By a quirk of history, this particular culture won and imposed it customs on everyone else.
Polygamy isn't "natural" to humans. We are naturally almost monogomous. If you're a younger person this might not make a lot of sense, but you will discover it is the truth when your "light goes on".
Humans aren't strictly monogamous as male anatomy testifies; however, that is not the same as saying we are naturally polygamous. Sexual jealously can tear societies apart, which is why polygamous situations involve a *rich* man and a couple of women of different ages -- the youngest being the "love" interest.
No-one else really likes this arrangement -- which is also a biological imperative -- and it is no accident that monogamy is dominant.
Humans are born to suffer with all the competing desires inside of them. The sooner your light goes on, the happier you'll be.
Are you trying to tell us that you want to eat other consenting adults? Do not despair, you could always move to parts of Papua New Guinea. The rest of us have/not/ moved their, because we have no inclination to eat people, consenting or otherwise.
We don't have laws to crush the morbidly dark beast lying in every man. The fundies are working with a broken model of human nature. They once believed that banning alcohol would stop alcohol usage. Goes to show how ass-backwards they are, since drug addiction/alcoholism/social-ill-of-your-choice is almost certainly best dealt with as a public health issue.
US pushing other countries to do its bidding, is more believable then the alternative that the president of Bolivia, and all of those on board were lying.
And the west european countries admitting it as much that it was about Snowden.
Yeah, renewables are/impossible/. Just ask Germany. The Euro crisis is because of fluctuations in solar output. There is no point putting a single solar cell in. Just look at the Euro crisis for proof, and logic, and fact. No engineers will ever figure out how to make it work, so we shouldn't try.
Have you not noticed that the "insurance industry" as far as flood insurance in the USA is strictly limited to the federal government?
That is a really bad problem. The Dems need to get out of the flood insurance business. Those houses need to devalue as the market prices in the reality of climate change. Of course, poor people will move into the devalued houses, and then they'll have their stuff wiped out by a storm in 20 years, and then they'll need assistance. This is a thorny issue, and the first step is for the government to get out of the insurance business.
Too many middle-income families already struggle paying for gas, raising those taxes wouldn't solve anything.
The RIAA runs a carbon tax across most of the NE USA. About 20% of the economy. Electricity bills have not gone up over the last 10 years, and on average, business and residents are paying less. The reason is that the tax is revenue neutral, and the carbon price revenue goes towards tax rebates to renovate houses and factories raising their energy efficiency.
There is no reason why a carbon tax will hit the wallet of the middle class. That's just "alarmism".
Do you learn that listening to right-wing talk radio? Or were you reading some right-wing blog? Let me guess, you think you know something about the issues and what real scientists think. Because those people on those blogs, they speak the/truth/, and you have/fact/ and/logic/ on your side.
On another note, do you know what the cognitive bubble is?
Dear anonymous coward idiot. Can you find a scientific paper that makes the same claim the daily mail made? Of course not, since you only need linear regression and a course data set to see that the daily mail is full of it. If you believe these has been no warming since 1998, then check out this video, do the linear regression yourself (ocean temperatures are better, since they contain most of the heat capacity), witness the cherry picking in action, and learn that political discourse is fast and loose with the truth.
You can spend as much as you like and it won't make any difference in the foreseeable future. There is no magical other source of energy
Wind is almost at price parity with dirty coal. Solar/wind prices are dropping exponentially. It will only be 5 or so years before coal/oil cannot compete with renewables on price alone, and we'll only be using them because of the huge investment in existing plants. Add another 20 years to the equation, and people who still use carbon energy will be flushing money down the toilet.
All of this thanks to huge R&D investments in Germany, China and USA. The free market comes after. It relies on the structure of society and social norms. It isn't a magic bullet. We would not be in this position if it wasn't for big government science dollars, which is just a tiny fraction of the federal budget.
The "modern" interpretation of Smith is rather self-serving in that it makes light of externalities and plundering the commons. Of course, Smith himself recognised these problems.
Obama and environmentalists almost completely ignore this achievement.
Are you kidding? That's a joke right? Are your partisan blinkers that bad?
The move to natural gas is great from a carbon/price perspective, but the relationship is incidental. The *cost* of the carbon wasn't the cause of the shift.
The free market will deliver cheaper renewables than even gas in the next 5 years. That relies on a huge R&D investment that is mainly government subsidies. Where does the GOP stand on the wind-power rebate? Oh that's right, that's something that liberals support. Of course, if the rebate doesn't continue, than those cheaper renewables will all be made in Germany/China, and the USA will be buying them in time for the 2016 election.
There are energy storage solutions available - flywheels for example
There is also the possibility of a more advanced grid that can shift power more easily where it needs to go. Furthermore, wide-spread adoption of electric cars would mean that every car can be a capacitor for the grid, giving a huge amount of robustness to local weather conditions even with a poorly connected grid.
You are proposing a carbon tax, which is just one of many incentives to account for the true cost of carbon. There are other methods. I like the carbon tax, since it will let the marketplace sort out the best solutions; however, there will always be an incentive to bend the rules and cheat. R&D investment will pay off. Feed-in tariffs will give stability to electricity prices such that joe-average can go get a loan from a bank to pay for solar/wind, and buy 20 years of electricity up front, save money, over 20 years, and also reduce their carbon foot print.
Having to pay much more for electricity will mean having less money left over for food
Except electricity prices will not go up if there are financial incentives to modernize houses. Works in the RIAA. (That's NE USA.) They have a carbon tax for 10 years now, and electricity prices are lower on average for everyone, from industry to consumer. And that part of the US economy has grown relative to the rest. Climate action really doesn't have to cost that much if anything in aggregate.
Now, if food prices go up in the future because of major climate induced effects on agriculture, then you really are shafting the poor.
Slashdot Mirror
By a quirk of history, this particular culture won and imposed it customs on everyone else.
Polygamy isn't "natural" to humans. We are naturally almost monogomous. If you're a younger person this might not make a lot of sense, but you will discover it is the truth when your "light goes on".
Humans aren't strictly monogamous as male anatomy testifies; however, that is not the same as saying we are naturally polygamous. Sexual jealously can tear societies apart, which is why polygamous situations involve a *rich* man and a couple of women of different ages -- the youngest being the "love" interest.
No-one else really likes this arrangement -- which is also a biological imperative -- and it is no accident that monogamy is dominant.
Humans are born to suffer with all the competing desires inside of them. The sooner your light goes on, the happier you'll be.
He probably thinks of himself as a constitutional lawyer, sitting in his basement, railing against the decline of civilization.
Including cannibalism, for example?
Are you trying to tell us that you want to eat other consenting adults? Do not despair, you could always move to parts of Papua New Guinea. The rest of us have /not/ moved their, because we have no inclination to eat people, consenting or otherwise.
We don't have laws to crush the morbidly dark beast lying in every man. The fundies are working with a broken model of human nature. They once believed that banning alcohol would stop alcohol usage. Goes to show how ass-backwards they are, since drug addiction/alcoholism/social-ill-of-your-choice is almost certainly best dealt with as a public health issue.
The US budget would explode once you pack all those guys in Guantanamo in perpetuity, and a cool $1 million per prisoner per year.
US pushing other countries to do its bidding, is more believable then the alternative that the president of Bolivia, and all of those on board were lying.
And the west european countries admitting it as much that it was about Snowden.
France already apologized. Read your sig.
Steve Buscemi is not a B-list character actor.
No, I learned it looking at the papers.
Which papers? Ones published in respectable peer reviewed journals. (Not heartland institute "papers".) Where is the great controversy?
It is one thing to have partisan blinkers. It is another thing to just make stuff up whole cloth.
Yeah, renewables are /impossible/. Just ask Germany. The Euro crisis is because of fluctuations in solar output. There is no point putting a single solar cell in. Just look at the Euro crisis for proof, and logic, and fact. No engineers will ever figure out how to make it work, so we shouldn't try.
t appears you are confusing your progressive political sources with scientific sources.
Dude, I work as a scientists. You're are lying through your teeth.
Have you not noticed that the "insurance industry" as far as flood insurance in the USA is strictly limited to the federal government?
That is a really bad problem. The Dems need to get out of the flood insurance business. Those houses need to devalue as the market prices in the reality of climate change. Of course, poor people will move into the devalued houses, and then they'll have their stuff wiped out by a storm in 20 years, and then they'll need assistance. This is a thorny issue, and the first step is for the government to get out of the insurance business.
The fact that electricity bills have not gone up in 10 years, assuming that is true
In other words, you know jack, but you talk like a policy wonk.
A real policy wonk would know about the RGGI, and know where to get a policy document detailing how the carbon tax saves everyone money.
Of course, you're an expert on climate change and the costs of mitigation.
This is the price today: cost of electricity by source
/without/ pricing the cost of carbon pollution. Today.
And that is
Too many middle-income families already struggle paying for gas, raising those taxes wouldn't solve anything.
The RIAA runs a carbon tax across most of the NE USA. About 20% of the economy. Electricity bills have not gone up over the last 10 years, and on average, business and residents are paying less. The reason is that the tax is revenue neutral, and the carbon price revenue goes towards tax rebates to renovate houses and factories raising their energy efficiency.
There is no reason why a carbon tax will hit the wallet of the middle class. That's just "alarmism".
That's pretty much all they agree on.
Do you learn that listening to right-wing talk radio? Or were you reading some right-wing blog? Let me guess, you think you know something about the issues and what real scientists think. Because those people on those blogs, they speak the /truth/, and you have /fact/ and /logic/ on your side.
On another note, do you know what the cognitive bubble is?
That plant is currently using the atmosphere as an unregulated exhaust pipe for its waste. Guess you think society should pick up the tab, right?
Dear anonymous coward idiot. Can you find a scientific paper that makes the same claim the daily mail made? Of course not, since you only need linear regression and a course data set to see that the daily mail is full of it. If you believe these has been no warming since 1998, then check out this video, do the linear regression yourself (ocean temperatures are better, since they contain most of the heat capacity), witness the cherry picking in action, and learn that political discourse is fast and loose with the truth.
You can spend as much as you like and it won't make any difference in the foreseeable future. There is no magical other source of energy
Wind is almost at price parity with dirty coal. Solar/wind prices are dropping exponentially. It will only be 5 or so years before coal/oil cannot compete with renewables on price alone, and we'll only be using them because of the huge investment in existing plants. Add another 20 years to the equation, and people who still use carbon energy will be flushing money down the toilet.
All of this thanks to huge R&D investments in Germany, China and USA. The free market comes after. It relies on the structure of society and social norms. It isn't a magic bullet. We would not be in this position if it wasn't for big government science dollars, which is just a tiny fraction of the federal budget.
The "modern" interpretation of Smith is rather self-serving in that it makes light of externalities and plundering the commons. Of course, Smith himself recognised these problems.
Obama and environmentalists almost completely ignore this achievement.
Are you kidding? That's a joke right? Are your partisan blinkers that bad?
The move to natural gas is great from a carbon/price perspective, but the relationship is incidental. The *cost* of the carbon wasn't the cause of the shift.
The free market will deliver cheaper renewables than even gas in the next 5 years. That relies on a huge R&D investment that is mainly government subsidies. Where does the GOP stand on the wind-power rebate? Oh that's right, that's something that liberals support. Of course, if the rebate doesn't continue, than those cheaper renewables will all be made in Germany/China, and the USA will be buying them in time for the 2016 election.
There are energy storage solutions available - flywheels for example
There is also the possibility of a more advanced grid that can shift power more easily where it needs to go. Furthermore, wide-spread adoption of electric cars would mean that every car can be a capacitor for the grid, giving a huge amount of robustness to local weather conditions even with a poorly connected grid.
Solar/wind is made in america.
Wind is about price parity with dirty coal.
Solar will probably be at price parity in less than 5 years.
Dirty coal doesn't stand a chance based on price alone.
Clean coal really doesn't exist. Pumping CO2 underground? Guarantee containment forever? This is just a corporate joke.
You are proposing a carbon tax, which is just one of many incentives to account for the true cost of carbon. There are other methods. I like the carbon tax, since it will let the marketplace sort out the best solutions; however, there will always be an incentive to bend the rules and cheat. R&D investment will pay off. Feed-in tariffs will give stability to electricity prices such that joe-average can go get a loan from a bank to pay for solar/wind, and buy 20 years of electricity up front, save money, over 20 years, and also reduce their carbon foot print.
Having to pay much more for electricity will mean having less money left over for food
Except electricity prices will not go up if there are financial incentives to modernize houses. Works in the RIAA. (That's NE USA.) They have a carbon tax for 10 years now, and electricity prices are lower on average for everyone, from industry to consumer. And that part of the US economy has grown relative to the rest. Climate action really doesn't have to cost that much if anything in aggregate.
Now, if food prices go up in the future because of major climate induced effects on agriculture, then you really are shafting the poor.
Gas, and renewables. And nuclear.