The war on oil continues to throw about the claim that fossil fuels are subsidized. Nobody ever challenges them on how they determine a subsidy. The fact is, the fossil fuel industry doesn't receive ANY subsidies. It's all a slight rephrasing of the truth that allows them to get away with making this claim. Basically, when an oil company spends money on new research and development, they are allowed to deduct the costs of this research and development from their earnings. Thus, if they spend 1 billion dollars on R&D, then 1 billion dollars is deducted from their earnings, which leads to a reduction in taxes owed. At the 35% tax rate, that means $350 million in taxes that aren't assessed to that oil company. This is then claimed as a subsidy of $350 million dollars!
Anyone with half a brain in their head can compare the energy density of oil (41.9MJ/Kg) versus Uranium (570,000MJ/Kg) versus any and every other energy source available and conclude pretty easily that atomic energy is where we should be focusing our efforts. Given the fact that we already have the technology working, why would we be wasting so much time, effort, and money for alternative sources?
And it's stupid people like you that keep allowing Communism to be experimented with. And never are any of the lessons learned! Communism doesn't work, because there are some really tough jobs, and some really shitty jobs, but they all need to be performed. But in a communist setup, where everyone's take from the system is equal, it means nobody wants to do the tough work or the shitty work, since there's no incentive. So the state has to force people to do those jobs. And that's why communism will never work.
Considering all of the KGB documents that have recently been made available which reveal how successful they were at infiltrating US institutions, I'm surprised people still hold the opinion they do of McCarthyism.
It's also likely ironic that you're posting this on the Internet which was invented by government funding of the US Military, which you're probably not a fan of.
First off, stop looking at "profit motive" as a bad thing. If the company doesn't make a profit, the many people employed by the company can't get paid. Profit needs to exist in order for things to continue. Would you go to your job every day if all it did was cover your costs of staying alive and left you with no extra money? Second, insurance is a gamble, both for the buyer and the seller. There's no guarantee the insurance you buy is going to completely cover you for everything. There's also no guarantee that the insurance company will collect enough premiums to cover all claims. Some years profits are big, some years they're small, and some years they suffer losses. Making the insurance a "government solution" isn't going to change any of this. There are still a bunch of employees who expect a nice paycheck at the end of the week. And there is still no guarantee that premiums will cover all claims. However, there is a big difference between a private company and a government department. Private companies need to run the business efficiently, because should they screw up, they're all out of a job. A government department, however, doesn't face this worry. This is why government bureaucracies become bloated and inefficient over time. Look at Canada's health system, where the average wait time from initial referral to actual treatment performed by a specialist is well over 20 weeks. http://blogs.canoe.ca/davidakin/health/our-embarrassing-health-care-wait-times/#.Um6B9aRk1Uk.twitter And because it's a "universal" health care system, there's no accountability in terms of costs versus services delivered.
There have been touchscreens around for 15+ years. Microsoft ships a version of Windows called Embedded Windows, and as far back as Win98 (maybe further, that was my first experience with it) you could create a Kiosk deployment of Windows 98 with an ELO touchscreen.
I think the reason people aren't making a big deal about it is twofold: First, they're not being informed as to why a government agency snooping their emails and contacts is a bad thing. People aren't making the connection between the IRS harassing specific groups and the NSA knowing everyone's sphere of influence. Second, the MSM downplays or ignores the story so it's not registering as something to be seriously concerned about.
I really don't understand what you're going on about. There are plenty of laptops available already that allow you to put in a SIM card. Telephony software? There's plenty of solutions already available. And cameras have been integrated into laptops long before Android was released. What on earth can Android support that a traditional PC (Windows or Linux) can't?
and write simple apps to store the call as well
so you need to write apps in order to do what you want? What stopped you from writing simple apps for Windows or Linux all these years?
That's a pointless comment. What's toxic to one species isn't necessarily toxic to another. That's why farmers are able to use "weed killer" in the fields where they're growing their crops. It kills some plants, but doesn't kill others. Technically, even water is toxic if you consume enough in a short period.
hmm, just had a look, and from the examples it looks like processing is all written code. I don't think my 8 year old is ready to start learning about syntax. Scratch is extremely visual, as in the actual code is invisible to the user. They build their programs with colored blocks that snap together. It's really done well as far as getting kids to start thinking logically. I'd like to see it expanded so they can continue to develop more advanced projects. Switching them to pure code isn't really an option at this point.
Sounds like you don't know much about the history of the region. Do you even know how the "palestinian" refugees ended up in the various camps? The surrounding arab states bear more than a little responsibility for the situation, yet they are never held accountable. The people inside Israel are the people who decided to fight to defend their homes, both Jews and Arabs. They fought against each other, and they fought against invading forces from outside. But they stood their ground, they fought, and they persevered. They have managed to work together to build something better. Arabs inside Israel have the same rights as Jews.
lol, you quote an article prepared by the American Association of Railroads that finds rail is the safer mode? That's funny. Modern pipelines are far safer than rail transportation. Yes, there are many pipelines in the US that are 50+ years old and should have been replaced several times over, and these wouldn't be what I consider safe. But I was referring to environmental considerations opposing a new pipeline. A new pipeline that would be built with the latest technology we have at our disposal to minimize any chance of a spill is far safer than transport via rail. And pipeline or not, the oil will continue to be processed, so the opposition to a pipeline is definitely misguided.
I'm not going to get into an argument about a mandatory long-form census, the rights and freedoms of citizens, and the sharing of that information with other government departments. The point is it wasn't a war on science, it was a cutback of an invasive government.
nice snark, but when it comes to "facts", the socialists really are the ones who don't have a use for them. Socialism has been tried around the world numerous times, and every time the results are the same. Decrease in production. Increase in costs. Ever growing bureaucracy. Spiraling inflation. Incremental authoritarian rule. Supply shortages and rationing. Increasing taxes. Increasing dissent. Increasing numbers of political prisoners. The results have been predicted by many, yet still the fact-free socialist believers continue to try.
1. No, they're not conservatives. They like to play up the centre, straddling the line between left and right, conservative and liberal. Like most Canadian Liberal politicians, they are interested in being in power, and will play to either side in order to get that power.
2. Adrian Dix flip flopped on numerous issues repeatedly (pipeline, taxes to name a few). Voters really didn't know what would happen if he won. There was a campaign to stop him from becoming premier, see 'http://adriandix.blogspot.ca/' or "http://www.waterwarcrimes.com/4/post/2012/04/is-bc-ndp-leader-adrian-dix-a-crook.html".
3. We will see
4. that would be your opinion, not based on fact. please provide your citation for "a recent federal vote, Conservatives literally voted against science".
the BC liberals were NOT conservatives at all. However, the NDP, which were their only competition, are completely batshit crazy. Nobody wanted to vote the BC liberals back in, but everybody was scared to death of the NDP getting in, so they plugged their noses and voted the liberals back in. Interestingly, the leader of the BC liberals failed to win her own riding. And when one of her members is forced to step down so she can run in a byelection, she will likely lose again. And FYI, conservatives do not hate fact based policy. That would be the socialists.
1. many environmental considerations are a thinly disguised war on fossil fuels. Science has nothing to do with it.
2. Mandatory census did not change. What changed was a long form census, forcing citizens to divulge far more information than just age, address, gender, race, etc.
3. "Lack of Leadership" is also an excellent excuse to fire off people who aren't actually performing well.
4. I fail to see how changing fishing regulations go against scientific studies. Did fishing regulations save the Atlantic Cod fisheries from collapse in the 1990's? Or the Salmon fisheries in the 1980's?
5. Scientific fact: Pipelines are safer than transporting oil via tanker or train.
Science isn't just about predictions and models. Empirical evidence is the key to good science.
Slashdot Mirror
The war on oil continues to throw about the claim that fossil fuels are subsidized. Nobody ever challenges them on how they determine a subsidy. The fact is, the fossil fuel industry doesn't receive ANY subsidies. It's all a slight rephrasing of the truth that allows them to get away with making this claim. Basically, when an oil company spends money on new research and development, they are allowed to deduct the costs of this research and development from their earnings. Thus, if they spend 1 billion dollars on R&D, then 1 billion dollars is deducted from their earnings, which leads to a reduction in taxes owed. At the 35% tax rate, that means $350 million in taxes that aren't assessed to that oil company. This is then claimed as a subsidy of $350 million dollars!
Anyone with half a brain in their head can compare the energy density of oil (41.9MJ/Kg) versus Uranium (570,000MJ/Kg) versus any and every other energy source available and conclude pretty easily that atomic energy is where we should be focusing our efforts. Given the fact that we already have the technology working, why would we be wasting so much time, effort, and money for alternative sources?
"the temperature of the box will rise without limit"
wow. Total Science Fail
what's a warwalk?
And it's stupid people like you that keep allowing Communism to be experimented with. And never are any of the lessons learned! Communism doesn't work, because there are some really tough jobs, and some really shitty jobs, but they all need to be performed. But in a communist setup, where everyone's take from the system is equal, it means nobody wants to do the tough work or the shitty work, since there's no incentive. So the state has to force people to do those jobs. And that's why communism will never work.
"the biggest threat to the world wasn't communism" Yeah, because 95+ Million People Killed isn't really much of a threat, is it?
Considering all of the KGB documents that have recently been made available which reveal how successful they were at infiltrating US institutions, I'm surprised people still hold the opinion they do of McCarthyism.
It's also likely ironic that you're posting this on the Internet which was invented by government funding of the US Military, which you're probably not a fan of.
First off, stop looking at "profit motive" as a bad thing. If the company doesn't make a profit, the many people employed by the company can't get paid. Profit needs to exist in order for things to continue. Would you go to your job every day if all it did was cover your costs of staying alive and left you with no extra money? Second, insurance is a gamble, both for the buyer and the seller. There's no guarantee the insurance you buy is going to completely cover you for everything. There's also no guarantee that the insurance company will collect enough premiums to cover all claims. Some years profits are big, some years they're small, and some years they suffer losses. Making the insurance a "government solution" isn't going to change any of this. There are still a bunch of employees who expect a nice paycheck at the end of the week. And there is still no guarantee that premiums will cover all claims. However, there is a big difference between a private company and a government department. Private companies need to run the business efficiently, because should they screw up, they're all out of a job. A government department, however, doesn't face this worry. This is why government bureaucracies become bloated and inefficient over time. Look at Canada's health system, where the average wait time from initial referral to actual treatment performed by a specialist is well over 20 weeks. http://blogs.canoe.ca/davidakin/health/our-embarrassing-health-care-wait-times/#.Um6B9aRk1Uk.twitter And because it's a "universal" health care system, there's no accountability in terms of costs versus services delivered.
There have been touchscreens around for 15+ years. Microsoft ships a version of Windows called Embedded Windows, and as far back as Win98 (maybe further, that was my first experience with it) you could create a Kiosk deployment of Windows 98 with an ELO touchscreen.
I think the reason people aren't making a big deal about it is twofold: First, they're not being informed as to why a government agency snooping their emails and contacts is a bad thing. People aren't making the connection between the IRS harassing specific groups and the NSA knowing everyone's sphere of influence. Second, the MSM downplays or ignores the story so it's not registering as something to be seriously concerned about.
I really don't understand what you're going on about. There are plenty of laptops available already that allow you to put in a SIM card. Telephony software? There's plenty of solutions already available. And cameras have been integrated into laptops long before Android was released. What on earth can Android support that a traditional PC (Windows or Linux) can't?
and write simple apps to store the call as well
so you need to write apps in order to do what you want? What stopped you from writing simple apps for Windows or Linux all these years?
not sure why someone marked your post as a troll, I couldn't make any sense of what g0bshiTe was trying to say either without rereading it twice!
That's a pointless comment. What's toxic to one species isn't necessarily toxic to another. That's why farmers are able to use "weed killer" in the fields where they're growing their crops. It kills some plants, but doesn't kill others. Technically, even water is toxic if you consume enough in a short period.
hmm, just had a look, and from the examples it looks like processing is all written code. I don't think my 8 year old is ready to start learning about syntax. Scratch is extremely visual, as in the actual code is invisible to the user. They build their programs with colored blocks that snap together. It's really done well as far as getting kids to start thinking logically. I'd like to see it expanded so they can continue to develop more advanced projects. Switching them to pure code isn't really an option at this point.
the stage size sucks. My kids were able to start some really cool stuff, but the tiny stage meant a lot of their projects turned into dead ends.....
You keep following the path you're on, you're liable to get burned....
Sounds like you don't know much about the history of the region. Do you even know how the "palestinian" refugees ended up in the various camps? The surrounding arab states bear more than a little responsibility for the situation, yet they are never held accountable. The people inside Israel are the people who decided to fight to defend their homes, both Jews and Arabs. They fought against each other, and they fought against invading forces from outside. But they stood their ground, they fought, and they persevered. They have managed to work together to build something better. Arabs inside Israel have the same rights as Jews.
lol, you quote an article prepared by the American Association of Railroads that finds rail is the safer mode? That's funny. Modern pipelines are far safer than rail transportation. Yes, there are many pipelines in the US that are 50+ years old and should have been replaced several times over, and these wouldn't be what I consider safe. But I was referring to environmental considerations opposing a new pipeline. A new pipeline that would be built with the latest technology we have at our disposal to minimize any chance of a spill is far safer than transport via rail. And pipeline or not, the oil will continue to be processed, so the opposition to a pipeline is definitely misguided. I'm not going to get into an argument about a mandatory long-form census, the rights and freedoms of citizens, and the sharing of that information with other government departments. The point is it wasn't a war on science, it was a cutback of an invasive government.
nice snark, but when it comes to "facts", the socialists really are the ones who don't have a use for them. Socialism has been tried around the world numerous times, and every time the results are the same. Decrease in production. Increase in costs. Ever growing bureaucracy. Spiraling inflation. Incremental authoritarian rule. Supply shortages and rationing. Increasing taxes. Increasing dissent. Increasing numbers of political prisoners. The results have been predicted by many, yet still the fact-free socialist believers continue to try.
1. No, they're not conservatives. They like to play up the centre, straddling the line between left and right, conservative and liberal. Like most Canadian Liberal politicians, they are interested in being in power, and will play to either side in order to get that power. 2. Adrian Dix flip flopped on numerous issues repeatedly (pipeline, taxes to name a few). Voters really didn't know what would happen if he won. There was a campaign to stop him from becoming premier, see 'http://adriandix.blogspot.ca/' or "http://www.waterwarcrimes.com/4/post/2012/04/is-bc-ndp-leader-adrian-dix-a-crook.html". 3. We will see 4. that would be your opinion, not based on fact. please provide your citation for "a recent federal vote, Conservatives literally voted against science".
the BC liberals were NOT conservatives at all. However, the NDP, which were their only competition, are completely batshit crazy. Nobody wanted to vote the BC liberals back in, but everybody was scared to death of the NDP getting in, so they plugged their noses and voted the liberals back in. Interestingly, the leader of the BC liberals failed to win her own riding. And when one of her members is forced to step down so she can run in a byelection, she will likely lose again. And FYI, conservatives do not hate fact based policy. That would be the socialists.
1. many environmental considerations are a thinly disguised war on fossil fuels. Science has nothing to do with it. 2. Mandatory census did not change. What changed was a long form census, forcing citizens to divulge far more information than just age, address, gender, race, etc. 3. "Lack of Leadership" is also an excellent excuse to fire off people who aren't actually performing well. 4. I fail to see how changing fishing regulations go against scientific studies. Did fishing regulations save the Atlantic Cod fisheries from collapse in the 1990's? Or the Salmon fisheries in the 1980's? 5. Scientific fact: Pipelines are safer than transporting oil via tanker or train. Science isn't just about predictions and models. Empirical evidence is the key to good science.
And a large number of the links are going to extreme left propaganda pieces that have nothing to do with science either.