Envious people cause a lot of trouble; especially when you provide them outlets to express such emotions.
Modern day witch hunts are no better, people exploit the idiocy of the time to their own ends. We've not evolved any, we just like to think we are better than people thousands of years ago.
As far as news of Chavez land, I find that those who are online and traveling are generally in the well off class and understandably have a bias against Chavez if not hate him. This has been the case from the beginning; ironically the increases in the 'middle class' hasn't won him more people but instead created more enemies.
He is not perfect, but he is smart and has a better idea what he is up against than most people; including most likely yourself. He has an ego, etc. and fears losing all the progress he has made which is one reason leaders in office for too long end up acting like he does-- but there is a big difference between somebody like that and a US puppet in a pseudo democracy - even if outwardly they appear similar in some ways.
I've been disappointed by Chavez; but then it is hard to get real decent news about him; especially with the heavy modern propaganda used against him and anybody who opposes certain evil forces in the world. Generally, I think: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That is my position on Chavez; I'm quite neutral on him otherwise. He promoted real democracy in my opinion, now he detracts a bit from it but that is hard to say given the misinfo on the topic - I remember last election where it was better than the USA but again people claimed cheating etc. Some of the stuff there is no better than the Birth certificate nuts here in the USA; and fox news.
Venezuela was NOT in good shape. It is far better off now and has the luxury of going backwards now they've moved so far forwards.
I thought Venezuela let volunteers be armed and trained and I think they likely still do. I do not think he is taking away all the guns; just the "recreational" guns. I bet volunteers still have their assault rifles stored away in case of invasion or revolution.
Reality is that guns make it too easy for civilians to kill civilians. They don't have much benefit defending yourself from oppressive governments, unless it is serious stuff you can't get already.
Bearing (small) arms doesn't do Jack (but it can provide a fallguy for conspiracies to kill leaders...) They increase shooting deaths and let lazy drunk fat people (not all of them, just most) easily kill animals.
Seriously, you think the future killer robot "drones" are going to be deterred by small arms?? In my city, they can pin point you accurately by the SOUND of the gunshot and even detect the kind of gun you have. In 50 years everything about everybody you know will be online and you may be put in a camp preemptively when Facebook flags you. That is just a simple statement; brain implant tech will be around by then and I don't want to think about that stuff...
Flip side, this BAN will not lower crime; it'll lower gun crimes over time for obvious reasons. They may have less fatalities as a result... and probably more stabbings... might actually make sense to learn martial arts again... It will provide ANOTHER source of statistics on the topic, not end the world.
Note - somebody eating themselves to death slowly is that like not wearing a seat belt or possibly committing suicide?
How is the reasoning for food regulations that far from the other stuff we allow?
We still allow suicide to be illegal, in fact we don't let doctors pull the plug when we should die. We legit excuses do we have there which can be extended into other topics?
Not wearing seat belts raises costs for everybody else measurably; so that argument is your "criminal" action costs other people money. Insurance lobbies to save the public money so that law eventually always passes.... Of course, the large savings such a law creates NEVER results in citizens seeing lower insurance rates. I know my car insurance did not go down at all following the passing of that law in my state... Insurance company profitability increased during that span... Does anybody seriously think these insurance lobbies REALLY want to protect people by passing such laws??
MS is a convicted monopolist for preventing competition; they were anti free market. THEY ARE TO BLAME, as the court ruled.
People don't choose the best. Most do not choose; they end up with the default. Without a default, then a legitimate choice CAN be made (likely still based on irrational choices, like what is popular.) IE is the default. It takes a lot to get people to install a browser; probably people like myself volunteering to initially convert everybody I come in contact with are why Firefox took over. Now I have people I turned installing Chrome on their own. (except mac converts who use Safari, because it is default.)
There is no requirement for alternative solutions when you are criticizing or even arguing against something.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Sometimes one must create a need. Stuff happens and people adapt, don't be a wimp.
Also, if you've been involved in any politics, you'd know that it is a lot like bargaining where you start out at extreme positions expecting to compromise nearer your actual position. Bans are a slow public process.
Not so fast. You act like the corporate gods are touchy or weak. Adding more overhead costs will not anger them into suicide over raising their prices or even having less profit. Corporations are designed and purposed to maximize profit and that makes cost externalization a major part of doing business, especially when other options have run out and continual profit growth is required. Eventually, any business forced against the wall will start extreme externalization to continue profit growth. Being profitable is not enough! The derivative and even the 2nd derivative are what matters so much today. Perfect example is the newspapers who were gutted and ruined over a steady 30% profit that was not growing; they gutted themselves for temporary growth (their profit would have gone down but it was the greed panic that made it worse.)
If there is demand, somebody will be there to supply it. There are numerous examples around the world and even in US history proving the higher costs in products and services do not instantly destroy the whole economy. I'm sick of people preaching the gospel of Mammon and world trade. Not everything needs to be in a global marketplace and ESPECIALLY one that makes everything over simplistically equal. Race to the bottom is what we are feeling in the USA and since we are at the top we are going to get hit the most - you can't educate your way out of it as has been the propaganda for the last few decades. We've only begun to decline; more is coming.
If environmentalists get what we want the economy does not die. You misunderstand my posting. You are likely falling for the propaganda; evidence of this is your whole characterization of your perceived enemy. I do not know any environmental "nut" who wants to destroy the economy (well, some want change it in a big way. Utopia is always a deadly mirage.) We lived just fine without a lot of these modern things not that long ago. Plastic for example is great stuff but it is not that old and making it responsible does not cost that much. Banning plastic bags causes some to preach the same BS you are-- but not that long ago stores used paper bags, many still do. It will not break anybody to ban plastic bags but alarmists are out there preventing it. Part of it is how the human brain views things relatively, it is viewed as a great extra expense to the business because plastic is so cheap and is now the norm; but previously, it was no big deal to give away free paper bags. It is still no big deal; its only in their minds. This applies to many other things, even ones where there are more complex real problems involved. Making things "green" does not destroy the economy. I was a small biz guy, I know some - the mentality is always alarmist and extremely defensive if not paranoid - and given how foreigners are exempt the fears are not unfounded.
Rural welfare queens are propped up by us urban dwellers (that is the reality;) plus we have plenty of wannabee rural folk in the suburbs... Americans are spoiled brats. You spend far less for your food than most the planet and are addicted to consuming so naturally you freak out when you can't get the same "high" as you could before. Many addicts will harm others to feed their addiction. Remove cheap Chinese products and you'll buy less shit but what you do buy will go into your own economy and be regulated by your people. We used to do just fine without China, within my lifetime... we were better off back then (except the 1%.) Spend more on healthy food and you'll not be so fat... but you'll have less money to waste too... just like the past... It is funny how many such arguments can pull from the past history of good times without today's problems that you'd think a true 'conservative' would be defending a return to past practices?
I pay to have better produced food. I also pay for better hardware and safer products. I do not need to make my own computer chips, render the meat, or forge steel. I buy local. Nobody can do everything all on their own without chucking ou
Microsoft will screw over the web 1st chance they get as they did in the past.
If IE9 gets the majority share and continues to help cement their OS monopoly (their sole motivation besides Office) then they will keep the web from advancing as they did for the previous decade. IE copied everybody else poorly added a few tweaks (often causing compatibility problems) then spent years fixing the bugs that didn't help them harm the web.
The culture of MS has not changed. If IE10 is great and gains majority we should ban it the second it slacks off and falls behind the others. Never allow them to harm the world like that again.
What is "insane" is allowing corporations to get away with extreme externalization of their costs. If responsible production costs more then the products will cost more and something must be done to prevent irresponsible production from gaining an advantage; otherwise, it is a race to the depths of human depravity. The concepts involved here are rather elementary but somehow people turn off their brains or something is hindering their mental development.
On the extremes, some people still don't care. If my neighbor's SUV ran on people (soylent green) from other cultures he would not change... Now most people rather not think (or just not think) about the harm they indirectly cause when it is a few steps removed; there are plenty of studies showing the more indirect you get the further people will do horrible things even when they KNOW they are doing it.
The tariff was the weapon of choice before we unilaterally disarmed ourselves. Welcome to the race to the bottom.
PS: robotics will eventually win at the bottom as they replace economic slaves for their lower cost and higher performance. Productivity will rise, job demand will fall, people will work harder and harder in a futile effort to compensate their relatively decreasing cost/benefit ratio. Meanwhile, the Japanese seem determined to replace women with machines;-)
A next-gen grid like Germany is aiming to have will be able to move power from sunlit areas to cloudy areas and from windy areas to calm areas. A large distributed power grid capable of smart utilization in addition to these smart devices adjusting their usage will go a LONG way. Too many people forget completely about the significant gains that can be made simply by having intelligence applied to grid for the 1st time.
Power storage is not as huge of an issue as people like to make it into-- promoted as an excuse for not doing anything until everything is completely solved and costs less than the current prices for traditional power (which will continue to rise and never include all the hidden costs either...)
If you build it, they will come. New power storage systems will be created to meet the increased interest and demand. The best solution may be localized battery units (distributed;) minimizing the need to import power. A simple per-minute pricing system for the grid would lay the groundwork for a distributed market of power storage solutions. BTW, nissan is already close to having their cars double as power storage.
Heating/Cooling is the largest power user. The two could be virtually eliminated just by using the building code regulations.
Those who make the claim that their ignorant HACKS on DNA are healthy and safe THEY (monsanto) have the burden of proof.
PROVE the GM crops are SAFE before allowing them; if they can't prove it because they lack the understanding required then the science is not far enough to allow it. The risks are too great to gamble on unproven claims.
It is idiotic to invert the argument and require the opposition to have the burden of proof. The NEW products claim to be safe so it is their burden NOT the regulators who ban something that is not known to be safe.
Actually, I know that 1 of the great lakes (forget the one) is lower and the amount is approximately the amount taken out of it for freshwater use (farming is always a big water user.) I heard about the studies back when the Great Lake states were discussing a deal where they would forbid any other state from stealing water from the Lakes - which sounded a bit nuts to people up here but people in AZ just assume someday they'll get water from the Great Lakes like we were just next door. I followed the hardly covered issue back then because having been in AZ, I know it was not crazy to the people wanting to make the deal. Thankfully our politicians opposed it (no lobby or media coverage) but when the time comes they'll easily change positions and undo past law if properly bribed.
The ACORN thing was an embarrassment, in a long line of stupid things our politicians do. I'm not addressing that "reality TV" idiocy that is dumbing down the nation.
Congress controls the money. Passing specific laws like that is not allowed (but it happens one way or another- a room of lawyers can make up into down if you let them.) It's just being picky to get into details of process when they have the funding powers; they can threaten state funding over specific issues resolution/law or whatever. The rule doesn't matter when the intention is made and they can implement it and/or do retribution - you can sue and get such a law stopped but that doesn't mean you will be safe. Hell, congress often passes bad laws knowing the courts will have to clean up the mess. The courts are extremely SLOW, it doesn't matter when they can keep something on the books long enough to do its damage. The courts can't punish congress from doing every kind of DoS attack against our democracy lawyers can dream up.
Fine, make them act properly... then that ACORN law becomes a resolution, promise or whatever and everybody responds to the threat in a similar way. Sometimes "laws" passed are just strong statements being made; look at the many stupid laws the House passes knowing the Senate won't even touch it.
From cheaper, cleaner, more secure, coal power plants. Peak coal is a long ways off, peak oil already happened. Nuclear still costs too much and now solar is cheaper and faster to build than nuclear. In a few years grid power storage could be viable if the big power industries do not buy off enough government to delay it.
The grid should be government owned and managed like the roads. Power generators and users would operate on it similar to the markets built upon the "free" transit infrastructure. Coal power will not compete for much longer against solar power when it loses its grid monopoly power to undermine democracy and force subsidies funded by the public. Let coal compete on an even marketplace against the others without corruption and you just watch... but 1st you have to remove them from owning the grid, 2nd you have to LIMIT how much power 1 company can generate (because we have too much concentrated power which again undermines democracy.)
We have approximately $6 TRILLION needed to redo the USA power grid, it will take a long long time to do that - hopefully people come to their senses and do it smart (and I don't mean "smart grid" but something decentralized and open over some of silly ideas I've been hearing about - I'd rather my fridge did not talk to the grid but my solar panels got paid a fair up to the minute rate without the power company screwing me over at every chance.)
There is a big difference between somebody who expatriates and somebody who is playing lawyer games. The reason we have judges and juries interpreting the law is not to literally follow the rules but to apply some brain power to see past the literal and what is really going on. A tax cheat is not the same as somebody how moves away. We have to stop thinking of law as computer code and turning our brains off and processing law like a mindless computer. It is just a step above speaking rudely in a foreign language in a friendly tone - technicalities are no excuse for blatantly violating the entire purpose.
ACORN was a matter of funding; the budget is not law.
Ex-post-facto laws happen despite being unconstitutional but we allow them sometimes. Like how John McCain was asserted to be a natural born citizen when he is not due to ex-post-facto. He is not eligible to be president under the constitution; the irony is the Obama birther stuff - but they surely would have allowed ex-post-facto if McCain won...
Corporations use far more social welfare than people and they should pay when they leave after getting fat on the public's dime (this is done in smarter nations.) I could see how reasonable arguments can be made to extend the corporate reasoning to individuals.
However, haven't we had successful lawsuits claiming future damages? I can't think of one that didn't largely involve existing victims- the damage was done already but they were given money for future losses or forced to change to avoid future damages.
All I can think of is where people sue over property value; which is a future prediction and nowhere near a science. Some environmental cases maybe... but I can't seem to think of anything where existing damage isn't the basis of the case with the projected continued damage being a consideration.
This is not a future crime, it is a strongly predictable cause and result from worse-than-criminal acts (which are legal.) So I think they have little chance.
The great depression and then WW2 caused a massive debt -- I suggest you look up the Debt to GDP ratio in the USA just after WW2. The debt was "fixed" before the generation that created it stopped paying income tax.
Things can change quickly if you are measuring in human lifespans or employed lifespan. Environmental damage can take centuries to turn around; even with an effort to repair the damage - extinction would be an example of something that can never be restored.
If you never allow long term debt you cripple yourself from ever being able to do big important things. The vast majority could not buy a house if they were not allowed to go into debt to buy one. Land lords can't rent places they do not own either... Most modern MBA thinking is to run business on the edge of bankruptcy with as much debt as possible; it is a "waste" to invest in security, expansion is far more important; but I digress, the point is that long term debt is a HUGE part of everything else and today is at the extremes; beyond sanity: it is one of the causes of our economic depression. So here we are in the midst of extreme debt at all levels and still we have people preaching the extreme opposite position for government only?? Government can turn around its current debt within a lifetime; it could go into more debt and still pay it back.
I will say that people concerned about the lack of responsibility of the baby boomers to think ahead, think of their children, should be quite vocal and upset but not go so far as to take ridiculous extremes such as no-debt policies.
Well, I blame the Queen for the continued wrath of Harper.
What amazes me is how many people shut off their brains over "unlawful" and they just assume anybody they agree with is going to be lawful. As if the government or some officials do not mislabel or make up laws in order to use abuse their powers... That last summit comes to mind where they falsely arrested people.
In the USA, you have to apply for a permit to protest, be approved and PAY money to have a lawful peaceful assembly. Those morons do not mind and probably will not stop the US government when they figure out they can make Americans pay for permits for free speech and in a free speech designated zone... I bet they don't even know their right to speech is right next to their right to peaceful assembly in their constitution. Also, peaceful assembly has no time limit just as speech has no "zone" limit.
Anybody with a laptop knows it is far better to rip it and then play it back from low power silent storage than haul around easy to scratch (illegal to backup) discs that loudly whirl around wasting electricity. Plus there are all these devices without DVD or blueray on them...
If somebody sold software to rip legally purchased discs so you could easily access them... they would be shutdown.... unless it is music, where iTunes proved highly successful at doing just that.
What customers want is a quick HONEST summary; past history shows salespeople can not be trusted so getting a detailed lecture from a salesperson is not far from watching an infomercial. If you were a trustworthy source you might be worth my time but since you are just a salesman I don't care if you have a PhD it is not going to give you credibility.
You should just tell customers the Monster cable is just beefier and might hold up to more abuse but it is not going to impact image or sound quality at all. Since you are probably forbidden from bashing products.
The store should not sell BS products in the 1st place. I might actually go to a STORE if they had the best professionally chosen products instead of the most profitable BS or a selection of branded clones from the same Chinese factory wasting shelf space so I can fell like I have a choice.
Actually, the Store needs to change. The show room should only have things worth seeing. Most the space should be robotic warehouse storage where I pick things with a terminal like a giant vending machine; or like amazon without wait or shipping.
Unlike the rent-a-cops the TSA can be a real election issue where the public can have some impact on how the TSA performs its security theater. The TSA needs to change.
Another bad guy caught with another headline to make politicians and managers look good by playing the numbers game. Why delay another stat at great expense and lost political points when you can get results TODAY? Besides, enemies give you more purpose why would you want really to eliminate them completely?
Run the system like a business, short term gains at low cost and with high volume. Why invest in long term things that will benefit the people who get your job afterwards? If you don't perform as well as the last guy by raising the numbers you may not be around for long...
Slashdot Mirror
Envious people cause a lot of trouble; especially when you provide them outlets to express such emotions.
Modern day witch hunts are no better, people exploit the idiocy of the time to their own ends. We've not evolved any, we just like to think we are better than people thousands of years ago.
As far as news of Chavez land, I find that those who are online and traveling are generally in the well off class and understandably have a bias against Chavez if not hate him. This has been the case from the beginning; ironically the increases in the 'middle class' hasn't won him more people but instead created more enemies.
He is not perfect, but he is smart and has a better idea what he is up against than most people; including most likely yourself. He has an ego, etc. and fears losing all the progress he has made which is one reason leaders in office for too long end up acting like he does-- but there is a big difference between somebody like that and a US puppet in a pseudo democracy - even if outwardly they appear similar in some ways.
I've been disappointed by Chavez; but then it is hard to get real decent news about him; especially with the heavy modern propaganda used against him and anybody who opposes certain evil forces in the world. Generally, I think: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That is my position on Chavez; I'm quite neutral on him otherwise. He promoted real democracy in my opinion, now he detracts a bit from it but that is hard to say given the misinfo on the topic - I remember last election where it was better than the USA but again people claimed cheating etc. Some of the stuff there is no better than the Birth certificate nuts here in the USA; and fox news.
Venezuela was NOT in good shape. It is far better off now and has the luxury of going backwards now they've moved so far forwards.
I thought Venezuela let volunteers be armed and trained and I think they likely still do. I do not think he is taking away all the guns; just the "recreational" guns. I bet volunteers still have their assault rifles stored away in case of invasion or revolution.
Reality is that guns make it too easy for civilians to kill civilians. They don't have much benefit defending yourself from oppressive governments, unless it is serious stuff you can't get already.
Bearing (small) arms doesn't do Jack (but it can provide a fallguy for conspiracies to kill leaders...) They increase shooting deaths and let lazy drunk fat people (not all of them, just most) easily kill animals.
Seriously, you think the future killer robot "drones" are going to be deterred by small arms?? In my city, they can pin point you accurately by the SOUND of the gunshot and even detect the kind of gun you have. In 50 years everything about everybody you know will be online and you may be put in a camp preemptively when Facebook flags you. That is just a simple statement; brain implant tech will be around by then and I don't want to think about that stuff...
Flip side, this BAN will not lower crime; it'll lower gun crimes over time for obvious reasons. They may have less fatalities as a result... and probably more stabbings... might actually make sense to learn martial arts again... It will provide ANOTHER source of statistics on the topic, not end the world.
Note - somebody eating themselves to death slowly is that like not wearing a seat belt or possibly committing suicide?
How is the reasoning for food regulations that far from the other stuff we allow?
We still allow suicide to be illegal, in fact we don't let doctors pull the plug when we should die. We legit excuses do we have there which can be extended into other topics?
Not wearing seat belts raises costs for everybody else measurably; so that argument is your "criminal" action costs other people money. Insurance lobbies to save the public money so that law eventually always passes.... Of course, the large savings such a law creates NEVER results in citizens seeing lower insurance rates. I know my car insurance did not go down at all following the passing of that law in my state... Insurance company profitability increased during that span... Does anybody seriously think these insurance lobbies REALLY want to protect people by passing such laws??
MS is a convicted monopolist for preventing competition; they were anti free market. THEY ARE TO BLAME, as the court ruled.
People don't choose the best. Most do not choose; they end up with the default. Without a default, then a legitimate choice CAN be made (likely still based on irrational choices, like what is popular.) IE is the default. It takes a lot to get people to install a browser; probably people like myself volunteering to initially convert everybody I come in contact with are why Firefox took over. Now I have people I turned installing Chrome on their own. (except mac converts who use Safari, because it is default.)
There is no requirement for alternative solutions when you are criticizing or even arguing against something.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Sometimes one must create a need. Stuff happens and people adapt, don't be a wimp.
Also, if you've been involved in any politics, you'd know that it is a lot like bargaining where you start out at extreme positions expecting to compromise nearer your actual position. Bans are a slow public process.
Not so fast. You act like the corporate gods are touchy or weak. Adding more overhead costs will not anger them into suicide over raising their prices or even having less profit. Corporations are designed and purposed to maximize profit and that makes cost externalization a major part of doing business, especially when other options have run out and continual profit growth is required. Eventually, any business forced against the wall will start extreme externalization to continue profit growth. Being profitable is not enough! The derivative and even the 2nd derivative are what matters so much today. Perfect example is the newspapers who were gutted and ruined over a steady 30% profit that was not growing; they gutted themselves for temporary growth (their profit would have gone down but it was the greed panic that made it worse.)
If there is demand, somebody will be there to supply it. There are numerous examples around the world and even in US history proving the higher costs in products and services do not instantly destroy the whole economy. I'm sick of people preaching the gospel of Mammon and world trade. Not everything needs to be in a global marketplace and ESPECIALLY one that makes everything over simplistically equal. Race to the bottom is what we are feeling in the USA and since we are at the top we are going to get hit the most - you can't educate your way out of it as has been the propaganda for the last few decades. We've only begun to decline; more is coming.
If environmentalists get what we want the economy does not die. You misunderstand my posting. You are likely falling for the propaganda; evidence of this is your whole characterization of your perceived enemy. I do not know any environmental "nut" who wants to destroy the economy (well, some want change it in a big way. Utopia is always a deadly mirage.) We lived just fine without a lot of these modern things not that long ago. Plastic for example is great stuff but it is not that old and making it responsible does not cost that much. Banning plastic bags causes some to preach the same BS you are-- but not that long ago stores used paper bags, many still do. It will not break anybody to ban plastic bags but alarmists are out there preventing it. Part of it is how the human brain views things relatively, it is viewed as a great extra expense to the business because plastic is so cheap and is now the norm; but previously, it was no big deal to give away free paper bags. It is still no big deal; its only in their minds. This applies to many other things, even ones where there are more complex real problems involved. Making things "green" does not destroy the economy. I was a small biz guy, I know some - the mentality is always alarmist and extremely defensive if not paranoid - and given how foreigners are exempt the fears are not unfounded.
Rural welfare queens are propped up by us urban dwellers (that is the reality;) plus we have plenty of wannabee rural folk in the suburbs... Americans are spoiled brats. You spend far less for your food than most the planet and are addicted to consuming so naturally you freak out when you can't get the same "high" as you could before. Many addicts will harm others to feed their addiction. Remove cheap Chinese products and you'll buy less shit but what you do buy will go into your own economy and be regulated by your people. We used to do just fine without China, within my lifetime... we were better off back then (except the 1%.) Spend more on healthy food and you'll not be so fat... but you'll have less money to waste too... just like the past... It is funny how many such arguments can pull from the past history of good times without today's problems that you'd think a true 'conservative' would be defending a return to past practices?
I pay to have better produced food. I also pay for better hardware and safer products. I do not need to make my own computer chips, render the meat, or forge steel. I buy local. Nobody can do everything all on their own without chucking ou
Microsoft will screw over the web 1st chance they get as they did in the past.
If IE9 gets the majority share and continues to help cement their OS monopoly (their sole motivation besides Office) then they will keep the web from advancing as they did for the previous decade. IE copied everybody else poorly added a few tweaks (often causing compatibility problems) then spent years fixing the bugs that didn't help them harm the web.
The culture of MS has not changed. If IE10 is great and gains majority we should ban it the second it slacks off and falls behind the others. Never allow them to harm the world like that again.
What is "insane" is allowing corporations to get away with extreme externalization of their costs. If responsible production costs more then the products will cost more and something must be done to prevent irresponsible production from gaining an advantage; otherwise, it is a race to the depths of human depravity. The concepts involved here are rather elementary but somehow people turn off their brains or something is hindering their mental development.
On the extremes, some people still don't care. If my neighbor's SUV ran on people (soylent green) from other cultures he would not change...
Now most people rather not think (or just not think) about the harm they indirectly cause when it is a few steps removed; there are plenty of studies showing the more indirect you get the further people will do horrible things even when they KNOW they are doing it.
The tariff was the weapon of choice before we unilaterally disarmed ourselves. Welcome to the race to the bottom.
PS: robotics will eventually win at the bottom as they replace economic slaves for their lower cost and higher performance. Productivity will rise, job demand will fall, people will work harder and harder in a futile effort to compensate their relatively decreasing cost/benefit ratio. Meanwhile, the Japanese seem determined to replace women with machines ;-)
A next-gen grid like Germany is aiming to have will be able to move power from sunlit areas to cloudy areas and from windy areas to calm areas. A large distributed power grid capable of smart utilization in addition to these smart devices adjusting their usage will go a LONG way. Too many people forget completely about the significant gains that can be made simply by having intelligence applied to grid for the 1st time.
Power storage is not as huge of an issue as people like to make it into-- promoted as an excuse for not doing anything until everything is completely solved and costs less than the current prices for traditional power (which will continue to rise and never include all the hidden costs either...)
If you build it, they will come. New power storage systems will be created to meet the increased interest and demand. The best solution may be localized battery units (distributed;) minimizing the need to import power. A simple per-minute pricing system for the grid would lay the groundwork for a distributed market of power storage solutions. BTW, nissan is already close to having their cars double as power storage.
Heating/Cooling is the largest power user. The two could be virtually eliminated just by using the building code regulations.
Those who make the claim that their ignorant HACKS on DNA are healthy and safe THEY (monsanto) have the burden of proof.
PROVE the GM crops are SAFE before allowing them; if they can't prove it because they lack the understanding required then the science is not far enough to allow it. The risks are too great to gamble on unproven claims.
It is idiotic to invert the argument and require the opposition to have the burden of proof. The NEW products claim to be safe so it is their burden NOT the regulators who ban something that is not known to be safe.
Mod parent up.
Actually, I know that 1 of the great lakes (forget the one) is lower and the amount is approximately the amount taken out of it for freshwater use (farming is always a big water user.) I heard about the studies back when the Great Lake states were discussing a deal where they would forbid any other state from stealing water from the Lakes - which sounded a bit nuts to people up here but people in AZ just assume someday they'll get water from the Great Lakes like we were just next door. I followed the hardly covered issue back then because having been in AZ, I know it was not crazy to the people wanting to make the deal. Thankfully our politicians opposed it (no lobby or media coverage) but when the time comes they'll easily change positions and undo past law if properly bribed.
The ACORN thing was an embarrassment, in a long line of stupid things our politicians do. I'm not addressing that "reality TV" idiocy that is dumbing down the nation.
Congress controls the money. Passing specific laws like that is not allowed (but it happens one way or another- a room of lawyers can make up into down if you let them.) It's just being picky to get into details of process when they have the funding powers; they can threaten state funding over specific issues resolution/law or whatever. The rule doesn't matter when the intention is made and they can implement it and/or do retribution - you can sue and get such a law stopped but that doesn't mean you will be safe. Hell, congress often passes bad laws knowing the courts will have to clean up the mess. The courts are extremely SLOW, it doesn't matter when they can keep something on the books long enough to do its damage. The courts can't punish congress from doing every kind of DoS attack against our democracy lawyers can dream up.
Fine, make them act properly... then that ACORN law becomes a resolution, promise or whatever and everybody responds to the threat in a similar way. Sometimes "laws" passed are just strong statements being made; look at the many stupid laws the House passes knowing the Senate won't even touch it.
From cheaper, cleaner, more secure, coal power plants. Peak coal is a long ways off, peak oil already happened. Nuclear still costs too much and now solar is cheaper and faster to build than nuclear. In a few years grid power storage could be viable if the big power industries do not buy off enough government to delay it.
The grid should be government owned and managed like the roads. Power generators and users would operate on it similar to the markets built upon the "free" transit infrastructure. Coal power will not compete for much longer against solar power when it loses its grid monopoly power to undermine democracy and force subsidies funded by the public. Let coal compete on an even marketplace against the others without corruption and you just watch... but 1st you have to remove them from owning the grid, 2nd you have to LIMIT how much power 1 company can generate (because we have too much concentrated power which again undermines democracy.)
We have approximately $6 TRILLION needed to redo the USA power grid, it will take a long long time to do that - hopefully people come to their senses and do it smart (and I don't mean "smart grid" but something decentralized and open over some of silly ideas I've been hearing about - I'd rather my fridge did not talk to the grid but my solar panels got paid a fair up to the minute rate without the power company screwing me over at every chance.)
There is a big difference between somebody who expatriates and somebody who is playing lawyer games. The reason we have judges and juries interpreting the law is not to literally follow the rules but to apply some brain power to see past the literal and what is really going on. A tax cheat is not the same as somebody how moves away. We have to stop thinking of law as computer code and turning our brains off and processing law like a mindless computer. It is just a step above speaking rudely in a foreign language in a friendly tone - technicalities are no excuse for blatantly violating the entire purpose.
ACORN was a matter of funding; the budget is not law.
Ex-post-facto laws happen despite being unconstitutional but we allow them sometimes. Like how John McCain was asserted to be a natural born citizen when he is not due to ex-post-facto. He is not eligible to be president under the constitution; the irony is the Obama birther stuff - but they surely would have allowed ex-post-facto if McCain won...
Corporations use far more social welfare than people and they should pay when they leave after getting fat on the public's dime (this is done in smarter nations.) I could see how reasonable arguments can be made to extend the corporate reasoning to individuals.
Arsenic vs Nicotine. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE! ;-)
Any good choices are marginalized as being fruitcakes.
It is fitting that Obama smokes.
However, haven't we had successful lawsuits claiming future damages? I can't think of one that didn't largely involve existing victims- the damage was done already but they were given money for future losses or forced to change to avoid future damages.
All I can think of is where people sue over property value; which is a future prediction and nowhere near a science. Some environmental cases maybe... but I can't seem to think of anything where existing damage isn't the basis of the case with the projected continued damage being a consideration.
This is not a future crime, it is a strongly predictable cause and result from worse-than-criminal acts (which are legal.) So I think they have little chance.
The great depression and then WW2 caused a massive debt -- I suggest you look up the Debt to GDP ratio in the USA just after WW2. The debt was "fixed" before the generation that created it stopped paying income tax.
Things can change quickly if you are measuring in human lifespans or employed lifespan. Environmental damage can take centuries to turn around; even with an effort to repair the damage - extinction would be an example of something that can never be restored.
If you never allow long term debt you cripple yourself from ever being able to do big important things. The vast majority could not buy a house if they were not allowed to go into debt to buy one. Land lords can't rent places they do not own either... Most modern MBA thinking is to run business on the edge of bankruptcy with as much debt as possible; it is a "waste" to invest in security, expansion is far more important; but I digress, the point is that long term debt is a HUGE part of everything else and today is at the extremes; beyond sanity: it is one of the causes of our economic depression. So here we are in the midst of extreme debt at all levels and still we have people preaching the extreme opposite position for government only?? Government can turn around its current debt within a lifetime; it could go into more debt and still pay it back.
I will say that people concerned about the lack of responsibility of the baby boomers to think ahead, think of their children, should be quite vocal and upset but not go so far as to take ridiculous extremes such as no-debt policies.
Well, I blame the Queen for the continued wrath of Harper.
What amazes me is how many people shut off their brains over "unlawful" and they just assume anybody they agree with is going to be lawful. As if the government or some officials do not mislabel or make up laws in order to use abuse their powers... That last summit comes to mind where they falsely arrested people.
In the USA, you have to apply for a permit to protest, be approved and PAY money to have a lawful peaceful assembly. Those morons do not mind and probably will not stop the US government when they figure out they can make Americans pay for permits for free speech and in a free speech designated zone... I bet they don't even know their right to speech is right next to their right to peaceful assembly in their constitution. Also, peaceful assembly has no time limit just as speech has no "zone" limit.
Anybody with a laptop knows it is far better to rip it and then play it back from low power silent storage than haul around easy to scratch (illegal to backup) discs that loudly whirl around wasting electricity. Plus there are all these devices without DVD or blueray on them...
If somebody sold software to rip legally purchased discs so you could easily access them... they would be shutdown.... unless it is music, where iTunes proved highly successful at doing just that.
It says this guy teaches his bullshido to police. Does the UK benefit from a more violent police force?
What customers want is a quick HONEST summary; past history shows salespeople can not be trusted so getting a detailed lecture from a salesperson is not far from watching an infomercial. If you were a trustworthy source you might be worth my time but since you are just a salesman I don't care if you have a PhD it is not going to give you credibility.
You should just tell customers the Monster cable is just beefier and might hold up to more abuse but it is not going to impact image or sound quality at all. Since you are probably forbidden from bashing products.
The store should not sell BS products in the 1st place. I might actually go to a STORE if they had the best professionally chosen products instead of the most profitable BS or a selection of branded clones from the same Chinese factory wasting shelf space so I can fell like I have a choice.
Actually, the Store needs to change. The show room should only have things worth seeing. Most the space should be robotic warehouse storage where I pick things with a terminal like a giant vending machine; or like amazon without wait or shipping.
Exactly!
Unlike the rent-a-cops the TSA can be a real election issue where the public can have some impact on how the TSA performs its security theater. The TSA needs to change.
Another bad guy caught with another headline to make politicians and managers look good by playing the numbers game. Why delay another stat at great expense and lost political points when you can get results TODAY? Besides, enemies give you more purpose why would you want really to eliminate them completely?
Run the system like a business, short term gains at low cost and with high volume. Why invest in long term things that will benefit the people who get your job afterwards? If you don't perform as well as the last guy by raising the numbers you may not be around for long...