's the case for several decades... but identifying the "sink" has been problematic.
Seems obvious to me and I called it out a while ago. A "Greenhouse effect" would do exactly what greenhouses were designed for, to make plants grow better. More plants means more CO2 consumption.
Liberals, self-proclaimed "tolerant" people, attack anyone who doesn't hold their values.
All of them? All of those types of people are all the same. Does that not sound strange when you say that out loud?
There's weirdos on all sides of the fence, but as soon as you buy into the us vs them, you become one of the weirdos.
Sssshhhh don't tell the Republicans.
I personally don't think Trump cares, his love of money and gold plating trumps any natural discrimination he might feel, however the Republicans he's in bed with don't think the same way. Abortions and gays are the most dangerous things in the Universe, so this will be interesting.
This was so crazy that I had to look it up. Turns out "hold a funeral" is "dispose of remains properly" -- the bill required that fetal remains be either interred or incinerated. Generally speaking that would be the responsibility of the healthcare facility in custody of the remains.
Tell me straight, is "require families to hold a funeral" truly the most accurate and reasonable way you could come up with to indicate the nature of the bill, or is it a purposeful deception?
I'm too lazy to look it up, and since you already have, can you tell me what the penalty was for not following this law?
The only reason I ask is that I know personally of cases of women having natural miscarriages (nature really is a bitch) in early stages and the disposal is merely a painful period and a couple of flushes of the toilet. Sounds terrible, but nature is terrible, I'd hate to think a rich white guy is trying to dictate how nature works, and would punish women because for merely being a victim of a relatively natural event.
None of what you said is remotely close to the majority of Christians believe, you are utterly clueless. Maybe you need to stop think Christians are all like Westboro cult.
Or Mike Pence, who you know is going to be the the actual VP....
Trump hasn't done anything yet. I'm sure there will be plenty of real things to criticize him about next year. Until then, it's all sore loser talk.
He's said a lot terrible things, and as a world leader that actually has real world effects. But yes, I agree let's let him actually fuck something up before we put the dogs on him. Just don't act surprised when this happens.
So? Trump sucks. But I prefer Trump to Hillary because:
- While Trump said nasty things about groups, Hillary said nasty things about groups that include me.
Which group is that specifically?
- Trump stood up to the political correctness bullies in the culture and the paid liars in the press.
Trump stood up to anyone who dared question him, and promoted a bully culture where you shouldn't ask questions. Trump has actually stated he wants libel laws so the press cannot ask these questions. You think this is better?
- If Hillary got elected, the press and bureaucrats would have helped her get away with continued corruption.
Fox News is the press isn't it? Breitbart? Drudge Report? WSJ? New York Post? You are saying that these outlets would not question a Democrat presidency?
And not sure who you think the 'bureaucrats' are? But a Republican Congress and Senate wouldn't exactly be Hillary sympathisers.
All the political pundits rediscovered checks and balances!
This is the biggest risk with Trump. Checks and balances rely on open media, FOI, transparency and accountability. Trump as openly made statements against these things, and worse demonstrated that he is against it by not disclosing his tax returns.
A President can be as extreme as they like, but accountability and transparency are a requirement for all Presidents regardless of political ideology.
I wait for the day when Trump voters find out that Trump is also part of a rich elite. That they will stay poor and have no jobs.
This is the problem with stupid people, they are too stupid to work this out, and will never work it out as he'll continue to shout loudly that it's someone else's fault.
We have a rich elitist 1%er telling the working class that he's on their side, and they fell for it hook line and sinker. It takes a special kind of stupid to get sucked into that one.
- but as this illustrates, your side engage in exactly the same tactics. And that is why American politics is broken:
It's broken because too may people think in terms of 'sides'. As soon as you frame the discussion as us and them we all lose.
Take the red and blue out of it, or your preconceived notion of 'sides'. The toilet is broken and we had the choice of a plumber with a flakey reputation, or a used car salesman, and we chose the used car salesman to fix our toilet. That is the reality we are in now.
I don't what goes through some people's heads, but this highlights the weaknesses of the democratic system. It only works if substantial amount of people are educated. Whether red or blue, we should all be able to agree that education standards need to vastly improve if we want a stronger democracy.
FWIW, since I support democracy I'll give Trump a chance as he won fair and square according to the system. But I don't be surprised if we end up with shit all over the floor.
I'm pretty sure most of us understand the Luddite obstructionism strategy quite well
Haha you are so funny. The guy stuck with 19th century energy model is calling people in the 21st century Luddites? Just think about that for a moment before you make a bigger ass of yourself...
Slashdot Mirror
This is something that can be easily figured out with statistics. Accident rates and serious injuries per miles driven in autopilot vs human. Unfortunately most people make decisions with gut feelings not detailed statistical analysis and politicians take advantage are very eager to score easy points with the mindless masses
And there's a logical reason for that. If you average out the life expectancy of the average human (70 years), would you opt to live for this many years plus one (71), or take your chances on making to the average in your local area (mine is 82)?
Surely 71 would be an improvement overall? Unless you are 72 or older that is...
99000 deaths is not enough for you?
This is a Republic, not a Democracy....
They are not mutually exclusive
have you people never even heard the pledge of allegiance????
Is that the thing that says you believe in a magic fairy who lives in the sky? Good luck with that...
. For the past eight years the left has bitched and moaned about the right not respecting election results. So it is time to cowboy up, shut the fuck up and STOP FUCKING RIOTING LIKE A BUNCH OF SPOILED BRATS. Protest all you want but dont burn down homes and beat people to death just because your 'team' lost. Drumph did not 'win', Clinton lost. This was all vote against Hillary. All the left had to do was put a paper bag up for President and it would have been President elect paper bag right now. So maybe stop blaming 'others' and start looking at yourself and what you were trying to support.
That's great, but maybe point your anger elsewhere. I am not a Hillary voter/supporter, I merely pointed out that Hillary in fact got the most votes.
Exaggerations of petroleum externalities are some of the most blatant propaganda out there.
What exaggeration? Fossil fuels are generally burnt as they are consumed, and that pollution costs lives. If those lives were included in the purchase price of fossil fuel it would cost more than non-fossil fuel options.
That's just factually wrong. The main political division in 19th century England was between the food producers and industrialists.
Right. So think about for a moment, politics in England prevented more food from being produced in England. Since this wasn't limiting food production in say China or the US, it is purely an issue of distribution. Just as politics in Africa prevents those starving kids from accessing the surplus food we have here.
Food only became plentiful in the 20th century...
When transport technology made it cheap and easy to distribute. There has always been enough food for survival growing on trees, in the ground, roaming fields, or swimming in the oceans, we've just never been able to get it where it needs to go most.
Food plants are now 15% more efficient than 30 years ago. Fewer hungry people! Widely known fact. Search youtube for "earth greening".
Food has never been a production issue, it has always been a distribution issue.
And furthermore, the problem stems mostly with developing nations and not the industrialized ones.
So the average Chinese person emits about a quarter the greenhouse gases that an American person does, and you're saying they are the problem? That's some awesome cognitive dissonance you got going on there bud...
That is utterly useless in the context of any reasonable voting system,
Er that is how a democracy works, ie most votes should win.
failure to get a majority means another round of voting not somebody winning.
You don't need a majority, you only need more than the others, and the fact remains, Hillary got the most votes.
Yeah, everyone switches to a substitute fuel that becomes comparatively less expensive long, long, long before they "run out" of the original fuel.
Maybe, maybe not. Right now we have no suitable substitute for oil. If it ran out in the next 10 years there is no complete substitute available (in some uses cases maybe, but not all). We know the peak oil argument, just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it can't happen prior to the next gen tech being ready. This is why we need to invest in new technology, so we do have substitutes when we need them. These things don't invent themselves.
No they won't. Pay attention and think for one minute.
The last bit costs an infinite amount to get to. No one will ever spend even close to an infinite amount. So there will always be considerably more than the last bit available.
Ok, ok, technically not run out, but for all intents and purposes it is no longer available for most people. The end result is the same.
Who cares. Can't those of us who choose not to engage in such fads be left in peace without a FB or Twitter story everyday? This isn't TMZ...
The fact that the CO2 level in the atmosphere has been growing more slowly than expected, based on how much CO2 is being created due to human activity, is not new knowledge. We've known that's the case for several decades... but identifying the "sink" has been problematic.
Seems obvious to me and I called it out a while ago. A "Greenhouse effect" would do exactly what greenhouses were designed for, to make plants grow better. More plants means more CO2 consumption.
Liberals, self-proclaimed "tolerant" people, attack anyone who doesn't hold their values.
All of them? All of those types of people are all the same. Does that not sound strange when you say that out loud?
There's weirdos on all sides of the fence, but as soon as you buy into the us vs them, you become one of the weirdos.
Yes, we intend to hold him to his promises.
How exactly?
When he shits on you, and make no mistake he will shit of everyone, what exactly are you going to do about it?
Homophobic? Isn't Peter Theil gay?
Sssshhhh don't tell the Republicans.
I personally don't think Trump cares, his love of money and gold plating trumps any natural discrimination he might feel, however the Republicans he's in bed with don't think the same way. Abortions and gays are the most dangerous things in the Universe, so this will be interesting.
This was so crazy that I had to look it up. Turns out "hold a funeral" is "dispose of remains properly" -- the bill required that fetal remains be either interred or incinerated. Generally speaking that would be the responsibility of the healthcare facility in custody of the remains.
Tell me straight, is "require families to hold a funeral" truly the most accurate and reasonable way you could come up with to indicate the nature of the bill, or is it a purposeful deception?
I'm too lazy to look it up, and since you already have, can you tell me what the penalty was for not following this law?
The only reason I ask is that I know personally of cases of women having natural miscarriages (nature really is a bitch) in early stages and the disposal is merely a painful period and a couple of flushes of the toilet. Sounds terrible, but nature is terrible, I'd hate to think a rich white guy is trying to dictate how nature works, and would punish women because for merely being a victim of a relatively natural event.
None of what you said is remotely close to the majority of Christians believe, you are utterly clueless. Maybe you need to stop think Christians are all like Westboro cult.
Or Mike Pence, who you know is going to be the the actual VP....
Trump hasn't done anything yet. I'm sure there will be plenty of real things to criticize him about next year. Until then, it's all sore loser talk.
He's said a lot terrible things, and as a world leader that actually has real world effects. But yes, I agree let's let him actually fuck something up before we put the dogs on him. Just don't act surprised when this happens.
So? Trump sucks. But I prefer Trump to Hillary because:
- While Trump said nasty things about groups, Hillary said nasty things about groups that include me.
Which group is that specifically?
- Trump stood up to the political correctness bullies in the culture and the paid liars in the press.
Trump stood up to anyone who dared question him, and promoted a bully culture where you shouldn't ask questions. Trump has actually stated he wants libel laws so the press cannot ask these questions. You think this is better?
- If Hillary got elected, the press and bureaucrats would have helped her get away with continued corruption.
Fox News is the press isn't it? Breitbart? Drudge Report? WSJ? New York Post? You are saying that these outlets would not question a Democrat presidency?
And not sure who you think the 'bureaucrats' are? But a Republican Congress and Senate wouldn't exactly be Hillary sympathisers.
All the political pundits rediscovered checks and balances!
This is the biggest risk with Trump. Checks and balances rely on open media, FOI, transparency and accountability. Trump as openly made statements against these things, and worse demonstrated that he is against it by not disclosing his tax returns.
A President can be as extreme as they like, but accountability and transparency are a requirement for all Presidents regardless of political ideology.
Well that makes it ok for Trump to do whatever he likes then. I thought he was going to drain the swamp, not fill it with even more shit?
I wait for the day when Trump voters find out that Trump is also part of a rich elite. That they will stay poor and have no jobs.
This is the problem with stupid people, they are too stupid to work this out, and will never work it out as he'll continue to shout loudly that it's someone else's fault. We have a rich elitist 1%er telling the working class that he's on their side, and they fell for it hook line and sinker. It takes a special kind of stupid to get sucked into that one.
- but as this illustrates, your side engage in exactly the same tactics. And that is why American politics is broken:
It's broken because too may people think in terms of 'sides'. As soon as you frame the discussion as us and them we all lose.
Take the red and blue out of it, or your preconceived notion of 'sides'. The toilet is broken and we had the choice of a plumber with a flakey reputation, or a used car salesman, and we chose the used car salesman to fix our toilet. That is the reality we are in now.
I don't what goes through some people's heads, but this highlights the weaknesses of the democratic system. It only works if substantial amount of people are educated. Whether red or blue, we should all be able to agree that education standards need to vastly improve if we want a stronger democracy.
FWIW, since I support democracy I'll give Trump a chance as he won fair and square according to the system. But I don't be surprised if we end up with shit all over the floor.
Fossil fuels don't 'run out' as such.
I get your point, but eventually they will in fact run out.
I'm pretty sure most of us understand the Luddite obstructionism strategy quite well
Haha you are so funny. The guy stuck with 19th century energy model is calling people in the 21st century Luddites? Just think about that for a moment before you make a bigger ass of yourself...