The US having lower taxes and thus lower gas prices is a defacto tax credit to both the producers and consumers of the gas
What an absurd statement. I assume you think that a product that has no artificially added taxes is a "tax credit" to the producers somehow. This is the same kind of logic that results in "massive budget cuts!!!!" in a US budget where there is an actual increase in funding, just not as much as some people wanted. It is an example of the idea that the government owns all the income and is benevolent and kind when it lets the workers who earned it have some back. It's how "tax cuts" are claimed to "cost the government", but tax increases don't ever cost the workers anything.
Rural and suburban utilities are stealing the rural electrification administration budget (just under 1 billion$/year).
Rural and suburban utilities are not increasing their rates because the government is giving their customers money to pay for the services like Universities can do because the students have access to loan money. If there is money being provided to the utilities directly by the government, that's keeping the prices down because it covers some of the costs, and the public utility commissions are managing price increases based on those costs.
That's not stealing. It's nothing like direct-to-consumer subsidies that drive prices up.
With the tone and demeanor of your comments, you've proven why Ajit Pai would be stupid to make a public appearance. It would serve no purpose, and only creates a venue where protesters could cause harm to others.
But then, we have no real knowledge of why he isn't going to appear. All we have is the opinion of a biased commenter that he "lacks the spine". Nobody on slashdot has ever had a good reason not to do something that had nothing to do with courage, I guess. Someone I know will be missing a few scientific meetings. He lacks, according to this argument, the spine to defend his scientific works. Or maybe it's because he's having open heart surgery and isn't supposed to do anything but recover for a month. I don't know, I'm leaning towards cowardice...
Look at the price of gasoline anywhere else in the world compared to the US and you'll know exactly how much gas actually is.
No, I'll know how much those companies sell gasoline for, which includes their profits, costs of production and taxes. All of that will be different than in the US. It's different even in different places in the US. It is a false argument to claim that the real cost of gasoline is what people in other countries or places pay.
More importantly, if the government censors the Internet, people get up in arms.
When the government becomes the internet, people will demand censorship.
How long do you believe it will be before an anti-theist group demands that religious websites be banned from a government-run internet? Allowing them to operate would be promoting a religion, which governments are not allowed to do. If you don't believe it, then you haven't noticed that there are groups who will protest the installation of Christmas display banners over city streets, paid for by the religious organizations involved, through a city system that allows anyone to pay for such displays. Why would internet access to religion be any different, when the government is the internet?
It may actually arise initially as a call to block certain "known CP sites". Maybe neo-nazi sites will get banned first (Germany does that, but doesn't run the internet. What would they do if they did? Do you expect a government that would make certain websites illegal wouldn't also act to block those websites if the internet were under its control? China, anyone?).
Be careful what you wish for when you wish for government control of a system. Utopia is a dream; reality can be a nightmare.
There is one other difference - a state run ISP would be tempted to censor. But the same does not apply to a CITY run ISP, or even a county run ISP.
The city and county are elements of "the state" -- government. If a "state run ISP" is tempted to censor, so would a city run ISP. My God, you mean you can see child porn using the Wapakanko City internet system? That should be BLOCKED! And SPAM! They should block all spam!
Which is the real problem here - you are so upset with the government owned monopolies that you are ignoring the major disadvantages of the government SOLD monopolies.
There are no "government sold" ISP monopolies. There are simply too many ISPs already operating to make such a claim seriously.
If a corporation can not compete with a local, municipal run ISP, then it has no business existing.
A corporation cannot compete against a government run ISP for many reasons, at least not on a even footing. The government has the power of eminent domain, it pays no franchise fees, it has taxpayer-funded maintenance of facilities, pays no sales or corporate taxes on the revenues, and is not regulated by itself to provide a raft of services other than the highly profitable internet service. Corporate ISPs have all those costs and regulatory limits imposed on them, in many cases by the very government that is exempting themselves.
When you can avoid many of the costs associated with providing a service, you can always charge less than a company that must pay those costs. When you can amortize the costs that remain over an entire taxpayer base instead of only over a subscriber base, the prices will always be lower.
Why is it that many slashdotters hold an inherent distrust of government, unless it is making promises to give you something you think should be cheap?
I'll point out, if you read the actual proceeding, the city isn't actually going ahead with building the fiber internet, they're going ahead with the studies and plans. The final approval still requires a public vote in November of 2018. There are very few details in what the council approved.
Every reputable scientist on the planet thinks the government doesn't use the tax code to social engineer? Or is it that every 'reputable scientist' has the opposite opinion of why our government taxes us the way it does? Wow. Citation required.
You do realize, I hope, that the science behind AGW is not what all of our tax system is based on, and that I said nothing at all about the validity of AGW? Maybe not. The legislators can care not one whit about what you or I think about AGW and legislate for any number of reasons. That's the claim I was countering. Did you read what I wrote, or what you wanted me to have written?
If you have a $2,000 tax bill, then $5,500 of your tax credit went up in smoke.
If you're paying only $2000 in income tax, then you probably cannot afford to buy a new EV anyway. From the 2017 draft tax tables, to pay only $2000 you'd have an AGI max of $19,600. Add the $12,700 standard deduction and you have $32,300/yr. Are you buying a $60,000 car on that income? (Numbers are married filing jointly. Lower for single.)
If you believe (as I do) that it is crucial to be reducing carbon emissions you immediately grasp why the subsidies exist.
Subsidies do not exist because either you or I think it is crucial to be reducing carbon emissions. They exist because the government wants to social engineer the tax-ees into doing what the government thinks is best for us. Sometimes it is because the legislators get lots of campaign contributions from the companies that they are subsidizing, or they are scratching someone else's back so they'll get theirs scratched for things they want. They don't actually care what we think about it.
When sufficient sales volumes are achieved the subsidies may not be needed to encourage sales,
If nobody wants to buy a product without a subsidy, then when the subsidies stop the sales stop, too. "I'll give you $10,000 to buy something you otherwise couldn't afford" doesn't mean they can suddenly afford it when the $10,000 goes away. It's not a zero sum game, since when the demand drops the prices should, too. There will be an equilibrium somewhere.
Dealerships are stealing the tax credits and bulking up their purchase cost.
Universities are stealing the student loan money by bulking up their tuition. Subsidized anything suffers from that problem. Artificial stimulation of demand increases prices.
I will do well over 1000 miles a day when on the road.
You average well over 41 MPH every hour for 24 hours per day? What, do you only drive the interstates in empty places like Nebraska, or the Autobahn in Germany?
Another factor that would drive leasing over buying is the cost of replacing the batteries when they lose capacity. Nobody wants to be stuck for the cost of new batteries in a few years. This, too, is why the resale value would be low.
It's interesting that there is a question about Tesla's lease rate when they sell their cars directly. I'd guess "0" is the right number.
I would be fine with the regulation staying in place until a law replaced it.
You have a 6" water pipe in your basement. It cracks. Water spews forth. It's a high priority thing to get fixed. You buy some of this FlexWrap tape, wrap the pipe, and the water leak stops. This is a temporary fix, but now that it is in place the priority of the real fix drops a couple of notches as you start dealing with other issues.
That's what the FCC regulations are. They're a temporary fix that removes the impetus to have a long-term real solution.
Look no further than continuing resolutions for another perfect example. The congress could do its job and pass a budget, or it could procrastinate by passing a CR and then the problem isn't as high a priority anymore. Woops, CR is running out? Pass another.
Sometimes removing the crutches is the better course of action, since it forces a solution to be found.
Which is pretty much the opposite of what you said.
I'm sorry, but no. I don't know which ox of yours I've gored, but I'll correct you anyway.
When I said "a study", that meant a scientific study that included papers and publishing and the scientific process. When I said "looked right", that was a short way of saying "the result of processing the proxy measurements from the satellites matched other methods of measuring the temperature." Which is a short version of the long lecture you provided here, and if you had bothered to read what I wrote instead of what you wanted me to write, you'd have realized that.
The point was, of course, not that data was changed, but that what we assume is correct today isn't necessarily so. Many smart people came up with the satellite proxy measurement systems and yet they were giving the wrong answers. Hmm. Sometimes that happens. Only a zealot gets bent out of shape when that kind of thing is pointed out. Hello.
It sounds like you are at the "humans are not causing it" stage.
No, it sounds like I'm pointing out the kind of thing you're doing here, which is ridiculing someone for something he didn't say.
I said that it is convenient for people to ignore what has been said and attack them based on what you wanted them to have said. Look at your last sentence and see if you can find me saying either of what you attribute to me. Both of your hypotheses are pretty ignorant considering you don't know me at all or what I think about the issue.
But if he was doing so with views you agreed with it'd be just fine.
Stop putting words in my mouth. No, I wouldn't.
This is like when you snowflakes whine to "Shutup you're just an entertainer!"
I've never told an entertainer to shut up. You're failing miserably. What is it about snowflakes like you that feel you have to resort to profanity if someone expresses their opinion, and did my resorting to name-calling help this discussion in any way?
You misunderstood what I wrote. I said that it wasn't because the one I voted for didn't win.
No, I understood. You voted for someone who didn't win. But you claim you had no voice because there was nobody you could vote for. But you voted for someone who didn't win. Confusing.
True, they are there. But they may as well not be, as I said before.
Whether they are likely to get enough votes to win or not is irrelevant. Being able to vote for them is how you express your voice. That's true for a true two-party system, or for a 100 party system.
No, it leads us back to changing the system to make third (and fourth, and fifth, etc.) parties actually viable.
If enough people stop thinking their voice isn't being heard when they vote for a non-major party candidate and thus don't vote for anyone, maybe they would win. You can't claim that your voice isn't heard if you never say anything when you have the chance, and if you take advantage of the chance you can't say your voice wasn't heard. All you can say is that there weren't enough people who agreed with "your voice" to elect the person you wanted.
We all have a voice in the process. Your voice is no better or worse than anyone elses. It gets counted along with everyone elses and the winner... wins. That's how democracy works. "Two party" has nothing to do with it. This holds true for the election for dog catcher where there are no parties at all, all the way up to President where there are half a dozen parties.
Although, since you keep saying this, I should point out -- a "none of the above" option is something to consider.
I've already considered it. It's not workable. We can't have a political system where nobody gets elected.
But if "none of the above" wins, that doesn't mean the office remains vacant. It means that the election needs to be held again.
Well, if you think we could have an entire presidential election between "the first Tuesday in November" and the day in December that the electoral college votes, I don't agree. Even if you extend that to Jan 21 when the new President is sworn in you'd be pushing it. When the old one runs out, and if there is no new one, someone has to be in charge. The VP leaves the same day so it would have to be the Speaker of the House, who was not elected to be President by anyone and thus not the result of anyone's voice. If you are upset that your voice isn't being heard when your preferred candidate isn't elected, imagine how most people would feel when someone they never had a chance to vote for at all took over. (Wow! A president that was elected by the people of one state -- and we have enough whining because of the electoral college distributing the election process among all the states now.)
Waaaah someone has political views different than yours. Cry more, snowflake.
Like you are?
Doc is welcome to his politics. He's not welcome to spout them through childish name calling in a computer journal if he expects people to remain as subscribers. LJ lost its focus, and subscribers went with it.
No, I think he meant "due-point". As in, "the temperatures we are due as humans, because that's the temperatures we've grown up with. Any change is outside our 'due-point'."
This is the same thinking that tries to keep beach changes from taking place. For example, when rich people build houses on a sand spit that developed at the mouth of a river and then the river decided to meander back to the course it had fifty years ago -- right through the houses.
> what is the first thing that springs to mind when you hear "sharks are freezing"?
I wonder why they don't warm themselves with their lasers.
As a pilot, we are taught that when you run into an unexpected clouds or icing, and you have no evidence that conditions are better ahead of you, TURN AROUND.
I wondered why the sharks, when encountering cooling water, don't turn around and go back into warmer water. Before I read the summary, I also wondered how sharks were freezing when the water around them was much warmer than freezing.
Most of the people who are accused of denying climate change are actually doubting the anthropogenic causes, and anthropogenic solutions. It's more convenient to accuse someone of "climate change denial" if you ignore what they are actually questioning and then ridicule them for something they didn't say.
In more modern times, the sea water temperature measurement has been supplemented by data recorded by buoys,
Actually a lot of modern temperature data is from satellites. I recall ten years ago or so a study that showed that the satellite data didn't match what they thought it should be, so they recalibrated all the satellite algorithms so it looked right.
That's not my point. My point is simply that a two-party system is deeply flawed, in that you must choose between option A and option B even when neither option is acceptable.
No, the flaw you are describing is based on not having a "no" option, because even though there are two main parties, there are a lot of other parties. Even with ten parties on a ballot, if there are no candidates you like you much choose one of them -- or not vote, which you can do under the alleged "two party" system. There is no "must choose between", because "not voting" is always an option.
I had no voice not because my preferred candidate didn't win,
First you say you have no voice because there is nobody you want to vote for, now it is you have no voice because the one you voted for didn't win. Sorry, but if you voted you had a voice, it was just a case of not enough people agreed with you to manage a victory. There is a significant difference between "having no voice" and "my preferred candidate didn't win." You had a voice, it's just that your voice doesn't overrule the others who also have a voice and chose otherwise.
That's the two-party system in action.
In the last presidential election (which is what I assume you mean by "last election") there were many more than just two parties on the ballot. Your issue is not with the two party system, but with a system where someone always wins even if none of them are who you want. That leaves us back at having a "no" option and leaving the office vacant if enough people vote "no". That might be interesting, but it would be horribly inefficient if it ever happened. Can you imagine going through the entire presidential election process again immediately if "no" won? Another barrage of political ads, primaries, and then another main election... very costly, annoying, aggravating, and unlikely to result in much gain.
My point is that when you don't want any of the candidates to be elected, you have no voice.
If I understand your point, you want every election for a public office to have a "no" option, and if enough people vote "no" then nobody is elected and the office sits vacant until the next election?
I'm not sure how this is an improvement on the current write-in situation, where you can write-in your selection, and if enough people write the same name he wins. That would seem to be your voice. Yes, that requires some planning ahead of time, but so does running any candidate for office.
Slashdot Mirror
The US having lower taxes and thus lower gas prices is a defacto tax credit to both the producers and consumers of the gas
What an absurd statement. I assume you think that a product that has no artificially added taxes is a "tax credit" to the producers somehow. This is the same kind of logic that results in "massive budget cuts!!!!" in a US budget where there is an actual increase in funding, just not as much as some people wanted. It is an example of the idea that the government owns all the income and is benevolent and kind when it lets the workers who earned it have some back. It's how "tax cuts" are claimed to "cost the government", but tax increases don't ever cost the workers anything.
Rural and suburban utilities are stealing the rural electrification administration budget (just under 1 billion$/year).
Rural and suburban utilities are not increasing their rates because the government is giving their customers money to pay for the services like Universities can do because the students have access to loan money. If there is money being provided to the utilities directly by the government, that's keeping the prices down because it covers some of the costs, and the public utility commissions are managing price increases based on those costs.
That's not stealing. It's nothing like direct-to-consumer subsidies that drive prices up.
But then, we have no real knowledge of why he isn't going to appear. All we have is the opinion of a biased commenter that he "lacks the spine". Nobody on slashdot has ever had a good reason not to do something that had nothing to do with courage, I guess. Someone I know will be missing a few scientific meetings. He lacks, according to this argument, the spine to defend his scientific works. Or maybe it's because he's having open heart surgery and isn't supposed to do anything but recover for a month. I don't know, I'm leaning towards cowardice...
Look at the price of gasoline anywhere else in the world compared to the US and you'll know exactly how much gas actually is.
No, I'll know how much those companies sell gasoline for, which includes their profits, costs of production and taxes. All of that will be different than in the US. It's different even in different places in the US. It is a false argument to claim that the real cost of gasoline is what people in other countries or places pay.
More importantly, if the government censors the Internet, people get up in arms.
When the government becomes the internet, people will demand censorship.
How long do you believe it will be before an anti-theist group demands that religious websites be banned from a government-run internet? Allowing them to operate would be promoting a religion, which governments are not allowed to do. If you don't believe it, then you haven't noticed that there are groups who will protest the installation of Christmas display banners over city streets, paid for by the religious organizations involved, through a city system that allows anyone to pay for such displays. Why would internet access to religion be any different, when the government is the internet?
It may actually arise initially as a call to block certain "known CP sites". Maybe neo-nazi sites will get banned first (Germany does that, but doesn't run the internet. What would they do if they did? Do you expect a government that would make certain websites illegal wouldn't also act to block those websites if the internet were under its control? China, anyone?).
Be careful what you wish for when you wish for government control of a system. Utopia is a dream; reality can be a nightmare.
There is one other difference - a state run ISP would be tempted to censor. But the same does not apply to a CITY run ISP, or even a county run ISP.
The city and county are elements of "the state" -- government. If a "state run ISP" is tempted to censor, so would a city run ISP. My God, you mean you can see child porn using the Wapakanko City internet system? That should be BLOCKED! And SPAM! They should block all spam!
Which is the real problem here - you are so upset with the government owned monopolies that you are ignoring the major disadvantages of the government SOLD monopolies.
There are no "government sold" ISP monopolies. There are simply too many ISPs already operating to make such a claim seriously.
If a corporation can not compete with a local, municipal run ISP, then it has no business existing.
A corporation cannot compete against a government run ISP for many reasons, at least not on a even footing. The government has the power of eminent domain, it pays no franchise fees, it has taxpayer-funded maintenance of facilities, pays no sales or corporate taxes on the revenues, and is not regulated by itself to provide a raft of services other than the highly profitable internet service. Corporate ISPs have all those costs and regulatory limits imposed on them, in many cases by the very government that is exempting themselves.
When you can avoid many of the costs associated with providing a service, you can always charge less than a company that must pay those costs. When you can amortize the costs that remain over an entire taxpayer base instead of only over a subscriber base, the prices will always be lower.
Why is it that many slashdotters hold an inherent distrust of government, unless it is making promises to give you something you think should be cheap?
I'll point out, if you read the actual proceeding, the city isn't actually going ahead with building the fiber internet, they're going ahead with the studies and plans. The final approval still requires a public vote in November of 2018. There are very few details in what the council approved.
You do realize, I hope, that the science behind AGW is not what all of our tax system is based on, and that I said nothing at all about the validity of AGW? Maybe not. The legislators can care not one whit about what you or I think about AGW and legislate for any number of reasons. That's the claim I was countering. Did you read what I wrote, or what you wanted me to have written?
If you have a $2,000 tax bill, then $5,500 of your tax credit went up in smoke.
If you're paying only $2000 in income tax, then you probably cannot afford to buy a new EV anyway. From the 2017 draft tax tables, to pay only $2000 you'd have an AGI max of $19,600. Add the $12,700 standard deduction and you have $32,300/yr. Are you buying a $60,000 car on that income? (Numbers are married filing jointly. Lower for single.)
How do you feel about subsidies that are artificially keeping the price you pay for gasoline low?
Upon which line of the 10-40 do I enter the tax rebate I will be getting for purchasing a specific product -- i.e. gasoline?
If you believe (as I do) that it is crucial to be reducing carbon emissions you immediately grasp why the subsidies exist.
Subsidies do not exist because either you or I think it is crucial to be reducing carbon emissions. They exist because the government wants to social engineer the tax-ees into doing what the government thinks is best for us. Sometimes it is because the legislators get lots of campaign contributions from the companies that they are subsidizing, or they are scratching someone else's back so they'll get theirs scratched for things they want. They don't actually care what we think about it.
When sufficient sales volumes are achieved the subsidies may not be needed to encourage sales,
If nobody wants to buy a product without a subsidy, then when the subsidies stop the sales stop, too. "I'll give you $10,000 to buy something you otherwise couldn't afford" doesn't mean they can suddenly afford it when the $10,000 goes away. It's not a zero sum game, since when the demand drops the prices should, too. There will be an equilibrium somewhere.
Dealerships are stealing the tax credits and bulking up their purchase cost.
Universities are stealing the student loan money by bulking up their tuition. Subsidized anything suffers from that problem. Artificial stimulation of demand increases prices.
I will do well over 1000 miles a day when on the road.
You average well over 41 MPH every hour for 24 hours per day? What, do you only drive the interstates in empty places like Nebraska, or the Autobahn in Germany?
Another factor that would drive leasing over buying is the cost of replacing the batteries when they lose capacity. Nobody wants to be stuck for the cost of new batteries in a few years. This, too, is why the resale value would be low.
It's interesting that there is a question about Tesla's lease rate when they sell their cars directly. I'd guess "0" is the right number.
I would be fine with the regulation staying in place until a law replaced it.
You have a 6" water pipe in your basement. It cracks. Water spews forth. It's a high priority thing to get fixed. You buy some of this FlexWrap tape, wrap the pipe, and the water leak stops. This is a temporary fix, but now that it is in place the priority of the real fix drops a couple of notches as you start dealing with other issues.
That's what the FCC regulations are. They're a temporary fix that removes the impetus to have a long-term real solution.
Look no further than continuing resolutions for another perfect example. The congress could do its job and pass a budget, or it could procrastinate by passing a CR and then the problem isn't as high a priority anymore. Woops, CR is running out? Pass another.
Sometimes removing the crutches is the better course of action, since it forces a solution to be found.
Which is pretty much the opposite of what you said.
I'm sorry, but no. I don't know which ox of yours I've gored, but I'll correct you anyway.
When I said "a study", that meant a scientific study that included papers and publishing and the scientific process. When I said "looked right", that was a short way of saying "the result of processing the proxy measurements from the satellites matched other methods of measuring the temperature." Which is a short version of the long lecture you provided here, and if you had bothered to read what I wrote instead of what you wanted me to write, you'd have realized that.
The point was, of course, not that data was changed, but that what we assume is correct today isn't necessarily so. Many smart people came up with the satellite proxy measurement systems and yet they were giving the wrong answers. Hmm. Sometimes that happens. Only a zealot gets bent out of shape when that kind of thing is pointed out. Hello.
It sounds like you are at the "humans are not causing it" stage.
No, it sounds like I'm pointing out the kind of thing you're doing here, which is ridiculing someone for something he didn't say.
I said that it is convenient for people to ignore what has been said and attack them based on what you wanted them to have said. Look at your last sentence and see if you can find me saying either of what you attribute to me. Both of your hypotheses are pretty ignorant considering you don't know me at all or what I think about the issue.
But if he was doing so with views you agreed with it'd be just fine.
Stop putting words in my mouth. No, I wouldn't.
This is like when you snowflakes whine to "Shutup you're just an entertainer!"
I've never told an entertainer to shut up. You're failing miserably. What is it about snowflakes like you that feel you have to resort to profanity if someone expresses their opinion, and did my resorting to name-calling help this discussion in any way?
You misunderstood what I wrote. I said that it wasn't because the one I voted for didn't win.
No, I understood. You voted for someone who didn't win. But you claim you had no voice because there was nobody you could vote for. But you voted for someone who didn't win. Confusing.
True, they are there. But they may as well not be, as I said before.
Whether they are likely to get enough votes to win or not is irrelevant. Being able to vote for them is how you express your voice. That's true for a true two-party system, or for a 100 party system.
No, it leads us back to changing the system to make third (and fourth, and fifth, etc.) parties actually viable.
If enough people stop thinking their voice isn't being heard when they vote for a non-major party candidate and thus don't vote for anyone, maybe they would win. You can't claim that your voice isn't heard if you never say anything when you have the chance, and if you take advantage of the chance you can't say your voice wasn't heard. All you can say is that there weren't enough people who agreed with "your voice" to elect the person you wanted.
We all have a voice in the process. Your voice is no better or worse than anyone elses. It gets counted along with everyone elses and the winner ... wins. That's how democracy works. "Two party" has nothing to do with it. This holds true for the election for dog catcher where there are no parties at all, all the way up to President where there are half a dozen parties.
Although, since you keep saying this, I should point out -- a "none of the above" option is something to consider.
I've already considered it. It's not workable. We can't have a political system where nobody gets elected.
But if "none of the above" wins, that doesn't mean the office remains vacant. It means that the election needs to be held again.
Well, if you think we could have an entire presidential election between "the first Tuesday in November" and the day in December that the electoral college votes, I don't agree. Even if you extend that to Jan 21 when the new President is sworn in you'd be pushing it. When the old one runs out, and if there is no new one, someone has to be in charge. The VP leaves the same day so it would have to be the Speaker of the House, who was not elected to be President by anyone and thus not the result of anyone's voice. If you are upset that your voice isn't being heard when your preferred candidate isn't elected, imagine how most people would feel when someone they never had a chance to vote for at all took over. (Wow! A president that was elected by the people of one state -- and we have enough whining because of the electoral college distributing the election process among all the states now.)
Waaaah someone has political views different than yours. Cry more, snowflake.
Like you are?
Doc is welcome to his politics. He's not welcome to spout them through childish name calling in a computer journal if he expects people to remain as subscribers. LJ lost its focus, and subscribers went with it.
First of all, it is dew point, not 'due point'.
No, I think he meant "due-point". As in, "the temperatures we are due as humans, because that's the temperatures we've grown up with. Any change is outside our 'due-point'."
This is the same thinking that tries to keep beach changes from taking place. For example, when rich people build houses on a sand spit that developed at the mouth of a river and then the river decided to meander back to the course it had fifty years ago -- right through the houses.
> what is the first thing that springs to mind when you hear "sharks are freezing"? I wonder why they don't warm themselves with their lasers.
As a pilot, we are taught that when you run into an unexpected clouds or icing, and you have no evidence that conditions are better ahead of you, TURN AROUND.
I wondered why the sharks, when encountering cooling water, don't turn around and go back into warmer water. Before I read the summary, I also wondered how sharks were freezing when the water around them was much warmer than freezing.
nobody denies climate change
Plenty do.
Most of the people who are accused of denying climate change are actually doubting the anthropogenic causes, and anthropogenic solutions. It's more convenient to accuse someone of "climate change denial" if you ignore what they are actually questioning and then ridicule them for something they didn't say.
In more modern times, the sea water temperature measurement has been supplemented by data recorded by buoys,
Actually a lot of modern temperature data is from satellites. I recall ten years ago or so a study that showed that the satellite data didn't match what they thought it should be, so they recalibrated all the satellite algorithms so it looked right.
I may have to re-subscribe to the print addition once again.
I see nothing in the announcement that says they're going back to print.
I do see that Doc is still there, and I assume his politics will remain.
That's not my point. My point is simply that a two-party system is deeply flawed, in that you must choose between option A and option B even when neither option is acceptable.
No, the flaw you are describing is based on not having a "no" option, because even though there are two main parties, there are a lot of other parties. Even with ten parties on a ballot, if there are no candidates you like you much choose one of them -- or not vote, which you can do under the alleged "two party" system. There is no "must choose between", because "not voting" is always an option.
I had no voice not because my preferred candidate didn't win,
First you say you have no voice because there is nobody you want to vote for, now it is you have no voice because the one you voted for didn't win. Sorry, but if you voted you had a voice, it was just a case of not enough people agreed with you to manage a victory. There is a significant difference between "having no voice" and "my preferred candidate didn't win." You had a voice, it's just that your voice doesn't overrule the others who also have a voice and chose otherwise.
That's the two-party system in action.
In the last presidential election (which is what I assume you mean by "last election") there were many more than just two parties on the ballot. Your issue is not with the two party system, but with a system where someone always wins even if none of them are who you want. That leaves us back at having a "no" option and leaving the office vacant if enough people vote "no". That might be interesting, but it would be horribly inefficient if it ever happened. Can you imagine going through the entire presidential election process again immediately if "no" won? Another barrage of political ads, primaries, and then another main election ... very costly, annoying, aggravating, and unlikely to result in much gain.
My point is that when you don't want any of the candidates to be elected, you have no voice.
If I understand your point, you want every election for a public office to have a "no" option, and if enough people vote "no" then nobody is elected and the office sits vacant until the next election?
I'm not sure how this is an improvement on the current write-in situation, where you can write-in your selection, and if enough people write the same name he wins. That would seem to be your voice. Yes, that requires some planning ahead of time, but so does running any candidate for office.