They should be allowed to know where their property is. She has no case.
This may well be sarcastic, but they do know where their property is. It's with the employee. They have no reason to care where the phone is spatially since they aren't going to physically access the phone. The reason for the app wasn't to track the phone, but to track the employee attached to the phone.
That's not a subsidy. It was in the Kuwait's government interest to stop that ASAP.
You do remember the U.S. shooting dozens of million dollar a shot missiles per day for weeks to defend oil interests right?
Why shoot missiles for a million a shot when they could have done the job for 10k a shot? You do apparently remember how expensive those missiles were, so why can't you connect the dots?
Alternative energy will greatly reduce terrorism incentives and more importantly, funding.
Terrorism is very cheap and oil isn't going away for a very long time. And we also have to consider the economic harm of overbuilding alternative energy. That too can create the sort of poverty and corruption that is fueling much of the current bout of terrorism/asymmetric warfare.
No, I disagree. If Ford could have built his cars to the level of quality he desired with a cheaper workforce, he would have done so.
Sure, Ford had a strange concern for the morality of his workforce to the extent that he created a sort of "secret police" who monitored off the job employee behavior. But he also obsessed with reducing the costs of his cars and wages are an obvious cost. For example, it took decades for the labor unions to get into Ford plants.
As to the "five dollar day", it was definitely used as propaganda by Ford both for marketing and hiring. Propaganda doesn't mean falsehood. It means distributing information and stories with a particular bias in order to promote a particular viewpoint.
Henry Ford understood this, pay your workers enough to afford the product they make and you will build a society that is better for everyone.
He went one better. He and his marketing department understood the propaganda value of publicly pretending to have the above opinion. The bottom line is that retention of employees (workforce turnover being a major problem for his attempts to make a high quality mass production vehicle for the time) was far more valuable to him than the increased purchasing power of his workforce.
Socialism and Protectionism are _not_ easy answers.
Really. I can't imagine what is supposed to be hard about a Robin Hood strategy or blocking foreigners from trading in your lands. Maybe it's the consequences?
This is always been a problem of socialists. Our rhetoric sucks because we don't have a grand ideal to lean on.
This is a troll, right? Here's a typical example of socialist rhetoric (which happened to be written for the Statue of Liberty).
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
It's so much _easier_ to say if we leave things alone their sort themselves out. It _sounds_ better and it _feels_ better. Sure, it's wrong. But it's a tough sell.
So you like to meddle. Don't we all. It is precisely this compulsion that makes meddling easier than leaving things alone.
And there you go. If you no longer have to be a member of a particular labor union (particularly, if other labor unions can hone in on their turf), then the labor union has strong incentive to do something for its members.
In the U.S. freight lines go everywhere. It's quite common that there's one adjoining a farm in the middle of nowhere, with a working siding. There is no reason passenger lines can't go everywhere, too.
Except that a high speed line would cost two to three orders of magnitude more per unit length than that siding does. The farm probably pays the cost of maintaining the siding too. Who's paying the cost of maintaining a far more expensive passenger line to nowhere?
The thing is, this doesn't work in practice. More government intervention means oligopolies. We get things like Gazprom or Archer Daniel Midland.
This very story is a great example. The whole H1-B dynamic is a substantial federal government intervention in US high skilled labor markets. And we have a great demonstration of genuine pseudo-libertarian rhetoric of people spouting off about markets and competition while at the same abusing the said intervention.
The marketplace we want is a human fabrication that does not spontaneously arise; the total lack of government intervention in markets isn't nirvana, it's anarchy.
No, markets can and do sprout up even in relatively lawless societies like Somalia. And there's plenty of examples of markets that operate outside government regulation such as "black markets" which seem to be present in every country on Earth.
Which oil companies were those? And security from what danger? And what does most of that two trillion cost, like VA hospitals and plush DOD contracts have to do with security? Just because a vast sum of money was spent and a certain highly visible group, oil companies slightly benefited, doesn't mean that the whole expenditure is a subsidy for that group.
If I pay you a million dollars to incentivize you to pull weeds from your lawn, then that is a subsidy to pull weeds from your lawn. If I spend a million dollars to pull weeds from your lawn, then it isn't weed-pulling that being subsidized. But you can be sure that spending a million dollars to do a thirty dollar job is subsidizing something.
Well we spent 2 trillion dollars (and 4000 lives) to subsidize oil from 2000-2008 alone.
A subsidy is money spent to encourage a particular behavior or industry. At best, you can say the money spent was a subsidy for the defense and health care industries, but there is no serious linkage between that money and oil production except for oil businesses that also happen to be defense contractors (such as Halliburton).
So, since solar makes less sense there, it has to be subsidized more.
That's a hell of a straight line there. Makes you wonder how far Germany will decline over the next few decades when they work so hard to promote useless things now.
This is obvious wrong. If we spend a small number of billions of dollars, we can put Slashdot on its on artificial island and clean up the website a little too. Maybe get started on a light rail system, at least one long enough to make it to the bathroom.
No, he didn't have a point (nor did he actually say that). But why would you expect well behaved children in a situation where they're expecting to fight and possibly die in an incompetently run, losing conflict? Let us keep in mind that just before the collapse of the Athenian empire, they would still be reeling from their humiliating defeat at the hands of Syracuse, a city state with inferior military power (but a far better tactical and strategic position than the invading Athenian forces had).
I pointed out that the two situations aren't analogous.
Have the Brits been compensated? No? Then it doesn't matter if they are dead. Their great great grand children might be alive and would gladly accept compensation, along with interest over 250 years of course.
Their great great grand children would have to show a claim on what has been taken away. Even if the claim is granted, those people might not be able to make a claim stick just because they can't demonstrate that they inherited the original claim. And if nobody can show that they should inherit the claim, then it doesn't get paid, even if the US agrees to pay compensation with interest.
This isn't a problem with someone who were actually alive for the last 250 years since they would be able to skip that whole mess.
Those Brits aren't still alive now. And why would the relevance of US actions more than two centuries ago be relevant now? Is it ok to take peoples' stuff because the revolutionaries did it way back when?
The Maunder minimum represented about a 0.25% change in overall solar output.
Unless, of course, it's higher or lower. Nobody was actually measuring solar output back then so we don't know what the change in solar output would be.
The average cooling expected from several papers on the subject would be a cooling of about 0.2C.
Or higher or lower, depending on how the modelers got it wrong.
One can also look at statements by climate researchers and see similar things.
For example, in my original post I noted a researcher who claimed that a factor of ten smaller change in solar fluctuation was creating a similar effect to that of AGW. A simpler explanation is that the researcher is simply wrong about the degree of solar radiation decline from the Maunder minimum.
I also have noticed that non-climate researchers freely bandy about "climate change" as a contributing factor to whatever thing they're studying.
One can also look at statements by climate researchers and see similar things.
For example, in my original post I noted a researcher who claimed that a factor of ten smaller change in solar fluctuation was creating a similar effect to that of AGW. A simpler explanation is that the researcher is simply wrong about the degree of solar radiation decline from the Maunder minimum.
If you think the current climate research is "silly", have you considered that you may be simply misinterpreting it?
Yes, I have considered that possibility.
I don't think posts on slashdot should be taken as indicative of actual climate research
One can also look at statements by climate researchers and see similar things. I don't believe this particular assertion is echoed by the researcher community, but they do assert a variety of things with an exaggerated level of confidence all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
They should be allowed to know where their property is. She has no case.
This may well be sarcastic, but they do know where their property is. It's with the employee. They have no reason to care where the phone is spatially since they aren't going to physically access the phone. The reason for the app wasn't to track the phone, but to track the employee attached to the phone.
You do remember the oil fields burning right?
That's not a subsidy. It was in the Kuwait's government interest to stop that ASAP.
You do remember the U.S. shooting dozens of million dollar a shot missiles per day for weeks to defend oil interests right?
Why shoot missiles for a million a shot when they could have done the job for 10k a shot? You do apparently remember how expensive those missiles were, so why can't you connect the dots?
Alternative energy will greatly reduce terrorism incentives and more importantly, funding.
Terrorism is very cheap and oil isn't going away for a very long time. And we also have to consider the economic harm of overbuilding alternative energy. That too can create the sort of poverty and corruption that is fueling much of the current bout of terrorism/asymmetric warfare.
No, I didn't say that. Just like I didn't say that spending a million dollars to weed a small lawn has nothing to do with weeding a small lawn.
No, I disagree. If Ford could have built his cars to the level of quality he desired with a cheaper workforce, he would have done so.
Sure, Ford had a strange concern for the morality of his workforce to the extent that he created a sort of "secret police" who monitored off the job employee behavior. But he also obsessed with reducing the costs of his cars and wages are an obvious cost. For example, it took decades for the labor unions to get into Ford plants.
As to the "five dollar day", it was definitely used as propaganda by Ford both for marketing and hiring. Propaganda doesn't mean falsehood. It means distributing information and stories with a particular bias in order to promote a particular viewpoint.
One more track, less chance of one broken train holding up the whole traffic.
That depends on whether the new system can use the old rail system as backup. I don't see any indication that the planners think that far ahead.
Henry Ford understood this, pay your workers enough to afford the product they make and you will build a society that is better for everyone.
He went one better. He and his marketing department understood the propaganda value of publicly pretending to have the above opinion. The bottom line is that retention of employees (workforce turnover being a major problem for his attempts to make a high quality mass production vehicle for the time) was far more valuable to him than the increased purchasing power of his workforce.
Socialism and Protectionism are _not_ easy answers.
Really. I can't imagine what is supposed to be hard about a Robin Hood strategy or blocking foreigners from trading in your lands. Maybe it's the consequences?
This is always been a problem of socialists. Our rhetoric sucks because we don't have a grand ideal to lean on.
This is a troll, right? Here's a typical example of socialist rhetoric (which happened to be written for the Statue of Liberty).
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
It's so much _easier_ to say if we leave things alone their sort themselves out. It _sounds_ better and it _feels_ better. Sure, it's wrong. But it's a tough sell.
So you like to meddle. Don't we all. It is precisely this compulsion that makes meddling easier than leaving things alone.
and you had to be a member.
And there you go. If you no longer have to be a member of a particular labor union (particularly, if other labor unions can hone in on their turf), then the labor union has strong incentive to do something for its members.
In the U.S. freight lines go everywhere. It's quite common that there's one adjoining a farm in the middle of nowhere, with a working siding. There is no reason passenger lines can't go everywhere, too.
Except that a high speed line would cost two to three orders of magnitude more per unit length than that siding does. The farm probably pays the cost of maintaining the siding too. Who's paying the cost of maintaining a far more expensive passenger line to nowhere?
This very story is a great example. The whole H1-B dynamic is a substantial federal government intervention in US high skilled labor markets. And we have a great demonstration of genuine pseudo-libertarian rhetoric of people spouting off about markets and competition while at the same abusing the said intervention.
The marketplace we want is a human fabrication that does not spontaneously arise; the total lack of government intervention in markets isn't nirvana, it's anarchy.
No, markets can and do sprout up even in relatively lawless societies like Somalia. And there's plenty of examples of markets that operate outside government regulation such as "black markets" which seem to be present in every country on Earth.
Again, why do you think the new train won't be prone to such break downs?
We subsidized security for the oil companies.
Which oil companies were those? And security from what danger? And what does most of that two trillion cost, like VA hospitals and plush DOD contracts have to do with security? Just because a vast sum of money was spent and a certain highly visible group, oil companies slightly benefited, doesn't mean that the whole expenditure is a subsidy for that group.
If I pay you a million dollars to incentivize you to pull weeds from your lawn, then that is a subsidy to pull weeds from your lawn. If I spend a million dollars to pull weeds from your lawn, then it isn't weed-pulling that being subsidized. But you can be sure that spending a million dollars to do a thirty dollar job is subsidizing something.
Well we spent 2 trillion dollars (and 4000 lives) to subsidize oil from 2000-2008 alone.
A subsidy is money spent to encourage a particular behavior or industry. At best, you can say the money spent was a subsidy for the defense and health care industries, but there is no serious linkage between that money and oil production except for oil businesses that also happen to be defense contractors (such as Halliburton).
So, since solar makes less sense there, it has to be subsidized more.
That's a hell of a straight line there. Makes you wonder how far Germany will decline over the next few decades when they work so hard to promote useless things now.
This is obvious wrong. If we spend a small number of billions of dollars, we can put Slashdot on its on artificial island and clean up the website a little too. Maybe get started on a light rail system, at least one long enough to make it to the bathroom.
3 senators just stood up against the cia.
And demanded he admit he lied? That's quite toothless.
No, he didn't have a point (nor did he actually say that). But why would you expect well behaved children in a situation where they're expecting to fight and possibly die in an incompetently run, losing conflict? Let us keep in mind that just before the collapse of the Athenian empire, they would still be reeling from their humiliating defeat at the hands of Syracuse, a city state with inferior military power (but a far better tactical and strategic position than the invading Athenian forces had).
Have the Brits been compensated? No? Then it doesn't matter if they are dead. Their great great grand children might be alive and would gladly accept compensation, along with interest over 250 years of course.
Their great great grand children would have to show a claim on what has been taken away. Even if the claim is granted, those people might not be able to make a claim stick just because they can't demonstrate that they inherited the original claim. And if nobody can show that they should inherit the claim, then it doesn't get paid, even if the US agrees to pay compensation with interest.
This isn't a problem with someone who were actually alive for the last 250 years since they would be able to skip that whole mess.
Those Brits aren't still alive now. And why would the relevance of US actions more than two centuries ago be relevant now? Is it ok to take peoples' stuff because the revolutionaries did it way back when?
According to your theory, it should now be much colder than it was in the 1950s and 60s. Why the fuck isn't it? http://solarscience.msfc.nasa....
Does sound like some part of the theory isn't quite right, doesn't it?
The Maunder minimum represented about a 0.25% change in overall solar output.
Unless, of course, it's higher or lower. Nobody was actually measuring solar output back then so we don't know what the change in solar output would be.
The average cooling expected from several papers on the subject would be a cooling of about 0.2C.
Or higher or lower, depending on how the modelers got it wrong.
One can also look at statements by climate researchers and see similar things.
For example, in my original post I noted a researcher who claimed that a factor of ten smaller change in solar fluctuation was creating a similar effect to that of AGW. A simpler explanation is that the researcher is simply wrong about the degree of solar radiation decline from the Maunder minimum.
I also have noticed that non-climate researchers freely bandy about "climate change" as a contributing factor to whatever thing they're studying.
One can also look at statements by climate researchers and see similar things.
For example, in my original post I noted a researcher who claimed that a factor of ten smaller change in solar fluctuation was creating a similar effect to that of AGW. A simpler explanation is that the researcher is simply wrong about the degree of solar radiation decline from the Maunder minimum.
Ok, where's this free market failure?
If you think the current climate research is "silly", have you considered that you may be simply misinterpreting it?
Yes, I have considered that possibility.
I don't think posts on slashdot should be taken as indicative of actual climate research
One can also look at statements by climate researchers and see similar things. I don't believe this particular assertion is echoed by the researcher community, but they do assert a variety of things with an exaggerated level of confidence all the time.