You are not disallowed. You just cannot require hobby lobby to pay for the procedure.
That's the biggest lie of this. No one is disallowed anything. All it means if that either you have to pay for it yourself or seek funding from a different source.
But I know what you are doing- parasite.. The problem is the entire concept is so out of whack with reality that no one will be inflamed by your choice of wording.
BTW, Roe V. Wade, the landmark ruling that prohibits government from banning abortions relied primarily on the fact that the government had no business knowing if you had an abortion or not or what kind of medical treatment you had and you were entitled to due process before they could violate your privacy. The PPACA or Obamacare for short, actually removes a lot of those impediments Roe relied on and I doubt it would still prevent government from banning abortions if they tried now. The problem is that the government now has a right to infringe on the privacy which forbade them earlier (at least on a federal level).
So, can you lose your 4th amendment rights, your right to free speech and your right to due process when the government gives you a license to drive a car? How about for fishing or hunting? Or a permit for installing a pool or addition to your home?
Those are all specific grants of public privilege. Partaking in anything the government offers or provides should in no way result in your loss of constitutionally protected rights or laws on the books. As a libertarian you should be firmly against having to surrender rights to participate in commerce or any interaction with it through a government created process (incorporating).
Paying taxes is a little different than paying a third party insurance company isn't it?
So why can't the government make you pay for health care that you don't agree with?
Well, in this specific situation, there is a constitutional amendment that bars congress from making any law prohibiting the free exercise of an establishment of religion. This has been narrowed down a bit over the years so the democrats along with the republicans passed a law that said all rules (and yes, the birth control mandate is a regulation created by the DHHS not the actual law passed by congress which is why the mandate doesn't override previous laws when in conflict) need to have a good reason to overcome someone's religious rights. It sets a criteria of (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
We can assume 1 is true as otherwise, they wouldn't have made the rule. What the court did is find that 2 wasn't satisfied because the government already exempted other groups and people for the same objections.
So why, because not only is there a constitutional prohibition that the government likes to ignore, but there is a law that supersedes a rule made and that law passed almost unanimously by congress.
This immediately led to companies saying they also want to claim the right to not hire LGBT people, against Federal laws, because they say so.
Which companies and what law? As far as I am aware, the federal civil rights laws do not cover LGBT as a protected class (race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.).
And I'm not aware of any companies publicly stating those reasons outside a photographer and a bakery not wanting to participate in a gay wedding.
The rest of your rant seems baseless also. The ruling specifically said it doesn't include those other things.
At the end of the day you need to realize that jobs that cant justify a living wage shouldnt exist.
Wrong.. Jobs that are getting the headlines should not be jobs people are making careers out of. They are the type of jobs kids get to have some work experience before going on to a real job. Fast food workers should not be trying to live off their job. The bagger boy at the grocery mart should not expect to be a bagger the rest of his life and retire from that job.
There is a serious problem in this country when the job prospect is so bad due to whatever and government that people have turned to these jobs as careers instead of experience launchpads or extra money devices as they traditionally have been. When countries like those in Europe are counting illegal activities like drug dealing and prostitution as part of their GDP in order to pad their numbers, we can assume this problem is not just in the USA too.
But lets not pretend fast food service jobs are in that category yet. Fast food chains make massive wads of cash off these people's labor. The issue isn't that their jobs arent productive enough, its that the corporation that hires them is exploiting their labor and not paying them a fair wage, and since the entire market is distorted due to labor having a do or die requirement to be employed, there is no where for them to turn aside from unionization (which is brutally demonized by the establishment for exactly that reason).
Well, it looks like they might be turning to the unemployment line if robots/automation really can do their jobs. But the problem is not companies taking advantage of these people, it is that they have little to no where else to turn. In my day, if you showed you have held a job for 1 years time, you were almost a sure hire for whatever job you applied for (assuming you were qualified). Employers looked for gaps in employment that weren't explained (FMLA or school or something) and over looked your applications for people who prove they will stick with a job. You then got hired and received raises and promotions based on your performance and if you weren't happy with what you received, you looked for another job. Of course in my time, unemployment was low. We had several presidents that didn't overly burden business and jobs were growing. Of course it took a while to get going under Reagan and soared under Clinton.
Hell, I can still make $1000 or better per week if I wanted to driving a truck. Why can I do that? Because I didn't flip whoppers for a career, because I wanted more and more was actually available. We don't need to fix this by inflating salaries, we need to fix this by inflating opportunities and get these jobs back to being stepping stones for children while the adults do real work for real pay.
They are likely going to have to work more jobs for less pay or find something that makes them worth more than a robot.
I'm not advocating the replacement of workers with robots and I do not think the GP was either. It's just an economic truth that if I can get the same performance and quality from two different sources, the cheapest of the sources is the most profitable one. If a robot costs $30,000 to purchase and $30,000 to instal and maintain over three years, that's $60,000 over three years or $20,000 a year on average. So an employee making around $10.50 an hour and not counting taxes the employer has to pay,- like their portion of the payroll tax or medical insurance or workers comp and unemployment insurance, they more or less break even with the robot (about 20k a year working 38 hour weeks 50 weeks a year) assuming the robot can do the job just as well.
We may have to reign ourselves to the fact that if robots can replace unskilled workers, some people will need to be supported by the public somehow.
I did it for two different states and got an answer of around $361/week take home assuming 40 hours a week. The differences between the two states I checked is about 1 dollar so I didn't bother doing a comparison.
Those death rates for coal contain illnesses from mining and transporting coal which is a bit unconnected to burning it for energy. In most situations, those outside related deaths or illnesses can be attributed to improperly following MSHA regulations.
Needless to say, neither your article or you have provided any evidence that coal is super toxic. It simply isn't. More people die and need health care related to car accidents per year than from coal. But lets look at the real numbers for a minute. According to Wikipedia, in 2006, we generated 1.991 trillionkwh a year in the US from coal. According to your article, we experience 15,000 deaths per trillionkwh a year from coal generation (mind you, it includes mining, transportation, and everything else involved). So 1.991*15000 comes out to 29,865 deaths a year attributed to our coal usage for electricity. According to the CDC, there were over 10k more suicides in 2011 (38,364) than deaths attributed to using coal as electricity. There were 4 times the amount of accidental deaths than coal (120,859 accidental deaths). More than double the number of deaths from Diabetes that from using coal to generate electricity (69,071). But lets assume every single coal death in the US is from heart disease which is the number one killer listed by the CDC (597,689). Deaths from coal would be only 4% of the total (29865/597,689) .
Again, coal is not some super toxic material and neither is the byproducts. You can check the math, and please feel free to do so.
Lol... and everyone who has ever seen a coal power plant has died. Coal is not some super goxic material and neither is the byproducts.
I could think of it your way, i could also think the moon is made of green cheese and be just as wrong. Your solution, despite being largely fictional will disproportionately harm the poor and make middle class poor.
Some of you people just seem to not care about the poor and don't mind tge poor getting poorer as long as yoh can make the rich less rich.
$1000 per month for a single person, which works out to just over $11.50/hour at 40 hours/week.
What? 40*11.5 is $460 a week. 4 weeks to a month gives us something like $1840 a month. Almost double the poverty level you brought up. $1000 a month comes out to about $6.25 an hour on a 40 hour week.
I took it as pay attention, if you cost more than automation would cost, you will likely be training your replacement. If a 20,000 dollar robot can do your job for years on that 20,000 and you are insisting on being paid $28,000 a year- well simple math tells you which is more cost effective. And that doesn't even include taxes and crap you have to pay on a live person.
SO i guess what you can take from that is if you want paid more, provide more value or perhaps another job that cannot be replaced by robots.
You will find stories that this is BS also but there was a parade of flight trainers from all around the world talking about having this problem with their Korean students on all the talking head shows.
Who is more likely to be injured by pollution, the poor or the rich? (The poor, because they tend to live in dirtier areas.) And therefore who stands to gain the most, relative to their discretionary income, from recouping the medical costs and lost sick days from that pollution? (Also the poor, because they have little to no discretionary income.)
Not really. The poor tend to be the source of their own pollution moreso than suffering other people's pollution. They mix chemicals like Bleach and Lime away in cleaning, have open fires they sit right beside and in some cases in the path of the smoke. They do a lot of things like eat poor diets, do drugs and alcohol and others that for the most part, place themselves in more danger than pollution.
Also, in the US at least, the poor do not pay their medical bills. They have nothing to take and nothing to lose so if they are not on some government program (which they should be due to Obamacare) they simply do not pay. Most poor also do not take sick days. They go to work sick if they go to work at all. I'm just not able to take your scenario into reality.. At least the reality I know anyways.
So you are correct that it will raise prices, but it will also provide the poor with two benefits. Two for the price of one is a good deal, don't you think?
Yes, it will mean their electricity is turned off and their ability to own a car- the one sense of freedom they might have a connection with, will be taken by the expenses incurred. Of course they can walk anywhere they want to go because they are less then us Rich People, but maybe that is not a good idea because food will skyrocket too and they will have a caloric problem. But hey, what a great utopia you are building there, are you planning on inviting people or just forcing them to join you?
Of course the rich will complain about paying the full societal cost of their lifestyle because they won't see as much benefit in it as the poor, but I wouldn't worry too much about them being able to afford it. By the way, are you rich?
That's right, in the land of the have and the have nots, the Rich will still be watching their big screen TVs while sitting in their heated hot tubs running the AC because it is hot out there. The soccer mom will make two and three trips instead of one round to get the gang to their sports, music, and such because that SUV is no longer within their price range to operate. Well, that or Junior and his siblings get to participate in back yard sports and banging pots and pans together only.
But hey, none of this matters because you get your way right? I'm remembering something Margette Thatcher said. It's something like you don't care if the poor are poorer as long as you can make the rich less rich.. Do I have it summed up right? Oh yeah, I forgot. You are altruistically doing this for their health.
Not much energy storage is needed to prevent blackouts, even with intermittent sources such as wind and solar, as long as electricity is always priced at market equilibrium to prevent blackouts. And since pricing something below market equilibrium is never a good long-term strategy, there's no technical reason why wind and solar cannot provide most of the nation's needs.
We have had solar or at least known about it since the 1800's. We had it availible to the masses since the 70s. We have had wind power for longer but more directly, it used to power most of the mid west until after the hoover dam was built and grid power became reliable in the 1930s. If what you say is true, I'm shocked that we ever left wind and solar go. The fact of the matter is that we do not have the capabilities to use wind and solar for our electrical demands and there isn't sufficient storage to compete with other methods. If we could, it would be online right now without governments mandating it.
charge the polluters for the damage they cause, and give the revenue to those injured by pollution. This will give polluters the proper incentive to curb their emissions and it will pay the medical costs and lost sick days of those injured by pollution, all without harming the economy.
More like it will allow the misfortune (probably poor) to be able to afford the products and services you just made super expensive. I mean seriously, a scheme like this will never result in anything other then the costs being passed on to the consumer until there is a viable replacement for technology that pollutes. And no, wind and solar are not there- neither is storage capabilities. All the pollution you will reduce by those schemes is the pollution caused by the poor and lower middle class being priced out of markets. If that is your big idea on cleaning the planet up, I'll be the first in line to take a dump on your porch.
Perhaps an automatic rescue system that pulls people who fall in back to safety at the marinas? Or maybe in a pool where children may find their way where they aren't supposed to be.
NAh, they said the crew knew they were coming in to low and fast but because of rank, didn't want to correct the pilot. The pilot landing was supposedly doing his first off autopilot landing too.
That was a situation of not acting to prevent a bad landing and inexperience. It seems it was not failing to see the outside or the instruments being wrong.
Yes they do. And i have seen the cops training snd talking about it first hand.
My brother got a german shepard pup and took him to be trained. I picked them up once when his car was broke down. The cops use the same training facility to recertify their dogs so i figured i would watch a bit. I overheard one officer telling another that each dog will use one of three different cues when they want them to go off. He said they use three different ones to keep it simple yet different enough that its hard to tell when they are being directed to go off. They then joked around about how easy it was tp search anyone and blame it on a stupid dog. They also knew i was there and didn't bother trying to conceal this discusion or the methods.
I mentioned something to my brother about it and he said it is common to hear that crap there. He said if you say anything about it, the cops will pull you over and make up reasons and you wont be able to train your dog there anymore. Evidently, this trainer was that good that no one would say anything.
Actually, you cannot separate the two. Its valid regardless because those who would lable something a scam are not convinced it is real. And even if they where convinced, they aren't convinced in the application hense the questioning which spures the backlash.
Sure it does. At least to those who aren't sure the earth is round.
The problem is that real things can be used to scam people. A used car salesman might say the EPA estimated fuel milage for this car is 28 miles yo a gallon but he knows the engine is in a state of disrepair and it will be lucky to get 20mpg.
Anthropogenic global warming has certainly seen its shady parts too. From congressional staffers usong an almanac to pick yhe historically hottest day of summer to schedule hearing on it then turning th AC off and claiming it was broke to groups like jubily2000 gettjng their goals included in the kyoto protocal which was billed as a cure butbearly made a first step. And thats without getting into the smaller issues like skepyics being refused access to data and methods being deleted so original works cannot be validated.
Here is a popular scam people call up asking for a donation to some retired or fallen police officers fund. The fund exists but the requests are not official and the money never gets to the fund. A scam through and through- but the fund is real. And when you ask to many questions, they get pissy, mouth off and hang up.
What's to stop an AI system from becoming psychopathic machines who believe they are demigods?
If machines become sentient if you will, capable of independent thought, they will be largely like humans. Most if them will likely assimilate into society and some would act as slaves. The key will be making them dependent on humans and not fully autonomous. That way, if worse case scenario happens, humans can stop servicing some aspect and they all go dark.
Spending on destruction is worthless. You might as well spend the same money for some worthwhile goal instead, getting the same results at a fraction of $800+ billion a year.
Spending on destruction prevents destruction. Having a nuclear arsenal pretty much means they will not be used on us by any sane country wanting to survive the fight. Having the most advanced military possible does somewhat of the same. The arms race actually ensures the arms will not be used because counter measures become ineffective.
This is why we didn't start bombing Russia when they took part of the Ukraine. It's why we didn't bomb Syria when they crossed the red line in the sand and allowed Russia to bail us out. It is why Russia didn't attack us when we ignored their concerns and did things anyways. WWI was more or less about hot tempers with relatively primitive arms and tactics (bulky machine guns and trenches) until after the war started. If we had the arms and defensive structures we have today, WWI likely never would have started. It certainly wouldn't have been a world war if it did start.
The problem is that the safe harbor provision doesn't require ISPs or Network providers to do anything but remove claimed infringing content per a DMCA request and replace it per a counter claim. Well, that is as long as the infringing content is a product of the third party and not the ISP's actions.
Doing that should legally be doing enough. This is a bit different than Youtube as youtube exists for the sole purpose of something similar to the copyrighted materials whereas ISPs are simply a carrier allowing you to make decisions on where to go and what to access or provide.
But the cost of providing those services isn't the same. First, the probability of a forest fire is roughly proportional to the area of land, because lightning doesn't care.
You are missing a key point. the land does not disappear if one person owns 50 acres or if 50 people own 1 acre each right next to each other. It is still there and still costs the same. Like you said, lightning doesn't care.
Second, people are more likely to steal from big, expensive houses than slums, and people are more likely to build big, expensive houses on large pieces of land than small ones, so police protection tends to be (at least to some extent) proportional to land area as well.
Not really. Expensive homes are more likely to have high dollar security systems, cameras, and serial numbers recorded. Middle class homes would be a more probable target. Slums of course are still there as opportunity remains and according to the data, people with income of 7.500 or less are victims of theft and violent crimes like assault more than people with incomes over 75k.
Even things like utilities cost more for larger pieces of land, because the utility companies have to run their cables past your property to get to the next potential customer, and the longer your property is, the more it costs to do so. They only get one customer per property, so larger properties effectively raise the installation cost for everyone on your block.
They must do it different where you live. In my neck of the woods, the utility company will come a maximum of 25 feet into the property for their demarcation point. Anything after that and it is up to the property owner to run.
Now, the distance between properties don't mean anything because the land doesn't magically disappear of you own less.
Actually, they are, to some degree. When's the last time you heard of somebody breaking into a falling down shack because they thought the person might have stuff worth stealing? And as I said, forest fires are proportional to area. And house fires... well, those are more determined by the age of the home than anything else, so those tend to be inversely proportional to the cost of the home, but they're still mathematically related.:-)
Only if you start with incorrect assumptions in the first place. But please tell me, how likely is it that someone would have a million dollar home on 50 acres of land with a falling down shack that someone thinks is stuffed full of goodies? The falling down shack is more likely on less expensive property or maintained. You see, rich people don't like looking at the trash we regular people have to put up with. The shack would likely either be repaired, removed, or replaced before it appears falling down.
And so is te swatzstika or however it is spelled. Still, when i see someone walking down the street with one tatoo'd to his forehead, i think charlie manson.
Events more recent tend to carry more weight to peoplr. Saying i'm sruck in the cold war whrn you reference something ancient is a bit odd isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
You are not disallowed. You just cannot require hobby lobby to pay for the procedure.
That's the biggest lie of this. No one is disallowed anything. All it means if that either you have to pay for it yourself or seek funding from a different source.
But I know what you are doing- parasite.. The problem is the entire concept is so out of whack with reality that no one will be inflamed by your choice of wording.
BTW, Roe V. Wade, the landmark ruling that prohibits government from banning abortions relied primarily on the fact that the government had no business knowing if you had an abortion or not or what kind of medical treatment you had and you were entitled to due process before they could violate your privacy. The PPACA or Obamacare for short, actually removes a lot of those impediments Roe relied on and I doubt it would still prevent government from banning abortions if they tried now. The problem is that the government now has a right to infringe on the privacy which forbade them earlier (at least on a federal level).
So, can you lose your 4th amendment rights, your right to free speech and your right to due process when the government gives you a license to drive a car? How about for fishing or hunting? Or a permit for installing a pool or addition to your home?
Those are all specific grants of public privilege. Partaking in anything the government offers or provides should in no way result in your loss of constitutionally protected rights or laws on the books. As a libertarian you should be firmly against having to surrender rights to participate in commerce or any interaction with it through a government created process (incorporating).
Paying taxes is a little different than paying a third party insurance company isn't it?
Well, in this specific situation, there is a constitutional amendment that bars congress from making any law prohibiting the free exercise of an establishment of religion. This has been narrowed down a bit over the years so the democrats along with the republicans passed a law that said all rules (and yes, the birth control mandate is a regulation created by the DHHS not the actual law passed by congress which is why the mandate doesn't override previous laws when in conflict) need to have a good reason to overcome someone's religious rights. It sets a criteria of (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
We can assume 1 is true as otherwise, they wouldn't have made the rule. What the court did is find that 2 wasn't satisfied because the government already exempted other groups and people for the same objections.
So why, because not only is there a constitutional prohibition that the government likes to ignore, but there is a law that supersedes a rule made and that law passed almost unanimously by congress.
Which companies and what law? As far as I am aware, the federal civil rights laws do not cover LGBT as a protected class (race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.).
And I'm not aware of any companies publicly stating those reasons outside a photographer and a bakery not wanting to participate in a gay wedding.
The rest of your rant seems baseless also. The ruling specifically said it doesn't include those other things.
Wrong.. Jobs that are getting the headlines should not be jobs people are making careers out of. They are the type of jobs kids get to have some work experience before going on to a real job. Fast food workers should not be trying to live off their job. The bagger boy at the grocery mart should not expect to be a bagger the rest of his life and retire from that job.
There is a serious problem in this country when the job prospect is so bad due to whatever and government that people have turned to these jobs as careers instead of experience launchpads or extra money devices as they traditionally have been. When countries like those in Europe are counting illegal activities like drug dealing and prostitution as part of their GDP in order to pad their numbers, we can assume this problem is not just in the USA too.
Well, it looks like they might be turning to the unemployment line if robots/automation really can do their jobs. But the problem is not companies taking advantage of these people, it is that they have little to no where else to turn. In my day, if you showed you have held a job for 1 years time, you were almost a sure hire for whatever job you applied for (assuming you were qualified). Employers looked for gaps in employment that weren't explained (FMLA or school or something) and over looked your applications for people who prove they will stick with a job. You then got hired and received raises and promotions based on your performance and if you weren't happy with what you received, you looked for another job. Of course in my time, unemployment was low. We had several presidents that didn't overly burden business and jobs were growing. Of course it took a while to get going under Reagan and soared under Clinton.
Hell, I can still make $1000 or better per week if I wanted to driving a truck. Why can I do that? Because I didn't flip whoppers for a career, because I wanted more and more was actually available. We don't need to fix this by inflating salaries, we need to fix this by inflating opportunities and get these jobs back to being stepping stones for children while the adults do real work for real pay.
They are likely going to have to work more jobs for less pay or find something that makes them worth more than a robot.
I'm not advocating the replacement of workers with robots and I do not think the GP was either. It's just an economic truth that if I can get the same performance and quality from two different sources, the cheapest of the sources is the most profitable one. If a robot costs $30,000 to purchase and $30,000 to instal and maintain over three years, that's $60,000 over three years or $20,000 a year on average. So an employee making around $10.50 an hour and not counting taxes the employer has to pay,- like their portion of the payroll tax or medical insurance or workers comp and unemployment insurance, they more or less break even with the robot (about 20k a year working 38 hour weeks 50 weeks a year) assuming the robot can do the job just as well.
We may have to reign ourselves to the fact that if robots can replace unskilled workers, some people will need to be supported by the public somehow.
I think this might be of help to you.
http://www.suburbancomputer.co...
I did it for two different states and got an answer of around $361/week take home assuming 40 hours a week. The differences between the two states I checked is about 1 dollar so I didn't bother doing a comparison.
Those death rates for coal contain illnesses from mining and transporting coal which is a bit unconnected to burning it for energy. In most situations, those outside related deaths or illnesses can be attributed to improperly following MSHA regulations.
Needless to say, neither your article or you have provided any evidence that coal is super toxic. It simply isn't. More people die and need health care related to car accidents per year than from coal. But lets look at the real numbers for a minute. According to Wikipedia, in 2006, we generated 1.991 trillionkwh a year in the US from coal. According to your article, we experience 15,000 deaths per trillionkwh a year from coal generation (mind you, it includes mining, transportation, and everything else involved). So 1.991*15000 comes out to 29,865 deaths a year attributed to our coal usage for electricity. According to the CDC, there were over 10k more suicides in 2011 (38,364) than deaths attributed to using coal as electricity. There were 4 times the amount of accidental deaths than coal (120,859 accidental deaths). More than double the number of deaths from Diabetes that from using coal to generate electricity (69,071). But lets assume every single coal death in the US is from heart disease which is the number one killer listed by the CDC (597,689). Deaths from coal would be only 4% of the total (29865/597,689) .
Again, coal is not some super toxic material and neither is the byproducts. You can check the math, and please feel free to do so.
Lol... and everyone who has ever seen a coal power plant has died. Coal is not some super goxic material and neither is the byproducts.
I could think of it your way, i could also think the moon is made of green cheese and be just as wrong. Your solution, despite being largely fictional will disproportionately harm the poor and make middle class poor.
Some of you people just seem to not care about the poor and don't mind tge poor getting poorer as long as yoh can make the rich less rich.
What? 40*11.5 is $460 a week. 4 weeks to a month gives us something like $1840 a month. Almost double the poverty level you brought up. $1000 a month comes out to about $6.25 an hour on a 40 hour week.
You want fries with that?
I don't know how you get that from what he said.
I took it as pay attention, if you cost more than automation would cost, you will likely be training your replacement. If a 20,000 dollar robot can do your job for years on that 20,000 and you are insisting on being paid $28,000 a year- well simple math tells you which is more cost effective. And that doesn't even include taxes and crap you have to pay on a live person.
SO i guess what you can take from that is if you want paid more, provide more value or perhaps another job that cannot be replaced by robots.
Probably.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article...
You will find stories that this is BS also but there was a parade of flight trainers from all around the world talking about having this problem with their Korean students on all the talking head shows.
Not really. The poor tend to be the source of their own pollution moreso than suffering other people's pollution. They mix chemicals like Bleach and Lime away in cleaning, have open fires they sit right beside and in some cases in the path of the smoke. They do a lot of things like eat poor diets, do drugs and alcohol and others that for the most part, place themselves in more danger than pollution.
Also, in the US at least, the poor do not pay their medical bills. They have nothing to take and nothing to lose so if they are not on some government program (which they should be due to Obamacare) they simply do not pay. Most poor also do not take sick days. They go to work sick if they go to work at all. I'm just not able to take your scenario into reality.. At least the reality I know anyways.
Yes, it will mean their electricity is turned off and their ability to own a car- the one sense of freedom they might have a connection with, will be taken by the expenses incurred. Of course they can walk anywhere they want to go because they are less then us Rich People, but maybe that is not a good idea because food will skyrocket too and they will have a caloric problem. But hey, what a great utopia you are building there, are you planning on inviting people or just forcing them to join you?
That's right, in the land of the have and the have nots, the Rich will still be watching their big screen TVs while sitting in their heated hot tubs running the AC because it is hot out there. The soccer mom will make two and three trips instead of one round to get the gang to their sports, music, and such because that SUV is no longer within their price range to operate. Well, that or Junior and his siblings get to participate in back yard sports and banging pots and pans together only.
But hey, none of this matters because you get your way right? I'm remembering something Margette Thatcher said. It's something like you don't care if the poor are poorer as long as you can make the rich less rich.. Do I have it summed up right? Oh yeah, I forgot. You are altruistically doing this for their health.
We have had solar or at least known about it since the 1800's. We had it availible to the masses since the 70s. We have had wind power for longer but more directly, it used to power most of the mid west until after the hoover dam was built and grid power became reliable in the 1930s. If what you say is true, I'm shocked that we ever left wind and solar go. The fact of the matter is that we do not have the capabilities to use wind and solar for our electrical demands and there isn't sufficient storage to compete with other methods. If we could, it would be online right now without governments mandating it.
Now I know you are going to say "it is pe
More like it will allow the misfortune (probably poor) to be able to afford the products and services you just made super expensive. I mean seriously, a scheme like this will never result in anything other then the costs being passed on to the consumer until there is a viable replacement for technology that pollutes. And no, wind and solar are not there- neither is storage capabilities. All the pollution you will reduce by those schemes is the pollution caused by the poor and lower middle class being priced out of markets. If that is your big idea on cleaning the planet up, I'll be the first in line to take a dump on your porch.
They already have autopilots for boats..
Perhaps an automatic rescue system that pulls people who fall in back to safety at the marinas? Or maybe in a pool where children may find their way where they aren't supposed to be.
NAh, they said the crew knew they were coming in to low and fast but because of rank, didn't want to correct the pilot. The pilot landing was supposedly doing his first off autopilot landing too.
That was a situation of not acting to prevent a bad landing and inexperience. It seems it was not failing to see the outside or the instruments being wrong.
Yes they do. And i have seen the cops training snd talking about it first hand.
My brother got a german shepard pup and took him to be trained. I picked them up once when his car was broke down. The cops use the same training facility to recertify their dogs so i figured i would watch a bit. I overheard one officer telling another that each dog will use one of three different cues when they want them to go off. He said they use three different ones to keep it simple yet different enough that its hard to tell when they are being directed to go off. They then joked around about how easy it was tp search anyone and blame it on a stupid dog. They also knew i was there and didn't bother trying to conceal this discusion or the methods.
I mentioned something to my brother about it and he said it is common to hear that crap there. He said if you say anything about it, the cops will pull you over and make up reasons and you wont be able to train your dog there anymore. Evidently, this trainer was that good that no one would say anything.
Actually, you cannot separate the two. Its valid regardless because those who would lable something a scam are not convinced it is real. And even if they where convinced, they aren't convinced in the application hense the questioning which spures the backlash.
Sure it does. At least to those who aren't sure the earth is round.
The problem is that real things can be used to scam people. A used car salesman might say the EPA estimated fuel milage for this car is 28 miles yo a gallon but he knows the engine is in a state of disrepair and it will be lucky to get 20mpg.
Anthropogenic global warming has certainly seen its shady parts too. From congressional staffers usong an almanac to pick yhe historically hottest day of summer to schedule hearing on it then turning th AC off and claiming it was broke to groups like jubily2000 gettjng their goals included in the kyoto protocal which was billed as a cure butbearly made a first step. And thats without getting into the smaller issues like skepyics being refused access to data and methods being deleted so original works cannot be validated.
Here is a popular scam people call up asking for a donation to some retired or fallen police officers fund. The fund exists but the requests are not official and the money never gets to the fund. A scam through and through- but the fund is real. And when you ask to many questions, they get pissy, mouth off and hang up.
Terminator- Isn't this the theme or premise behind the matrix movies too?
The machines evolve and trap humans and use them as batteries except they have to create an artificial reality else they die of boredom too easily.
What's to stop an AI system from becoming psychopathic machines who believe they are demigods?
If machines become sentient if you will, capable of independent thought, they will be largely like humans. Most if them will likely assimilate into society and some would act as slaves. The key will be making them dependent on humans and not fully autonomous. That way, if worse case scenario happens, humans can stop servicing some aspect and they all go dark.
Spending on destruction prevents destruction. Having a nuclear arsenal pretty much means they will not be used on us by any sane country wanting to survive the fight. Having the most advanced military possible does somewhat of the same. The arms race actually ensures the arms will not be used because counter measures become ineffective.
This is why we didn't start bombing Russia when they took part of the Ukraine. It's why we didn't bomb Syria when they crossed the red line in the sand and allowed Russia to bail us out. It is why Russia didn't attack us when we ignored their concerns and did things anyways. WWI was more or less about hot tempers with relatively primitive arms and tactics (bulky machine guns and trenches) until after the war started. If we had the arms and defensive structures we have today, WWI likely never would have started. It certainly wouldn't have been a world war if it did start.
The problem is that the safe harbor provision doesn't require ISPs or Network providers to do anything but remove claimed infringing content per a DMCA request and replace it per a counter claim. Well, that is as long as the infringing content is a product of the third party and not the ISP's actions.
Doing that should legally be doing enough. This is a bit different than Youtube as youtube exists for the sole purpose of something similar to the copyrighted materials whereas ISPs are simply a carrier allowing you to make decisions on where to go and what to access or provide.
You are missing a key point. the land does not disappear if one person owns 50 acres or if 50 people own 1 acre each right next to each other. It is still there and still costs the same. Like you said, lightning doesn't care.
Not really. Expensive homes are more likely to have high dollar security systems, cameras, and serial numbers recorded. Middle class homes would be a more probable target. Slums of course are still there as opportunity remains and according to the data, people with income of 7.500 or less are victims of theft and violent crimes like assault more than people with incomes over 75k.
http://nortonbooks.typepad.com....
They must do it different where you live. In my neck of the woods, the utility company will come a maximum of 25 feet into the property for their demarcation point. Anything after that and it is up to the property owner to run.
Now, the distance between properties don't mean anything because the land doesn't magically disappear of you own less.
Only if you start with incorrect assumptions in the first place. But please tell me, how likely is it that someone would have a million dollar home on 50 acres of land with a falling down shack that someone thinks is stuffed full of goodies? The falling down shack is more likely on less expensive property or maintained. You see, rich people don't like looking at the trash we regular people have to put up with. The shack would likely either be repaired, removed, or replaced before it appears falling down.
And so is te swatzstika or however it is spelled. Still, when i see someone walking down the street with one tatoo'd to his forehead, i think charlie manson.
Events more recent tend to carry more weight to peoplr. Saying i'm sruck in the cold war whrn you reference something ancient is a bit odd isn't it?