I see your point, but I don't think the claim was that outrageous. Besides, generally I find that the more outrageous the claim, the more it irritates the claimant to call their bluff.
You have it pretty much ass backwards. The PA Turnpike commission has been a private entity for a looong time, and the money it collects in tolls goes to salaries and maintenance - they publish their full financials on their web site.
What your parents are probably thinking of is the fact that the State of PA is selling I-80 to...wait for it...the Turnpike Commission. Why? Because the commission is very effective in maintenance and upgrades, far more so than PennDOT.
Sure about that? I purchase highway/taxed diesel frequently in PA and it's never been dyed. And the one time I purchased some untaxed diesel, it was red.
The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the proposal. The proper answer (as anyone from Missouri can attest) is "Show me", not "You are a poo-poo head."
'Cause everyone knows that an adult who would abuse sexually abuse or rape someone is otherwise a perfectly law abiding citizen and wouldn't even THINK of using an anonymous account or a proxy.
As for the non violent offenders that no one is really worried about, well, too bad - they should have waited until her 18th birthday.
"Now for some logic. How is it that a bulb which apparently requires >480kWh of energy to build/ship ($48 at $0.10/kWh) sells for a few dollars? Hint: it doesn't require >480kWh of energy to build/ship, or anywhere near that."
You had me until that line. Comparing the resources used and externalized in China and shipping costs to electrical rates in the US. They are completely apples and oranges. For instance, container ships use diesel fuel to drive the props directly, not by going through an electrical transmission network.
I'm won't argue that the costs of shipping and production outweigh the energy saved - I don't believe it does. But your counter-argument goes a bit off the rails.
So, let me get this straight - you disagree with his assertion, but instead of using data do disprove it, you are going to call him names, and use a "guilt by association" attack via the "repeated by a lot of ignorant contrarians". Is that correct?
I believe your use of "asinine" is correct, but directed in the wrong direction.
Ah, memories. I got the "I love you" email from a woman who I believed to be a lesbian, so I figured it was a bizzarre means of coming out. I clicked on the attachment, but nothing happened (I didn't use Outlook at the time), so I opened it with Notepad and took a look. I couldn't read VBScript at all, but it certainly didn't look friendly. I saved it as a text file, forwarded it to IT with the note that I believed it was a virus. IT basically said "you don't know what you're talking about.
30 minutes later, our email system ground to a halt. The root of the infection in my company? The Director of Information Technology.
Actually I heard about this poll when it was reported on...wait for it...NPR. So yeah, I guess it was a right wing nut organization...oh, wait...
Re:Someone actually listens to NPR?
on
Penny Arcade On NPR
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Your comment reminds me of polling done on journalists regarding the whole "is journalism slanted to the left" question. First they asked "Are you liberal, moderate, or conservative?"; then they asked opinions on specific issues - gays, abortion, the military, social welfare programs, etc. Then they compared the answers that journalists gave to answers from the rest of the populace, and a striking pattern emerged. While journalists overwhelmingly identified themselves as "moderate" (I think it was 75%), the answers they gave to the other questions closely aligned with those given by the general populace who identified themselves as "liberal" or "very liberal" - something like 95%. The explanation might be that journalists are basically lying to themselves, calling themselves moderates because it fits in better with the image of journalists as fair and unbiased. Or, they are so isolated in the bubble world of journalism that they have become entirely out of touch with what the rest of the country views as "liberal" and "conservative".
Re:Someone actually listens to NPR?
on
Penny Arcade On NPR
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Here's an example that really stood out for me. When the initial financial collapse occurred, NPR did a story on how both campaigns were handling it. The McCain piece, which aired first, had a subtle negative shading - his plans were referred to as "schemes", etc. All of the information was garnered from press releases, and the reporter told the whole story.
Then they ran the Obama piece, in which they intro'd Obama's spokesman, he said his prepackaged bit, they threw some softball questions at him, and it was over. No analysis, just "Here's what the Obama campaign says".
I know, and knew then, that McCain's "plan" was not really a plan, but having NPR dismissively treat it as a prima facie failure while swallowing Obama's (lack of a) plan in one gulp was just a bit much.
No, the original thread, titled "This just says it all" was a listing of the companies behind the lawsuit against the woman as referenced in TFA. One of the child posts was a question about the companies incorporated in Delaware, implying that the practice was corrupt. The next reply pointed out that many corporations incorporate in DE because of their lax laws. I followed with the observation that our VP-elect is unlikely to reign in corporate abuses because he who is from DE. I made no reference to DE law, or that Biden was involved in it's creation. He comes from the same state where those lax laws were created, and so cannot help being influenced by the "soft" corruption that pervades the state. As an example of this, I pointed out his support of a bill that benefitted the corporations in his state, but not the citizens. It has nothing to do with state law, but everything to do with corporate influence and corruption, which is how this thread started.
You are trying to separate Biden from Delaware politics using the conceit that, because Biden isn't a state legislator, he is apart from the laws made there, and is therefore innocent of corporate pandering. It is a specious argument, because it separates the laws from the culture which spawned them, and Biden is as much a part of that culture as the state and local politicians.
I said nothing about Biden's involvement in making Delaware laws. What I said was that Biden was from Delaware. He has lived most of his life, and was elected to represent, a state that has been corporate owned for decades. It's not just the CC companies - duPont has been there for a long time. From a Fortune Magazine article:
The one thing that's truly native to the state, Delawareans agree, is Du Pont, which has been based here for all of its 200 years. It's impossible to overstate the connections and influence of the company and the family (which were more or less one and the same until the 1970s, when du Ponts finally ceded the reins). Family members served as Senators, Congressmen, and governors. Du Ponts owned the only daily newspaper and controlled the largest banks in the state. For decades 10% or more of the legislature was made up of Du Pont employees.
"They were Delaware," says former state chamber of commerce head John Burris. Into the 1980s, if a Delawarean told you he worked for the company, as people routinely did, you didn't have any doubt about which organization he was referring to.
So we have elected a VP that used to represent, not a "company town", but a "company STATE". And he has used the power of that office to benefit those companies. And since the thread stated out with corporations abusing their power, I pointed out that our VP-elect seems constitutionally (small "c", not capital "C") incapable of holding those corporations to account.
Perhaps it is you who need to brush up on reading comprehension - you saw meaning in my original post that was not there.
"they were actually voice overs in Disney Pixar's movie Cars as the main characters sponsor, where they answer car questions and make fun of the people asking the questions... And themselves."
And for the real insiders, the cars they played were ones that they owned and talked about on their show - a 1963 Dodge Dart and a smallish Dodge van (he actually owned a Dodge Colt Vista, but it wouldn't have fit into the time period).
It really depends on what show you are listening to. Morning Edition and All Things Considered have a slight leftward bent, in my opinion, but it's very subtle - I tend to chalk it up to the individual views of the journalists. But some of the shows are just pathetic. My local affiliate plays "The World" every evening at 8:00, and it may as well be titled "The US Sucks Hour".
So Biden's support for the bankruptcy bill which hurts consumers has nothing to do with the credit card companies who lobbied for it and just happen to be incorporated in Delaware?
"Slashdot is news for nerds and nerds are typically well educated. Education is correlated with the left side of the political spectrum. So here you have an internet discussion involving nerds and I don't think it would be any surprise that the majority opinions reflect most of those you listed. There aren't many righties on here unless you count the libertarians, of which there are quite a few."
I always loved that argument, especially in light of the overwhelming support for the Left from trade unions - not a bunch of Nobel Laureates in that group.
NSA: We are going to send more troops and guns! Terrorist: Sure, bring 'em on... We'll be waiting and we'll fight to the death
NSA: No wait... We will PATENT things! Then we will send LAWYERS to you and get your for INFRINGEMENT! Terrorist: Oh nooo! Not the LAWYERS! Have mercy, please! We surrender...
No, no, no - you shoot lawyers FROM the guns. Fix 2 problems at once.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget guns
A) people will want the guns more than anything else you have - well, maybe not the porn.
B) you'll need them to defend your stuff from other people with guns.
I see your point, but I don't think the claim was that outrageous. Besides, generally I find that the more outrageous the claim, the more it irritates the claimant to call their bluff.
You have it pretty much ass backwards. The PA Turnpike commission has been a private entity for a looong time, and the money it collects in tolls goes to salaries and maintenance - they publish their full financials on their web site.
What your parents are probably thinking of is the fact that the State of PA is selling I-80 to...wait for it...the Turnpike Commission. Why? Because the commission is very effective in maintenance and upgrades, far more so than PennDOT.
Sure about that? I purchase highway/taxed diesel frequently in PA and it's never been dyed. And the one time I purchased some untaxed diesel, it was red.
Dammit, I meant "response", not "answer".
The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the proposal. The proper answer (as anyone from Missouri can attest) is "Show me", not "You are a poo-poo head."
Jesus - I didn't think I could lay the sarcasm on any thicker. Apparently you and at least 2 other mods think I was serious.
'Cause everyone knows that an adult who would abuse sexually abuse or rape someone is otherwise a perfectly law abiding citizen and wouldn't even THINK of using an anonymous account or a proxy.
As for the non violent offenders that no one is really worried about, well, too bad - they should have waited until her 18th birthday.
"Now for some logic. How is it that a bulb which apparently requires >480kWh of energy to build/ship ($48 at $0.10/kWh) sells for a few dollars? Hint: it doesn't require >480kWh of energy to build/ship, or anywhere near that."
You had me until that line. Comparing the resources used and externalized in China and shipping costs to electrical rates in the US. They are completely apples and oranges. For instance, container ships use diesel fuel to drive the props directly, not by going through an electrical transmission network.
I'm won't argue that the costs of shipping and production outweigh the energy saved - I don't believe it does. But your counter-argument goes a bit off the rails.
So, let me get this straight - you disagree with his assertion, but instead of using data do disprove it, you are going to call him names, and use a "guilt by association" attack via the "repeated by a lot of ignorant contrarians". Is that correct?
I believe your use of "asinine" is correct, but directed in the wrong direction.
Except for the part where they leave the gas tax in place.
Ah, memories. I got the "I love you" email from a woman who I believed to be a lesbian, so I figured it was a bizzarre means of coming out. I clicked on the attachment, but nothing happened (I didn't use Outlook at the time), so I opened it with Notepad and took a look. I couldn't read VBScript at all, but it certainly didn't look friendly. I saved it as a text file, forwarded it to IT with the note that I believed it was a virus. IT basically said "you don't know what you're talking about.
30 minutes later, our email system ground to a halt. The root of the infection in my company? The Director of Information Technology.
NPR's pretty good about saying that "XYZ refused our requests for an interview, stateemnt" etc. This time they didn't.
Actually I heard about this poll when it was reported on...wait for it...NPR. So yeah, I guess it was a right wing nut organization...oh, wait...
Your comment reminds me of polling done on journalists regarding the whole "is journalism slanted to the left" question. First they asked "Are you liberal, moderate, or conservative?"; then they asked opinions on specific issues - gays, abortion, the military, social welfare programs, etc. Then they compared the answers that journalists gave to answers from the rest of the populace, and a striking pattern emerged. While journalists overwhelmingly identified themselves as "moderate" (I think it was 75%), the answers they gave to the other questions closely aligned with those given by the general populace who identified themselves as "liberal" or "very liberal" - something like 95%. The explanation might be that journalists are basically lying to themselves, calling themselves moderates because it fits in better with the image of journalists as fair and unbiased. Or, they are so isolated in the bubble world of journalism that they have become entirely out of touch with what the rest of the country views as "liberal" and "conservative".
Here's an example that really stood out for me. When the initial financial collapse occurred, NPR did a story on how both campaigns were handling it. The McCain piece, which aired first, had a subtle negative shading - his plans were referred to as "schemes", etc. All of the information was garnered from press releases, and the reporter told the whole story.
Then they ran the Obama piece, in which they intro'd Obama's spokesman, he said his prepackaged bit, they threw some softball questions at him, and it was over. No analysis, just "Here's what the Obama campaign says".
I know, and knew then, that McCain's "plan" was not really a plan, but having NPR dismissively treat it as a prima facie failure while swallowing Obama's (lack of a) plan in one gulp was just a bit much.
There is no other.
No, the original thread, titled "This just says it all" was a listing of the companies behind the lawsuit against the woman as referenced in TFA. One of the child posts was a question about the companies incorporated in Delaware, implying that the practice was corrupt. The next reply pointed out that many corporations incorporate in DE because of their lax laws. I followed with the observation that our VP-elect is unlikely to reign in corporate abuses because he who is from DE. I made no reference to DE law, or that Biden was involved in it's creation. He comes from the same state where those lax laws were created, and so cannot help being influenced by the "soft" corruption that pervades the state. As an example of this, I pointed out his support of a bill that benefitted the corporations in his state, but not the citizens. It has nothing to do with state law, but everything to do with corporate influence and corruption, which is how this thread started.
You are trying to separate Biden from Delaware politics using the conceit that, because Biden isn't a state legislator, he is apart from the laws made there, and is therefore innocent of corporate pandering. It is a specious argument, because it separates the laws from the culture which spawned them, and Biden is as much a part of that culture as the state and local politicians.
I said nothing about Biden's involvement in making Delaware laws. What I said was that Biden was from Delaware. He has lived most of his life, and was elected to represent, a state that has been corporate owned for decades. It's not just the CC companies - duPont has been there for a long time. From a Fortune Magazine article:
"they were actually voice overs in Disney Pixar's movie Cars as the main characters sponsor, where they answer car questions and make fun of the people asking the questions... And themselves."
And for the real insiders, the cars they played were ones that they owned and talked about on their show - a 1963 Dodge Dart and a smallish Dodge van (he actually owned a Dodge Colt Vista, but it wouldn't have fit into the time period).
It really depends on what show you are listening to. Morning Edition and All Things Considered have a slight leftward bent, in my opinion, but it's very subtle - I tend to chalk it up to the individual views of the journalists. But some of the shows are just pathetic. My local affiliate plays "The World" every evening at 8:00, and it may as well be titled "The US Sucks Hour".
So Biden's support for the bankruptcy bill which hurts consumers has nothing to do with the credit card companies who lobbied for it and just happen to be incorporated in Delaware?
Right. Pull the other one.
Yeah, thank God our new VP is from there - he'll REALLY put the screws to them.
"Slashdot is news for nerds and nerds are typically well educated. Education is correlated with the left side of the political spectrum. So here you have an internet discussion involving nerds and I don't think it would be any surprise that the majority opinions reflect most of those you listed. There aren't many righties on here unless you count the libertarians, of which there are quite a few."
I always loved that argument, especially in light of the overwhelming support for the Left from trade unions - not a bunch of Nobel Laureates in that group.
No, no, no - you shoot lawyers FROM the guns. Fix 2 problems at once.