They used to encourage exactly that. In fact, if you pop over to tesla.com and pull up the superchargers map, the listings do still include the businesses that you are encouraged to patronize while supercharging. And that includes everything from the Starbucks for the free wifi, to the Harris Ranch Steakhouse, if a 24 ounce RibEye is more your thing.
So, this move is more interesting because it marks a reversal from Tesla's original messaging. And one has to wonder why the change and what elst is in the pipeline?
The superchargers are already located and spaced in a manner to allow exactly what you described. Their website listings for the superchargers still even have listings for restaurants, coffee shops, and the like, in the vicinity of the superchargers. They're there to solve the "road trip" problem with electric cars; no to be anyone's everyday charging solution though.
This is an interesting move, because it's a reversal of Tesla's original messaging wrt/ the superchargers. The idea very much was, and was communicated as such, that supercharging was supposed to be a somewhat leisurely affair. You stop, plug in, go to the bathroom, stretch your legs, have lunch (At the Harris Ranch supercharger), and maybe get some shopping in (At the Gilroy Outlets shopping center supercharger.), and THEN you go back to the supercharger for the rest of the trip to SoCal.
Well, alternatively they could lawyer up. When the Nixon administration went on the attack against IBM, Big Blue retained a cadre of lawyers that have since become colloquially nicknamed "The Nazgul"... the implications of facing them being obvious. IBM fought the government to a standstill, fended it off for 13 years, and eventually broke the government's resolve and saw the case dropped.
13 years is a long time. Barring SCOTUS catastrophe, Trump will be gone and consigned to the ash heap of history in 8. (Oh good lords of Kobol, keep yourself in good health, Sandra Day O'Connor!) If the democrats work out a way to neutralize, or at least marginalize, the "making America white again" crowd, and grow enough of a pair to fight back as dirty as the republicans have been for the last 16 years, he could be gone in 4. And while Tesla hasn't crushed Detroit yet and doesn't have similar resources; Apple and Google each have more money individually to spend on lawyers now than IBM did in 1969. They'd just have to find the courage to fight, rather than appease.
So, in other words, your posit is that trump is blackmailing Musk: "Say, that's a nice rocket launching business you have there. It'd be a shame if anything bad were to happen to it, wouldn't it?" So... aside from the face that you seem to believe that trump is in some way deserving of an ass-kissing in a slashdot post he will certainly never see, that's exactly my own point.
> This article is another example of this: it's a forum for > people to wail about how awful Trump will be, because > they can see the future with perfect clarity.
One doesn't need to be precognisant to know how awful the future will be under drumpf's reign. He's already told us his beliefs and intentions... repeatedly over nearly two years... and he has a rubber-stamp congress in his pocket. The Supreme Court could theoretically put a brake on things. But it is currently crippled, and he is a single retirement or death away from having a rubber stamp there as well; and ruling as a dictator, in fact if not in name. So why should I believe for a second that any of the awful things he's announced his intention to do will not come to pass?
Well, there's the fact that the likes of Musk, Cook, and Page have tossed away what they'd previously claimed were their values and have decided to associate themselves with and support Trump. That speaks very negatively about them and makes me inclined to re-evaluate whether I wish to be a customer of their companies.
Kalanick certainly seems douchey enough to associate himself with Trump. But Musk always struck me as being better than that. I wonder how he reconciles his own work in electric cars and solar with Trump's belief that global warming is nothing more than a hoax propagated by China to hurt our economy? Then there's Musk's work in SpaceX vs. the most anti-science pack of thugs to occupy DC in my lifetime. Musk must be engaging in some serious 1984-esque doublethink here. Or maybe Trump is blackmailing him in some way?
Oh come on... You forgot your "People's Republic of California" and "Sodom by the Bay" and "Liberals and city folk are not REAL Americans" sound bites.
Alternately, I'd prefer to see H1B visa's eliminated entirely across the board, in favor of a fast-track program to admit skilled* foreign workers into the country first with permanent resident (green card) status, with the ultimate goal of promoting them to full citizenship. Skilled* STEM workers are exactly the people that we should be seeking out and encouraging to immigrate and become full members of society. H1Bs, or any other visa tied to a specific employer, are appallingly abusive; both of society in general, and the imported workers as well.
* And I do mean legitimately and provably skilled. Not people who just know all the keywords with which to pad their resumes, and fake certifications and degrees from Uncle Rozkoe's Auto Shop and IT University.
SIGNIFICANT wasted productivity and the "meh" value to the business of the average "resource" supplied. Calls take a lot longer, code quality tends to be sucky to average, emails are hard to parse, and you wind up with a "team" who feels like "as long as there are lots of people on a call, we've got it covered." The fact that efficiency measures suck, employees have no skin in the game to improve things, and everything takes a lot longer
So very much this. I've never lost my job to any of those bangalore or calcutta chop shops. But I've been at companies that *have* either laid off, or refused to hire, local talent in favor of those outfits. I've both worked on "teams" with off-shore contractors myself, and observed the effects on other groups. And, I will NEVER willingly follow suit. And if I am ever forced by higher management to hire out work those those shops, that's when it's time to hit the job boards myself. I've never seen outsourced development turn out to be anything but a disaster, and the last resort of a company that's circling the drain anyway. Most usually, it is as the AC said: A intentional "pump and dump" exercise by executives looking to boost the stock price for the next couple of quarters so they can cash out and then let the company crash and burn.
The thing is, those better jobs are already here. Take Apple, for example, since they seem to be everybody's whipping boy for "moving jobs to China".
When Steve Jobs returned to Apple in in 1997, the company employed about 8400 people; which includes their former in-house manufacturing operations here in the US and in Cork, Ireland. Apple now employs about 116,000 people... better than an order of magnitude more... *not* including their outsourced manufacturing in China. And these are better jobs. These are engineering jobs, programming jobs, operations jobs. Have you driven though Cupertino recently? Damn near every single bit of office space in the town has an Apple logo on it. And they also have offices scattered across Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and a few other places in the valley. Their new "space ship" headquarters isn't *replacing* their existing offices. It's just shuffling some people around and freeing up space for them to hire even MORE people. And those will also be engineering, development, operations, design, marketing jobs and the like; much more stimulating and fulfilling than assembly-line grunt work. So, when the design, engineering, software, marketing, and management is all done right here... and these are better jobs to have than is manufacturing... why is it such a big deal where the iPhone is actually assembled?
If you care, the source for my numbers wrt/ employee count and such are Apple's annual 10-K filings to the SEC:
> I sympathize, but who among us here doesn't > understand the need for continuing education and > learning new, possibly different, skills to stay relevant > in the workforce?
I'm really tired of the seeming requirement to throw out "I sympathize" platitudes when talking about the "too cool for school" crowd who refuse to learn new things. Frankly, I don't sympathize. Because I *DO* understand the need for continual education and skill development. At no point in my career that I can recall have I ever *not* been learning new skills, whether through formal classes or self-directed study and practice. Even as I learn those new skills, I'm also watching the news and trends to determine what *new* new skills I will be learning next year. I simply can't fathom not learning new things. Even when I retire, I expect to be finding new things to learn, even if they're only hobbies. And I don't see why I should have a lick of sympathy for someone who thinks they're entitled to make an entire career out of one skill set, never expanding, never advancing, never developing.
Honestly, I'd also prefer to scrap the president/congress system we have, where any party besides the big two is effectively powerless. A Westminster-style parliamentary system gives the smaller parties a legitimate chance of affecting policy by making them desirable allies in forming a coalition government. The ability of a no-confidence vote in the sitting government to toss out the whole damn lot of them would also be very nice; considering the times that the vice presidential pick was a calculated move to protect the president himself from threat of impeachment by being every bit as bad, if not worse (Bush #1 / Quayle, Bush #2 / Cheney, Trump / Pence.)
And I'll still choose Uber over a Cab at, or even above, taxi prices. I've been using them since they called themselves "Ubercab", only offered the town car service, were only available in San Francisco, and were, yes, more expensive than a taxi.
Why? Because Uber drivers show up where and when they are dispatched. They will pick you up in the avenues (The Sunset and Richmond districts.), and don't throw a hissy fit when you need to be driven out there. They don't play the "my credit card reader is broken, cash only" scam. And their cars are clean, well-maintained, and don't stink of smoke, vomit or pee. None of the same is true of cabbies.
The only reason Uber, Lyft, and the like were able to catch on is because the legacy taxi companies offer an appallingly dismal service. They made their bed. Now they can lie in it. And I'll go on using the superior service; even if the price goes back up to what it was before they introduced UberX.
If you closed the loopholes, the corporations that actually paid for them would get upset. The only reason people are in a tizzy about Apple, Google, Amazon, and company is that they were clever enough to realize that, once on the books, the tax laws are available for anyone to use. If they'd paid their Danegeld to the appropriate politicos like Halliburton, Bechtel, Accenture (Arthur Anderson under their new name), and the like have done, there would be no issues raised.
Where do you get force, or even the threat thereof, from what he said? The way I read it, and most other posts supporting the idea, is that the GP described the goal state, and its advantages, without any suggestions on how to get there. And clearly everyone *doesn't* prefer cash, as evidenced by the mass usage and acceptance of credit cards at nearly every level of commerce in our society. I dislike having to handle cash too; and would prefer to go cashless for all the reasons Bonobo described, plus hygiene... physical currency is one of the more filthy things that people often handle day-to-day. But it's certainly not high enough on my list of desires that I would contemplate using force to make others follow my example.
For my money, I don't expect cash to go away via government edict, and certainly not forcibly. Rather, it will be a gradual phasing out led by businesses ceasing to accept cash, or new businesses never accepting it in the first place. Off the top of my head, I can think of four B&M businesses I frequent (A local coffee shop, a quinoa bowl chain, my doctor and my dentist.) that don't take cash, and a few others that accept it only grudgingly and look at you like you're some sort of troglodyte of you make them touch cash. Plus, of course, anything and everything you buy online is cashless. I expect the trend will probably continue until using cash provokes the same groans eye-rolls as when some old bitty pulls out a checkbook at the supermarket. It will be all but unknown, just like writing checks. And gradually stores will stop accepting it, like many no longer take checks. But use of force? I'd bet not.
Also: Julian Assange, Kim Dotcom, and more than a few others. The government's habit of exporting and enforcing our laws beyond our own borders (Not that we're alone. France is fairly notorious for the same.) is one of the more troublesome... outright despicable even... habits of washington dc.
People are so focused on Trump himself that they seem not to realize just how dangerous the situation we are in really is. Trump is "just" president, sure. But he has a rubber-stamp congress. So the only brake on him now is the currently-crippled Supreme Court. And he's a single retirement or death away from having a rubber-stamp there as well; and ruling as a dictator in fact, if not in name.
That excuse doesn't follow though. Everything about Musk's persona, presented either publicly, or within Tesla (I've a good friend who works at HQ in Palo Alto.) shows a man utterly dedicated to making his businesses succeed, a la Steve Jobs, and definitely NOT someone interested in walking away from Tesla and SpaceX to go run for office. Plus, he's not a natural-born citizen. He was born in South Africa and immigrated (Which may actually be the reason republicans would hate him.). So he could only go as far in politics as Schwarzenegger did, topping out at California governor.
The "jobs" argument for fossil fuels just doesn't make sense though. There's already more jobs in renewables than in oil or coal (Either one by itself. Not combined, yet.). We hit that tipping point this year. Jobs growth in renewables has been crushing fossil fuels for the last several years. Investments in renewables are growing exponentially. And if you look out past five years or so (Yeah, I know, most MBA types are congenitally incapable of looking past the next quarter. Whatever.) we're close to profit growth; and not long after, profits being larger than fossil duels. Renewables ARE where the jobs are, and it's where the money is fi you play the long game.
Governor Schwarzenegger put it brilliantly. Even if you *don't* believe in global warming (Which is still a stupid-ass position.) fossil fuels are eventually going to run out. Before they run out, they're going to become more expensive to extract. Renewables are the future. Renewables are where the jobs and investment opportunities are, moving forward. And what sort of moron wants to be the last investor in Blockbuster when Netflix is about to crush them?
Truth doesn't even really come into play. Google search results are not necessarily the "truth", nor does Google even make the claim. Google, rather, strives for "most useful" results. Often, this becomes more "the prevailing opinion of the internet", more than anything else. Recall:
- For a good number of years, roughly coinciding with their antitrust trial and conviction, if you were to google for: "more evil than satan", the top result would be Microsoft's website.
- When Rick Santorum demonstrated himself to be extra super special loathsome a while back; there was a backlash and movement to define the word santourm as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". This is, in fact, still the third result if you google for santorum, with the wikipedia page describing the campaign at the top and his own wikipedia page at #2.
You mean like the keys that can open anyone's luggage that only the TSA is supposed to have but you can 3D print from files available all over the internet? Those keys?
Easy solution: Give regulatory control of the nuclear power industry to the navy. No joke. The US Navy has been operating nuclear reactors... hundreds of them... for nearly as long as there's been such a thing. And they have a perfect operational safety record. That is: zero nuclear accidents in the 62 years since the USS Nautilus was launched in 1954. (They *have* lost two nuclear submarines at sea. But neither the Thresher nor Scorpion were lost due to reactor accidents.)
They do it by standardizing on a small number of reactor designs (Generally one per ship/sub class. Though the S5W persisted from the Skipjack class until it was replaced by the S6G with the Los Angeles.), training the sweet holy hell out of their people (There are stories of standing desks at power school, so trainees don't fall asleep while sitting and studying... and of the occasional *thump* when someone standing falls asleep anyway.), and holding them strictly accountable to operations and safety standards throughout their careers.
I wonder what happens in 10 years that brings back the missiles?
Either way, these are regular Harpoon missiles they simply won't be carrying. It's not like they're dropping the launchers from ship designs and re-building the entire fleet. They just won't be carrying the missiles. If the red fleet steams south towards the GIUK gap, the launchers could certainly be re-loaded in short order; even if the Harpoons themselves had to be flown over from the US.
Slashdot Mirror
They used to encourage exactly that. In fact, if you pop over to tesla.com and pull up the superchargers map, the listings do still include the businesses that you are encouraged to patronize while supercharging. And that includes everything from the Starbucks for the free wifi, to the Harris Ranch Steakhouse, if a 24 ounce RibEye is more your thing.
So, this move is more interesting because it marks a reversal from Tesla's original messaging. And one has to wonder why the change and what elst is in the pipeline?
The superchargers are already located and spaced in a manner to allow exactly what you described. Their website listings for the superchargers still even have listings for restaurants, coffee shops, and the like, in the vicinity of the superchargers. They're there to solve the "road trip" problem with electric cars; no to be anyone's everyday charging solution though.
This is an interesting move, because it's a reversal of Tesla's original messaging wrt/ the superchargers. The idea very much was, and was communicated as such, that supercharging was supposed to be a somewhat leisurely affair. You stop, plug in, go to the bathroom, stretch your legs, have lunch (At the Harris Ranch supercharger), and maybe get some shopping in (At the Gilroy Outlets shopping center supercharger.), and THEN you go back to the supercharger for the rest of the trip to SoCal.
Well, alternatively they could lawyer up. When the Nixon administration went on the attack against IBM, Big Blue retained a cadre of lawyers that have since become colloquially nicknamed "The Nazgul"... the implications of facing them being obvious. IBM fought the government to a standstill, fended it off for 13 years, and eventually broke the government's resolve and saw the case dropped.
13 years is a long time. Barring SCOTUS catastrophe, Trump will be gone and consigned to the ash heap of history in 8. (Oh good lords of Kobol, keep yourself in good health, Sandra Day O'Connor!) If the democrats work out a way to neutralize, or at least marginalize, the "making America white again" crowd, and grow enough of a pair to fight back as dirty as the republicans have been for the last 16 years, he could be gone in 4. And while Tesla hasn't crushed Detroit yet and doesn't have similar resources; Apple and Google each have more money individually to spend on lawyers now than IBM did in 1969. They'd just have to find the courage to fight, rather than appease.
So, in other words, your posit is that trump is blackmailing Musk: "Say, that's a nice rocket launching business you have there. It'd be a shame if anything bad were to happen to it, wouldn't it?" So... aside from the face that you seem to believe that trump is in some way deserving of an ass-kissing in a slashdot post he will certainly never see, that's exactly my own point.
> This article is another example of this: it's a forum for
> people to wail about how awful Trump will be, because
> they can see the future with perfect clarity.
One doesn't need to be precognisant to know how awful the future will be under drumpf's reign. He's already told us his beliefs and intentions... repeatedly over nearly two years... and he has a rubber-stamp congress in his pocket. The Supreme Court could theoretically put a brake on things. But it is currently crippled, and he is a single retirement or death away from having a rubber stamp there as well; and ruling as a dictator, in fact if not in name. So why should I believe for a second that any of the awful things he's announced his intention to do will not come to pass?
Well, there's the fact that the likes of Musk, Cook, and Page have tossed away what they'd previously claimed were their values and have decided to associate themselves with and support Trump. That speaks very negatively about them and makes me inclined to re-evaluate whether I wish to be a customer of their companies.
Kalanick certainly seems douchey enough to associate himself with Trump. But Musk always struck me as being better than that. I wonder how he reconciles his own work in electric cars and solar with Trump's belief that global warming is nothing more than a hoax propagated by China to hurt our economy? Then there's Musk's work in SpaceX vs. the most anti-science pack of thugs to occupy DC in my lifetime. Musk must be engaging in some serious 1984-esque doublethink here. Or maybe Trump is blackmailing him in some way?
Oh come on... You forgot your "People's Republic of California" and "Sodom by the Bay" and "Liberals and city folk are not REAL Americans" sound bites.
Alternately, I'd prefer to see H1B visa's eliminated entirely across the board, in favor of a fast-track program to admit skilled* foreign workers into the country first with permanent resident (green card) status, with the ultimate goal of promoting them to full citizenship. Skilled* STEM workers are exactly the people that we should be seeking out and encouraging to immigrate and become full members of society. H1Bs, or any other visa tied to a specific employer, are appallingly abusive; both of society in general, and the imported workers as well.
* And I do mean legitimately and provably skilled. Not people who just know all the keywords with which to pad their resumes, and fake certifications and degrees from Uncle Rozkoe's Auto Shop and IT University.
So very much this. I've never lost my job to any of those bangalore or calcutta chop shops. But I've been at companies that *have* either laid off, or refused to hire, local talent in favor of those outfits. I've both worked on "teams" with off-shore contractors myself, and observed the effects on other groups. And, I will NEVER willingly follow suit. And if I am ever forced by higher management to hire out work those those shops, that's when it's time to hit the job boards myself. I've never seen outsourced development turn out to be anything but a disaster, and the last resort of a company that's circling the drain anyway. Most usually, it is as the AC said: A intentional "pump and dump" exercise by executives looking to boost the stock price for the next couple of quarters so they can cash out and then let the company crash and burn.
> ingredients like cheese are replaced with cheese
> topping, and other ingredients become dehydrated
> synonyms of their original embodiment.
And that's different from fast food as it already exists when assembled by humans... how exactly?
> better jobs were coming at some point
The thing is, those better jobs are already here. Take Apple, for example, since they seem to be everybody's whipping boy for "moving jobs to China".
When Steve Jobs returned to Apple in in 1997, the company employed about 8400 people; which includes their former in-house manufacturing operations here in the US and in Cork, Ireland. Apple now employs about 116,000 people... better than an order of magnitude more... *not* including their outsourced manufacturing in China. And these are better jobs. These are engineering jobs, programming jobs, operations jobs. Have you driven though Cupertino recently? Damn near every single bit of office space in the town has an Apple logo on it. And they also have offices scattered across Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and a few other places in the valley. Their new "space ship" headquarters isn't *replacing* their existing offices. It's just shuffling some people around and freeing up space for them to hire even MORE people. And those will also be engineering, development, operations, design, marketing jobs and the like; much more stimulating and fulfilling than assembly-line grunt work. So, when the design, engineering, software, marketing, and management is all done right here... and these are better jobs to have than is manufacturing... why is it such a big deal where the iPhone is actually assembled?
If you care, the source for my numbers wrt/ employee count and such are Apple's annual 10-K filings to the SEC:
http://www.annualreports.com/C...
> I sympathize, but who among us here doesn't
> understand the need for continuing education and
> learning new, possibly different, skills to stay relevant
> in the workforce?
I'm really tired of the seeming requirement to throw out "I sympathize" platitudes when talking about the "too cool for school" crowd who refuse to learn new things. Frankly, I don't sympathize. Because I *DO* understand the need for continual education and skill development. At no point in my career that I can recall have I ever *not* been learning new skills, whether through formal classes or self-directed study and practice. Even as I learn those new skills, I'm also watching the news and trends to determine what *new* new skills I will be learning next year. I simply can't fathom not learning new things. Even when I retire, I expect to be finding new things to learn, even if they're only hobbies. And I don't see why I should have a lick of sympathy for someone who thinks they're entitled to make an entire career out of one skill set, never expanding, never advancing, never developing.
Honestly, I'd also prefer to scrap the president/congress system we have, where any party besides the big two is effectively powerless. A Westminster-style parliamentary system gives the smaller parties a legitimate chance of affecting policy by making them desirable allies in forming a coalition government. The ability of a no-confidence vote in the sitting government to toss out the whole damn lot of them would also be very nice; considering the times that the vice presidential pick was a calculated move to protect the president himself from threat of impeachment by being every bit as bad, if not worse (Bush #1 / Quayle, Bush #2 / Cheney, Trump / Pence.)
And I'll still choose Uber over a Cab at, or even above, taxi prices. I've been using them since they called themselves "Ubercab", only offered the town car service, were only available in San Francisco, and were, yes, more expensive than a taxi.
Why? Because Uber drivers show up where and when they are dispatched. They will pick you up in the avenues (The Sunset and Richmond districts.), and don't throw a hissy fit when you need to be driven out there. They don't play the "my credit card reader is broken, cash only" scam. And their cars are clean, well-maintained, and don't stink of smoke, vomit or pee. None of the same is true of cabbies.
The only reason Uber, Lyft, and the like were able to catch on is because the legacy taxi companies offer an appallingly dismal service. They made their bed. Now they can lie in it. And I'll go on using the superior service; even if the price goes back up to what it was before they introduced UberX.
If you closed the loopholes, the corporations that actually paid for them would get upset. The only reason people are in a tizzy about Apple, Google, Amazon, and company is that they were clever enough to realize that, once on the books, the tax laws are available for anyone to use. If they'd paid their Danegeld to the appropriate politicos like Halliburton, Bechtel, Accenture (Arthur Anderson under their new name), and the like have done, there would be no issues raised.
Where do you get force, or even the threat thereof, from what he said? The way I read it, and most other posts supporting the idea, is that the GP described the goal state, and its advantages, without any suggestions on how to get there. And clearly everyone *doesn't* prefer cash, as evidenced by the mass usage and acceptance of credit cards at nearly every level of commerce in our society. I dislike having to handle cash too; and would prefer to go cashless for all the reasons Bonobo described, plus hygiene... physical currency is one of the more filthy things that people often handle day-to-day. But it's certainly not high enough on my list of desires that I would contemplate using force to make others follow my example.
For my money, I don't expect cash to go away via government edict, and certainly not forcibly. Rather, it will be a gradual phasing out led by businesses ceasing to accept cash, or new businesses never accepting it in the first place. Off the top of my head, I can think of four B&M businesses I frequent (A local coffee shop, a quinoa bowl chain, my doctor and my dentist.) that don't take cash, and a few others that accept it only grudgingly and look at you like you're some sort of troglodyte of you make them touch cash. Plus, of course, anything and everything you buy online is cashless. I expect the trend will probably continue until using cash provokes the same groans eye-rolls as when some old bitty pulls out a checkbook at the supermarket. It will be all but unknown, just like writing checks. And gradually stores will stop accepting it, like many no longer take checks. But use of force? I'd bet not.
Also: Julian Assange, Kim Dotcom, and more than a few others. The government's habit of exporting and enforcing our laws beyond our own borders (Not that we're alone. France is fairly notorious for the same.) is one of the more troublesome... outright despicable even... habits of washington dc.
Yet.
People are so focused on Trump himself that they seem not to realize just how dangerous the situation we are in really is. Trump is "just" president, sure. But he has a rubber-stamp congress. So the only brake on him now is the currently-crippled Supreme Court. And he's a single retirement or death away from having a rubber-stamp there as well; and ruling as a dictator in fact, if not in name.
That excuse doesn't follow though. Everything about Musk's persona, presented either publicly, or within Tesla (I've a good friend who works at HQ in Palo Alto.) shows a man utterly dedicated to making his businesses succeed, a la Steve Jobs, and definitely NOT someone interested in walking away from Tesla and SpaceX to go run for office. Plus, he's not a natural-born citizen. He was born in South Africa and immigrated (Which may actually be the reason republicans would hate him.). So he could only go as far in politics as Schwarzenegger did, topping out at California governor.
The "jobs" argument for fossil fuels just doesn't make sense though. There's already more jobs in renewables than in oil or coal (Either one by itself. Not combined, yet.). We hit that tipping point this year. Jobs growth in renewables has been crushing fossil fuels for the last several years. Investments in renewables are growing exponentially. And if you look out past five years or so (Yeah, I know, most MBA types are congenitally incapable of looking past the next quarter. Whatever.) we're close to profit growth; and not long after, profits being larger than fossil duels. Renewables ARE where the jobs are, and it's where the money is fi you play the long game.
Clean-Energy Jobs Surpass Oil Drilling for First Time in U.S.
Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels
Governor Schwarzenegger put it brilliantly. Even if you *don't* believe in global warming (Which is still a stupid-ass position.) fossil fuels are eventually going to run out. Before they run out, they're going to become more expensive to extract. Renewables are the future. Renewables are where the jobs and investment opportunities are, moving forward. And what sort of moron wants to be the last investor in Blockbuster when Netflix is about to crush them?
Truth doesn't even really come into play. Google search results are not necessarily the "truth", nor does Google even make the claim. Google, rather, strives for "most useful" results. Often, this becomes more "the prevailing opinion of the internet", more than anything else. Recall:
- For a good number of years, roughly coinciding with their antitrust trial and conviction, if you were to google for: "more evil than satan", the top result would be Microsoft's website.
- When Rick Santorum demonstrated himself to be extra super special loathsome a while back; there was a backlash and movement to define the word santourm as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". This is, in fact, still the third result if you google for santorum, with the wikipedia page describing the campaign at the top and his own wikipedia page at #2.
> one for the courts
You mean like the keys that can open anyone's luggage that only the TSA is supposed to have but you can 3D print from files available all over the internet? Those keys?
Easy solution: Give regulatory control of the nuclear power industry to the navy. No joke. The US Navy has been operating nuclear reactors... hundreds of them... for nearly as long as there's been such a thing. And they have a perfect operational safety record. That is: zero nuclear accidents in the 62 years since the USS Nautilus was launched in 1954. (They *have* lost two nuclear submarines at sea. But neither the Thresher nor Scorpion were lost due to reactor accidents.)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...
They do it by standardizing on a small number of reactor designs (Generally one per ship/sub class. Though the S5W persisted from the Skipjack class until it was replaced by the S6G with the Los Angeles.), training the sweet holy hell out of their people (There are stories of standing desks at power school, so trainees don't fall asleep while sitting and studying... and of the occasional *thump* when someone standing falls asleep anyway.), and holding them strictly accountable to operations and safety standards throughout their careers.
I wonder what happens in 10 years that brings back the missiles?
Either way, these are regular Harpoon missiles they simply won't be carrying. It's not like they're dropping the launchers from ship designs and re-building the entire fleet. They just won't be carrying the missiles. If the red fleet steams south towards the GIUK gap, the launchers could certainly be re-loaded in short order; even if the Harpoons themselves had to be flown over from the US.