I'd like to know why they include military expenses as a "subsidy" for fossil fuels.
Because it helps to spin the story to express the viewpoint which they would like you to believe and they hope that most people will not dig too deeply and just accept them at their word.
Without subsidies your electricity bill would be larger.
Subsidies aren't magic. They come from taxes. Without the taxes which support this subsidy and the associated bureaucratic and overhead waste, my electricity cost would be higher, but my total household cost would be lower.
Now, if someone could complete the work of compiling a list of all the other boring and useless URLs into one spot, then we can use it as a blacklist of URLs not to visit.
Also, if you do find yourself in need of a part, DO NOT buy one that you think could have come from a chop shop. Strangle the bastards out of existence. It is more costly to you in the long run to buy a chopped part because the car they steal to get more parts for the next buyer may be yours.
I don't want my car stolen, but why should I change to a car I don't want just because someone else can't be bothered to obey the law? Remember back in the good-ole days when they used to hang horse thieves? How about we just make it the consequences for stealing cars so much worse than the possible payoff that nobody would bother to try?
The summary itself says there were only 109 pink cars in the study, so it is impossible to say with any accuracy how many per 1000 were stolen.They would have to have more than 1000 in the study, and preferably more like 100,000.
Thief's don't care what their friends think. Joyriders do, but that is not a large percentage of car thefts. Thief's are just out to sell it to a chop shop to part it out, so the more common the color, the better.
I bet the trend changes, and soon. I have started to see a lot of pink New Beetles, and a disproportionate number of the Smart cars are coming in colors like Pink and other colors that traditionally nobody would want. Probably also part of the "Look at Me. I'm special because I care about the environment,"
It is not scientific to solve a second order problem before you solve the first order problem. Secondly, you demonstrate how most who do not believe in a Creator wish those who do believe in a Creator to explain that Creator in terms of the Creation, which is utterly preposterous. You can't describe a programmer in terms of the programming languages and the code he has written. Neither can you explain a painter in terms of the pigments and canvases he has used. If some force created the universe then there is no reason why any scientific principles that exist in the universe should have any effect on the creator, anymore than it effects you when you decide MAX_RETRIES=5.
This includes that just because we may have been created is no reason to surmise that the creator ALSO had to have been created. There is no reason for the turtles all the way down argument.
It's not that hybrid cars have been killing pedestrians. It's the hybrid cars hitting pedestrians resulting in the fatality of the driver that is the problem. (tongue firmly in cheek).
I can't see how it would be of any use to have a screen as small as a smart phone screen for use in navigation, at least not for the driver. I would prefer the passenger do the navigation with a screen that small, otherwise, the driver would probably run into someone while trying to look ahead on the map. The voice only tells you next turn, but it is often helpful to be able to look ahead.
I guess the tom-tom is not really that much better, since the screen on the tom-tom is rather small as well.
I have a 7 inch screen on my GPS in one of my cars, and that gives me enough information just from glancing at it to know not just the next turn, but a view of what lies ahead in general. But when I am serious about taking a trip, I have Delorme Street Atlas on my laptop. This comes with a GPS receiver and the screen is divided into a larger part that shows you about 25 square miles around you and a smaller part that shows a eagles eye view of a larger portion of your planned route. Of course, you can also zoom in and out, but that is dangerous while driving, so it is best to set your preferences beforehand.
Then on principle, you should be objecting to the fact that child fares on airlines are typically a fraction of the cost of adult fares.
I don't know what airlines you are talking about since all of the airlines I am aware of charge exactly the same amount for children as they do for adults, and most of the airlines also charge an additional unaccompanied minor fee, so children are actually MORE expensive than adults.
The same flight is about $650 today when if prices were static would cost about $4000.
The $412 flight in 1950 also came with amenities that would make today's first class passenger jealous. If you were able to get a carrier to provide those amenities today, it would probably cost you over $4000.
"On its Web site, Ticketmaster tells would-be gift givers to buy paperless tickets 'on the credit card of the person attending the event and [then] reimburse them.'"
A brilliant solution, to be sure. Is ticketmaster also willing to extend said credit to the 13 year old that Grandma is trying to buy a ticket for?
Also, does this mean that I can't go buy a ticket for myself and my wife? That now has to be two separate transactions, likely ending up with us in two separate seats?
If they are so bad, how do they keep their monopoly?
Well, that's the thing about a monopoly. There is no alternative and so therefore, it doesn't matter how bad you are, they still have to come to you.
The demand curve is not completely inelastic, of course. At some point, there is competition in the form of not going to concerts, and also in the form of going to small venue concerts.
I doubt he was modded down for his commentary. I don't think the closed-minded moderators read far enough in to see if the poster had anything good to say.
I'd lose.
You are probably right that you would lose eventually, when you got high enough up, unless you take on money from corporate sponsors. But you can still have an effect at the local level, and it is easy to get involved in local politics. For one, it doesn't pay well, so often you would find yourself the only man for the job, and for another, a lot of people in local politics are just using it as a stepping stone.
Is google going to even out the pay when Obamacare goes into affect and your medical benefits cease to be tax free (for everyone, homo, hetero, or other)? Quoting Reuters, in 2011: "Employers are required to disclose the value of health benefits on employees' W-2 tax forms."
I had an AT&T answering machine which you could access remotely. I, of course, had set the pin. However, someone still managed to get in and hack it and changed my greeting to something about sucking male genitalia. I was not amused. I ended up disabling the remote access completely since apparently any old idiot can call in and figure out how to get into the menus.
$226 million? Double that and they could probably build and tool their own automobile manufacturing factory. Well, not in the United States, that would be a lot more expensive.
Its about apple. All new about apple is important to everyone on slashdot no matter what they have blocked. Slashdot knows better than you do what you want to see.
From what I can tell, there is a tax PENALTY for marriage, not a tax break. If it was up to me, I wouldn't have married but just live with my current wife as a girlfriend for the rest of my life. I would still have been faithful, but I just wouldn't have signed up for higher taxes. The way I see it, if marriage is about avoiding "living in sin", then why does the government have anything to do with it? Why do I need a marriage license. Was it not God who gave men and women to be married? So why not just go to the Church and get married, and not bother telling the government about it? It is not their business. They can go ahead and handle the non-religious marriages and the civil unions, and let God handle the religious unions.
I mean, I'm sure she is a great person and all and I respect her views and her right to them, and the constitution allows her to have those views and to speak them freely. But how can I be sure that her views will not influence her position as a supreme court justice and upholding the constitution, including the parts which are in complete opposition to her views?
Of course, the 10% figure is a crock, but so is the 25% figure on non-electric cars. I have two cars, both about 10 years old, that have a Kelly Blue Book price of 25-35% of their new price. When they were 5 years old, the Blue Book was about 60% of new MSRP. This isn't the 80s where a 10 year old car was fit for the scrap heap. If you treat a new car right these days, it can still run and look almost new when it is 10 years old.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to know why they include military expenses as a "subsidy" for fossil fuels.
Because it helps to spin the story to express the viewpoint which they would like you to believe and they hope that most people will not dig too deeply and just accept them at their word.
Without subsidies your electricity bill would be larger.
Subsidies aren't magic. They come from taxes. Without the taxes which support this subsidy and the associated bureaucratic and overhead waste, my electricity cost would be higher, but my total household cost would be lower.
Now, if someone could complete the work of compiling a list of all the other boring and useless URLs into one spot, then we can use it as a blacklist of URLs not to visit.
Also, if you do find yourself in need of a part, DO NOT buy one that you think could have come from a chop shop. Strangle the bastards out of existence. It is more costly to you in the long run to buy a chopped part because the car they steal to get more parts for the next buyer may be yours.
I don't want my car stolen, but why should I change to a car I don't want just because someone else can't be bothered to obey the law? Remember back in the good-ole days when they used to hang horse thieves? How about we just make it the consequences for stealing cars so much worse than the possible payoff that nobody would bother to try?
The summary itself says there were only 109 pink cars in the study, so it is impossible to say with any accuracy how many per 1000 were stolen.They would have to have more than 1000 in the study, and preferably more like 100,000.
Thief's don't care what their friends think. Joyriders do, but that is not a large percentage of car thefts. Thief's are just out to sell it to a chop shop to part it out, so the more common the color, the better.
I bet the trend changes, and soon. I have started to see a lot of pink New Beetles, and a disproportionate number of the Smart cars are coming in colors like Pink and other colors that traditionally nobody would want. Probably also part of the "Look at Me. I'm special because I care about the environment,"
It is not scientific to solve a second order problem before you solve the first order problem. Secondly, you demonstrate how most who do not believe in a Creator wish those who do believe in a Creator to explain that Creator in terms of the Creation, which is utterly preposterous. You can't describe a programmer in terms of the programming languages and the code he has written. Neither can you explain a painter in terms of the pigments and canvases he has used. If some force created the universe then there is no reason why any scientific principles that exist in the universe should have any effect on the creator, anymore than it effects you when you decide MAX_RETRIES=5.
This includes that just because we may have been created is no reason to surmise that the creator ALSO had to have been created. There is no reason for the turtles all the way down argument.
It's not that hybrid cars have been killing pedestrians. It's the hybrid cars hitting pedestrians resulting in the fatality of the driver that is the problem. (tongue firmly in cheek).
I can't see how it would be of any use to have a screen as small as a smart phone screen for use in navigation, at least not for the driver. I would prefer the passenger do the navigation with a screen that small, otherwise, the driver would probably run into someone while trying to look ahead on the map. The voice only tells you next turn, but it is often helpful to be able to look ahead.
I guess the tom-tom is not really that much better, since the screen on the tom-tom is rather small as well.
I have a 7 inch screen on my GPS in one of my cars, and that gives me enough information just from glancing at it to know not just the next turn, but a view of what lies ahead in general. But when I am serious about taking a trip, I have Delorme Street Atlas on my laptop. This comes with a GPS receiver and the screen is divided into a larger part that shows you about 25 square miles around you and a smaller part that shows a eagles eye view of a larger portion of your planned route. Of course, you can also zoom in and out, but that is dangerous while driving, so it is best to set your preferences beforehand.
Then on principle, you should be objecting to the fact that child fares on airlines are typically a fraction of the cost of adult fares.
I don't know what airlines you are talking about since all of the airlines I am aware of charge exactly the same amount for children as they do for adults, and most of the airlines also charge an additional unaccompanied minor fee, so children are actually MORE expensive than adults.
The same flight is about $650 today when if prices were static would cost about $4000.
The $412 flight in 1950 also came with amenities that would make today's first class passenger jealous. If you were able to get a carrier to provide those amenities today, it would probably cost you over $4000.
"On its Web site, Ticketmaster tells would-be gift givers to buy paperless tickets 'on the credit card of the person attending the event and [then] reimburse them.'"
A brilliant solution, to be sure. Is ticketmaster also willing to extend said credit to the 13 year old that Grandma is trying to buy a ticket for?
Also, does this mean that I can't go buy a ticket for myself and my wife? That now has to be two separate transactions, likely ending up with us in two separate seats?
If they are so bad, how do they keep their monopoly?
Well, that's the thing about a monopoly. There is no alternative and so therefore, it doesn't matter how bad you are, they still have to come to you.
The demand curve is not completely inelastic, of course. At some point, there is competition in the form of not going to concerts, and also in the form of going to small venue concerts.
I doubt he was modded down for his commentary. I don't think the closed-minded moderators read far enough in to see if the poster had anything good to say.
I'd lose.
You are probably right that you would lose eventually, when you got high enough up, unless you take on money from corporate sponsors. But you can still have an effect at the local level, and it is easy to get involved in local politics. For one, it doesn't pay well, so often you would find yourself the only man for the job, and for another, a lot of people in local politics are just using it as a stepping stone.
Is google going to even out the pay when Obamacare goes into affect and your medical benefits cease to be tax free (for everyone, homo, hetero, or other)? Quoting Reuters, in 2011: "Employers are required to disclose the value of health benefits on employees' W-2 tax forms."
I had an AT&T answering machine which you could access remotely. I, of course, had set the pin. However, someone still managed to get in and hack it and changed my greeting to something about sucking male genitalia. I was not amused. I ended up disabling the remote access completely since apparently any old idiot can call in and figure out how to get into the menus.
Maybe the Vulture Capitalists turned them down, or offered them the usual stranglehold deal that vulture capitalists are famous for.
$226 million? Double that and they could probably build and tool their own automobile manufacturing factory. Well, not in the United States, that would be a lot more expensive.
Its about apple. All new about apple is important to everyone on slashdot no matter what they have blocked. Slashdot knows better than you do what you want to see.
From what I can tell, there is a tax PENALTY for marriage, not a tax break. If it was up to me, I wouldn't have married but just live with my current wife as a girlfriend for the rest of my life. I would still have been faithful, but I just wouldn't have signed up for higher taxes. The way I see it, if marriage is about avoiding "living in sin", then why does the government have anything to do with it? Why do I need a marriage license. Was it not God who gave men and women to be married? So why not just go to the Church and get married, and not bother telling the government about it? It is not their business. They can go ahead and handle the non-religious marriages and the civil unions, and let God handle the religious unions.
I mean, I'm sure she is a great person and all and I respect her views and her right to them, and the constitution allows her to have those views and to speak them freely. But how can I be sure that her views will not influence her position as a supreme court justice and upholding the constitution, including the parts which are in complete opposition to her views?
Of course, the 10% figure is a crock, but so is the 25% figure on non-electric cars. I have two cars, both about 10 years old, that have a Kelly Blue Book price of 25-35% of their new price. When they were 5 years old, the Blue Book was about 60% of new MSRP. This isn't the 80s where a 10 year old car was fit for the scrap heap. If you treat a new car right these days, it can still run and look almost new when it is 10 years old.