Publicly traded corporations which are the worst of all. Shareholders DEMAND evil and while management can resist for a while, they are only human and will not be able to hold their positions against the nature of the beast. Like a Vampire, they may not want to suck the life out of people but the thirst will win out. As soon as they IPO'd google was inherently evil. The thirst is there and it will take hold eventually.
You might feel fine inviting them into your home, but I won't tempt fate.
No. when they punish somebody MORE than is reasonable that is not merely about publicity. This is a pattern of politicians (prosecutors) being tough on crime by doing horrible things to people; or perhaps even for their own ego.
Didn't you learn anything after generations of advertizing, 40 years of think tanks and a corporate controlled media? Private industry is always better than government, the corporations have told us so; therefore it is reality. You must be a communist!
I have little respect for nearly all pundits on TV. You should learn some journalism. Or work in TV. They don't pick pundits by their quality but by their entertainment value and secondly for their idiotic "fairness bias." Go look that term up.
Roger Ailes made Reagan into the pseudo prophet he is today. Fox is not owned by Roger Ailes; he runs it. sigh...
Chris Matthews doesn't nullify my point at all. That twit is what we've got for "smart" journalism today (generally speaking.) Even if he tries to up his game he can't pull it off - he is corporate controllable; like Howard Beale in the Network, but less entertaining.
DON'T WATCH TV NEWS. it is so poor it should not be allowed to be called news. They filter the news wire (which does the actual work for little money) for things that will get ratings AND what is related to sponsors or corporate partners. I knew a local news editor for TV, he quit and I know why he quit. The collapse has been so gradual Americans no longer have a clue. Hell, studies more show college freshman don't know fact from opinion! Fox only lowered things for TV, it was already unacceptable before them.
By "sending a message" they are by their own admission, using an unusual punishment.
Sure, this is an interpretive call on the meaning of "unusual" and judges are extremely unlikely to limit their own power by using a broad definition, just as they are unlikely to limit their power by using a narrow definition.
Apparently, California's prison lobby has not been deterred by the budget problems and overcrowding. We have the technology, house arrest for 30 months would be more reasonable.
My mayor squandered most his time in office distracted by small problems - his enemies created small BS distractions and his OCD did him in. Plus side is some jerks were fed up and quit and he fired some people -- all needed it; but again, it was largely inconsequentially small.
Both stations are disgraces. Fox more so; although, I've not had cable in many years I highly doubt that MSNBC is going beyond being the ratings whore it always was. Fox is run by a famously successful professional propagandist, ratings are not it's sole mission... well, it might actually be - since propaganda and ratings are close enough to run parallel. I think fox would run at a loss if it could accomplish it's true mission; but since its mission includes suckering as many as possible their ratings coincide.
Spoiler Alert: Alan Colmes? You must think the "Washington Generals" are a real basketball team who legitimately loses to the "Harlem Globetrotters." BTW, Pro Wrestling is staged and there is no Santa. Geraldo Rivera is border-line retarded. Scarborough may have grown slightly but mostly his party has gone crazy can fallen to the rubes they just lied to for votes. You know so many Fox names I'm probably just upsetting one of their followers...
Didn't you notice all the Republicans who were Birthers at certain times (elections) and places but quietly gave away it was an act for their gullible demographic? That is not new, but what is new is how effective the propaganda has become and how the inmates are running the asylum. Thinking Republicans are left without a party and have become a marginalized minority. I'm not implying Democrats have more thinkers, they've not yet gone crazy enough to filter out the thinkers (and their diverse coalition provides increased immunity. Yes, this means the Republicans can only go up as they are forced to diversify their voter "portfolio")
Opinions are not equal: A simple stat showing time spent on opinions and commentary is too simplistic to draw your conclusions from. It DOES show how horrible the "news" has become. It doesn't indicate the quality of the opinions or how informative they are. One can be opinionated and still be fair, logical, factual, and balanced - but that involves WORK on part of the audience and the presenter to use their brains. Fox is usually quite lazy and last I saw, the MSNBC people were trying hard (even Chris Matthews who sadly is just not smart enough to pull it off, I think he was trying to raise the bar. I also think if you put him on Fox and surrounded him he'd change his tune, not because he is slimy but because he's.... lets say, easily influenced.)
There is no left/right. that is a false dialemma. go read politicalcompass.org
A lawyer politician can redefine up as down and kill as invigorate...
Japan had US oil blockades severely threatening their supply lines during their WW2 quest for world domination. That wasn't an act of war.... (except to the Japanese who responded violently to what WE didn't LABEL as an act of war.)
Are you serious? What HR professional is going to openly say that is their policy? After all that HR experience they'd have to be extremely foolish!
I PERSONALLY KNEW AN HR PERSON WHO SAID THIS, OFF THE RECORD. I won't say which major retail chain box store or for what positions (corporate office positions) this was done but it did happen and yes, anything they didn't like on your public facebook profile would get you rejected. While some people who looked fun at a party would get picked. It was never against people without facebook directly, it was the result of NOT being able to judge you using facebook. Think about it: If your decision is influenced based upon google results and facebook info and somebody LACKS that information, you are more likely going with the people you feel you understand better. I imagine it differs now with people locking down their public facebook information... but I can't find out because that office of HR people were laid off. (Yes I took glee in thinking how bad it is for this person given how much bad looking stuff was on their profile! Naturally, I asked about their hypocrisy: "I'm going to work here for life. I don't have to worry.")
Don't ever think that HR people actually do their job impartially (or intelligently.) All that training they get is about how to BS their way around troubles for the corporation; to protect their employer from the employees.
Janitors make better money for the little experience required. It is stable and not out sourced; it is necessary. Same with garbage, mechanics, and other frowned upon jobs. Real estate, Sales, Small Business are ok because they can make a lot of money despite them not needing education or brains.
Education adds less value every year and it is always measured in salary when security and stress are equally important factors.
Truth is, that the 'thinking' jobs are going to be not worth the cost, we will outsource them to places with cheaper education and lower costs of living. Even if college is made free, for the sake of keeping our "thinking" jobs so we can have an economy; why would people want to do all that when they can make a little less as a janitor but have stability and low stress?
As far as quality students, that is largely another situation. Previously, certain demographics went for the education and they proved to be highly valuable employees, the pay somewhat reflected that. Then everybody else wanted that pay and incorrectly formulated that the education is what caused the higher pay. Now we have a large number of educated people that are hard to distinguish from the ones who made it desirable in the 1st place. Not to say it doesn't improve people, but it isn't the sole reason why college education was desirable. Its almost just an HR filter for applicants today (in which case tell the kids, get an easy cheap degree.)
The whole economy is slowly imploding, this system never was sustainable and things are going to get worse - it all ties together in an incredibly complex web of "life" even if it is a partially artificial one.
100m actual tax payers x $8 = $800,000,000 for NASA. It is not a flat tax and I left out all the people who file taxes and don't pay in. It is a low price to raise a lot of money for something more worthwhile than...wars.
Ok, how about the parent watches the child nearly all the time: Corporations can still track and profile the kid from birth. The child can be targeted in ways the parent is unaware of, since they lack expertise in child psychology, marketing, peer pressure, and whatever new technology only the kids are using. Don't forget about abusive ex-spouses and kidnappers. Excluding pedos, because they are likely friends or family.
The child's future employment (just for starters) could be influenced by data gathered on them. The parent may not know. Already some HR people won't hire somebody without a facebook profile (and others won't if you do have one.) So, keeping the child off the grid may also do harm in the future.
Children without a profile might be more prone to costly insurance claims...Resulting in higher rates for the child's whole lifetime.
There is more than just kid doing childish things online.... although we really could use some laws to allow kids to mess up online instead of criminalizing them for calling somebody names because they can't get that out of their system in the school yard anymore.
I know somebody going into the program to get a degree in drones. After high school; it is not for vets it is more of a recruitment program - that degree won't be much use afterwards unless the student works for government.
It's a bogus program and a stupid degree. Nobody needs it to fly a drone but the kids seem to think that is what it is for-- that is not the case. They don't need jack to fly a remote control and the people doing it now have little education. Most will not fly one but they'll have student debt and a career path that primarily consists of military and Fatherland Security. People working on and making "drones" will have serious degrees.
NASA costs about $8 per year in taxes for most Americans. If most Americans want to do something with NASA they can afford to give up 1 pizza per year. Even doubling the funding is feasible. The debt and deficit matters amount to larger problems that actually have little to do with spending and more to do with the broken political system, ignorant public, and incompetent/corrupt media. If we spent $10 per year we could properly fund PBS and somewhat restore the press to what the founders had; (Yes, the founders subsidized the press and by a whole lot more too.)
FYI: I'm opposed to the whole program including going to mars.
Clinton re-purposed it for power generation in the 90s. The plants exist already and we have to import fuel for them. NIMBY isn't an issue; it already exists.
Do we need as many as we have? probably not. Finding experts is tricky since the military rarely ever wants to lower capacity even if it is 100x overkill.
Try tracking your costs for a year. It is not difficult to do, just be honest about it. See if at the end your total cost is worth it just because you hate renting. Include those extra fees for London.
I am surprised at what mass transit costs are in London; how do they get them so high? Doesn't anything ever get payed off?? Or did they privatize it so the price never could go down? You have mass transit; mine is shit (midwest USA.) I wonder just how much slower it is than driving with all the traffic congestion there.
I just got quoted today on an electric: insurance is $1800 per year. minimal is $500 but a new car without repair insurance is foolish. That means that I don't save enough gas to make it pay off unless I compare it to a similar value car, which I'd not buy. So I'll have to wait for a used electric... A car is just transit to me: no "insecurities," no power trip, I'm not easily entertained, and marketing rarely works on me. A car is transit where I have to do all the work. I could DO something if I wasn't having to manually operate the vehicle. I have better things to do than dodge morons bent on testing their luck at operating a cell while driving.
RELEVANCE: Energy Policy. The USA had the most uranium. It is nearly all gone. Our nuke plants need the stuff. Now we IMPORT it! Waste a ton of money on extra nukes or save money and use the fuel.
Nuclear tactics is not physics. The word Nuclear does not make simple things difficult. This is a big pork welfare program disguised as defense - and just like before, those who stand to lose money will be screaming to save it. Like like the F-22, it has economic ties around the whole nation.
If you hang around crooks something is going to rub off, that is just proven psychology. Politicians have a much much harder time - by the time they get to the top they've had a lot of exposure. Something has to be actively done to counter environmental impacts; kissing babies and saying nice things is not enough.
I view evil as a social virus which runs on distributed human brains which can form organically but also be intentionally crafted and I only actually consider a person evil if they are an author of mayhem rather than a tool. Since people react and do not think these viruses are, in a way, running on "spare cycles" of people's minds. One must learn to think and how to think; it does not come naturally.
As far as the inherent "sin" of man, I think there is some symbolism there but mostly it is false. In depth this topic is incredibly difficult. Greed could be purely an outward expression of survival instincts and not "evil" and neither could one consider it "bad" in that the behavior served a purpose and who can say it is no longer needed? This society says it is bad (ignoring the many contradictions) but this belief is ultimately unprovable. Society says what is "good" and what is "bad" and what impulses must be repressed or used to control you by attaching guilt/shame of yourself; (which themselves may be evolved emotions to keep the tribe together.)
I replied to your post because I was thinking about the same topic. I like to be contrary.
Some people think a tiger who kills a human is evil; it is in it's nature to kill it's food. The human animal is still just an animal and does natural things lacking any conscious rational but unlike the tiger, it has the brain power to rationalize its instincts into an illusion of free thinking and therefore believe it is unlike other animals. This is extremely hard for the human ego to accept.
Politicians succeed by tribalism; not reason and not logic. To some degree they must reflect the populace; even a dictator has limits and must bend to expectations.
What is evil is how to make generally good people collectively manifest "evil" deeds. A mental hack which makes somebody do antisocial things is evil - I use the word make because of the above statement. Free will is not as strong as people BELIEVE it is. Now if you don't have your parent's religion, politics, tastes... maybe then you are in a position to argue otherwise.
Ramps and turns rate their speed limits based upon what it takes to skid the car 10 mph faster than the sign indicates. Now, sure if you have a fancy car with fancy tires... but you still should be informed what the limit is for a lousy car and besides, when your tires are worn out you slide easier.
The other problem is that at least in the USA, drivers are fools and I think if we raised the bar to a reasonable level we'd lose half the drivers on the road. Not that I'm against that but there is no decent mass transportation in the USA so even fools need to drive. The driving exam was a joke. I can't wait until computers can drive, I'll be lobbying my reps to force them into every situation... 3 tickets? you lose the right to drive, the computer takes over! Billions should be put into solving this-- more people die yearly from cars than by terrorism or most diseases and we put money into "solving" those.
Cops don't have quotas, haven't you heard the official statement EVERY time the issue is brought up? (yes, of course they do, but that is off the record.) Having quotas for police tickets is arbitrary... and is a poor indicator of them working; as are the arrest statistics etc.
If you have a 2nd car: + upkeep: depends on how much you do, what shape it is in. easily over $100 per year average + having to use it often so it doesn't stagnate: an inconvenience + additional insurance costs: minimal insurance about $500 per year, more if you cover the car's value + storage space: an inconvenience + initial cost of a 2nd car: $500-15,000 + additional theft or vandalism risk + sell it before its a lemon: an inconvenience or an art form...
Since this would be a long-range car, one has to factor in just how cheap you want to go with it - since a junker may not be what you want to take on a 500 mile journey. An electric might take time to recharge and beg for an outlet - but a gas car has a much higher failure rate - a mechanic might fix it quick (for a high fee) or you might be down for more than 8 hours.
For many people, it is cheaper to RENT a car than pay the insurance for a largely idle possession. If I average the total cost of ownership I am paying approximately $3000 per year to own a car. I get bye cheaper than most people. I won't have an exact average until I change cars, but I spreadsheet everything. Removing gas will save over $1000 per year. The savings from a switch to electric will cover the rentals. Its the initial electric car price that is the current problem.
Rental and shared ownership will become easier and cheaper.
You do your homework. I do mine and remember the conclusions. I don't mind doing research because I've done so much of it already but I don't keep sources for everything I read on hand in a database in case I just happen to bring up something I've learned over the course of my life. I don't remember seeing clear cut data on this, but then there wasn't "clear" proof they were purposely discriminating against women - but reasonably looking at it, Walmart does it. You on the other hand are going totally off ignorant assumptions and lending too much weight to.... nothing. I admit I had similar assumptions when I heard it 1st but realizing I didn't know jack or even think about the issue, I followed up and changed my mind to something that had grounding. 1st impressions are not bad but you have to dismiss them as the baseless things they are. What I found out is that people with bad credit are more desperate and less likely quit; they'll likely put up with more for longer... at least that is what some business people think; including my former boss (when I brought it up, he acted like I was clueless - like it was common knowledge.) I only remember this factoid at all because it stuck in my mind as counter intuitive and shocking/unethical.
The burden is yours, not mine - this is not a formal debate or a paper and often I find that people who already have a strong position will not bother to investigate the sources honestly because it upsets their egos too much. It is a waste of time to put anything into a simple web comment for a total stranger. If you are a worthy candidate of the time and effort you will also be able to research on your own and change your position upon finding the truth; if not, either I may be incorrect or the info is too hard to find or the person is too lazy or biased.
Slashdot Mirror
Publicly traded corporations which are the worst of all. Shareholders DEMAND evil and while management can resist for a while, they are only human and will not be able to hold their positions against the nature of the beast. Like a Vampire, they may not want to suck the life out of people but the thirst will win out. As soon as they IPO'd google was inherently evil. The thirst is there and it will take hold eventually.
You might feel fine inviting them into your home, but I won't tempt fate.
illogical; its easy to knock down straw-men you construct.
No. when they punish somebody MORE than is reasonable that is not merely about publicity. This is a pattern of politicians (prosecutors) being tough on crime by doing horrible things to people; or perhaps even for their own ego.
Didn't you learn anything after generations of advertizing, 40 years of think tanks and a corporate controlled media? Private industry is always better than government, the corporations have told us so; therefore it is reality.
You must be a communist!
I have little respect for nearly all pundits on TV.
You should learn some journalism. Or work in TV. They don't pick pundits by their quality but by their entertainment value and secondly for their idiotic "fairness bias." Go look that term up.
Roger Ailes made Reagan into the pseudo prophet he is today.
Fox is not owned by Roger Ailes; he runs it. sigh...
Chris Matthews doesn't nullify my point at all. That twit is what we've got for "smart" journalism today (generally speaking.) Even if he tries to up his game he can't pull it off - he is corporate controllable; like Howard Beale in the Network, but less entertaining.
DON'T WATCH TV NEWS. it is so poor it should not be allowed to be called news. They filter the news wire (which does the actual work for little money) for things that will get ratings AND what is related to sponsors or corporate partners. I knew a local news editor for TV, he quit and I know why he quit. The collapse has been so gradual Americans no longer have a clue. Hell, studies more show college freshman don't know fact from opinion! Fox only lowered things for TV, it was already unacceptable before them.
By "sending a message" they are by their own admission, using an unusual punishment.
Sure, this is an interpretive call on the meaning of "unusual" and judges are extremely unlikely to limit their own power by using a broad definition, just as they are unlikely to limit their power by using a narrow definition.
Apparently, California's prison lobby has not been deterred by the budget problems and overcrowding. We have the technology, house arrest for 30 months would be more reasonable.
My mayor squandered most his time in office distracted by small problems - his enemies created small BS distractions and his OCD did him in. Plus side is some jerks were fed up and quit and he fired some people -- all needed it; but again, it was largely inconsequentially small.
Both stations are disgraces. Fox more so; although, I've not had cable in many years I highly doubt that MSNBC is going beyond being the ratings whore it always was. Fox is run by a famously successful professional propagandist, ratings are not it's sole mission... well, it might actually be - since propaganda and ratings are close enough to run parallel. I think fox would run at a loss if it could accomplish it's true mission; but since its mission includes suckering as many as possible their ratings coincide.
Spoiler Alert:
Alan Colmes? You must think the "Washington Generals" are a real basketball team who legitimately loses to the "Harlem Globetrotters." BTW, Pro Wrestling is staged and there is no Santa. Geraldo Rivera is border-line retarded. Scarborough may have grown slightly but mostly his party has gone crazy can fallen to the rubes they just lied to for votes. You know so many Fox names I'm probably just upsetting one of their followers...
Didn't you notice all the Republicans who were Birthers at certain times (elections) and places but quietly gave away it was an act for their gullible demographic? That is not new, but what is new is how effective the propaganda has become and how the inmates are running the asylum. Thinking Republicans are left without a party and have become a marginalized minority. I'm not implying Democrats have more thinkers, they've not yet gone crazy enough to filter out the thinkers (and their diverse coalition provides increased immunity. Yes, this means the Republicans can only go up as they are forced to diversify their voter "portfolio")
Opinions are not equal:
A simple stat showing time spent on opinions and commentary is too simplistic to draw your conclusions from. It DOES show how horrible the "news" has become. It doesn't indicate the quality of the opinions or how informative they are. One can be opinionated and still be fair, logical, factual, and balanced - but that involves WORK on part of the audience and the presenter to use their brains. Fox is usually quite lazy and last I saw, the MSNBC people were trying hard (even Chris Matthews who sadly is just not smart enough to pull it off, I think he was trying to raise the bar. I also think if you put him on Fox and surrounded him he'd change his tune, not because he is slimy but because he's.... lets say, easily influenced.)
There is no left/right. that is a false dialemma. go read politicalcompass.org
A lawyer politician can redefine up as down and kill as invigorate...
Japan had US oil blockades severely threatening their supply lines during their WW2 quest for world domination. That wasn't an act of war.... (except to the Japanese who responded violently to what WE didn't LABEL as an act of war.)
You have my vote
Are you serious? What HR professional is going to openly say that is their policy? After all that HR experience they'd have to be extremely foolish!
I PERSONALLY KNEW AN HR PERSON WHO SAID THIS, OFF THE RECORD. I won't say which major retail chain box store or for what positions (corporate office positions) this was done but it did happen and yes, anything they didn't like on your public facebook profile would get you rejected. While some people who looked fun at a party would get picked. It was never against people without facebook directly, it was the result of NOT being able to judge you using facebook. Think about it: If your decision is influenced based upon google results and facebook info and somebody LACKS that information, you are more likely going with the people you feel you understand better. I imagine it differs now with people locking down their public facebook information... but I can't find out because that office of HR people were laid off. (Yes I took glee in thinking how bad it is for this person given how much bad looking stuff was on their profile! Naturally, I asked about their hypocrisy: "I'm going to work here for life. I don't have to worry.")
Don't ever think that HR people actually do their job impartially (or intelligently.) All that training they get is about how to BS their way around troubles for the corporation; to protect their employer from the employees.
Janitors make better money for the little experience required. It is stable and not out sourced; it is necessary. Same with garbage, mechanics, and other frowned upon jobs. Real estate, Sales, Small Business are ok because they can make a lot of money despite them not needing education or brains.
Education adds less value every year and it is always measured in salary when security and stress are equally important factors.
Truth is, that the 'thinking' jobs are going to be not worth the cost, we will outsource them to places with cheaper education and lower costs of living. Even if college is made free, for the sake of keeping our "thinking" jobs so we can have an economy; why would people want to do all that when they can make a little less as a janitor but have stability and low stress?
As far as quality students, that is largely another situation. Previously, certain demographics went for the education and they proved to be highly valuable employees, the pay somewhat reflected that. Then everybody else wanted that pay and incorrectly formulated that the education is what caused the higher pay. Now we have a large number of educated people that are hard to distinguish from the ones who made it desirable in the 1st place. Not to say it doesn't improve people, but it isn't the sole reason why college education was desirable. Its almost just an HR filter for applicants today (in which case tell the kids, get an easy cheap degree.)
The whole economy is slowly imploding, this system never was sustainable and things are going to get worse - it all ties together in an incredibly complex web of "life" even if it is a partially artificial one.
100m actual tax payers x $8 = $800,000,000 for NASA. It is not a flat tax and I left out all the people who file taxes and don't pay in. It is a low price to raise a lot of money for something more worthwhile than ...wars.
Ok, how about the parent watches the child nearly all the time:
Corporations can still track and profile the kid from birth. The child can be targeted in ways the parent is unaware of, since they lack expertise in child psychology, marketing, peer pressure, and whatever new technology only the kids are using. Don't forget about abusive ex-spouses and kidnappers. Excluding pedos, because they are likely friends or family.
The child's future employment (just for starters) could be influenced by data gathered on them. The parent may not know. Already some HR people won't hire somebody without a facebook profile (and others won't if you do have one.) So, keeping the child off the grid may also do harm in the future.
Children without a profile might be more prone to costly insurance claims...Resulting in higher rates for the child's whole lifetime.
There is more than just kid doing childish things online.... although we really could use some laws to allow kids to mess up online instead of criminalizing them for calling somebody names because they can't get that out of their system in the school yard anymore.
I know somebody going into the program to get a degree in drones. After high school; it is not for vets it is more of a recruitment program - that degree won't be much use afterwards unless the student works for government.
It's a bogus program and a stupid degree. Nobody needs it to fly a drone but the kids seem to think that is what it is for-- that is not the case. They don't need jack to fly a remote control and the people doing it now have little education. Most will not fly one but they'll have student debt and a career path that primarily consists of military and Fatherland Security. People working on and making "drones" will have serious degrees.
NASA costs about $8 per year in taxes for most Americans. If most Americans want to do something with NASA they can afford to give up 1 pizza per year. Even doubling the funding is feasible. The debt and deficit matters amount to larger problems that actually have little to do with spending and more to do with the broken political system, ignorant public, and incompetent/corrupt media. If we spent $10 per year we could properly fund PBS and somewhat restore the press to what the founders had; (Yes, the founders subsidized the press and by a whole lot more too.)
FYI: I'm opposed to the whole program including going to mars.
Clinton re-purposed it for power generation in the 90s. The plants exist already and we have to import fuel for them. NIMBY isn't an issue; it already exists.
Do we need as many as we have? probably not. Finding experts is tricky since the military rarely ever wants to lower capacity even if it is 100x overkill.
Try tracking your costs for a year. It is not difficult to do, just be honest about it. See if at the end your total cost is worth it just because you hate renting. Include those extra fees for London.
I am surprised at what mass transit costs are in London; how do they get them so high? Doesn't anything ever get payed off?? Or did they privatize it so the price never could go down? You have mass transit; mine is shit (midwest USA.) I wonder just how much slower it is than driving with all the traffic congestion there.
I just got quoted today on an electric: insurance is $1800 per year. minimal is $500 but a new car without repair insurance is foolish. That means that I don't save enough gas to make it pay off unless I compare it to a similar value car, which I'd not buy. So I'll have to wait for a used electric... A car is just transit to me: no "insecurities," no power trip, I'm not easily entertained, and marketing rarely works on me. A car is transit where I have to do all the work. I could DO something if I wasn't having to manually operate the vehicle. I have better things to do than dodge morons bent on testing their luck at operating a cell while driving.
RELEVANCE: Energy Policy.
The USA had the most uranium. It is nearly all gone. Our nuke plants need the stuff. Now we IMPORT it! Waste a ton of money on extra nukes or save money and use the fuel.
Nuclear tactics is not physics. The word Nuclear does not make simple things difficult. This is a big pork welfare program disguised as defense - and just like before, those who stand to lose money will be screaming to save it. Like like the F-22, it has economic ties around the whole nation.
If you hang around crooks something is going to rub off, that is just proven psychology. Politicians have a much much harder time - by the time they get to the top they've had a lot of exposure.
Something has to be actively done to counter environmental impacts; kissing babies and saying nice things is not enough.
I view evil as a social virus which runs on distributed human brains which can form organically but also be intentionally crafted and I only actually consider a person evil if they are an author of mayhem rather than a tool. Since people react and do not think these viruses are, in a way, running on "spare cycles" of people's minds. One must learn to think and how to think; it does not come naturally.
As far as the inherent "sin" of man, I think there is some symbolism there but mostly it is false. In depth this topic is incredibly difficult. Greed could be purely an outward expression of survival instincts and not "evil" and neither could one consider it "bad" in that the behavior served a purpose and who can say it is no longer needed? This society says it is bad (ignoring the many contradictions) but this belief is ultimately unprovable. Society says what is "good" and what is "bad" and what impulses must be repressed or used to control you by attaching guilt/shame of yourself; (which themselves may be evolved emotions to keep the tribe together.)
I replied to your post because I was thinking about the same topic. I like to be contrary.
Some people think a tiger who kills a human is evil; it is in it's nature to kill it's food. The human animal is still just an animal and does natural things lacking any conscious rational but unlike the tiger, it has the brain power to rationalize its instincts into an illusion of free thinking and therefore believe it is unlike other animals. This is extremely hard for the human ego to accept.
Politicians succeed by tribalism; not reason and not logic. To some degree they must reflect the populace; even a dictator has limits and must bend to expectations.
What is evil is how to make generally good people collectively manifest "evil" deeds. A mental hack which makes somebody do antisocial things is evil - I use the word make because of the above statement. Free will is not as strong as people BELIEVE it is. Now if you don't have your parent's religion, politics, tastes... maybe then you are in a position to argue otherwise.
Ramps and turns rate their speed limits based upon what it takes to skid the car 10 mph faster than the sign indicates. Now, sure if you have a fancy car with fancy tires... but you still should be informed what the limit is for a lousy car and besides, when your tires are worn out you slide easier.
The other problem is that at least in the USA, drivers are fools and I think if we raised the bar to a reasonable level we'd lose half the drivers on the road. Not that I'm against that but there is no decent mass transportation in the USA so even fools need to drive. The driving exam was a joke. I can't wait until computers can drive, I'll be lobbying my reps to force them into every situation... 3 tickets? you lose the right to drive, the computer takes over! Billions should be put into solving this-- more people die yearly from cars than by terrorism or most diseases and we put money into "solving" those.
Cops don't have quotas, haven't you heard the official statement EVERY time the issue is brought up? (yes, of course they do, but that is off the record.) Having quotas for police tickets is arbitrary... and is a poor indicator of them working; as are the arrest statistics etc.
If that is your definition, then what is unnatural? Anything? Plastic is natural too? If everything is natural, then why have the word at all?
If you have a 2nd car:
+ upkeep: depends on how much you do, what shape it is in. easily over $100 per year average
+ having to use it often so it doesn't stagnate: an inconvenience
+ additional insurance costs: minimal insurance about $500 per year, more if you cover the car's value
+ storage space: an inconvenience
+ initial cost of a 2nd car: $500-15,000
+ additional theft or vandalism risk
+ sell it before its a lemon: an inconvenience or an art form...
Since this would be a long-range car, one has to factor in just how cheap you want to go with it - since a junker may not be what you want to take on a 500 mile journey. An electric might take time to recharge and beg for an outlet - but a gas car has a much higher failure rate - a mechanic might fix it quick (for a high fee) or you might be down for more than 8 hours.
For many people, it is cheaper to RENT a car than pay the insurance for a largely idle possession. If I average the total cost of ownership I am paying approximately $3000 per year to own a car. I get bye cheaper than most people. I won't have an exact average until I change cars, but I spreadsheet everything. Removing gas will save over $1000 per year. The savings from a switch to electric will cover the rentals. Its the initial electric car price that is the current problem.
Rental and shared ownership will become easier and cheaper.
You do your homework. I do mine and remember the conclusions. I don't mind doing research because I've done so much of it already but I don't keep sources for everything I read on hand in a database in case I just happen to bring up something I've learned over the course of my life. I don't remember seeing clear cut data on this, but then there wasn't "clear" proof they were purposely discriminating against women - but reasonably looking at it, Walmart does it. You on the other hand are going totally off ignorant assumptions and lending too much weight to .... nothing. I admit I had similar assumptions when I heard it 1st but realizing I didn't know jack or even think about the issue, I followed up and changed my mind to something that had grounding. 1st impressions are not bad but you have to dismiss them as the baseless things they are. What I found out is that people with bad credit are more desperate and less likely quit; they'll likely put up with more for longer... at least that is what some business people think; including my former boss (when I brought it up, he acted like I was clueless - like it was common knowledge.) I only remember this factoid at all because it stuck in my mind as counter intuitive and shocking/unethical.
The burden is yours, not mine - this is not a formal debate or a paper and often I find that people who already have a strong position will not bother to investigate the sources honestly because it upsets their egos too much. It is a waste of time to put anything into a simple web comment for a total stranger. If you are a worthy candidate of the time and effort you will also be able to research on your own and change your position upon finding the truth; if not, either I may be incorrect or the info is too hard to find or the person is too lazy or biased.