You know - the guy whose wife got almost $1 million from Hillary! cronies - while he was "investigating" Hillary!'s illegal email server.
Yes, Andrew McCabe, former Deputy Director of the FBI. A long-time and close Clinton ally, Terry McAuliffe, directed in total $760,00.00 to Jill McCabe's campaign for Virginia State Senate.
Jill McCabe's campaign appears to be have been a front for receiving a monetary bribe in exchange for obstructing or delaying the Clinton server-gate investigation past the presidential election. There is unquestionable evidence that he tried sitting on it:
$760,00.00 is an insane amount of money to donate for a state senate seat in Virginia, vastly disproportionate to both the value of the seat to the Democrat party and to what other candidates receive. What you need to know to understand that this was actually a monetary bribe directed to her husband is that in Virginia any money which is not spent on a campaign can be kept for personal use.
If we include the recent revelation that McCabe's signed the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campagin, it then appears that, all together, Hillary Clinton bribed McCabe at the least to:
- Help Hillary win the election by covering up or delaying revelation of evidence against her.
- Make false charges against Trump before the FISA court and then spy on the Trump campaign.
Clinton allies in the Obama administration gained access to secret FBI intelligence on Trump using hundreds of unmasking requests.
there is also the economics of having 3,000 employees having money to spend, paying a bit of taxes and not being on welfare or having to leave the area etc. It's not just pay out the money, the factory is built and the public loses the money. Let's also remember there were millions put into the local economy building the factory and going out to all those families and businesses who built the facility.
You missed the point. That happens regardless of whether the taxpayers get ripped off to fund it.
With one option, the taxpayers pay for part of the factory but do not then own and profit from what they pay for. With the other option, the taxpayers pay for part of the factory and do own and profit from what they pay for. With both options, you get "3,000 employees having money to spend, paying a bit of taxes and not being on welfare or having to leave the area etc." So which is the better option for taxpayers?
Tesla clearly got a handout from taxpayers. The form of a handout, whether it be favorable rent terms on a factory which NY owns, assumption of risk, gold bricks, cash or Apple App store gift cards is irrelevant.
You are trying to justify corporate welfare by claiming that particular forms of wealth transfer from taxpayers to corporations legitimizes corporate welfare. That is nonsense, because regardless of the form of the transfer, the tax payers are made worse off and the corporate owners made better off. There are clearly better deals for the tax payers, either that they purchase stock or that they not be forced to pay for a Tesla factory at all.
That is irrelevant. Whatever the salary and tax revenue figures, they are the same regardless of whether the tax payers are vested or whether, instead, they are forced to give away money to Tesla without receiving a share of ownership in return.
You missed out the bit where the employees get paid, and pay taxes.
With one option, the taxpayers pay for part of the factory but not then own and profit from what they pay for. With the other option, the taxpayers pay for part of the factory and do own and profit from what they pay for. With both options, employees get paid and pay taxes. So which is the better option for taxpayers?
By making that comparison, you can recognize that corporate welfare has no social benefit and that it is only a giveaway to the wealthy and politically well connected.
It's important to keep in mind here that the issue is not whether or not a solar panel factory should be built and whether the government should compel funding, instead it is who keeps the profits taxpayers are compelled to invest, those taxpayers footing the bill or Elon Musk and Tesla stockholders.
Should be changed to this:
It's important to keep in mind here that the issue is not whether or not a solar panel factory should be built and whether the government should compel funding, instead it is who keeps the profits, those taxpayers footing the bill or Elon Musk and Tesla stockholders.
Option 1: You pay $100.00 and you receive one share of the company. If the value of the company increases or decreases, the value of your own share increases or decreases proportionally. If the company fails, your stock will be worth nothing and you will have lost $100.00. If the company falls in value, your share could be worth $25.00 and you would have lost $75.00. If the company grows, you can re-sell your stock at higher price than you paid and keep the difference, less capital gains taxes. You could earn $0.01, $1.00, $10,000.00, or more. Additionally, should you chose, you can can purchase whatever products the company manufactures.
Option 2: You pay $100.00 and you receive nothing. If the value of the company increases or decreases, then you will still have nothing. If the company fails, you will have nothing. If the company falls in value, you will have nothing. If the company grows, you will have nothing. Additionally, should you chose, you can can purchase whatever products the company manufactures.
Only an idiot would voluntarily choose Option 2, which is is why that choice is taken only when a politician holds a gun to people's heads and demands it.
Economists call that socializing the risk and privatizing the profits, but in common parlance it's called a ripoff. It's important to keep in mind here that the issue is not whether or not a solar panel factory should be built and whether the government should compel funding, instead it is who keeps the profits taxpayers are compelled to invest, those taxpayers footing the bill or Elon Musk and Tesla stockholders. The government could, instead, either not fund Tesla or coercively fund Tesla and vest the tax payers. So don't dare say "But we need solar power to save the planet from global warming." That is a separate issue from who keeps the profits and a smokescreen for stealing from the public.
There is not a shred of evidence that reducing the burden of government through targeted gifts to favored mega-corporations is any better than uniformly lowering tax rates for all payers. The former is inherently unjust; All men are created equal, except for those who own mega-corporations? Don't dare say "But business is good for the economy." That is a separate issue from who keeps the profits and a smokescreen for stealing from the public.
The Republican Foxxconn deal in Wisconsin is a taxpayer swindle just like this Democrat Tesla deal in New York.
Finally, I would not beat on Elon Musk and Tesla for this. Companies rationally seek capital at the lowest rate, it's not their fault if the lowest rate is obtained from some crooked politician giving away my tax dollars. The remedy is for the public, both Democrats and Republicans, to stop voting for crooks.
The "Energiewende" is not a failure... Germany has steadily increased the share of renewable energy in the electricity mix.
Opinions differ. While "environmentalists" endorse that, it is opposed and regarded as a massive failure by people who care about the environment. Germany did not shut down all of their coal-burning power plants, instead they switched from burning coal to burning forests. That practice causes natural habitat destruction on a massive scale.
Generally, a helpful thing to keep in mind when when discussing energy and the environment is that renewable energy sources are not categorically good. Renewable=Good is stupid. Whale oil is renewable resource, should we go back to harvesting whales? Corn Ethanol is a renewable resource and its production uses about the same amount or more energy as it yields and promotes forest destruction, results in massive soil erosion causing river and stream pollution, places enormous amounts of toxic agri-chemicals in the environment and promotes food scarcity in third-world countries. Windmills murder birds, and so many that wind energy was only made viable in the U.S. because Obama gave the wind industry environmental waivers to murder American Eagles.
It is also important to keep in mind that though we depend on coal, coal is harmful. Though AGW alarmism is political propaganda supported by junk science, coal releases mercury and other toxins in quantities large enough to yield significant and measurable declines in human health and longevity. Mountain-top removal mining is an environmental disaster. It would be good to replace coal with cleaner energy, but let's not be idiots and replace it with worse energy sources because we are suckered by the environmentalist lobby. Switching to more energy efficient homes, electric cars, grid-scale storage, photovoltaics, natural gas and fission reactors would be net environmental gains and some of those continue to get cleaner and cheaper. R&D on new technologies on average has big efficiency and environmental payoffs, despite government preferentially funding losers and that no on particular technology is a sure win. But many incremental improvements and/or a big breakthrough like viable fusion reactors would move us off of coal.
1) Musk has explained that with very steep rates of growth small errors in predicting timing mean large errors in predicted output. If you are planning to ramp up from manufacturing a few prototypes to manufacturing 5,000 cars per week within a few months, then a one month delay means your estimated production is then off by a factor in the thousands.
2) He has warned, loudly, that this rapid growth is going to be rough. He calls it "Manufacturing Hell".
3) People notice because he is selling stuff so unique and so awesome that large numbers of people crave it. Would anyone even notice if the next redesign of the Cadillac Escalade ships a few months behind schedule? Ok, except maybe the people who hate it would celebrate.
4) The model 3 is scaled-down model S designed for faster and lower-cost manufacturing. It is not a blind leap into the unknown, it is as an incremental design. It is the fourth electric vehicle which Tesla has brought into commercial production. Predictions that manufacturing will fail seem insane.
It's important to call out CEO clownboatary but only when that is genuine. If you assess the production delays in context: Those are only consequence of going fast and you were all warned. Elon Musk seems on the up and up here.
Of course warrants should be mandated. Without monitoring and checks, the victims of police have little or no protection or legal recourse. To prevent abuse the police should be monitored and checked constantly in every way feasible while on the job. Here are just a few of the recent examples of police corruption and abuse.
So you provide either confused or disingenuous accounts of what actually appears at wattsupwiththat. And you are convinced that there is something very wrong with a science reporting blog because it reports changing evidence and competing theories over the years. That does not say anything about the future climate. It tells us that you fail on a basic level to comprehend science and honest reporting.
Some of your points seem to be your own miscomprehension of statements actually appearing on wattsup, or perhaps, if not sincere, then just lies which you made up. I've been reading it for years and never seen some of that there. You look like someone advocating for fake science using your own fake evidence. If you disagree, then provide links; You insisted those statements are all there, so show us.
The genuine contradictions at wattsupwiththat only look like science; developing evidence over time, multiple competing theories, some of which prevail while others are dismissed. Generally tumult, confusion contradiction and progress inching forward as scientists struggle to unravel enormous complexity.
Too much consistency can be a red flag and assertions of "settled science" by AGW fanatics are a confession of their own anti-scientific unwillingness to alter belief in light of new evidence and better theories. You will not see much internal contradiction in AGW fanatic propaganda. It does change: They accumulate more propaganda. Yet they never challenge a fundamental ideological conviction that mankind will destroy the world with CO2 emissions. Because they are always certain what is true, regardless of evidence or reason, with no allowable revisions contradicting the ideology, we see much greater consistency than with real science. Even after their models have mispredicted warming, they still believe the models. That's great consistency.
The old alarmist predictions of climate catastrophe have proven false again and again and again, so why do people believe the new ones?
You would expect that a group that consistently makes inaccurate predictions would lose credibility because of that and the public would stop believing what they say. Or, well, maybe not.
It wasn't that long ago that HIV/AIDS was spreading like wildfire on the African continent because there was a belief that HIV/AIDS could be cured by having sex with a virgin...
In broad terms, there is an argument that government should tune the mixture and sizes of corporations within markets so to maximize social efficiency or equity. On the other hand, there is the philosophical objection that individual liberty should take precedence, and that sub-optimal social outcomes must be accepted as a price for granting individuals liberty to make decisions on their own, free of coercion, because individual liberty is inherently preferred. The latter would not be unusual. For example, the liberty to eat refined sugar predominates over the public health benefits of its prohibition.
Regulation of mergers is a moot issue though, because the FTC bureaucrats have no real knowledge what are the consequences for the market of their dictates. It's all hocus-pocus. A larger corporation can benefit consumers by providing economies of scale and eliminating needles competition. Or it can harm consumers by reducing price competition. Which is declared by officials in what case is determined by political affiliations of the regulated and benefits the regulators choose to extort for a favored constituency. Edicts are not based on science, but a combination of inept meddling, political retaliation and extortion. Giving the FTC the power to block and restrict mergers is of no demonstrable benefit and only increases opportunities for corruption. It seems that regulation would be necessary to prevent monopolization before it forms because, historically, there have been some beneficial breakups of monopolies. The AT&T, Standard Oil, and railroad monopoly breackups stand out as convincing examples. But looking into the details, it turns out that those monopolies were created by government regulations to begin with, so that the the net effect of regulation was negative.
If CNN was genuinely opposed to this kind of regulatory meddling on principle, as opposed to acting as mouthpiece for the self-serving financial interests of it's corporate parent, it might have expressed some concern during 30+ years history of increasing intervention. Apparently, regulations apply to everyone else.
If Trump ordered this as hit on CNN (there is no evidence he did) ya, of course that is unjust. But this kind of things has been going for while. While the Obama administration was notorious for playing politics with regulatory policy, CNN never said a thing.
Electric buses are not particularly better than diesels on non-stop trips but have a great advantage in stop-and-go driving, so the summary is kind of odd how it plays those advantages up and down the other way around. I guess the point is that electrics are catching up on range now also.
With conventional busses, every stop to pick up or drop off passengers means more brake wear. Brakes are ablative and a big maintenance expense. Also, the bus is always idling and consuming fuel whether it is moving or not in stop-and-go traffic. In comparison, Electric buses use regenerative breaking and do not idle, advantages over diesels which increase with more frequent stops to pickup/drop off passengers and at intersections in the city. Neither of those special advantages come into play in one long, straight, uninterrupted drive; it's the comparison which shows the diesel bus at its relative best.
So busses are a special case which make electrics especially advantageous. In fact, projections are that for shuttle busses at airports, which drive short cyclical routes, even super capacitors would be practical; Because the route is a short cycle, even with a low charge capacity, the bus passes the charger before the capacitor depletes. Charging is almost instant and can occur when the vehicle is otherwise stopped at the terminal to drop off/pickup passengers, adding no additional delay. Also, the number of charger cycles of a super capacitor is much higher than a lithium battery.
Google has offered to display rival comparison shopping sites via an auction..but its proposal was roundly criticized by competitors as inadequate.
Well of course they did; Google's European competitors do not want a level playing field, they want one tilted for themselves. Because "EU enforcers" are biased in support of EU companies, these competitors know that they can achieve a better settlement for themselves than one balanced and so are rejecting the offer of a neutral process.
Regulatory outcomes depend on who holds political and financial influence over and among regulatory bodies as well as the ideology of the regulators. (See: regulatory capture). In Europe, Google is a foreign company, and the "EU First" attitude and internal EU political influence will prevail over principals of law and even-handedness.
Obama was born in Honolulu. When he was 2, his father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Kenyan, and his Kansas-born mother, Ann Dunham, separated and later divorced. Dunham later married Lolo Soetoro, who was a Muslim. In 1967, the family moved to Jakarta, where Obama lived from ages 6 to 10. People there knew him as Barry Soetoro.
Slashdot Mirror
You know - the guy whose wife got almost $1 million from Hillary! cronies - while he was "investigating" Hillary!'s illegal email server.
Yes, Andrew McCabe, former Deputy Director of the FBI. A long-time and close Clinton ally, Terry McAuliffe, directed in total $760,00.00 to Jill McCabe's campaign for Virginia State Senate.
FBI No. 2 did not disclose wife's ties to Clinton ally, records show
Clinton Ally Aided Campaign of FBI Official’s Wife
Bureau boss McCabe under Hatch Act investigation>
Jill McCabe's campaign appears to be have been a front for receiving a monetary bribe in exchange for obstructing or delaying the Clinton server-gate investigation past the presidential election. There is unquestionable evidence that he tried sitting on it:
Justice Department investigating McCabe’s handling of Clinton email probe
McCabe, FBI Knew About More Clinton Emails Well Before Comey's Announcement in 2016.
Washington Post: IG was investigating why McCabe appeared not to act on Weiner emails
$760,00.00 is an insane amount of money to donate for a state senate seat in Virginia, vastly disproportionate to both the value of the seat to the Democrat party and to what other candidates receive. What you need to know to understand that this was actually a monetary bribe directed to her husband is that in Virginia any money which is not spent on a campaign can be kept for personal use.
Leftover campaign money can fund almost anything in Virginia
If we include the recent revelation that McCabe's signed the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campagin, it then appears that, all together, Hillary Clinton bribed McCabe at the least to:
- Help Hillary win the election by covering up or delaying revelation of evidence against her.
- Make false charges against Trump before the FISA court and then spy on the Trump campaign.
Clinton allies in the Obama administration gained access to secret FBI intelligence on Trump using hundreds of unmasking requests.
You can't fit a decent FM radio antenna inside a phone...
Yes you can.
there is also the economics of having 3,000 employees having money to spend, paying a bit of taxes and not being on welfare or having to leave the area etc. It's not just pay out the money, the factory is built and the public loses the money. Let's also remember there were millions put into the local economy building the factory and going out to all those families and businesses who built the facility.
You missed the point. That happens regardless of whether the taxpayers get ripped off to fund it.
With one option, the taxpayers pay for part of the factory but do not then own and profit from what they pay for. With the other option, the taxpayers pay for part of the factory and do own and profit from what they pay for. With both options, you get "3,000 employees having money to spend, paying a bit of taxes and not being on welfare or having to leave the area etc." So which is the better option for taxpayers?
[stock shares] have to be issued, if Tesla is to get any new capital, not bought on the secondary market.
Of course. And the problem with Tesla issuing stock is what?
...NY OWNS THE FUCKING FACTORY.
Tesla clearly got a handout from taxpayers. The form of a handout, whether it be favorable rent terms on a factory which NY owns, assumption of risk, gold bricks, cash or Apple App store gift cards is irrelevant.
You are trying to justify corporate welfare by claiming that particular forms of wealth transfer from taxpayers to corporations legitimizes corporate welfare. That is nonsense, because regardless of the form of the transfer, the tax payers are made worse off and the corporate owners made better off. There are clearly better deals for the tax payers, either that they purchase stock or that they not be forced to pay for a Tesla factory at all.
Sure but let's look at some values here....
That is irrelevant. Whatever the salary and tax revenue figures, they are the same regardless of whether the tax payers are vested or whether, instead, they are forced to give away money to Tesla without receiving a share of ownership in return.
You missed out the bit where the employees get paid, and pay taxes.
With one option, the taxpayers pay for part of the factory but not then own and profit from what they pay for. With the other option, the taxpayers pay for part of the factory and do own and profit from what they pay for. With both options, employees get paid and pay taxes. So which is the better option for taxpayers?
By making that comparison, you can recognize that corporate welfare has no social benefit and that it is only a giveaway to the wealthy and politically well connected.
Sorry, this:
Should be changed to this:
You can choose between two investments:
Option 1: You pay $100.00 and you receive one share of the company. If the value of the company increases or decreases, the value of your own share increases or decreases proportionally. If the company fails, your stock will be worth nothing and you will have lost $100.00. If the company falls in value, your share could be worth $25.00 and you would have lost $75.00. If the company grows, you can re-sell your stock at higher price than you paid and keep the difference, less capital gains taxes. You could earn $0.01, $1.00, $10,000.00, or more. Additionally, should you chose, you can can purchase whatever products the company manufactures.
Option 2: You pay $100.00 and you receive nothing. If the value of the company increases or decreases, then you will still have nothing. If the company fails, you will have nothing. If the company falls in value, you will have nothing. If the company grows, you will have nothing. Additionally, should you chose, you can can purchase whatever products the company manufactures.
Only an idiot would voluntarily choose Option 2, which is is why that choice is taken only when a politician holds a gun to people's heads and demands it.
Economists call that socializing the risk and privatizing the profits, but in common parlance it's called a ripoff. It's important to keep in mind here that the issue is not whether or not a solar panel factory should be built and whether the government should compel funding, instead it is who keeps the profits taxpayers are compelled to invest, those taxpayers footing the bill or Elon Musk and Tesla stockholders. The government could, instead, either not fund Tesla or coercively fund Tesla and vest the tax payers. So don't dare say "But we need solar power to save the planet from global warming." That is a separate issue from who keeps the profits and a smokescreen for stealing from the public.
There is not a shred of evidence that reducing the burden of government through targeted gifts to favored mega-corporations is any better than uniformly lowering tax rates for all payers. The former is inherently unjust; All men are created equal, except for those who own mega-corporations? Don't dare say "But business is good for the economy." That is a separate issue from who keeps the profits and a smokescreen for stealing from the public.
The Republican Foxxconn deal in Wisconsin is a taxpayer swindle just like this Democrat Tesla deal in New York.
Finally, I would not beat on Elon Musk and Tesla for this. Companies rationally seek capital at the lowest rate, it's not their fault if the lowest rate is obtained from some crooked politician giving away my tax dollars. The remedy is for the public, both Democrats and Republicans, to stop voting for crooks.
The "Energiewende" is not a failure... Germany has steadily increased the share of renewable energy in the electricity mix.
Opinions differ. While "environmentalists" endorse that, it is opposed and regarded as a massive failure by people who care about the environment. Germany did not shut down all of their coal-burning power plants, instead they switched from burning coal to burning forests. That practice causes natural habitat destruction on a massive scale.
Generally, a helpful thing to keep in mind when when discussing energy and the environment is that renewable energy sources are not categorically good. Renewable=Good is stupid. Whale oil is renewable resource, should we go back to harvesting whales? Corn Ethanol is a renewable resource and its production uses about the same amount or more energy as it yields and promotes forest destruction, results in massive soil erosion causing river and stream pollution, places enormous amounts of toxic agri-chemicals in the environment and promotes food scarcity in third-world countries. Windmills murder birds, and so many that wind energy was only made viable in the U.S. because Obama gave the wind industry environmental waivers to murder American Eagles.
It is also important to keep in mind that though we depend on coal, coal is harmful. Though AGW alarmism is political propaganda supported by junk science, coal releases mercury and other toxins in quantities large enough to yield significant and measurable declines in human health and longevity. Mountain-top removal mining is an environmental disaster. It would be good to replace coal with cleaner energy, but let's not be idiots and replace it with worse energy sources because we are suckered by the environmentalist lobby. Switching to more energy efficient homes, electric cars, grid-scale storage, photovoltaics, natural gas and fission reactors would be net environmental gains and some of those continue to get cleaner and cheaper. R&D on new technologies on average has big efficiency and environmental payoffs, despite government preferentially funding losers and that no on particular technology is a sure win. But many incremental improvements and/or a big breakthrough like viable fusion reactors would move us off of coal.
1) Musk has explained that with very steep rates of growth small errors in predicting timing mean large errors in predicted output. If you are planning to ramp up from manufacturing a few prototypes to manufacturing 5,000 cars per week within a few months, then a one month delay means your estimated production is then off by a factor in the thousands.
2) He has warned, loudly, that this rapid growth is going to be rough. He calls it "Manufacturing Hell".
3) People notice because he is selling stuff so unique and so awesome that large numbers of people crave it. Would anyone even notice if the next redesign of the Cadillac Escalade ships a few months behind schedule? Ok, except maybe the people who hate it would celebrate.
4) The model 3 is scaled-down model S designed for faster and lower-cost manufacturing. It is not a blind leap into the unknown, it is as an incremental design. It is the fourth electric vehicle which Tesla has brought into commercial production. Predictions that manufacturing will fail seem insane.
It's important to call out CEO clownboatary but only when that is genuine. If you assess the production delays in context: Those are only consequence of going fast and you were all warned. Elon Musk seems on the up and up here.
"Yeti" is the word for bear in the local language.
Of course warrants should be mandated. Without monitoring and checks, the victims of police have little or no protection or legal recourse. To prevent abuse the police should be monitored and checked constantly in every way feasible while on the job. Here are just a few of the recent examples of police corruption and abuse.
- In Denver, the police are stealing cars.
- In New York, police handcuffed and raped a teenager. Then over a dozen other cops threatened the victim to prevent her from reporting the crime.
- Police steal more than criminals.
- In Utah a cop who assaulted and arrested a nurse for objecting to his inappropriate demands to draw blood from a suspect.
- In Los Angeles a cop was caught by his own body cam planting drugs on a suspect.
So you provide either confused or disingenuous accounts of what actually appears at wattsupwiththat. And you are convinced that there is something very wrong with a science reporting blog because it reports changing evidence and competing theories over the years. That does not say anything about the future climate. It tells us that you fail on a basic level to comprehend science and honest reporting.
Some of your points seem to be your own miscomprehension of statements actually appearing on wattsup, or perhaps, if not sincere, then just lies which you made up. I've been reading it for years and never seen some of that there. You look like someone advocating for fake science using your own fake evidence. If you disagree, then provide links; You insisted those statements are all there, so show us.
The genuine contradictions at wattsupwiththat only look like science; developing evidence over time, multiple competing theories, some of which prevail while others are dismissed. Generally tumult, confusion contradiction and progress inching forward as scientists struggle to unravel enormous complexity.
Too much consistency can be a red flag and assertions of "settled science" by AGW fanatics are a confession of their own anti-scientific unwillingness to alter belief in light of new evidence and better theories. You will not see much internal contradiction in AGW fanatic propaganda. It does change: They accumulate more propaganda. Yet they never challenge a fundamental ideological conviction that mankind will destroy the world with CO2 emissions. Because they are always certain what is true, regardless of evidence or reason, with no allowable revisions contradicting the ideology, we see much greater consistency than with real science. Even after their models have mispredicted warming, they still believe the models. That's great consistency.
The old alarmist predictions of climate catastrophe have proven false again and again and again, so why do people believe the new ones?
You would expect that a group that consistently makes inaccurate predictions would lose credibility because of that and the public would stop believing what they say. Or, well, maybe not.
from the /. summary:
Amazon is giving Whole Foods shoppers an early gift for the holidays.
Malarkey. Discounts are a pricing strategy to maximize profits.
"What is Discount Pricing Strategy"
It wasn't that long ago that HIV/AIDS was spreading like wildfire on the African continent because there was a belief that HIV/AIDS could be cured by having sex with a virgin...
additional examples:
Penis-Snatching Panics Resurface in Africa.
Witch doctors sacrificing children in this drought-stricken African country
Malawi Police Arrest 140 After Mob Attacks on 'Vampires'
In broad terms, there is an argument that government should tune the mixture and sizes of corporations within markets so to maximize social efficiency or equity. On the other hand, there is the philosophical objection that individual liberty should take precedence, and that sub-optimal social outcomes must be accepted as a price for granting individuals liberty to make decisions on their own, free of coercion, because individual liberty is inherently preferred. The latter would not be unusual. For example, the liberty to eat refined sugar predominates over the public health benefits of its prohibition.
Regulation of mergers is a moot issue though, because the FTC bureaucrats have no real knowledge what are the consequences for the market of their dictates. It's all hocus-pocus. A larger corporation can benefit consumers by providing economies of scale and eliminating needles competition. Or it can harm consumers by reducing price competition. Which is declared by officials in what case is determined by political affiliations of the regulated and benefits the regulators choose to extort for a favored constituency. Edicts are not based on science, but a combination of inept meddling, political retaliation and extortion. Giving the FTC the power to block and restrict mergers is of no demonstrable benefit and only increases opportunities for corruption. It seems that regulation would be necessary to prevent monopolization before it forms because, historically, there have been some beneficial breakups of monopolies. The AT&T, Standard Oil, and railroad monopoly breackups stand out as convincing examples. But looking into the details, it turns out that those monopolies were created by government regulations to begin with, so that the the net effect of regulation was negative.
If CNN was genuinely opposed to this kind of regulatory meddling on principle, as opposed to acting as mouthpiece for the self-serving financial interests of it's corporate parent, it might have expressed some concern during 30+ years history of increasing intervention. Apparently, regulations apply to everyone else.
If Trump ordered this as hit on CNN (there is no evidence he did) ya, of course that is unjust. But this kind of things has been going for while. While the Obama administration was notorious for playing politics with regulatory policy, CNN never said a thing.
Electric buses are not particularly better than diesels on non-stop trips but have a great advantage in stop-and-go driving, so the summary is kind of odd how it plays those advantages up and down the other way around. I guess the point is that electrics are catching up on range now also.
With conventional busses, every stop to pick up or drop off passengers means more brake wear. Brakes are ablative and a big maintenance expense. Also, the bus is always idling and consuming fuel whether it is moving or not in stop-and-go traffic. In comparison, Electric buses use regenerative breaking and do not idle, advantages over diesels which increase with more frequent stops to pickup/drop off passengers and at intersections in the city. Neither of those special advantages come into play in one long, straight, uninterrupted drive; it's the comparison which shows the diesel bus at its relative best.
So busses are a special case which make electrics especially advantageous. In fact, projections are that for shuttle busses at airports, which drive short cyclical routes, even super capacitors would be practical; Because the route is a short cycle, even with a low charge capacity, the bus passes the charger before the capacitor depletes. Charging is almost instant and can occur when the vehicle is otherwise stopped at the terminal to drop off/pickup passengers, adding no additional delay. Also, the number of charger cycles of a super capacitor is much higher than a lithium battery.
The only problem is you can only disable the button and can't point it to another app.
If you make it angry then it points to the Ferrigno app.
from the /. summary:
Google has offered to display rival comparison shopping sites via an auction..but its proposal was roundly criticized by competitors as inadequate.
Well of course they did; Google's European competitors do not want a level playing field, they want one tilted for themselves. Because "EU enforcers" are biased in support of EU companies, these competitors know that they can achieve a better settlement for themselves than one balanced and so are rejecting the offer of a neutral process.
Regulatory outcomes depend on who holds political and financial influence over and among regulatory bodies as well as the ideology of the regulators. (See: regulatory capture). In Europe, Google is a foreign company, and the "EU First" attitude and internal EU political influence will prevail over principals of law and even-handedness.
360 degree turn? why was he flying in a circle?
here:
Captain Piché had to execute one 360 degree turn, and then a series of "S" turns, to dissipate excess altitude.
I don't know about LSD, but Eric Raymond makes a plausible case for modafinil.
AC wrote:
His name was Barack Obama. Not Barry, you ass.
from the LA Times:
Wtf is a "medicament"?
"It is a damn poor mind indeed which can't think of at least two ways to spell any word."
-- Andrew Jackson