Nah, the best opportunity would come around 2040. That's the estimate I give for when China takes over as the #1 superpower. The impetus behind giving the US Presidency so much power is that Americans are afraid of no longer being #1 superpower. That doesn't change regardless of who gets into office.
I see that as the worst time to curb the power of the US Presidency. Because enough US voters would be afraid of no longer being the #1 superpower. I think it could easily get to the point where advocacy for democracy reforms is seen as aiding China.
Needs to be true first. Have you ever tried to reason before? Provide evidence such as quotes to show that Trump is doing something wrong first. Then complain.
Do you think the Supreme Court and Congress would just take a holiday and let him play out his Fascist dictator fantasies?
I think we've Godwined this far enough. I think the US Supreme Court would do the same thing they did for Obama when he played out his Fascist dictator fantasies.
The Oval Office would resemble Nixon on steroids, as it would be the first time in over forty years that a POTUS had almost no friends on the Hill. About the only place there would be activity would be the Federal Courts and SCOTUS as Congress and everyone else that Trump screws takes his Administration to court, likely ending in impeachment for any of a dozen flagrant, even proud high crimes and misdemeanors.
This is a huge thing that is missed. If Trump gets elected, it'll probably be the best opportunity this century to curb the power of the US Presidency.
I wonder why that is? Nothing to do with blind parrotting of the Rabid Puppies and Breitbart around the Hugos, of course not.
I think that says it all right there. One issue poster, that would be you, decides SoylentNews is a "rightwing echo chamber" because not everyone there had the right opinion on gamergate.
You want a rightwing echo chamber, fuck off to Soylent.
There's no nice way to put it, but this accusation is complete bullshit and the above poster, mvdwege probably knows that. Look at the main page. For example, here are the headlines posted from January 28:
January 28 is Data Privacy Day. Do you know where your data is?
FCC Says It Will âoeUnlock the Set-Top Boxâ
Are You Fat? Blame Childhood Antibiotics
Subtle Vulnerabilities with PHP and cURL
Billionaire Boater Destroys almost 14,000 square feet of Reef in Cayman Islands
Notice the complete absence of "rightwing echo chamber". Also notice that mvdwege hasn't actually posted on SoylentNews since August.
What you are saying is he should have taken into account conspiracies that will never be detected. But they are taken into account, they are just very unlikely if they involve more that a few people.
But if the evidence is misleading, it should be suppressed.
No. I know of no such case where that is a good idea. A classic example was the refusals to believe that large disasters didn't happen on a geological time scale because that would supposedly give credence to the Biblical flood story and similar religious kookery. It took a traveling conference along the Columbia river (in the US Northwest), showcasing large scale landforms associated with the repeated prehistorical draining (which created flooding hundreds of feet high all along the river downstream) of glacial lakes in western Montana.
When the narrative becomes more important than the evidence, you no longer are doing science.
Evidence is never misleading. It's only our interpretations of it that can mislead.
When I took a graduate-level physics of the weather class we discussed why the US Navy's readings over water that show a cooling trend shouldn't be released. Too many ignorant people would use them as evidence against global warming.
Funny, how my graduate level physics courses never pretended hiding evidence was a moral good.
First sign of real change withdrawal from Guantanamo Bay, instead of current planning for regime change.
No, planning for regime change is the safe bet. The Castros will be gone shortly. Raul Castro plans on retiring by 2018 and might have an unplanned retirement before that. There will be a lot of changes when that happens.
Second, Cuba's business model as a client state for the USSR and China is long obsolete. They need to change radically. I believe that will include regime change as part of the process.
When you say "interfered with the affairs of Flint" you probably should say, "set aside democracy in Flint and installed a city dictator who reports to the Governor."
Yes, I could say that though that would gloss over the legal restraints on said "city dictator" or the existence of the democratically elected city council.
Please, stop being an idiot. For example, it was the state of Michigan which had interfered with the affairs of Flint, not a business. And you can always buy your own power generators, if you want green or coal power. And the US's perplexing maze of regulation has done much to restrict your choice of telecom/internet provider. For example, why haven't the supposedly superior cell phone networks of Europe or Japan been extended to the US? It's a big market with lots of money.
Consumer purchasing power only comes down to a few end user items and brands. But for the actual companies running the world, we have no choice at all.
Which if you think about it, is a strength of capitalism. You shouldn't have a say in most of what goes on in the world. It's not your business.
It's a truism and by definition is not meaningless. But moving on, we can be more meaningless, such as in the post I replied to, where someone just asserts shit without even bothering to tell us what they think "mind/brain" means.
Well, seems only fair, considering the world bank has estimated the true total subsidies that fossil fuels receive globally at around 5 trillion dollars a year. That's well over 10% of the entire world's GDP spent on fossil subsidies.
Only if you choose to believe the IMF's fantasy numbers. This figure is achieved by playing games such as not taxing pollution is counted as a subsidy (particularly when coupled with huge and unfounded estimates for the harm of such pollution). For example, China has a per capita of almost $2000 per person (due to local pollution effects). That's near half the claimed total subsidies right there.
So why again do US renewables need to be subsidized just because China has a lot of pollution? It's a very retarded argument.
My bet is also that this huge subsidy would vanish, if we were to put in the positive externalities of energy production. That's China's calculation after all. Namely, that their horrendous pollution problem is more than countered by their growing economy.
The very fact that you use phrases like "alternative" and "traditional" to describe energy sources destroys any credibility your argument may have had.
No, there is an engineering aspect to this. "Traditional" energy sources are already built in massive quantity. Even if we were to choose to ignore existing infrastructure, it's still a natural classification for an engineer to make.
Ah, but you were told to blame their lack of new power plant construction, not noticing the orders coming from Houston to shut down perfectly operational power plants.
It is true though. You can't manipulate supply of electricity like Enron did, if there was a lot of excess generation capacity. But because California was massively importing power at the time, it was a simple matter to arrange outages during peak times so as to rake in the high spot prices that were so profitable.
About the worse you can say about California is the shutdown of San Onofre, but that wasn't state mandated, so much as the result of poor maintenance and operations, you can hardly blame the regulators for taking a leery eye to the situation there.
Not at all. The worst you can accurately say about California is that they've had profound short sighted and stupid energy policy for decades.
How sad that something so good for the economy is so hated by wealthy.
You can't consider gas prices in a vacuum. They're low in large part due to economic downturns in the developing world and weak economic growth in the developed world dropping overall demand for oil while OPEC, due apparently to the usual OPEC shenanigans as well as an economic conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
While weak economic growth in the US can be partly blamed on Obama, he had nothing to do with the global effects.
I guess trying to associate those who don't accept the concept (or claimed extent) of man made global warming with the holocaust with the term 'deniers' wasn't working... a new term has been coined.
This is a legit improvement. It's not a loaded term unlike "climate denier" or "climate alarmist".
Granted, this is from the same group who has had a hard time naming the issue, going from global cooling, to global warming, anthropomorphic global warming, to climate change, to climate weirding and seemingly back to climate change.
There's a place for most of those terms (drop "climate weirding" into a casket and bury it). When they're used appropriately to their meaning, they're useful. But it continues to annoy me when someone uses "climate change" strictly for anthropogenic global warming (especially, when they're also completely ignoring others sorts of anthropogenic climate change like the trio of habitat destruction: urbanization, deforestation, and desertification).
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, the best opportunity would come around 2040. That's the estimate I give for when China takes over as the #1 superpower. The impetus behind giving the US Presidency so much power is that Americans are afraid of no longer being #1 superpower. That doesn't change regardless of who gets into office.
I see that as the worst time to curb the power of the US Presidency. Because enough US voters would be afraid of no longer being the #1 superpower. I think it could easily get to the point where advocacy for democracy reforms is seen as aiding China.
I also based my assertion on your posting history and the fact you never bothered to come up with a second example in the first place.
and his shit is a clear TOS violation
Needs to be true first. Have you ever tried to reason before? Provide evidence such as quotes to show that Trump is doing something wrong first. Then complain.
Do you think the Supreme Court and Congress would just take a holiday and let him play out his Fascist dictator fantasies?
I think we've Godwined this far enough. I think the US Supreme Court would do the same thing they did for Obama when he played out his Fascist dictator fantasies.
The Oval Office would resemble Nixon on steroids, as it would be the first time in over forty years that a POTUS had almost no friends on the Hill. About the only place there would be activity would be the Federal Courts and SCOTUS as Congress and everyone else that Trump screws takes his Administration to court, likely ending in impeachment for any of a dozen flagrant, even proud high crimes and misdemeanors.
This is a huge thing that is missed. If Trump gets elected, it'll probably be the best opportunity this century to curb the power of the US Presidency.
I wonder why that is? Nothing to do with blind parrotting of the Rabid Puppies and Breitbart around the Hugos, of course not.
I think that says it all right there. One issue poster, that would be you, decides SoylentNews is a "rightwing echo chamber" because not everyone there had the right opinion on gamergate.
You want a rightwing echo chamber, fuck off to Soylent.
There's no nice way to put it, but this accusation is complete bullshit and the above poster, mvdwege probably knows that. Look at the main page. For example, here are the headlines posted from January 28:
January 28 is Data Privacy Day. Do you know where your data is?
FCC Says It Will âoeUnlock the Set-Top Boxâ
Are You Fat? Blame Childhood Antibiotics
Subtle Vulnerabilities with PHP and cURL
Billionaire Boater Destroys almost 14,000 square feet of Reef in Cayman Islands
Notice the complete absence of "rightwing echo chamber". Also notice that mvdwege hasn't actually posted on SoylentNews since August.
What you are saying is he should have taken into account conspiracies that will never be detected. But they are taken into account, they are just very unlikely if they involve more that a few people.
You are begging the question.
It *does* account for those.
Did you even think before you wrote that? It's quite clear that the study can't take into account successful conspiracies.
But if the evidence is misleading, it should be suppressed.
No. I know of no such case where that is a good idea. A classic example was the refusals to believe that large disasters didn't happen on a geological time scale because that would supposedly give credence to the Biblical flood story and similar religious kookery. It took a traveling conference along the Columbia river (in the US Northwest), showcasing large scale landforms associated with the repeated prehistorical draining (which created flooding hundreds of feet high all along the river downstream) of glacial lakes in western Montana.
When the narrative becomes more important than the evidence, you no longer are doing science.
Evidence is never misleading. It's only our interpretations of it that can mislead.
When I took a graduate-level physics of the weather class we discussed why the US Navy's readings over water that show a cooling trend shouldn't be released. Too many ignorant people would use them as evidence against global warming.
Funny, how my graduate level physics courses never pretended hiding evidence was a moral good.
First sign of real change withdrawal from Guantanamo Bay, instead of current planning for regime change.
No, planning for regime change is the safe bet. The Castros will be gone shortly. Raul Castro plans on retiring by 2018 and might have an unplanned retirement before that. There will be a lot of changes when that happens.
Second, Cuba's business model as a client state for the USSR and China is long obsolete. They need to change radically. I believe that will include regime change as part of the process.
When you say "interfered with the affairs of Flint" you probably should say, "set aside democracy in Flint and installed a city dictator who reports to the Governor."
Yes, I could say that though that would gloss over the legal restraints on said "city dictator" or the existence of the democratically elected city council.
Consumer purchasing power only comes down to a few end user items and brands. But for the actual companies running the world, we have no choice at all.
Which if you think about it, is a strength of capitalism. You shouldn't have a say in most of what goes on in the world. It's not your business.
It's a truism and by definition is not meaningless. But moving on, we can be more meaningless, such as in the post I replied to, where someone just asserts shit without even bothering to tell us what they think "mind/brain" means.
Well, seems only fair, considering the world bank has estimated the true total subsidies that fossil fuels receive globally at around 5 trillion dollars a year. That's well over 10% of the entire world's GDP spent on fossil subsidies.
Only if you choose to believe the IMF's fantasy numbers. This figure is achieved by playing games such as not taxing pollution is counted as a subsidy (particularly when coupled with huge and unfounded estimates for the harm of such pollution). For example, China has a per capita of almost $2000 per person (due to local pollution effects). That's near half the claimed total subsidies right there.
So why again do US renewables need to be subsidized just because China has a lot of pollution? It's a very retarded argument.
My bet is also that this huge subsidy would vanish, if we were to put in the positive externalities of energy production. That's China's calculation after all. Namely, that their horrendous pollution problem is more than countered by their growing economy.
The very fact that you use phrases like "alternative" and "traditional" to describe energy sources destroys any credibility your argument may have had.
No, there is an engineering aspect to this. "Traditional" energy sources are already built in massive quantity. Even if we were to choose to ignore existing infrastructure, it's still a natural classification for an engineer to make.
Ah, but you were told to blame their lack of new power plant construction, not noticing the orders coming from Houston to shut down perfectly operational power plants.
It is true though. You can't manipulate supply of electricity like Enron did, if there was a lot of excess generation capacity. But because California was massively importing power at the time, it was a simple matter to arrange outages during peak times so as to rake in the high spot prices that were so profitable.
About the worse you can say about California is the shutdown of San Onofre, but that wasn't state mandated, so much as the result of poor maintenance and operations, you can hardly blame the regulators for taking a leery eye to the situation there.
Not at all. The worst you can accurately say about California is that they've had profound short sighted and stupid energy policy for decades.
The loan guarantee program you are referring to ran a profit and picked a heck of a lot of winners.
Loan guarantees can't run a profit for the guarantor by definition since it is a pure cost.
If you think of the mind/brain as a mechanism, you're already wrong.
Unless, of course, you're not wrong. That's always the rhetorical problem with just asserting stuff. It can be false.
virtually everylet them eat cake historical example
What's the "let them eat cake" example here?
We don't what he did or didn't do, what advice he did or didn't give, or what people did or didn't want to hear.
We know that he helped carry out an illegal activity and that he should have known better.
How sad that something so good for the economy is so hated by wealthy.
You can't consider gas prices in a vacuum. They're low in large part due to economic downturns in the developing world and weak economic growth in the developed world dropping overall demand for oil while OPEC, due apparently to the usual OPEC shenanigans as well as an economic conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
While weak economic growth in the US can be partly blamed on Obama, he had nothing to do with the global effects.
It is the way of their kind.
I guess trying to associate those who don't accept the concept (or claimed extent) of man made global warming with the holocaust with the term 'deniers' wasn't working... a new term has been coined.
This is a legit improvement. It's not a loaded term unlike "climate denier" or "climate alarmist".
Granted, this is from the same group who has had a hard time naming the issue, going from global cooling, to global warming, anthropomorphic global warming, to climate change, to climate weirding and seemingly back to climate change.
There's a place for most of those terms (drop "climate weirding" into a casket and bury it). When they're used appropriately to their meaning, they're useful. But it continues to annoy me when someone uses "climate change" strictly for anthropogenic global warming (especially, when they're also completely ignoring others sorts of anthropogenic climate change like the trio of habitat destruction: urbanization, deforestation, and desertification).
what's the absolute minimum the monthly charge can be?
And there you go. It's not my problem anymore. I just decide whether or not I will pay the monthly charge.