the democrats who have run MI have dropped the ball for decades, cant do anything when the locals keep voting the same people in. they get the government they deserve, as we all do
So, in your mind, the problems in Flint were nothing to do with the emergency manager, appointed by a Republican governor, who decided to supply Flint with acidic water, against technical advice?
Exclusivity agreements, while obnoxious are not all of the problem. CA has legislated away exclusivity agreements, yet the problem still exists.
The real issue is that providing telecoms services to houses is a natural monopoly. The only way to solve it is to require the last mile networks be available at cost to alternative providers. That's what happened in the UK and there is more competition there.
The USA briefly required last mile access be available to competitive providers, but the dollars from telecom companies swept that away.
In most other states, for example, beverage containers have a tax ("deposit") that is meant to get all the containers taken away from public spaces, whether by gleaners or by thrifty citizens. In contrast, California sets the tax low enough that it's not worth redeeming unless you're desperate
So you are saying that the tax ("deposit") in CA is lower than in other states?
Way to go proving your claim that "California loves taxes"!
The flaw in this tactic is that it requires the person discussed on the billboard to be able to feel shame at the things they do in their official capacity.
"None of your business" Darrell Issa when asked how he was going to vote on the healthcare bill. These people are tone deaf and have absolutely no self awareness.
I see what your problem is: you have trouble with the idea that someone might be concerned with accuracy and truth over pushing an agenda.
You stated: "By this measure, reforming coal into methane and then burning that as a separate step would improve their rating." This is false. The study attempts to track emissions back to primary fuels. It specifically comments on "indirect emissions".
You stated: "It may talk about primary fuels, but it does not consider them. If you burn ethanol in your car it just measures the amount of CO2 that comes out of the tail pipe". This is false. The study does not measure CO2 emitted as a result of burning Ethanol.
Unlike you, I don't think that pushing an agenda is more important highlighting the study's inaccuracies.
It may talk about primary fuels, but it does not consider them. If you burn ethanol in your car it just measures the amount of CO2 that comes out of the tail pipe - it does not consider the CO2 that went into the creation of the ethanol.
Try reading TFA. This is the second falsehood you have posted about it. The article specifically calls out biogenic fuels:
EIAâ(TM)s calculation of carbon intensities uses the convention that emissions from biomass combustion do not count as net energy-related CO2 emissions because biogenic fuels are produced as part of a natural cycle that absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during the growth phase. The same consideration applies to the use of biogenic fuels in... ethanol consumption in the transportation sector.
The claim that "biogenic fuels are produced as part of a natural cycle that absorbs carbon dioxide" may ignore the use of fossil fuels in the process of making fertilizer and this use may result in CO2 emissions.
Nevertheless, this does not excuse your continuing misrepresentation of the article. Do you have some ulterior motive?
You call me dingus and then you just repeat the same stupidness as the original author? Cars still use gasoline, just like in 1975.
Most cars still use gasoline, but now we have these things called "electric vehicles" and they don't use gasoline, or ethanol, or diesel. Amazing isn't it?
GP was correct: you are a dingus.
And, yes, electric vehicles do contribute to CO2 emissions. I get that, but how much? What if the energy comes from a solar power system? It represents a change in the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of energy for the transportation sector.
The point is that society can and is reducing the amount of CO2 emitted by changing the energy sources. Changing from Coal to Natural Gas reduces CO2 emissions. Changing to Wind or Solar reduces emissions even further.
Getting hung up on the use of the word "fuel" isn't helpful.
I use this example when talking to people about anti-vaxxers. You can't just say vaccines don't cause autism. You are much better off talking about how bad the diseases are that can be cured by vaccines.
There are two types of people: Anti-Vaxxers not interested in science and those more interested in science. The latter know that you can't entirely rule out the possibility that vaccines cause autism: all you can say with absolute certainty is that there is no evidence that vaccines cause autism and no known mechanism for a link. The first kind of people simply don't care.
Vaccines do have risks. That's why most developed countries have mechanisms to compensate the tiny number of people that are harmed by vaccines. Denying any risk is promoting a falsehood.
So, what does that leave? As you state: what it leaves is that the risks from vaccinating are far, far lower than the risks of not vaccinating.
Unfortunately, the fact that most people are vaccinated reduces the risks of the un-vaccinated. It would be better for vaccination rates if the un-vaccinated had a far higher risk of infection.
There was a recent article on (I think) NYT or Wash Post about championship wrestling and the current political climate. We all know championship wrestling is fake. Even the people who watch it admit it is fake. One bright spark admitted that and then added, but it is real for me.
People watch fictional dramas all the time. How is wrestling any different? It's all entertainment.
Theoretically, this could indeed wipe out poverty,....
Very funny.
Poverty exists not because of a lack of resources or productivity. Poverty exists because of the extreme unequal distribution of wealth. If there was the political will to fix wealth distribution, we could eliminate poverty today.
So, no, AIs will not wipe out poverty. AIs will increase wealth inequality and with it, increase poverty.
The employment agreement does not imply that you will be given increased compensation for doing more work...
Again, read TFA. What the article suggests is that if annual performance reviews are not carried out properly, then the employer has violated the contract:
For the first 10 years in my career at any new job, I worked hard for 1 year. I finished more projects than my peers. Iâ(TM)d take on extra work. Iâ(TM)d automate and simplify many of the processes so the business ran like silk. Peer reviews backed up my performance. After 1 year, it was time for the annual review as promised in the signed contract.
Ah, but here comes the interesting part. Listen up, because this concerns you the business owner or middle manager. At the end of one year, my raise and bonus were at cost of living levels. Or, the annual review was âoepushed backâ citing company delays.
When asked why the review was not stellar since I beat out most if not all of my peers on speed and output, no answer was given. Sometimes, it was corporate politics. Sometimes, it was because management was lazy and didnâ(TM)t want to pay. Sometimes, it was due to âoewe want you to socialize moreâ and âoeplay the gameâ.
I discovered other programmers who pumped out quality output at staggering rates went through the same thing as I did at review time.
So, middle managers and business owners, pay attention. At that point, you BROKE the employment agreement. I exceeded above and beyond my standard job output. And at the end of the one year, you simply paid the same you would for an average output software engineer. You were getting 50% or more increased output over another guy with the same or relatively same salary.
You're getting paid during office hours to work for the company, not to work on your personal projects.
TFA has an interesting take on this. The author writes that, typically, the employer has already broken the employment agreement by failing to give appropriate raises for someone who has done more work more than his/her peers. Thus the employee responds to the failure to compensate appropriately by working on side projects.
Most employment agreements are such that the company owns it even if it is outside of normal hours. So inventions you come up with on your own time are not yours.
Slashdot Mirror
Did these people have access to a compiler when writing this code? If not, then of course most code has trivial syntax errors.
So, in your mind, the problems in Flint were nothing to do with the emergency manager, appointed by a Republican governor, who decided to supply Flint with acidic water, against technical advice?
Exclusivity agreements, while obnoxious are not all of the problem. CA has legislated away exclusivity agreements, yet the problem still exists.
The real issue is that providing telecoms services to houses is a natural monopoly. The only way to solve it is to require the last mile networks be available at cost to alternative providers. That's what happened in the UK and there is more competition there.
The USA briefly required last mile access be available to competitive providers, but the dollars from telecom companies swept that away.
Because, like your post, it's a Troll post.
Here you go!
Actually, since the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament, the situation is reversed.
Why do Scottish MPs in Westminster vote on matters that only affect England?
Even before Devolution, English MPs did not (by custom) vote on matters that affect only Scotland.
Google the "West Lothian question"
Bull shit!
For those unable to read: CA is ranked #10 in one of those surveys and doesn't appear in the other list of the top 10 states for overall taxes.
So you are saying that the tax ("deposit") in CA is lower than in other states?
Way to go proving your claim that "California loves taxes"!
Wouldn't The Thaw be a more appropriate move reference?
"None of your business" Darrell Issa when asked how he was going to vote on the healthcare bill. These people are tone deaf and have absolutely no self awareness.
I see what your problem is: you have trouble with the idea that someone might be concerned with accuracy and truth over pushing an agenda.
You stated: "By this measure, reforming coal into methane and then burning that as a separate step would improve their rating." This is false. The study attempts to track emissions back to primary fuels. It specifically comments on "indirect emissions".
You stated: "It may talk about primary fuels, but it does not consider them. If you burn ethanol in your car it just measures the amount of CO2 that comes out of the tail pipe". This is false. The study does not measure CO2 emitted as a result of burning Ethanol.
Unlike you, I don't think that pushing an agenda is more important highlighting the study's inaccuracies.
Try reading TFA. This is the second falsehood you have posted about it. The article specifically calls out biogenic fuels:
The claim that "biogenic fuels are produced as part of a natural cycle that absorbs carbon dioxide" may ignore the use of fossil fuels in the process of making fertilizer and this use may result in CO2 emissions.
Nevertheless, this does not excuse your continuing misrepresentation of the article. Do you have some ulterior motive?
Most cars still use gasoline, but now we have these things called "electric vehicles" and they don't use gasoline, or ethanol, or diesel. Amazing isn't it?
GP was correct: you are a dingus.
And, yes, electric vehicles do contribute to CO2 emissions. I get that, but how much? What if the energy comes from a solar power system? It represents a change in the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of energy for the transportation sector.
Now you are just proving your stupidity.
The study talks about "primary fuels". It looks at CO2 emissions at each stage of use.
The point is that society can and is reducing the amount of CO2 emitted by changing the energy sources. Changing from Coal to Natural Gas reduces CO2 emissions. Changing to Wind or Solar reduces emissions even further.
Getting hung up on the use of the word "fuel" isn't helpful.
There are two types of people: Anti-Vaxxers not interested in science and those more interested in science. The latter know that you can't entirely rule out the possibility that vaccines cause autism: all you can say with absolute certainty is that there is no evidence that vaccines cause autism and no known mechanism for a link. The first kind of people simply don't care.
Vaccines do have risks. That's why most developed countries have mechanisms to compensate the tiny number of people that are harmed by vaccines. Denying any risk is promoting a falsehood.
So, what does that leave? As you state: what it leaves is that the risks from vaccinating are far, far lower than the risks of not vaccinating.
Unfortunately, the fact that most people are vaccinated reduces the risks of the un-vaccinated. It would be better for vaccination rates if the un-vaccinated had a far higher risk of infection.
People watch fictional dramas all the time. How is wrestling any different? It's all entertainment.
Or the moon.
The mission of "Secure Boot" is not to secure any computers, but to secure Microsoft's revenue stream.
Yes, you may be able to disable it on your desktop, but will this situation continue? Remember those Surface RT tablets?
Begone, Troll!
RedHat/CentOS haven't suffered from dependency hell for years. The adoption of YUM solved the issues.
Very funny.
Poverty exists not because of a lack of resources or productivity. Poverty exists because of the extreme unequal distribution of wealth. If there was the political will to fix wealth distribution, we could eliminate poverty today.
So, no, AIs will not wipe out poverty. AIs will increase wealth inequality and with it, increase poverty.
Or perhaps it's the flora in your gut.
Again, read TFA. What the article suggests is that if annual performance reviews are not carried out properly, then the employer has violated the contract:
TFA has an interesting take on this. The author writes that, typically, the employer has already broken the employment agreement by failing to give appropriate raises for someone who has done more work more than his/her peers. Thus the employee responds to the failure to compensate appropriately by working on side projects.
Move to California and stop being a serf.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca....