I swear, this attitude has got to stop. "Oh solution X for problem Y has a (potential) downside, it's clearly unsafe, we should abandon it". Happens every single fucking time power generation comes up on slashdot. Since when did people start thinking like Pierson's Puppeteers?
Nonsense. Of you are looking to switch power generation because the current method will kill your grandchildren, then it's perfectly reasonable to point out that the purposed solution will kill your grand children.
There is no reason to switch to something more expensive, complicated, or convoluted if the end result is the same even if just by another means. We are looking to get off fossil fuels because it effects the environment and has the potential of destroying a lot of life, switching to something that does the exact same thing is fucking stupid.
If a solution to a problem (in this case power generation) offers fewer downsides than the existing solutions (fossil fuels mainly), then please, by all means, implement it. This goes for passive power collection (ground based, sea based or orbital), fusion energy, biomass energy, even fission. Worry about the consequences, but don't let those dangers blind you to the very real danger of staying the course with what we already have.
It seems to me that you are getting your panties in a know because someone asked about the effect on the weather. Wouldn't that be the same as worrying about the consequences? Just because you don't see any serious consequences doesn't mean there isn't any or the potential for any. Hell, if they are spotted early, then scams like this kite business can be avoided and money invested into real solutions can be more effective.
I think the logic in the use was to follow the same privacy issues that got the Texas sodomy laws invalidated. What the defense didn't realize was that in the sodomy cases, it was two consenting adults interacting completely privately wherein the producers were acting commercially.
But it does go against their right to free speech.
Not really, free speech isn't a blanket license to offend people. Obscene is another one of those test that the material has to go under or through. Unfortunately, it is subject to community standards but has a few requirements,
An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Now that is what the Supreme court has to say about it. I think we can thank the Living document crowed who seems to only care about parts of the constitution that they find an advantage in like free speech and and search and seizure but not about gun rights or states rights or constitutional limits on the government. Congress shall make no law seems obvious to me, but under the living document that is allowing things like Cap and Trade or welfare to happen, it gets a little cloudy because it becomes a moving target. I suppose I should mention that there is a reason why there is a procedure to change the constitution outlined in it (which has been used 17 times- 27 if you count the bill of rights- in the past) and I should mention that they made it some what difficult to make changes to it for a reason.
Like I said to the other poster, this is just a detail, except that you would want to make it uniform so as to cut out the complexity and corruption. Just $X to every adult, maybe a modification for marital status or kids. No "How much energy did you use this year" on your tax form, no "how much do you make", no "did you try to save energy REALLY hard", etc. You just get the $X, period.
There is a problem here, $X to every adult means that a) if all of the companies pass the costs to the consumer, each consumer will pay it and there is no deterrent or change effect, and b)you have basicly limited the freedoms of the poorest people to only be able to do things that you have approved of.
Now the second there is something of contention to me. I have often purchased things from the mom and pop shop at 5-10% more then the conglomerate store when I can to help keep them around. With only a certain amount coming back, I can't do that any more. But even worse, lets say company A uses child labor in a foreign country and something like 10% of their workforce dies from job related accidents or exposure to chemicals while on the job where company B hires adults at reasonable pay and work standards and has an excellent safety record. Now I would have to purchase my good from murder company A because it would cost too much to get it from company B.
Oh, and there are all sorts of reasons why you might want company B over company A that has nothing to do with safety or child labor. Suppose company B's products are a better quality and last longer but not because everything that uses energy costs more and the government is only giving X uniform allowance, I can no longer afford to purchase the better product. I mean from an energy usage and emissions stand point it would seem that if the costs of production are similar and one product lasts twice as long then it's only using half of the other.
The point, again, is that the problem of "disproportionally burdening the poor" is way overblown, because there are trivial ways to make it progressive while preserving the incentive for cutting back on any *individual* unit of fossil fuel use. And I just laid out how to do it.
No it isn't overblown. No one to date has been able to explain to me what mechanism will stop companies from passing costs to the consumer in the form of price increases. It doesn't matter if the government is going to give 2/3rds the electric bill back when it jumps to three times today's costs, that's only addressing one aspect of increased costs. It does nothing when the bottle of pespi now costs $4.00 instead of $1.50, it does nothing for the costs of food jumping 30-40% (as it did when just gas skyrocketed). No one is even close to addressing those costs as if we are just closing our eyes to it.
Of course they would pass the costs on, and THAT'S THE FREAKING POINT!
SO then you admit that the entire point is to control and manipulate the population. I don't see how you can sit there and claim that the effects on the poor are minimal when you admit right here that the goal is to make things too expensive for normal and wealthy citizens to afford so they start conserving. Well, here is a clue, no being able to afford things you need is not conservation, it called fucking poverty -induced by the damned government.
1) Each *unit* of fossil fuel energy costs more, so people stop doing those uses when it's not worth the additional tax, whether they are rich or poor.
The only people who stop doing it are the people who can't afford it. That means you will have made people poor and priced them out of the free things they could have done before. The rich already spend 10-100 times as much on the same crap that non-rich people do.
How? I stayed within my lane, didn't cross the line or enter the path of on coming traffic, a skilled driver wouldn't have reacted and not hit anyone. I could simply say I swerved to miss an animal and all life is precious.
I'm seeing a pattern here. It seems that an act that doesn't technically violate any rules of the road directly has all the sudden become a violation of the law because there is a need to punish reprehensible deeds. What I'm not seeing here is how this is much different then faking a name, logging onto a computer network in violation of the terms of use policy, and acting in a manor that would appear to violate 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(E), a law that Valdrax pointed out in a previous post, which says " (a)Whoever-- (1)in interstate or foreign communications-- makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. being addressed with the same outrage.
I don't know if it is that more people fear the actions of other drivers or if it is just that I'm seeing something wrong. Causing the death of another person by legal actions is a violation of many laws unless there is a specific exemption (preservation of your own life or someone else'). Especially when the intent can be shown to be malicious. In the car example, it is obvious and the only physical violation of the law was the act and intent of attempting to get someone else to do something, yet in this internet harassment case, the same fundamentals are there with less culpability.
Vehicular assault really only applies if you are in violation of the law too. That's why street racing (which is illegal) can apply it.
And please remember, the swerving was all over the legal lane of travel, it wasn't in the other portions of the road even though the swerving action was designed to elicit a response from on coming traffic.
I suppose someone could be charge with reckless operation of a motor vehicle which would allow a manslaughter charge to be attached if they were actually involved in the accident (same type of charge as vehicular assault). But more importantly, the question is, should that person be charged with something even though they didn't technically break a law or road rule and does that differ from this internet case?
Most of the cars can handle the drag on one or two cables until you start around corners. Mounting a spool of nylon string to the rear of it will allow you to pull the cables through after you run a path.
As for as navigating, usually you can get a visual on it. The visual however may be dropping a camera down a hole, or attaching one to the car itself. You can find RC cars with live feed cams already attached if your not worried about quality. I actually took on of them apart and attached the camera and transmitter to another car that was a little smaller but had more power. You can also get high end RC cams and transmitters with real time feeds.
The burden is the person taking something normal off the table. people have been doing things for years before you even were thought of. In the case of Co2, it's only a pollutant if it does harm, if the harm isn't there, then it can't be a pollutant.
You talking about taking someone's freedoms away here. Freedoms that existed long before you or anyone you know came around. You have to justify those actions, showing harm is a way to do that. Showing the potential for harm is just a way to get someone to watch for harm. It doesn't matter that something is changing, that is the story of the earth, evolution, survival of the fittest and everything else.
Actually, you've committed vehicular homicide. Almost all jurisdictions define homicide as taking an action that causes the death of another person. It doesn't matter that the other car was the one that actually hit the person; you are a proximate cause of the accident. Your intent will only matter to determine which degree of homicide you committed -- from vehicular manslaughter to 1st degree murder.
That is pretty much what I was thinking.
I know that's largely a distraction from your point about using the law to convict someone who's wrong of something even if there's no law on the books, but that's not really the way we do things. No "post ex facto" convictions and all that.
Actually, I was just wanting to see if anyone who thinks this woman is completely innocent could see the wrong in acting in a way that causes death to someone else even though you broke no actual law. I was extremely curious if they felt the exact same way when it was obvious that death would result and then let them explain how my hypothetical situation was a strawman or whatever and so different to justify the change in positions. I don't think you were exactly my target audience, but I do appreciate you input.
I know the media has largely focused on the federal prosecutors' unique use of computer fraud statutes, but I've always wondered why she wasn't charged with violations of other laws like 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(E) and why the local county prosecutors decided to do absolutely nothing about the case. You'd think that there had to be some state laws that would apply.
I think maybe they were attempting to find something with a little more byte to it or they didn't technically consider a computer network to be an actual telecommunications means. It could be a case of where either the laws haven't caught up with technology or where the prosecutors haven't. I'm in agreement with you and can only speculate to why that was.
This makes sense, I have been using RC 4wheel drive cars to run cable under craw spaces and in some cases, across long stretches of drop ceilings for a couple of years now. The great thing is that I can deduct toys from my taxes.
Suppose you are driving your car down the road and I swerve to the right, then back to the left as if I was going to ram into you. I stay in my lane but you react and swerve to avoid me and hit a pedestrian killing them. Am I at fault at all? I didn't break any laws, the pedestrian is dead by you hands, not mine. Now suppose this has happened before and I was actually attempting to make people swerve into pedestrians. Am I still innocent, I haven't broken any laws.
Now think about that, then think about if I should be charged with anything. How about after the first time? what about the third time? what if I was able to do this 25 times each time resulting in the death of some pedestrian at the hands of 25 different seemingly innocent drivers. Now if you changed your mind and think something should happen to me after 10 people die, then why and how would that be different then attempting to manipulate someone into committing suicide.
I'm not sure I follow your logic. I think its
"CO2 hasn't been shown to be harmful in a specific way. If it is not harmful then it's not pollution".
Thus, it puts the burden of proof for those favouring the reduction of CO2 production to not only show that CO2 is harmful, but also show exactly the way in which CO2 is harmful.
Not really, this is more of a logic problem then anything. If the logic places a burden on someone to advance their position, so be it.
You see, you said "Saying that pollution isn't going to cause global warming is sort of like saying heavy use of crack cocaine doesn't cause skin cancer. Even if you are correct, it doesn't mean pollution or crack cocaine are not harmful. It's quibbling about the specifics of the harm."
Wikipedia defines pollution as "Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into an environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem i.e" Princeton defines it as "undesirable state of the natural environment being contaminated with harmful substances as a consequence of human activities"
So in order for sometime to be a pollution, it has to cause some sort of harm, if the only stated harm is skin cancer and that is shown to not be a factor, then you still need to show where it does harm to be a pollutant. In the case of Co2, at the concentration levels we are talking about, if it is shown not to be a problem causing harm, then it is not a pollutant. It doesn't remain a pollutant just because it once was.
My argument is that the volume of CO2 emissions is changing the chemistry of the atmosphere in significantly measurable ways. I concede that the long term effects of those changes are not predictable. I put forth that there are more unfavourable outcomes than favourable ones, and the odds are that CO2 is a pollutant.
I could say you have red socks on but it doesn't make it true. You have to identify the harm in order to make something a pollutant. Otherwise you are more or less just wishing.
People love apples because they are sweet and crunchy, therefore no one will ever like oranges.
But when either apple or oranges carry Ecoli or Salmanila bacteria, they get pulled from the market. This isn't an apples to oranges thing, it's a product causing harm or being dangerous thing.
I don't know about that. I remember reading in Scientific American once that if aspirin were invented today, it would be prescription.
I read in a political paper once that if aspirin was invented today, it's costs would be roughly 200 times as much and might not even get FDA approval outside of a prescription because of all the extra testing and costs related to it. It was probably an expansion on the same article.
I think what's happening is that we're living longer lives so we accept smaller and smaller risks. Apparently, the number of people with liver damage from acetaminophen is rising as well. When you look at how many things have it as an ingredient, then look at the danger of liver failure from overdose, then remember how little risk doctors are willing to take when it comes to medications, it makes sense that they would make this recommendation. I don't agree with it, but I don't think that you can attribute malice to it either.
Tylenol makes some good money from the sale and licensing of the drug. I'm not sure why we can't do an education campaign instead of an outright ban. I mean doctors and pharmacist tell patients how to use birth control pills and other medication, why not educate them on the issues and require OTC medications with Acetaminophen in it to put a very large warning label on the cap so the consumer looks at it when opening. Then when someone gets a prescription for vicodin or something, the doc and pharmacist warn them of liver damage is they take OTC Acetaminophen.
Now, just so you know where I am coming from, I am one of those people who was taking too much Acetaminophen. I didn't end up with liver damage but I was taking 10-12 vicodin a day, 2 viox which got changed to celebrex and popping close to 10 extra strength Tylenol on top of that. When I told my doctor I wanted him to increase my dosage, he freaked on me and then I learned about the dangers. He told me to take aspirin instead and all of this could have probably been avoided if I was told by either the doctor or pharmacist that I couldn't mix the two. (by the way, I had elevated liver enzymes but nothing serious and they dropped within three weeks of switching to aspirin).
I think malice is appropriate with this because of the health care issues being thrown around today. I believe the harsh ban talk is promoted over education and so on because it achieves a political goal. Education is all that I needed, and I'm sure it would be the same for everyone else- especially if the labels for OTC drugs listed Acetaminophen on the top of the cap so people would have to know they are taking it.
I stand corrected, I thought that since 1999 we ran a surplus until 2003, though it seems that perhaps that was due to the amazing rectal-cranial inversion.
Your right, it was an amazing rectal-cranial inversion. But I don't think it was you with the problem. John Kerry and Bill Clinton in support for Kerry's 2004 presidential bid made the statement as if it was true. So you are more or less a victim of political manipulation. I don't hold that against anyone until they refuse to let go after seeing some hard facts, then it's sort of an irritating thing to me.
It does seem though that Iraq helped to spin us out of control, but we were already spiraling down thanks to the NASDAQ bubble bursting (anyone remember MicroStrategies? kind of the precursor to Enron).
I agree.. 9/11 had some contribution to it too, people started sitting tight on their money and as we all know, if your money isn't making money, then your not being taxed on it.
Without the nation building in Iraq I maintain that TARP funds would not have been needed today, as war generally bleeds money out of the economy that will never be recouped.
I sort of agree yet I want to caution that the money spent in Iraq was only a contributing factor to the financial meltdown. You have to remember, the government doesn't add to the economy, all it does is redirect it, and when it deficit spends in order to do so, it doesn't really effect the current generation. Now sometimes this redirection is necessary to create or relieve certain situations that may or may not be favorable. But without the spending in Iraq, it would have just been a matter of time before the meltdown happened unless something drastically changed in the way regulation was being enforced and made into law.
The funding for Iraq was a marked debt on future generation as almost all of it was deficit spending outside some normal spending that would have originally occured with funding from bonds sold to foreign countries. There was some funding siphoned from other programs but that was relatively small in comparison. The problem there is that if the money wasn't raise and spend on Iraq, it wouldn't have been raised or spent otherwise and the bleeding comes to future generations.
The reality of it is more or less that Iraq placed the problems within the time frame they became exposed. However, an example of changes in the regulation was legislation unsuccessfully introduced in 2003 and again in 2005 that was an attempt to place some limits on Fannie and Freddie and those limits would have traversed to Goldman Sachs and other "to big to fail" institutions.
That still doesn't make Co2 pollution given the ruling out of a specific danger.
I think you are missing the entire point of the argument. Pollution has a negative effect, if all those negative effect are untrue, then it isn't still pollution. So weather it is pollution in general or Co2, in order for it to remain Pollution when the dangers have been negated, you have to justify it.
Not at all. Consumers can allocate their dollars in many different ways, and "passing through to the consumer" means that the energy sector is going to be demanding a greater chunk of the consumer's income stream. Thus, any consumer that can reduce usage will actually be saving money. Similarly, any corporation that can reduce their costs (e.g., by improving efficiency, say) will be more competitive than their less efficient competitors. And away we go.
So the only thing different then what is already true without the cap and trade is that consumers will be pinched by energy prices and someone hopes that causes them to do less. Sounds like a solid plan to me, making things unfordable is a good way to keep usage of materials down. However, I think it is completely wrong.
Anyway, I linked to the CBO report. To make a long story short, costs will go up, but they will go up slightly less for the poorer members of society than for the extremely wealthy. In some cases the costs will remain neutral.
The CBO report sugar coats it as well as ignores certain factors that we are talking about like the costs of non-energy items being raised because of the cost of energy going up. There are several other reports, one by the heritage foundation, that examine that in more detail but still don't address it to my satisfaction.
I apologize. I've read quite a bit about the subject it and haven't seen any Republican-offered proposal that's likely to be effective and likely to draw real support from the Republicans in Congress. But I'm willing to be educated if you really think I've missed something.
That Michael Jackson' Cap & Trade Alternative was a joke but seriously, here is a summery of the republican alternatives. You can find out more about the specifics Here and here.
One of the reasons you haven't seen a republican response is because the democrats are largely skipping them in this process and forcing votes on bills without enough time to even read them. They know that under a close examination, their cap and trade bill just doesn't make sense. Now, the Republican alternative isn't bullet proof either, but there is an alternative on the table along with others like mandates uses of technology for future power needs. The problem is that no one is willing to take the best of either world and make something that works without screwing everyone over.
This isn't really about the dangers of a drug. More people get hurt and killed by cars every day then will ever have an adverse reaction with Acetaminophen and no one is banning cars.
This is more of the public health care manipulation and politics. Acetaminophen is relatively cheap, It's prescribed by many doctors because it helps people for minor and major pains. Getting rid of it put the consumer into a position of "i need something" in which public health care can fill.
That's a ridiculous blanket statement. So, I shouldn't slam on brakes when some idiot runs a red light right in front of me? After all, that is allowing someone to force me into taking an action I otherwise would not have.
No, you would normally have attempted to avoid the accident and protect your property and health. Most people would, it's a reflex.
If other cars or bikes or whatever are putting me at an increased level of danger due to their behavior, instead of ignoring them, I should take whatever actions will best reduce my (and hopefully everyone's) risk.
What isn't a reflex is you putting yourself in danger or violation of the laws because of someone riding too close to you or honking their horn. If they are passing you, something that every state in the Union has said can be done safely, you hold your speed until they pass you. If they are following too closely, you hold your speed (make sure it is legal) until they pass you.
You are not suppose to worry about other people's risks either. They worry about their own and react independently of you. You worry about yourself and act independent of them. If either of you get into an accident or get a ticket of whatever, you will be responsible for your own actions and no responsibility is taken away when you tell the judge "but your honor, he was honking his horn at me so I shouldn't have to pay the fine/do the jail time for going 65 in a 25 and striking two cars".
There is a difference between imminent danger and someone attempting to provoke a response from you. I figured that much was obvious and didn't really think I would have to explain it to you. It sounds to me like you need to revisit driving school, perhaps take a defensive driving course so you can actually see how your actions are actually more dangerous then the situation you were attempting to cure. That or you just need to cowboy up and stop getting scared behind the wheel.
I very specifically said the prebate would be given to everyone, regardless of income, to avoid exactly the problems you listed.
Ok, so 1: how do you quantify the amounts given to who, and 2: if everyone got their expense back before spending it, then companies have no reason to not pass all the costs onto the consumer. In other words, it would be no different then what we have today except there would be some convoluted scheme in place.
And yes, you can find instances of poor people using much more than the average for their income level. So no "x% of poverty level energy spending" will be perfect. I didn't know policies had to be 100% perfect these days.
Policies don't have to be perfect but they should not under any circumstances, be detrimental to the very people least likely to be able to cope with it. You don't kick a guy who can barely walk in the first place so he falls down just so you can step on him and feel all high and mighty because of your actions. not being 100% perfect is acceptable as long as it is worked on in order to become 100%. Harming people for your Utopian ideals and shaky science under the guise of acceptable losses or imperfection in policy is unacceptable.
However, the problem that creates the hurdle isn't the program itself, it's when it is pulled away. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting any social programs or anything, I'm just commenting on their implementation in the US and what a prebate would be.
As for the credit scheme, your right, it won't do what it was designed to do. In fact, it will probably have little to no effect on it's original goal and just make it that much harder for businesses to compete.
So, you're saying that socialism actually keeps the poor poor, by making it harder for them to escape poverty?
of course that is not what I am saying at all. Socialism keeps the poor poor when the social programs get yanked from you as you attempt to not be poor. This is because instead of going away from being poor, you have to fist cover the costs of the disappearing program.
Or in other words, socialism and then ending socialism keeps the poor poor. I thought I made that point completely clear in my post.
Of course that point also cancels out anything else you wrote seeing how it was predicated on a misunderstanding.
The very first thing they told me in my defensive driving course is to not let the other vehicles drive your.
In other words, don't let someone force you to take an action you wouldn't have normally or already taken. As for being safe when someone passed you, you are no less safe because of that then when an on coming car passes you going in the other direction.
Now the bicyclist should be on the right side of the road and most roads are three to four feet wider then the largest cars (until you start getting in town with parking on the streets) that would be traveling on it. I think 8 foot or larger lanes for non interstates and 12 foot lanes for interstate traffic. While this may force you into oncoming traffic to pass them, it doesn't leave the oncoming traffic without an option to avoid a collusion.
I have a bunch of Amish where I live. It's worse then the bikes, the bikes generally do 20-30 MPG going down the road. Try coming up on a horse and buggy that's 4 or so foot wide and doing 3-5 mph with just a candle shoved into a box with colored red lens in the read and a clear lens in front. You learn really fast to not drive past your vision, be patient, and to wait for the proper times to pass.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure we can cap and trade it into being practical and cost-effective. That's the power of the free market when some people are in charge.
Nonsense. Of you are looking to switch power generation because the current method will kill your grandchildren, then it's perfectly reasonable to point out that the purposed solution will kill your grand children.
There is no reason to switch to something more expensive, complicated, or convoluted if the end result is the same even if just by another means. We are looking to get off fossil fuels because it effects the environment and has the potential of destroying a lot of life, switching to something that does the exact same thing is fucking stupid.
It seems to me that you are getting your panties in a know because someone asked about the effect on the weather. Wouldn't that be the same as worrying about the consequences? Just because you don't see any serious consequences doesn't mean there isn't any or the potential for any. Hell, if they are spotted early, then scams like this kite business can be avoided and money invested into real solutions can be more effective.
I think the logic in the use was to follow the same privacy issues that got the Texas sodomy laws invalidated. What the defense didn't realize was that in the sodomy cases, it was two consenting adults interacting completely privately wherein the producers were acting commercially.
Not really, free speech isn't a blanket license to offend people. Obscene is another one of those test that the material has to go under or through. Unfortunately, it is subject to community standards but has a few requirements,
Now that is what the Supreme court has to say about it. I think we can thank the Living document crowed who seems to only care about parts of the constitution that they find an advantage in like free speech and and search and seizure but not about gun rights or states rights or constitutional limits on the government. Congress shall make no law seems obvious to me, but under the living document that is allowing things like Cap and Trade or welfare to happen, it gets a little cloudy because it becomes a moving target. I suppose I should mention that there is a reason why there is a procedure to change the constitution outlined in it (which has been used 17 times- 27 if you count the bill of rights- in the past) and I should mention that they made it some what difficult to make changes to it for a reason.
Sorry it took so long to get back.
There is a problem here, $X to every adult means that a) if all of the companies pass the costs to the consumer, each consumer will pay it and there is no deterrent or change effect, and b)you have basicly limited the freedoms of the poorest people to only be able to do things that you have approved of.
Now the second there is something of contention to me. I have often purchased things from the mom and pop shop at 5-10% more then the conglomerate store when I can to help keep them around. With only a certain amount coming back, I can't do that any more. But even worse, lets say company A uses child labor in a foreign country and something like 10% of their workforce dies from job related accidents or exposure to chemicals while on the job where company B hires adults at reasonable pay and work standards and has an excellent safety record. Now I would have to purchase my good from murder company A because it would cost too much to get it from company B.
Oh, and there are all sorts of reasons why you might want company B over company A that has nothing to do with safety or child labor. Suppose company B's products are a better quality and last longer but not because everything that uses energy costs more and the government is only giving X uniform allowance, I can no longer afford to purchase the better product. I mean from an energy usage and emissions stand point it would seem that if the costs of production are similar and one product lasts twice as long then it's only using half of the other.
No it isn't overblown. No one to date has been able to explain to me what mechanism will stop companies from passing costs to the consumer in the form of price increases. It doesn't matter if the government is going to give 2/3rds the electric bill back when it jumps to three times today's costs, that's only addressing one aspect of increased costs. It does nothing when the bottle of pespi now costs $4.00 instead of $1.50, it does nothing for the costs of food jumping 30-40% (as it did when just gas skyrocketed). No one is even close to addressing those costs as if we are just closing our eyes to it.
SO then you admit that the entire point is to control and manipulate the population. I don't see how you can sit there and claim that the effects on the poor are minimal when you admit right here that the goal is to make things too expensive for normal and wealthy citizens to afford so they start conserving. Well, here is a clue, no being able to afford things you need is not conservation, it called fucking poverty -induced by the damned government.
The only people who stop doing it are the people who can't afford it. That means you will have made people poor and priced them out of the free things they could have done before. The rich already spend 10-100 times as much on the same crap that non-rich people do.
How? I stayed within my lane, didn't cross the line or enter the path of on coming traffic, a skilled driver wouldn't have reacted and not hit anyone. I could simply say I swerved to miss an animal and all life is precious.
I'm seeing a pattern here. It seems that an act that doesn't technically violate any rules of the road directly has all the sudden become a violation of the law because there is a need to punish reprehensible deeds. What I'm not seeing here is how this is much different then faking a name, logging onto a computer network in violation of the terms of use policy, and acting in a manor that would appear to violate 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(E), a law that Valdrax pointed out in a previous post, which says " (a)Whoever-- (1)in interstate or foreign communications-- makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. being addressed with the same outrage.
I don't know if it is that more people fear the actions of other drivers or if it is just that I'm seeing something wrong. Causing the death of another person by legal actions is a violation of many laws unless there is a specific exemption (preservation of your own life or someone else'). Especially when the intent can be shown to be malicious. In the car example, it is obvious and the only physical violation of the law was the act and intent of attempting to get someone else to do something, yet in this internet harassment case, the same fundamentals are there with less culpability.
Vehicular assault really only applies if you are in violation of the law too. That's why street racing (which is illegal) can apply it.
And please remember, the swerving was all over the legal lane of travel, it wasn't in the other portions of the road even though the swerving action was designed to elicit a response from on coming traffic.
I suppose someone could be charge with reckless operation of a motor vehicle which would allow a manslaughter charge to be attached if they were actually involved in the accident (same type of charge as vehicular assault). But more importantly, the question is, should that person be charged with something even though they didn't technically break a law or road rule and does that differ from this internet case?
Most of the cars can handle the drag on one or two cables until you start around corners. Mounting a spool of nylon string to the rear of it will allow you to pull the cables through after you run a path.
As for as navigating, usually you can get a visual on it. The visual however may be dropping a camera down a hole, or attaching one to the car itself. You can find RC cars with live feed cams already attached if your not worried about quality. I actually took on of them apart and attached the camera and transmitter to another car that was a little smaller but had more power. You can also get high end RC cams and transmitters with real time feeds.
The burden is the person taking something normal off the table. people have been doing things for years before you even were thought of. In the case of Co2, it's only a pollutant if it does harm, if the harm isn't there, then it can't be a pollutant.
You talking about taking someone's freedoms away here. Freedoms that existed long before you or anyone you know came around. You have to justify those actions, showing harm is a way to do that. Showing the potential for harm is just a way to get someone to watch for harm. It doesn't matter that something is changing, that is the story of the earth, evolution, survival of the fittest and everything else.
That is pretty much what I was thinking.
Actually, I was just wanting to see if anyone who thinks this woman is completely innocent could see the wrong in acting in a way that causes death to someone else even though you broke no actual law. I was extremely curious if they felt the exact same way when it was obvious that death would result and then let them explain how my hypothetical situation was a strawman or whatever and so different to justify the change in positions. I don't think you were exactly my target audience, but I do appreciate you input.
I think maybe they were attempting to find something with a little more byte to it or they didn't technically consider a computer network to be an actual telecommunications means. It could be a case of where either the laws haven't caught up with technology or where the prosecutors haven't. I'm in agreement with you and can only speculate to why that was.
This makes sense, I have been using RC 4wheel drive cars to run cable under craw spaces and in some cases, across long stretches of drop ceilings for a couple of years now. The great thing is that I can deduct toys from my taxes.
Imagine this if you will,
Suppose you are driving your car down the road and I swerve to the right, then back to the left as if I was going to ram into you. I stay in my lane but you react and swerve to avoid me and hit a pedestrian killing them. Am I at fault at all? I didn't break any laws, the pedestrian is dead by you hands, not mine. Now suppose this has happened before and I was actually attempting to make people swerve into pedestrians. Am I still innocent, I haven't broken any laws.
Now think about that, then think about if I should be charged with anything. How about after the first time? what about the third time? what if I was able to do this 25 times each time resulting in the death of some pedestrian at the hands of 25 different seemingly innocent drivers. Now if you changed your mind and think something should happen to me after 10 people die, then why and how would that be different then attempting to manipulate someone into committing suicide.
Not really, this is more of a logic problem then anything. If the logic places a burden on someone to advance their position, so be it.
You see, you said
"Saying that pollution isn't going to cause global warming is sort of like saying heavy use of crack cocaine doesn't cause skin cancer. Even if you are correct, it doesn't mean pollution or crack cocaine are not harmful. It's quibbling about the specifics of the harm."
Wikipedia defines pollution as "Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into an environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem i.e" Princeton defines it as "undesirable state of the natural environment being contaminated with harmful substances as a consequence of human activities"
So in order for sometime to be a pollution, it has to cause some sort of harm, if the only stated harm is skin cancer and that is shown to not be a factor, then you still need to show where it does harm to be a pollutant. In the case of Co2, at the concentration levels we are talking about, if it is shown not to be a problem causing harm, then it is not a pollutant. It doesn't remain a pollutant just because it once was.
I could say you have red socks on but it doesn't make it true. You have to identify the harm in order to make something a pollutant. Otherwise you are more or less just wishing.
But when either apple or oranges carry Ecoli or Salmanila bacteria, they get pulled from the market. This isn't an apples to oranges thing, it's a product causing harm or being dangerous thing.
I read in a political paper once that if aspirin was invented today, it's costs would be roughly 200 times as much and might not even get FDA approval outside of a prescription because of all the extra testing and costs related to it. It was probably an expansion on the same article.
Tylenol makes some good money from the sale and licensing of the drug. I'm not sure why we can't do an education campaign instead of an outright ban. I mean doctors and pharmacist tell patients how to use birth control pills and other medication, why not educate them on the issues and require OTC medications with Acetaminophen in it to put a very large warning label on the cap so the consumer looks at it when opening. Then when someone gets a prescription for vicodin or something, the doc and pharmacist warn them of liver damage is they take OTC Acetaminophen.
Now, just so you know where I am coming from, I am one of those people who was taking too much Acetaminophen. I didn't end up with liver damage but I was taking 10-12 vicodin a day, 2 viox which got changed to celebrex and popping close to 10 extra strength Tylenol on top of that. When I told my doctor I wanted him to increase my dosage, he freaked on me and then I learned about the dangers. He told me to take aspirin instead and all of this could have probably been avoided if I was told by either the doctor or pharmacist that I couldn't mix the two. (by the way, I had elevated liver enzymes but nothing serious and they dropped within three weeks of switching to aspirin).
I think malice is appropriate with this because of the health care issues being thrown around today. I believe the harsh ban talk is promoted over education and so on because it achieves a political goal. Education is all that I needed, and I'm sure it would be the same for everyone else- especially if the labels for OTC drugs listed Acetaminophen on the top of the cap so people would have to know they are taking it.
Your right, it was an amazing rectal-cranial inversion. But I don't think it was you with the problem. John Kerry and Bill Clinton in support for Kerry's 2004 presidential bid made the statement as if it was true. So you are more or less a victim of political manipulation. I don't hold that against anyone until they refuse to let go after seeing some hard facts, then it's sort of an irritating thing to me.
I agree.. 9/11 had some contribution to it too, people started sitting tight on their money and as we all know, if your money isn't making money, then your not being taxed on it.
I sort of agree yet I want to caution that the money spent in Iraq was only a contributing factor to the financial meltdown. You have to remember, the government doesn't add to the economy, all it does is redirect it, and when it deficit spends in order to do so, it doesn't really effect the current generation. Now sometimes this redirection is necessary to create or relieve certain situations that may or may not be favorable. But without the spending in Iraq, it would have just been a matter of time before the meltdown happened unless something drastically changed in the way regulation was being enforced and made into law.
The funding for Iraq was a marked debt on future generation as almost all of it was deficit spending outside some normal spending that would have originally occured with funding from bonds sold to foreign countries. There was some funding siphoned from other programs but that was relatively small in comparison. The problem there is that if the money wasn't raise and spend on Iraq, it wouldn't have been raised or spent otherwise and the bleeding comes to future generations.
The reality of it is more or less that Iraq placed the problems within the time frame they became exposed. However, an example of changes in the regulation was legislation unsuccessfully introduced in 2003 and again in 2005 that was an attempt to place some limits on Fannie and Freddie and those limits would have traversed to Goldman Sachs and other "to big to fail" institutions.
That still doesn't make Co2 pollution given the ruling out of a specific danger.
I think you are missing the entire point of the argument. Pollution has a negative effect, if all those negative effect are untrue, then it isn't still pollution. So weather it is pollution in general or Co2, in order for it to remain Pollution when the dangers have been negated, you have to justify it.
So the only thing different then what is already true without the cap and trade is that consumers will be pinched by energy prices and someone hopes that causes them to do less. Sounds like a solid plan to me, making things unfordable is a good way to keep usage of materials down. However, I think it is completely wrong.
The CBO report sugar coats it as well as ignores certain factors that we are talking about like the costs of non-energy items being raised because of the cost of energy going up. There are several other reports, one by the heritage foundation, that examine that in more detail but still don't address it to my satisfaction.
You mean you haven't heard of the Michael Jackson' Cap & Trade Alternative?
That Michael Jackson' Cap & Trade Alternative was a joke but seriously, here is a summery of the republican alternatives. You can find out more about the specifics Here and here.
One of the reasons you haven't seen a republican response is because the democrats are largely skipping them in this process and forcing votes on bills without enough time to even read them. They know that under a close examination, their cap and trade bill just doesn't make sense. Now, the Republican alternative isn't bullet proof either, but there is an alternative on the table along with others like mandates uses of technology for future power needs. The problem is that no one is willing to take the best of either world and make something that works without screwing everyone over.
And if you read what he said, "Percocet" is another drug entirely. He just picked it because it is a also a mixed drug.
This isn't really about the dangers of a drug. More people get hurt and killed by cars every day then will ever have an adverse reaction with Acetaminophen and no one is banning cars.
This is more of the public health care manipulation and politics. Acetaminophen is relatively cheap, It's prescribed by many doctors because it helps people for minor and major pains. Getting rid of it put the consumer into a position of "i need something" in which public health care can fill.
No, you would normally have attempted to avoid the accident and protect your property and health. Most people would, it's a reflex.
What isn't a reflex is you putting yourself in danger or violation of the laws because of someone riding too close to you or honking their horn. If they are passing you, something that every state in the Union has said can be done safely, you hold your speed until they pass you. If they are following too closely, you hold your speed (make sure it is legal) until they pass you.
You are not suppose to worry about other people's risks either. They worry about their own and react independently of you. You worry about yourself and act independent of them. If either of you get into an accident or get a ticket of whatever, you will be responsible for your own actions and no responsibility is taken away when you tell the judge "but your honor, he was honking his horn at me so I shouldn't have to pay the fine/do the jail time for going 65 in a 25 and striking two cars".
There is a difference between imminent danger and someone attempting to provoke a response from you. I figured that much was obvious and didn't really think I would have to explain it to you. It sounds to me like you need to revisit driving school, perhaps take a defensive driving course so you can actually see how your actions are actually more dangerous then the situation you were attempting to cure. That or you just need to cowboy up and stop getting scared behind the wheel.
Ok, so 1: how do you quantify the amounts given to who, and 2: if everyone got their expense back before spending it, then companies have no reason to not pass all the costs onto the consumer. In other words, it would be no different then what we have today except there would be some convoluted scheme in place.
Policies don't have to be perfect but they should not under any circumstances, be detrimental to the very people least likely to be able to cope with it. You don't kick a guy who can barely walk in the first place so he falls down just so you can step on him and feel all high and mighty because of your actions. not being 100% perfect is acceptable as long as it is worked on in order to become 100%. Harming people for your Utopian ideals and shaky science under the guise of acceptable losses or imperfection in policy is unacceptable.
A gallon of (distance over time) speed. That should have read MPH..
Well, that is the gist of what I was saying.
However, the problem that creates the hurdle isn't the program itself, it's when it is pulled away. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting any social programs or anything, I'm just commenting on their implementation in the US and what a prebate would be.
As for the credit scheme, your right, it won't do what it was designed to do. In fact, it will probably have little to no effect on it's original goal and just make it that much harder for businesses to compete.
of course that is not what I am saying at all. Socialism keeps the poor poor when the social programs get yanked from you as you attempt to not be poor. This is because instead of going away from being poor, you have to fist cover the costs of the disappearing program.
Or in other words, socialism and then ending socialism keeps the poor poor. I thought I made that point completely clear in my post.
Of course that point also cancels out anything else you wrote seeing how it was predicated on a misunderstanding.
The very first thing they told me in my defensive driving course is to not let the other vehicles drive your.
In other words, don't let someone force you to take an action you wouldn't have normally or already taken. As for being safe when someone passed you, you are no less safe because of that then when an on coming car passes you going in the other direction.
Now the bicyclist should be on the right side of the road and most roads are three to four feet wider then the largest cars (until you start getting in town with parking on the streets) that would be traveling on it. I think 8 foot or larger lanes for non interstates and 12 foot lanes for interstate traffic. While this may force you into oncoming traffic to pass them, it doesn't leave the oncoming traffic without an option to avoid a collusion.
I have a bunch of Amish where I live. It's worse then the bikes, the bikes generally do 20-30 MPG going down the road. Try coming up on a horse and buggy that's 4 or so foot wide and doing 3-5 mph with just a candle shoved into a box with colored red lens in the read and a clear lens in front. You learn really fast to not drive past your vision, be patient, and to wait for the proper times to pass.