Funny I think I would rather wait 26hrs for a fractured arm (can't say I have ever had that kind of a wait in Canadian ER though) then having to sell my house just to pay for the hospital bill.
So please, don't say our system is better than in the US. People are not dying in the streets up here, but when you have a condition, you better be patient. A patient patient.
The reason we don't have people dying in the streets up here is because some of the more minor problem need to wait (its call triage). If you really aren't that patient for a non-life threatening problem you could always go to a hospital in the US (be sure to bring your credit card).
So you want people to have the right to live their own lives as they see fit but you don't want them to be able to vote for their own government representatives?
So what exactly does market cap have to do with how greedy a company is?
I could set up a small company that only has a market cap of $1mill. That company could still sell widgets for $1000 a pop that only cost $1 to produce.
I could set up a second company that is privately held (so no market cap) that sells widgets for $100 but those widgets may cost $90 to produce.
Are you sure it is $100/GB for overage? I haven't seen any plan in Canada that has this high a charge for overage. Bell does have a $100 cap on overage but the actual rate is $4/GB. For Telus it looks like they do overage in "buckets" ($5 for first 50GB, $10 for second 50GB). Rogers looks to have $3/GB overage charge (also capped at $100).
And who exactly controlled the actual purse strings at the time? You do realize the president doesn't really have all that much control over what is passed into law?
Obama had to contend with a congress that simply refused to even consider most of his ideas. It was a fight to get ACA passed even though it is basically a republican health plan. Sure it is called Obamacare but how much of the final law was what Obama really wanted it to be?
Sadly, Obama's nuttiness wasn't limited to tweeting or picking fights with his minions, he screwed us over with bailouts,
That were paid back with interest.
monetary policy,
That got us out of a recession.
race baiting, and cronyism.
Can't say I remember any race baiting (sure your not thinking of Trump here?) and cronyism is kind of a political thing (Trump manages this just fine as well).
It's a shame that there weren't any Democrats trying to contain a blowhard nut in the last administration; but that's because the last blowhard nut paid off his corrupt entourage handsomely.
Could you remind me of the Obama early morning bat shit crazy tweets again. I seem to have forgotten about them.
Other than Trump saying quotes are fabricated do you have any other references that Woodward "has been proven to have no problem with fabricating quotes"?
Most of the folks I know believe the warming we've experienced is a natural cycle tied to the solar cycles and the fact we're still coming out of the last ice age. They can't buy the crap that says one little molecule out of 2500 that can only absorb at most 11% of black body radiation is the cause.
Its nice that you rely on what folks you know believe rather than letting things like facts get in the way.
Our issue is that if CO2 were actually the cause of this then the proposed solutions are for the capitalistic industrialized nations to change their societies in a negative, costly manner and move away from capitalism.
So there is no capital in coming up with energy solutions that don't rely on fossil fuels? Why does the change from fossil fuel to more sustainable energy have to "change their societies in a negative way"? I'll agree that it may be costly in the short term but isn't the whole idea of capitalism to capitalize these types of situations? The other thing is who is it costly for. It will be costly for those people/companies that built their fortunes on fossil fuels but it might just be very profitable for those people that embrace alternative energies. Moving to clean energy doesn't mean moving away from capitalism.
So we're not skeptical of warming, we're skeptical of you who claim it is because of CO2, coincidentally the one green house gas produced by an advanced industrial society.
Just because we have advanced as a society by exploiting energy that produces CO2 doesn't mean that CO2 is "the one green house gas produced by an advanced industrial society". I'm sure if we try hard enough we could come up with another green house gas that can produce an advanced industrial society (or maybe we could just skip the whole greenhouse gas thing altogether).
Since you didn't seem to want to look up my earlier reply here it is.
This is actually the whole problem. Congress has not given the Internet common carrier status. When the Internet was primarily delivered over the telephone system (DSL and dial-up) the Internet was sort of given common carrier status only because the telephone system was classified as a common carrier. Cable systems never had common carrier status so ISPs that provided Internet access did not fall under common carrier rules.
In 1996, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 codified a distinction that had already been essentially the practice of the FCC between 1980 and 1996. Services that rely on the existence of the network (e.g. websites and pay-per-call 900 services) were to be classified under Title I (information services); the transmission of those services over the existing telephone network would remain Title II (common carrier). This makes perfect sense: websites aren’t transporting your data anywhere—they receive your request and respond to it; the ISP transports those requests and responses. However, the 1996 act abstained from classifying the new cable broadband Internet Service Providers under Title II, leaving this new “high speed” Internet industry essentially unregulated. In addition to this lack of classification, the 1996 law sought to reduce regulatory barriers to entry in both telecom and broadband by softening the laws of the previous regime as set in the 1934 act.
You keep stating that the Internet is set as common carrier under law. This is false. It is also false that ISPs are set as common carrier under the law. The telephone system is set as common carrier so if you are getting your Internet access via the phone system then your Internet is sort of covered by common carrier requirement but if you get your Internet via cable there is no common carrier status.
This is actually the whole problem. Congress has not given the Internet common carrier status. When the Internet was primarily delivered over the telephone system (DSL and dial-up) the Internet was sort of given common carrier status only because the telephone system was classified as a common carrier. Cable systems never had common carrier status so ISPs that provided Internet access did not fall under common carrier rules.
In 1996, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 codified a distinction that had already been essentially the practice of the FCC between 1980 and 1996. Services that rely on the existence of the network (e.g. websites and pay-per-call 900 services) were to be classified under Title I (information services); the transmission of those services over the existing telephone network would remain Title II (common carrier). This makes perfect sense: websites aren’t transporting your data anywhere—they receive your request and respond to it; the ISP transports those requests and responses. However, the 1996 act abstained from classifying the new cable broadband Internet Service Providers under Title II, leaving this new “high speed” Internet industry essentially unregulated. In addition to this lack of classification, the 1996 law sought to reduce regulatory barriers to entry in both telecom and broadband by softening the laws of the previous regime as set in the 1934 act.
If the rule was arbitrarily passed by a committee, (which at the time admitted may be overstepping bounds) what legal argument do you have when they undo it? its inconvenient? I understand it is a popular position, but this should be handled long term with legislation as several states have done.
It is fine for the states to come up with their own net neutrality rules but then Trump will just decide that the states don't have the authority to make those rules (as he has already done).
Do you recall Google fighting for net neutrality ? Do you recall the premise that no company should control what users could see on the internet. I am fine with them censoring and acting as a publisher, they just have abandon the protections they enjoy as a neutral conduit that doesn't publish.
You do know what net neutrality is don't you? From that statement it doesn't appear you do. Net neutrality has nothing to do with companies controlling what is on a particular site (other than the sites owner) but about the connections between those sites and the viewer.
If you are so eager to have some one "find salient examples of my assertion that the mainstream media relies on "provably false statements and assumptions.", you are not, no, you are not even trying. And I cannot change that. There is no lack of sources for this, credible sources, some even nonpartisan. Go and look." maybe you should just post a link to said proof? It couldn't be that "you are not, no, you are not even trying".
Complaining that I'm not making my point is actually a result of the mainstream media successfully burying, subverting, and discrediting such facts, and they are factual, based on Congressional testimony and federal agency data.
So are the facts easy to find or is the "mainstream media successfully burying" it?
Incandescent bulbs are the least "natural" light. This is assuming by natural you mean sunlight. If by natural you mean "what I am used to" then I guess I will buy that. The light of incandescent bulbs is on the yellow end of the spectrum (yes I know you can get daylight incandescent bulb talking in generality here). The "sterile like warehouse/hospital fluorescents" lights are toward the blue end of the spectrum. Sunlight tends to be closer to the "sterile like warehouse/hospital fluorescents" color temperature than the light of incandescent bulbs.
As to your anecdote on the firehouse incandescent bulb, let's just wait a hundred years to see if there are any LEDs that are still running before we praise one over the other.
incandescent light - 2700K-3000K (you can get cool white and bright white in the 4000K-6000K as well) led light - 4100K (you can find LEDs in all ranges 2700K-6500K) sunlight - 5000K-5500K (at midday)
I've yet to see a CFL or LED bulb that lasts as long as incandescent bulbs in the US. I've used several brands and wattage's. What's most frustrating about the new LEDs is they're all advertised as '10 year bulbs' but have a 1 year warranty, then die in 9 months.
The higher cost per bulb is simply not worth the savings in my electric bill, especially with constantly rising rates.
So if the bulb dies after 9 month get a replacement under warranty. Extending the warranty to 10 years wouldn't help your bulb that died after only 9 months.
A typical CFL lights has about 4mg of mercury (Hg). A typical thermometer has about 500mg Hg.
Unless you are breaking A LOT of CFLs inside the amount of mercury is negligible. Removing that small amount of mercury from the environment does have a net cumulative effect though (i.e. the total amount of Hg in all CFLs isn't negligible).
So the major problem with your argument, "Halogen is bad because of UV and that causes cancer" is that though it is true Halogen light creates UV, ultraviolet can't go through glass, and since most bulbs are made of glass specifically doped to block UV, your argument (presumably promoting LED) that "Halogen is bad because of UV" turns out to be a straw man argument (UV [i]is[/i] bad, though Halogen does produce UV, it is surrounded (generally, some bulbs are not doped) by UV blocking glass).
You realize the article you posted doesn't say anything concrete about glass blocking UV (only passingly talks about UV and glass at all)? The fact is that only UVB is blocked by glass. UVA can pass through glass but a UVA blocker coating can handle that.
That should be an incandescent bulb has been on that long. I also don't think you would want to do much reading around that bulb (as I recall it is rather dim and has a very yellow hue).
Strictly speaking the states do amend the constitution (well are part of the process at least). No amendments to the constitution can be passed without the states involvement.
There are actually four ways. (1) Both houses propose an amendment with a two-thirds vote, and three-fourths of the state legislatures approve. Twenty-six of the 27 amendments were approved in this manner. (2) Both houses propose an amendment with a two-thirds vote, and three-fourths of the states approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. Only the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition, was passed in this manner. (3) Two-thirds of the state legislatures call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention, and three-fourths of the state legislatures approve the amendment. (4) Two-thirds of the state legislatures call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention, and three-fourths of the states approve the amendment via ratifying conventions.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny I think I would rather wait 26hrs for a fractured arm (can't say I have ever had that kind of a wait in Canadian ER though) then having to sell my house just to pay for the hospital bill.
So please, don't say our system is better than in the US. People are not dying in the streets up here, but when you have a condition, you better be patient. A patient patient.
The reason we don't have people dying in the streets up here is because some of the more minor problem need to wait (its call triage). If you really aren't that patient for a non-life threatening problem you could always go to a hospital in the US (be sure to bring your credit card).
So you want people to have the right to live their own lives as they see fit but you don't want them to be able to vote for their own government representatives?
So I guess pharmaceutical companies don't "sell shit to nobody". 8^)
I realize my examples are extreme but the basic concept does hold with companies like big pharma.
So what exactly does market cap have to do with how greedy a company is?
I could set up a small company that only has a market cap of $1mill. That company could still sell widgets for $1000 a pop that only cost $1 to produce.
I could set up a second company that is privately held (so no market cap) that sells widgets for $100 but those widgets may cost $90 to produce.
Which one is more greedy?
Are you sure it is $100/GB for overage? I haven't seen any plan in Canada that has this high a charge for overage. Bell does have a $100 cap on overage but the actual rate is $4/GB. For Telus it looks like they do overage in "buckets" ($5 for first 50GB, $10 for second 50GB). Rogers looks to have $3/GB overage charge (also capped at $100).
And who exactly controlled the actual purse strings at the time? You do realize the president doesn't really have all that much control over what is passed into law?
Obama had to contend with a congress that simply refused to even consider most of his ideas. It was a fight to get ACA passed even though it is basically a republican health plan. Sure it is called Obamacare but how much of the final law was what Obama really wanted it to be?
Carousel or sleep shop?
No GST is a Goods and Services Tax, VAT is a Value Added Tax. The GST is applied whether there is any added value or not. :-)
Sadly, Obama's nuttiness wasn't limited to tweeting or picking fights with his minions, he screwed us over with bailouts,
That were paid back with interest.
monetary policy,
That got us out of a recession.
race baiting, and cronyism.
Can't say I remember any race baiting (sure your not thinking of Trump here?) and cronyism is kind of a political thing (Trump manages this just fine as well).
It's a shame that there weren't any Democrats trying to contain a blowhard nut in the last administration; but that's because the last blowhard nut paid off his corrupt entourage handsomely.
Could you remind me of the Obama early morning bat shit crazy tweets again. I seem to have forgotten about them.
Other than Trump saying quotes are fabricated do you have any other references that Woodward "has been proven to have no problem with fabricating quotes"?
Most of the folks I know believe the warming we've experienced is a natural cycle tied to the solar cycles and the fact we're still coming out of the last ice age. They can't buy the crap that says one little molecule out of 2500 that can only absorb at most 11% of black body radiation is the cause.
Its nice that you rely on what folks you know believe rather than letting things like facts get in the way.
Our issue is that if CO2 were actually the cause of this then the proposed solutions are for the capitalistic industrialized nations to change their societies in a negative, costly manner and move away from capitalism.
So there is no capital in coming up with energy solutions that don't rely on fossil fuels? Why does the change from fossil fuel to more sustainable energy have to "change their societies in a negative way"? I'll agree that it may be costly in the short term but isn't the whole idea of capitalism to capitalize these types of situations? The other thing is who is it costly for. It will be costly for those people/companies that built their fortunes on fossil fuels but it might just be very profitable for those people that embrace alternative energies. Moving to clean energy doesn't mean moving away from capitalism.
So we're not skeptical of warming, we're skeptical of you who claim it is because of CO2, coincidentally the one green house gas produced by an advanced industrial society.
Just because we have advanced as a society by exploiting energy that produces CO2 doesn't mean that CO2 is "the one green house gas produced by an advanced industrial society". I'm sure if we try hard enough we could come up with another green house gas that can produce an advanced industrial society (or maybe we could just skip the whole greenhouse gas thing altogether).
Since you didn't seem to want to look up my earlier reply here it is.
This is actually the whole problem. Congress has not given the Internet common carrier status. When the Internet was primarily delivered over the telephone system (DSL and dial-up) the Internet was sort of given common carrier status only because the telephone system was classified as a common carrier. Cable systems never had common carrier status so ISPs that provided Internet access did not fall under common carrier rules.
In 1996, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 codified a distinction that had already been essentially the practice of the FCC between 1980 and 1996. Services that rely on the existence of the network (e.g. websites and pay-per-call 900 services) were to be classified under Title I (information services); the transmission of those services over the existing telephone network would remain Title II (common carrier). This makes perfect sense: websites aren’t transporting your data anywhere—they receive your request and respond to it; the ISP transports those requests and responses. However, the 1996 act abstained from classifying the new cable broadband Internet Service Providers under Title II, leaving this new “high speed” Internet industry essentially unregulated. In addition to this lack of classification, the 1996 law sought to reduce regulatory barriers to entry in both telecom and broadband by softening the laws of the previous regime as set in the 1934 act.
https://medium.com/@TebbaVonMa... [medium.com]
Flag as Inappropriate
You keep stating that the Internet is set as common carrier under law. This is false. It is also false that ISPs are set as common carrier under the law. The telephone system is set as common carrier so if you are getting your Internet access via the phone system then your Internet is sort of covered by common carrier requirement but if you get your Internet via cable there is no common carrier status.
You can state this as many times as you like but the Internet isn't under Title 2 (see my reply to one of your posts above).
This is actually the whole problem. Congress has not given the Internet common carrier status. When the Internet was primarily delivered over the telephone system (DSL and dial-up) the Internet was sort of given common carrier status only because the telephone system was classified as a common carrier. Cable systems never had common carrier status so ISPs that provided Internet access did not fall under common carrier rules.
In 1996, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 codified a distinction that had already been essentially the practice of the FCC between 1980 and 1996. Services that rely on the existence of the network (e.g. websites and pay-per-call 900 services) were to be classified under Title I (information services); the transmission of those services over the existing telephone network would remain Title II (common carrier). This makes perfect sense: websites aren’t transporting your data anywhere—they receive your request and respond to it; the ISP transports those requests and responses. However, the 1996 act abstained from classifying the new cable broadband Internet Service Providers under Title II, leaving this new “high speed” Internet industry essentially unregulated. In addition to this lack of classification, the 1996 law sought to reduce regulatory barriers to entry in both telecom and broadband by softening the laws of the previous regime as set in the 1934 act.
https://medium.com/@TebbaVonMa...
If the rule was arbitrarily passed by a committee, (which at the time admitted may be overstepping bounds) what legal argument do you have when they undo it? its inconvenient? I understand it is a popular position, but this should be handled long term with legislation as several states have done.
It is fine for the states to come up with their own net neutrality rules but then Trump will just decide that the states don't have the authority to make those rules (as he has already done).
Do you recall Google fighting for net neutrality ? Do you recall the premise that no company should control what users could see on the internet. I am fine with them censoring and acting as a publisher, they just have abandon the protections they enjoy as a neutral conduit that doesn't publish.
You do know what net neutrality is don't you? From that statement it doesn't appear you do. Net neutrality has nothing to do with companies controlling what is on a particular site (other than the sites owner) but about the connections between those sites and the viewer.
If you are so eager to have some one "find salient examples of my assertion that the mainstream media relies on "provably false statements and assumptions.", you are not, no, you are not even trying. And I cannot change that. There is no lack of sources for this, credible sources, some even nonpartisan. Go and look." maybe you should just post a link to said proof? It couldn't be that "you are not, no, you are not even trying".
Complaining that I'm not making my point is actually a result of the mainstream media successfully burying, subverting, and discrediting such facts, and they are factual, based on Congressional testimony and federal agency data.
So are the facts easy to find or is the "mainstream media successfully burying" it?
Incandescent bulbs are the least "natural" light. This is assuming by natural you mean sunlight. If by natural you mean "what I am used to" then I guess I will buy that. The light of incandescent bulbs is on the yellow end of the spectrum (yes I know you can get daylight incandescent bulb talking in generality here). The "sterile like warehouse/hospital fluorescents" lights are toward the blue end of the spectrum. Sunlight tends to be closer to the "sterile like warehouse/hospital fluorescents" color temperature than the light of incandescent bulbs.
As to your anecdote on the firehouse incandescent bulb, let's just wait a hundred years to see if there are any LEDs that are still running before we praise one over the other.
incandescent light - 2700K-3000K (you can get cool white and bright white in the 4000K-6000K as well)
led light - 4100K (you can find LEDs in all ranges 2700K-6500K)
sunlight - 5000K-5500K (at midday)
I've yet to see a CFL or LED bulb that lasts as long as incandescent bulbs in the US. I've used several brands and wattage's. What's most frustrating about the new LEDs is they're all advertised as '10 year bulbs' but have a 1 year warranty, then die in 9 months.
The higher cost per bulb is simply not worth the savings in my electric bill, especially with constantly rising rates.
So if the bulb dies after 9 month get a replacement under warranty. Extending the warranty to 10 years wouldn't help your bulb that died after only 9 months.
A typical CFL lights has about 4mg of mercury (Hg).
A typical thermometer has about 500mg Hg.
Unless you are breaking A LOT of CFLs inside the amount of mercury is negligible. Removing that small amount of mercury from the environment does have a net cumulative effect though (i.e. the total amount of Hg in all CFLs isn't negligible).
So the major problem with your argument, "Halogen is bad because of UV and that causes cancer" is that though it is true Halogen light creates UV, ultraviolet can't go through glass, and since most bulbs are made of glass specifically doped to block UV, your argument (presumably promoting LED) that "Halogen is bad because of UV" turns out to be a straw man argument (UV [i]is[/i] bad, though Halogen does produce UV, it is surrounded (generally, some bulbs are not doped) by UV blocking glass).
You realize the article you posted doesn't say anything concrete about glass blocking UV (only passingly talks about UV and glass at all)? The fact is that only UVB is blocked by glass. UVA can pass through glass but a UVA blocker coating can handle that.
That should be an incandescent bulb has been on that long. I also don't think you would want to do much reading around that bulb (as I recall it is rather dim and has a very yellow hue).
I'm sorry but I have been living quite happily without being on Twitter or Facebook or using Uber or AirBnB or.....
They are a lot less critical than gas and electrical utilities.
Strictly speaking the states do amend the constitution (well are part of the process at least). No amendments to the constitution can be passed without the states involvement.
There are actually four ways. (1) Both houses propose an amendment with a two-thirds vote, and three-fourths of the state legislatures approve. Twenty-six of the 27 amendments were approved in this manner. (2) Both houses propose an amendment with a two-thirds vote, and three-fourths of the states approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. Only the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition, was passed in this manner. (3) Two-thirds of the state legislatures call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention, and three-fourths of the state legislatures approve the amendment. (4) Two-thirds of the state legislatures call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention, and three-fourths of the states approve the amendment via ratifying conventions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...