And what if the car driver is the trucker on their way to the depot/garage? Or one of the many people who work in the stores from which you buy your products? Hint: those are real people, just as real as your truck driver.
It would make you look less ridiculous if you thought about your arguments. Putting a person in a car doesn't magically make them not interact with anyone else ever.
The fuel tax should be for cleaning up the pollution caused by the vehicles burning it, or fixing the problems it causes. That seems only fair, right? If your fuel caused your car to randomly shoot someone every few 10s of miles, it would be expected that you either stop driving, drive less, or if neither are possible, pay for the damage it causes.
If you accept that the truck is benefiting other people, you must accept that the car is, too. You can't have one without the other, for the simple reason that the car might contain a truck driver on their way to the depot. If that was the case, then the car would and wouldn't benefit others at the same time, which is clearly paradoxical.
Yes, but not in the usage of the car. All cars cause pollution during manufacture, but those which use fossil fuels directly as a fuel are horrifically inefficient for the lifetime of the vehicle. Electric vehicles already move the pollution away from the population centers (where it causes the most health issues and other unaccounted-for externalities). The batteries in electric vehicles are rapidly approaching becoming 100% recyclable, which kind of removes that argument, too.
When you make a large generalisation you are admitting you don't have a specific argument, and are instead just angry. It doesn't paint you in a particularly good light.
I understand you're angry, but does it make sense to expend energy on being angry or on learning? If you learned more on this subject you would not only not be angry, but have improved your knowledge. These systems save the day every single day, as without them our modern planes simply couldn't fly, and they stop pilots from making human mistakes frequently. Newspapers and websites won't get any readers if they have a news story for every single flight which didn't end unexpectedly in a mountain, in the sea, or in a fireball. It's a common mistake to think that because you don't hear of something happening that it is not happening, and if one thinks it does, they're only going to wander further and further from reality.
Cloud computing is far more than just that. What happens when the school wanted more pupils than they had computer power for? Could they magically spin up a new computer out of thin air for the new users to use? Cloud computing is the combination of having your own mainframes/servers, and being able to add to their number/reduce them as close to instantly as physically possible. This lets small players have the same computing power at their fingertips as large companies, which is not the case with the school example you gave.
I'm trying to mean this in a nice way - you really should stop assuming people are like you, and that their experiences and situations are like yours. It's leading you to make incredibly incorrect assumptions in every single thread I see your comments in. Seriously. Every single one. I wish the best for everyone, even you (as we seem to have different opinions on many things), so I thought I'd point that out.
You seem to have cherry-picked a couple of examples of the system fixing itself, apparently in some vain attempt to show that the average quality of life for a French person is not superior to that of an average American. I don't know why you would wantonly tell the world you are quite so ignorant.
If they do, that is. And then only until they get new jobs at the newly-appearing competition. Without changing anything, you will be paying for Walmart's employees' food indefinitely.
That's your argument? If you blow the numbers out to orders of magnitudes greater, it stops making sense? What a surprise! What are you going to do next? Refuse to fill your car's tank because if you tried to put 10,000 gallons in it it wouldn't fit? Not buy a single coffee because you can't drink 50 at a go? Amazing.
So you stopped reading at the name, and trusted the Nazis to not lie to you?
And they were socialist in name only, essentially. Their blend of nationalism, military-industrial complex governing the country, etc. aren't at all socialist, and those were the driving forces behind their position. Hitler didn't instigate a single welfare program under his leadership, and in fact closed many, opting to send people to work camps or have them killed, or simply let them starve. Vanity and Nazi-favouring programs were instigated, but they were small in reach and designed to be propaganda from the very beginning. The genuine welfare systems which were in place during his rule were there before he gained power. They even privatised great swathes of the country's infrastructure & defense, including privatising 13 of the country's arsenals.
We are not talking about a single person, but a systematic attack on poor people being defended by countless scores of people. Americans do have terrible work conditions - that is pretty well established. As for the poorly paid, well, the lack of social support, service industries relying on tips, expensive/shitty healthcare, etc. don't paint a rosy picture. I understand if you are particularly patriotic and don't like people pointing out shortcomings in "your country", but your response is doing nothing to address the real problems, meaning if they do exist, you are doing your utmost to make sure they are never fixed.
How to fix these problems? Narrow the wealth gap. Help the poor live decent lives. Stop judging everyone. Three easy steps to help you get started.
Money in the bank helps the bank. Money in the local economy helps the local economy. Seeing as most people don't live in their banks, the benefits should be somewhat obvious;)
You conveniently left out the part where one must put it in a tube and dig a trench for it, and be ready to undertake expensive, time-consuming repairs should the fiber be damaged. Strange, huh? I'm sure you didn't mean to do that.
Because any change in the minimum wage requires preparation by people it affects. You ignoring that fact and instantly leaping to the conclusion it's because "they" "know" it will hurt the economy only serves to make you look like a paranoid nutcase. Seriously. Tricke-down economics has been shown to not work. It's as if you are just saying what you've heard others claim. Tragic.
You don't know the difference between sea ice and land ice - even when it's pointed out to you repeatedly - so I don't know why anyone should ever attempt to learn from you. You might be right, but you've been so fantastically wrong in the past and not even realised it.
You missed off ", but some very positive benefits, including but not limited to: a need for an improved grid (which will boost the energy engineering sector & related industries), less reliance on fossil fuels, and increased EU energy independence.". The fact you decided to not mention the benefits of renewables isn't painting you in a particularly rational light.
Slashdot Mirror
And what if the car driver is the trucker on their way to the depot/garage? Or one of the many people who work in the stores from which you buy your products? Hint: those are real people, just as real as your truck driver.
It would make you look less ridiculous if you thought about your arguments. Putting a person in a car doesn't magically make them not interact with anyone else ever.
The fuel tax should be for cleaning up the pollution caused by the vehicles burning it, or fixing the problems it causes. That seems only fair, right? If your fuel caused your car to randomly shoot someone every few 10s of miles, it would be expected that you either stop driving, drive less, or if neither are possible, pay for the damage it causes.
If you accept that the truck is benefiting other people, you must accept that the car is, too. You can't have one without the other, for the simple reason that the car might contain a truck driver on their way to the depot. If that was the case, then the car would and wouldn't benefit others at the same time, which is clearly paradoxical.
Yes, but not in the usage of the car. All cars cause pollution during manufacture, but those which use fossil fuels directly as a fuel are horrifically inefficient for the lifetime of the vehicle. Electric vehicles already move the pollution away from the population centers (where it causes the most health issues and other unaccounted-for externalities). The batteries in electric vehicles are rapidly approaching becoming 100% recyclable, which kind of removes that argument, too.
So the batteries are nearly entirely recyclable, and in some places coal use is 0%, so your argument isn't just wrong, it doesn't even exist. Wow.
When you make a large generalisation you are admitting you don't have a specific argument, and are instead just angry. It doesn't paint you in a particularly good light.
I understand you're angry, but does it make sense to expend energy on being angry or on learning? If you learned more on this subject you would not only not be angry, but have improved your knowledge. These systems save the day every single day, as without them our modern planes simply couldn't fly, and they stop pilots from making human mistakes frequently. Newspapers and websites won't get any readers if they have a news story for every single flight which didn't end unexpectedly in a mountain, in the sea, or in a fireball. It's a common mistake to think that because you don't hear of something happening that it is not happening, and if one thinks it does, they're only going to wander further and further from reality.
Could you get access to a second Cray for pennies? And a third? And a fourth? How much did the first Cray cost? That's the difference.
Cloud computing is far more than just that. What happens when the school wanted more pupils than they had computer power for? Could they magically spin up a new computer out of thin air for the new users to use? Cloud computing is the combination of having your own mainframes/servers, and being able to add to their number/reduce them as close to instantly as physically possible. This lets small players have the same computing power at their fingertips as large companies, which is not the case with the school example you gave.
Even though research shows that raising the minimum wage helps the workforce, I'm sure you're entirely correct! Muppet.
I'm trying to mean this in a nice way - you really should stop assuming people are like you, and that their experiences and situations are like yours. It's leading you to make incredibly incorrect assumptions in every single thread I see your comments in. Seriously. Every single one. I wish the best for everyone, even you (as we seem to have different opinions on many things), so I thought I'd point that out.
Or because it takes time. But I like your lack-of-any-evidence-conspiracy, though! It's fun to make stuff up, especially when it makes us feel good!
Or they could use their money to help the employees not have to rely on welfare to survive, like normal ethical people would.
You seem to have cherry-picked a couple of examples of the system fixing itself, apparently in some vain attempt to show that the average quality of life for a French person is not superior to that of an average American. I don't know why you would wantonly tell the world you are quite so ignorant.
If they do, that is. And then only until they get new jobs at the newly-appearing competition. Without changing anything, you will be paying for Walmart's employees' food indefinitely.
That's your argument? If you blow the numbers out to orders of magnitudes greater, it stops making sense? What a surprise! What are you going to do next? Refuse to fill your car's tank because if you tried to put 10,000 gallons in it it wouldn't fit? Not buy a single coffee because you can't drink 50 at a go? Amazing.
So you stopped reading at the name, and trusted the Nazis to not lie to you?
And they were socialist in name only, essentially. Their blend of nationalism, military-industrial complex governing the country, etc. aren't at all socialist, and those were the driving forces behind their position. Hitler didn't instigate a single welfare program under his leadership, and in fact closed many, opting to send people to work camps or have them killed, or simply let them starve. Vanity and Nazi-favouring programs were instigated, but they were small in reach and designed to be propaganda from the very beginning. The genuine welfare systems which were in place during his rule were there before he gained power. They even privatised great swathes of the country's infrastructure & defense, including privatising 13 of the country's arsenals.
You might want to learn a thing or two yourself!
We are not talking about a single person, but a systematic attack on poor people being defended by countless scores of people. Americans do have terrible work conditions - that is pretty well established. As for the poorly paid, well, the lack of social support, service industries relying on tips, expensive/shitty healthcare, etc. don't paint a rosy picture. I understand if you are particularly patriotic and don't like people pointing out shortcomings in "your country", but your response is doing nothing to address the real problems, meaning if they do exist, you are doing your utmost to make sure they are never fixed.
How to fix these problems? Narrow the wealth gap. Help the poor live decent lives. Stop judging everyone. Three easy steps to help you get started.
Money in the bank helps the bank. Money in the local economy helps the local economy. Seeing as most people don't live in their banks, the benefits should be somewhat obvious ;)
You conveniently left out the part where one must put it in a tube and dig a trench for it, and be ready to undertake expensive, time-consuming repairs should the fiber be damaged. Strange, huh? I'm sure you didn't mean to do that.
But trickle-down economics doesn't work. Apart from that, good point! /s
Because any change in the minimum wage requires preparation by people it affects. You ignoring that fact and instantly leaping to the conclusion it's because "they" "know" it will hurt the economy only serves to make you look like a paranoid nutcase. Seriously. Tricke-down economics has been shown to not work. It's as if you are just saying what you've heard others claim. Tragic.
You just told everyone you don't know what you're talking about. Thanks!
You don't know the difference between sea ice and land ice - even when it's pointed out to you repeatedly - so I don't know why anyone should ever attempt to learn from you. You might be right, but you've been so fantastically wrong in the past and not even realised it.
You missed off ", but some very positive benefits, including but not limited to: a need for an improved grid (which will boost the energy engineering sector & related industries), less reliance on fossil fuels, and increased EU energy independence.". The fact you decided to not mention the benefits of renewables isn't painting you in a particularly rational light.