There are people who do violent crimes or crimes that physically hurt people and get less than 2 years of prison.
From the sounds of this story it *was* amateur hour, and he went to far and made a mistake. Like you I keep copies of my scripts etc, but I have no illusions about ownership, and franking they are welcome to them if the next guy can even figure it out. However I'd take my stuff to help me on my next gig, though I not go as so far as to try and delete them from company systems. That said the mistakes he made were that he I guess didn't feel all that confident really in his decision as why delete user logs if you think you are in the right, doing it in such a way to take down the ISP must have been a colossal screw up and he probably didn't know what he was doing. Then trying to sell his "IP" back to his company, well that was also dumb. After being laid off, he should have simply said no think you I have another job now and do not have the time and I don't work for you any more, good luck with the recovery. At any rate due to his bungling the ISP did have losses, in terms of outages to customers, so he does deserve some punishment. From the sounds of it they were not down all that long anyway. Though I'm sure he must feel something about the company going out of business in the next couple years, probably like serves you right. Additionally, it does sound pretty suspicious that an ISP would fire their sysadmin without having hired a new one? Then being really surprised when things fall apart when they don't have one, or if they hired one that is unable to run/fix things... Anyway he was convicted, but there are parts of this story that make me think perhaps we're only reading about one side of it.
Not to put a damper on the wonderment of modern science, but we've had very accurate survey level measurements using GPS for a couple decades now. They didn't go into their methodology (could have involved manual or GPS assisted ground truthing, then change monitored by imaging to calibrate the satellite for Europe), or statistical error. While the measurement is in mm, that isn't to say to what degree that measurement is statistically accurate or not. As mentioned, other analysis disagrees with the value given. If that is because of accuracy or because of bias was alluded, but not really stated
Similar protocol recently introduced where I work. Done under the auspices of Employee Health and Well being. However like management terms re-organization and transformation being largely just another way to say layoffs it isn't really want it purports to be. Basically sets attendance standards, to which if not met involves escalation and eventual grounds for termination. Two of the hallmarks that don't make a lot of sense is that firstly the values set out are less than those that are entitled within contract which is pretty sketchy. Secondly unlike the title it basically encourages/influences/pressures employees to come to work sick or potentially face censure. Supposedly one of the "helpful" questions they ask should you get pulled before management is "What can we do to help your attendance", by which I would think the obvious answer would be to stop forcing/promoting sick people to go to work getting more people sick in an endless spiral of sickness, reprisals, and low moral. Anyway I'm sure someone in HR management thought this was a fantastic idea... All it really does is give management more flexibility in who they can fire because it will be pretty hard for anyone not to fall into the program. The reason is unimportant, if you get hit by a car, and clearly you have a broken leg, and you miss more than X days, it doesn't matter, you're in the program. I expect this will last until some overzealous manager decides to use it to get rid of someone they don't like without thinking too much, where regardless of the new policy, if it is in breach of actual contract or employee law and gets sued into oblivion for wrongful dismissal. However before that happens it is going to cause a lot of harm in additional employee stress, low moral, etc... I get that a small number of employees will always try to take advantage of a system, however this pretty much targets everyone and it is pretty transparent that it exists as nothing more than a management tool to get rid of people they just don't like. Part of the reason I find it most insulting is that it is so thinly veiled, and for the most part the employees are highly educated, does management think that everyone doesn't easily see though all this, or is it they simply don't care. For extra douchebaggery it seems they also implemented it retroactively, meaning your attendance levels prior to the programs existence or your knowledge of said program count towards your inclusion, though some I believe are pushing back on that point. As for performance. I think it will have opposite to intended result. Just prior to hearing about all this I can recall thinking I need to do more to be as effective as possible, now I could care less. So I'm sure some HR boffin can point to some attendance statistics and sickly smile and say "see it's working, look how how effective we are, that's a 10% improvement", where in reality you just have more employee attendance not productivity.
This is one of the fundamental problems with the nuclear industry. My own opinion is no nuclear facility should *ever* be run by private enterprise. The common thought is that the private sector would run it more efficiently. This is a fallacy. They run it cheaper because they do not bare the responsibility. In the event of something like fukushima by default (pardon pun) the nation and the taxpayer are the ones on the hook, *not* the private company. This disconnect between responsibility and operation is almost certain to produce situations where the company is willing to cut corners in favor of profit because of the fact that should anything go wrong, they are not really the ultimate responsible party. Until this fundamental issue is resolved this will always be of concern. There are a number of ways to address this without totally nationalizing everything, such as imposing very harsh non-monetary penalties to private companies in charge of the operation. Such as strong criminal legislation for any executives involved in a decision that ends up compromising safety, same goes for employees tasked to do the work if done so knowingly. However I suspect at such a point the "efficiency" of said private company will start approaching that of whatever it would be if run nationally anyway, as they would be just as risk adverse at that point.
Agreed. I really enjoyed ME3 even if the end was disappointing. In fact I am looking forward to ME4 (which I just saw a bunch of trailers for)! That said, I hope they take a lesson from all the negative PR they got over the BS ending and really do an even better job this time around!
I mention MOO3 as it was what prompted me not to pre-order or early adopt games anymore. I was really interested in No Man's Sky, and was very tempted. In the end I was like "nope, I'll wait and see how the reviews come out"... lol glad I did!
I wouldn't compare it to DNF. DNF is it's own thing. In the case of DNF it was in various states of vapourware for more than a decade. I don't think people were "disappointed" when it release as that would suggest the users were *surprised*, which I don't think anyone was that it was a steaming POS. Also DNF was a sequel.
The biggest disappointment for an initial release I would say was Masters of Orion 3, as expectations were so high, and the delivered product so missed the mark. However again, it was a sequel.
Probably the best comparison was Mass Effect 3, and it's stupid ending, however apart from the ending it was a much enjoyed game by most I think, so again not a perfect example either.
It would more fit the DNF model if they failed to release it "until it was done" for 10 years and then came out with a finished product, but one that was dated and not all that great.
Trump will do what is in his best interests. In this case I believe he will almost certainly follow up on his claim to "fix" the H1b abuses. Why?
4 Reasons: 1) It literally has zero negative impact on his own business holdings 2) He ran (and won) on bringing American jobs back 3) If he wants to win those "Blue" states on re-election like California this is the way to do it. Same idea except white collar VS blue 4) It give the middle finger to all those IT CEO's that bad mouthed him in the past election
Seem pretty straight forward to me. As for other republicans trying to block him, I don't think it will work, as some other had mentioned, he pretty much got elected without a lot of republican support to begin with and I don't think he would even blink before throwing a few republic opponents under the bus and fast if only as simply a statement of who is boss...
As to how fair or draconian the actual policy will be or even how effective it is remains to be scene...
About the same comment I was going to make. Somehow I think CR perhaps doesn't drive very many real expensive sports cars or perhaps even watched top gear... Having a "ride too firm and choppy" is basically every sports car ever. There is a reason you want tight suspension on a car that can go from 0-60 in 3 seconds. Poor build quality aside, which you point out many high end cars are not immune to, that type of car has different criteria for "value'". Reliability and comfort are definitely not even in the top 5. Heck some of them are admittedly very hard to even drive, and many offer training to buyers so they don't kill themselves. Some sports cars have tried to have adjustable suspension and the like (sport mode etc...), so as not to rattle the teeth out of the driver going to pick up some milk, but many of the purists who buy these toys would say that takes away from the experience.
Anyway complaining that a sports car has a firm ride is ridiculous.
Yes, I'm sure he installed a "secret" internet connection in his office at the freaking Pentagon... I'm sure no one noticed, or installed it, or had to use network resources... Unless he did it himself running an invisible actual cable out his window or something I find it all very unlikely.
I think we can all agree that they were both unpopular. The result can be argued 6 ways from Sunday, but the reason could be pretty simple.
Like Obama, Trump ran on a "change" platform while Clinton ran on a "more of the same" platform. The democrats have been in power for 8 years, just like the republicans the 8 years before that. Considering the margins we're all talking about it really could be that simple. Governments flip back and forth and politicians tend to blame everything on the previous politicians. You could have probably ran a soda can VS a paper clip and gotten the same result.
There actually is for Snowden, which is why I suspect he turned down the offer to do it remotely or in Russia. He can force the issue diplomatically or the Germans can bugger off.
Though I wonder if there is a bit of a ticking clock. Russia is great when the US was at odds with it and Russia looking for anything they can snub the US with. Once Trump is in power and perhaps heals the Russian relationship, I really wonder if poor Snowden will just be a bargaining chip at that point.
Yes, however that is execution. That says nothing about throwing him in a hole forever. Canada has similar arrangements (as to many nations that don't agree with capitol punishment or torture). However a lot seems to hinge on the word "knowingly"...
So for example if the US was like "Oh we're just going to charge him with unauthorized access to a system, there isn't any risk of capitol punishment there!" the Germans hand him over for some time in Club Fed, then they end up saying "Oh hey look at all this new evidence that has come to light, we're going to have to charge him with Treason, oh and we shot him already..." sure there would be some diplomatic repercussions, however that will be of little solace for Snowden.
There are little guarantees. However Snowden has to look at what is in it for him. Right now doing it through a video link or in Russia he gains nothing (perhaps a mild amount of PR) so he understandably turned it down. If however Germany (which is no minor player) make guarantees which impact relations between nations, that is something of value. Is it worth the risk of those guarantees possibly not being honored? That would be for Snowden to decide, though I would argue in the longer term it probably is. However even that outcome is a pretty serious one with large impacts that otherwise don't exist for him now.
Government revenue is largely based on income tax. Income tax is when your population is employed and makes money. When your population is unemployed, or if their salary is not increasing, the relative amount of government revenue also falls.
So when I corporation basically has all their employees in another country that money is not being collected as income tax. The only way to recover anything is through a corporate tax.
Eventually this all falls apart otherwise. Ideally you would tie your corporate tax rate to the percentage of employees wages you are not paying income tax on. However this is also known as more less a trade tariff which seems to be a no-no in globalization.
1) Fix corporate tax loop holes. This would make Apple need to pay Billions in Tax. 2) Create new tax loop holes, this could save Apple Billions in Tax.
Two wins.
Vinnie: "I'd really be a shame if something were to happen to those nice tax loopholes. Perhaps it would be in your best interest to pay for a bit of protection, you know just in case something might happen if you know what I'm sayin'?"
I suspect you are correct. However most of that is just smoke and mirrors. I've seen through the years where the exact same thing comes around again re-branded with a new name for the political party of the day, and marched out like a pig on parade.
Sometimes some minor changes will be done to "make it theirs" so to speak, other times it is literally the exact same thing just called something else. In a year we'll start hearing about the Trump Pacific Pact and they won't even have to change the letterhead. Obamacare will change into Trumpocare, etc...
Yeah I guess I was thinking framing in terms of "crops" not livestock, but even then compared to I'd say most other industries it isn't even near the top of the electricity consumers, even considering livestock and say milk production for example.
As far as alternative sources to alternative sources:) Well again it isn't all that simple either. NG? Well there was the afore mentioned scandal which is totally on the Liberals, which more less caused the "retirement" of the leader. In that case it was of course a case of NIMBY and wanting to win votes for an election. Definitely showed a lack of character. Hydro is great, however it can only be located in certain places, most of which have already been tapped, and likely the ones that haven't are so far north you start running into access issues and distribution problems as the need is in the south where all the people are not the north. That leaves Nuclear. Ontario already leads Canada in that respect. However it is as bad or worse than Hydro One in terms of cronyism. Janitors make 90k a year, CEO and executives make millions. Hey I get you have to pay the technical people and you want the best people working in that regard, but it is still a bit much. Not only that it is well known that you pretty much need to be related to someone already working there to get a job. An interesting analysis would be on how many people within the industry are related family... At any rate the two big problems with Nuclear is the PR problem that it has, NIMBY and all that and the folks that would come out of the woodwork to kill any attempt by any government to implement anything, making it a very difficult political pill for any party to swallow. So it would take a lot of political fortitude to push that agenda. Likely the only thing more toxic to politicians would be to try and get rid of the Catholic school system... Second is the fact that while the energy generated is very cheap (some would argue about TCO), building a nuclear plant is very expensive and takes a very long time to do. Many billions of dollars and more the 10-15+ years construction. So while perhaps good for prudent planning, it isn't going to address any energy issues in the here and now, and it certainly doesn't help that it spans multiple political cycles which has its own BS political issues.
Personally I like the alternative energy stuff, I think it adds a good mix of value, they did go a bit overboard with the subsidy pricing and 20 year contracts, as they take all the risk on themselves and are basically guaranteeing corporations money (which is where we are now). That said, we should (years ago) have been investing more heavily in nuclear and planning for more in the future. Wind and solar can only do so much and aren't always appropriate/relevant. I'm also unsure how bright it was for the Conservatives to sell off CANDU to a private company a few years back.
Perhaps a bit of a gamble that didn't pay off and perhaps it could have been implemented better, but the environmental impacts are real. Unfortunately so is the economic impacts. It isn't exactly short term thinking, but the negative impacts are. Could still see some longer term gain. What is at odds are those generation contracts that basically subsidize green generation in Ontario making it attractive to investors. The idea was to bring "green" jobs to Ontario. However most of the generation stations that are wind or solar have little staff outside of initial construction, and most of the material is produced outside of Ontario and imported in. Had they perhaps attached some strings as to number of jobs, or percentage of Ontario made material it might have been more effective.
At any rate, the entire blame can't be put on the Liberals (though another example of total blame might be the politically motivated gas plant scandal to the tune of 2 Billion I believe)... Power generation and specifically Hydro One (and whatever it was called before that) has been mismanaged by both political stripes over the years. Look at what the employees make at these "corporations" in addition to CEO and executive compensation... I recall long before the Liberals took power having to pay "debt repayments" as part of my bill which is ridiculous. The whole privatization of the industry by the Conservatives was a huge bungle, not to mention the distribution services that preyed on consumers so much that they actually had to make a law specifically to help consumers from being ripped off by private distribution companies.
So yeah, there is some blame to share, but the Liberal green strategy isn't the only cause, and at least as said there has been some positive environmental impacts.
Lastly, "putting farmers out of business"? Really. I doubt it. Is farming really that electrically intensive an operation? I know in Northern Ontario they made the same point about the forestry pulp and paper industry, which is a bit more credible as it is much more power intensive... However even with subsidies you have to wonder just how uncompetitive they are if their margins are so slim and perhaps while power increases highlight the issue, it is a bit more complicated than that.
"Moria... You fear to go into those mines. The Dwarves delved too greedily and too deep. You know what they awoke in the darkness of Khazad-dum... shadow and flame."
Sounds like Gandalf is finally learning that he should just call the Eagles first and let them sort it out...:)
The article mentions Universal Income. Complicated economic aside, lets assume it works. Who pays for it? Well the government does. Well where do they get the money, taxpayers in the form of income tax. Problem is, with less people working unless the few people that are working get taxed more, how does it add up? Well it doesn't. The companies that go into automation, do not currently pay more corporate tax. However not only do they not have to pay income to workers, but governments are unable to collect income tax from them to support basic income. It is pretty straight forward.
The solution is also pretty straight forward also. Higher corporate tax rate. It is only the company and a select few that profit. However both groups are going to actively lobby against any such changes due to greed.
The reality is that the current trend will continue. Jobs will continue to disappear, yet pay to those who continue to work will not increase, more people will become unemployed or underemployed, governments will struggle to support programs like universal income or equivalents, more and more wealth with become concentrated into corporate coffers and the few that wield them.
Eventually a tipping point will be reached, despite common sense the ultra rich cannot stop accumulating wealth due to greed, and despite best efforts to control outcome political leaders will be replaced with radical change, this will lead to things like wholesale nationalization as a way to re-distribute wealth to be used commonly...
The example you should use is China. They have a significant issue in the next couple of decades. Due to their reproduction policies whole generations had artificially reduced birthrates, so their demographics are all top heavy basically. They've stopped the policy, but I'd imagine that for the period for however long it was in place they will basically have too many old people and too few young people to support them.
Anyway it is probably self limiting. You're assuming growth based on historical data, which assumes no self limiting systems inherently in place. Conflict for example, and other things like famine and sickness. As growth continues it will outstrip resources (baring some sort of magic technology). As resources become more scarce, they become more valuable. As they become more valuable they will become more desired. As they become more desired, well you probably get the point. Most conflict is about resources, this really just takes it to the next level. Arable land, water, power, fossil fuels, mineral, etc...
So yeah it will hit a point where shall we say significant decline is inevitable. Should we not reach that point without doing some pretty bad damage to the Earth, could prompt an even further decline. Will we reach I point where Earth is less habitable than some other planet in our solar system? I think on the planetary/geologic scale that is pretty unlikely. Even were humans intentionally trying to mess up the planet, it will still be better than some barren rock in space.
If the idea is that we better find a way to move our civilization to another planet in the next 1000 years, then we better just give up now because we're all doomed.
Slashdot Mirror
There are people who do violent crimes or crimes that physically hurt people and get less than 2 years of prison.
From the sounds of this story it *was* amateur hour, and he went to far and made a mistake. Like you I keep copies of my scripts etc, but I have no illusions about ownership, and franking they are welcome to them if the next guy can even figure it out. However I'd take my stuff to help me on my next gig, though I not go as so far as to try and delete them from company systems. That said the mistakes he made were that he I guess didn't feel all that confident really in his decision as why delete user logs if you think you are in the right, doing it in such a way to take down the ISP must have been a colossal screw up and he probably didn't know what he was doing. Then trying to sell his "IP" back to his company, well that was also dumb. After being laid off, he should have simply said no think you I have another job now and do not have the time and I don't work for you any more, good luck with the recovery. At any rate due to his bungling the ISP did have losses, in terms of outages to customers, so he does deserve some punishment. From the sounds of it they were not down all that long anyway. Though I'm sure he must feel something about the company going out of business in the next couple years, probably like serves you right. Additionally, it does sound pretty suspicious that an ISP would fire their sysadmin without having hired a new one? Then being really surprised when things fall apart when they don't have one, or if they hired one that is unable to run/fix things... Anyway he was convicted, but there are parts of this story that make me think perhaps we're only reading about one side of it.
Sounds like a task for the internet to me...
ElementMcElementFace sounds about right to me
Not to put a damper on the wonderment of modern science, but we've had very accurate survey level measurements using GPS for a couple decades now. They didn't go into their methodology (could have involved manual or GPS assisted ground truthing, then change monitored by imaging to calibrate the satellite for Europe), or statistical error. While the measurement is in mm, that isn't to say to what degree that measurement is statistically accurate or not. As mentioned, other analysis disagrees with the value given. If that is because of accuracy or because of bias was alluded, but not really stated
All that said still pretty cool details or no.
Similar protocol recently introduced where I work. Done under the auspices of Employee Health and Well being. However like management terms re-organization and transformation being largely just another way to say layoffs it isn't really want it purports to be. Basically sets attendance standards, to which if not met involves escalation and eventual grounds for termination. Two of the hallmarks that don't make a lot of sense is that firstly the values set out are less than those that are entitled within contract which is pretty sketchy. Secondly unlike the title it basically encourages/influences/pressures employees to come to work sick or potentially face censure. Supposedly one of the "helpful" questions they ask should you get pulled before management is "What can we do to help your attendance", by which I would think the obvious answer would be to stop forcing/promoting sick people to go to work getting more people sick in an endless spiral of sickness, reprisals, and low moral. Anyway I'm sure someone in HR management thought this was a fantastic idea... All it really does is give management more flexibility in who they can fire because it will be pretty hard for anyone not to fall into the program. The reason is unimportant, if you get hit by a car, and clearly you have a broken leg, and you miss more than X days, it doesn't matter, you're in the program. I expect this will last until some overzealous manager decides to use it to get rid of someone they don't like without thinking too much, where regardless of the new policy, if it is in breach of actual contract or employee law and gets sued into oblivion for wrongful dismissal. However before that happens it is going to cause a lot of harm in additional employee stress, low moral, etc... I get that a small number of employees will always try to take advantage of a system, however this pretty much targets everyone and it is pretty transparent that it exists as nothing more than a management tool to get rid of people they just don't like. Part of the reason I find it most insulting is that it is so thinly veiled, and for the most part the employees are highly educated, does management think that everyone doesn't easily see though all this, or is it they simply don't care. For extra douchebaggery it seems they also implemented it retroactively, meaning your attendance levels prior to the programs existence or your knowledge of said program count towards your inclusion, though some I believe are pushing back on that point. As for performance. I think it will have opposite to intended result. Just prior to hearing about all this I can recall thinking I need to do more to be as effective as possible, now I could care less. So I'm sure some HR boffin can point to some attendance statistics and sickly smile and say "see it's working, look how how effective we are, that's a 10% improvement", where in reality you just have more employee attendance not productivity.
This is one of the fundamental problems with the nuclear industry. My own opinion is no nuclear facility should *ever* be run by private enterprise. The common thought is that the private sector would run it more efficiently. This is a fallacy. They run it cheaper because they do not bare the responsibility. In the event of something like fukushima by default (pardon pun) the nation and the taxpayer are the ones on the hook, *not* the private company. This disconnect between responsibility and operation is almost certain to produce situations where the company is willing to cut corners in favor of profit because of the fact that should anything go wrong, they are not really the ultimate responsible party. Until this fundamental issue is resolved this will always be of concern. There are a number of ways to address this without totally nationalizing everything, such as imposing very harsh non-monetary penalties to private companies in charge of the operation. Such as strong criminal legislation for any executives involved in a decision that ends up compromising safety, same goes for employees tasked to do the work if done so knowingly. However I suspect at such a point the "efficiency" of said private company will start approaching that of whatever it would be if run nationally anyway, as they would be just as risk adverse at that point.
Agreed. I really enjoyed ME3 even if the end was disappointing. In fact I am looking forward to ME4 (which I just saw a bunch of trailers for)! That said, I hope they take a lesson from all the negative PR they got over the BS ending and really do an even better job this time around!
I mention MOO3 as it was what prompted me not to pre-order or early adopt games anymore. I was really interested in No Man's Sky, and was very tempted. In the end I was like "nope, I'll wait and see how the reviews come out"... lol glad I did!
While I don't think Assange is a criminal or should be thrown in prison, by many accounts a slimeball, so hopefully not person of the year.
If anyone it should Snowden. Though I see in looking at the list the "Whistleblowers" won in 2002 so perhaps they think that might be a duplication.
I'd not be surprised if it is Trump. Certainly the most newsworthy of 2016 anyway, won when no one apparently thought he would.
I wouldn't compare it to DNF. DNF is it's own thing. In the case of DNF it was in various states of vapourware for more than a decade. I don't think people were "disappointed" when it release as that would suggest the users were *surprised*, which I don't think anyone was that it was a steaming POS. Also DNF was a sequel.
The biggest disappointment for an initial release I would say was Masters of Orion 3, as expectations were so high, and the delivered product so missed the mark. However again, it was a sequel.
Probably the best comparison was Mass Effect 3, and it's stupid ending, however apart from the ending it was a much enjoyed game by most I think, so again not a perfect example either.
It would more fit the DNF model if they failed to release it "until it was done" for 10 years and then came out with a finished product, but one that was dated and not all that great.
Trump will do what is in his best interests. In this case I believe he will almost certainly follow up on his claim to "fix" the H1b abuses. Why?
4 Reasons:
1) It literally has zero negative impact on his own business holdings
2) He ran (and won) on bringing American jobs back
3) If he wants to win those "Blue" states on re-election like California this is the way to do it. Same idea except white collar VS blue
4) It give the middle finger to all those IT CEO's that bad mouthed him in the past election
Seem pretty straight forward to me. As for other republicans trying to block him, I don't think it will work, as some other had mentioned, he pretty much got elected without a lot of republican support to begin with and I don't think he would even blink before throwing a few republic opponents under the bus and fast if only as simply a statement of who is boss...
As to how fair or draconian the actual policy will be or even how effective it is remains to be scene...
About the same comment I was going to make. Somehow I think CR perhaps doesn't drive very many real expensive sports cars or perhaps even watched top gear... Having a "ride too firm and choppy" is basically every sports car ever. There is a reason you want tight suspension on a car that can go from 0-60 in 3 seconds. Poor build quality aside, which you point out many high end cars are not immune to, that type of car has different criteria for "value'". Reliability and comfort are definitely not even in the top 5. Heck some of them are admittedly very hard to even drive, and many offer training to buyers so they don't kill themselves. Some sports cars have tried to have adjustable suspension and the like (sport mode etc...), so as not to rattle the teeth out of the driver going to pick up some milk, but many of the purists who buy these toys would say that takes away from the experience.
Anyway complaining that a sports car has a firm ride is ridiculous.
Yes, I'm sure he installed a "secret" internet connection in his office at the freaking Pentagon... I'm sure no one noticed, or installed it, or had to use network resources... Unless he did it himself running an invisible actual cable out his window or something I find it all very unlikely.
I think we can all agree that they were both unpopular. The result can be argued 6 ways from Sunday, but the reason could be pretty simple.
Like Obama, Trump ran on a "change" platform while Clinton ran on a "more of the same" platform. The democrats have been in power for 8 years, just like the republicans the 8 years before that. Considering the margins we're all talking about it really could be that simple. Governments flip back and forth and politicians tend to blame everything on the previous politicians. You could have probably ran a soda can VS a paper clip and gotten the same result.
There actually is for Snowden, which is why I suspect he turned down the offer to do it remotely or in Russia. He can force the issue diplomatically or the Germans can bugger off.
Though I wonder if there is a bit of a ticking clock. Russia is great when the US was at odds with it and Russia looking for anything they can snub the US with. Once Trump is in power and perhaps heals the Russian relationship, I really wonder if poor Snowden will just be a bargaining chip at that point.
Yes, however that is execution. That says nothing about throwing him in a hole forever. Canada has similar arrangements (as to many nations that don't agree with capitol punishment or torture). However a lot seems to hinge on the word "knowingly"...
So for example if the US was like "Oh we're just going to charge him with unauthorized access to a system, there isn't any risk of capitol punishment there!" the Germans hand him over for some time in Club Fed, then they end up saying "Oh hey look at all this new evidence that has come to light, we're going to have to charge him with Treason, oh and we shot him already..." sure there would be some diplomatic repercussions, however that will be of little solace for Snowden.
There are little guarantees. However Snowden has to look at what is in it for him. Right now doing it through a video link or in Russia he gains nothing (perhaps a mild amount of PR) so he understandably turned it down. If however Germany (which is no minor player) make guarantees which impact relations between nations, that is something of value. Is it worth the risk of those guarantees possibly not being honored? That would be for Snowden to decide, though I would argue in the longer term it probably is. However even that outcome is a pretty serious one with large impacts that otherwise don't exist for him now.
Government revenue is largely based on income tax. Income tax is when your population is employed and makes money. When your population is unemployed, or if their salary is not increasing, the relative amount of government revenue also falls.
So when I corporation basically has all their employees in another country that money is not being collected as income tax. The only way to recover anything is through a corporate tax.
Eventually this all falls apart otherwise. Ideally you would tie your corporate tax rate to the percentage of employees wages you are not paying income tax on. However this is also known as more less a trade tariff which seems to be a no-no in globalization.
Then offer them tax loop holes if they invest in making America great again!
Trump "I fixed the tax loop holes AND got Apple to build plants in the USA, am I great or what!"
Two birds with one stone.
1) Fix corporate tax loop holes. This would make Apple need to pay Billions in Tax.
2) Create new tax loop holes, this could save Apple Billions in Tax.
Two wins.
Vinnie: "I'd really be a shame if something were to happen to those nice tax loopholes. Perhaps it would be in your best interest to pay for a bit of protection, you know just in case something might happen if you know what I'm sayin'?"
I suspect you are correct. However most of that is just smoke and mirrors. I've seen through the years where the exact same thing comes around again re-branded with a new name for the political party of the day, and marched out like a pig on parade.
Sometimes some minor changes will be done to "make it theirs" so to speak, other times it is literally the exact same thing just called something else. In a year we'll start hearing about the Trump Pacific Pact and they won't even have to change the letterhead. Obamacare will change into Trumpocare, etc...
Yeah I guess I was thinking framing in terms of "crops" not livestock, but even then compared to I'd say most other industries it isn't even near the top of the electricity consumers, even considering livestock and say milk production for example.
As far as alternative sources to alternative sources :) Well again it isn't all that simple either. NG? Well there was the afore mentioned scandal which is totally on the Liberals, which more less caused the "retirement" of the leader. In that case it was of course a case of NIMBY and wanting to win votes for an election. Definitely showed a lack of character. Hydro is great, however it can only be located in certain places, most of which have already been tapped, and likely the ones that haven't are so far north you start running into access issues and distribution problems as the need is in the south where all the people are not the north. That leaves Nuclear. Ontario already leads Canada in that respect. However it is as bad or worse than Hydro One in terms of cronyism. Janitors make 90k a year, CEO and executives make millions. Hey I get you have to pay the technical people and you want the best people working in that regard, but it is still a bit much. Not only that it is well known that you pretty much need to be related to someone already working there to get a job. An interesting analysis would be on how many people within the industry are related family... At any rate the two big problems with Nuclear is the PR problem that it has, NIMBY and all that and the folks that would come out of the woodwork to kill any attempt by any government to implement anything, making it a very difficult political pill for any party to swallow. So it would take a lot of political fortitude to push that agenda. Likely the only thing more toxic to politicians would be to try and get rid of the Catholic school system... Second is the fact that while the energy generated is very cheap (some would argue about TCO), building a nuclear plant is very expensive and takes a very long time to do. Many billions of dollars and more the 10-15+ years construction. So while perhaps good for prudent planning, it isn't going to address any energy issues in the here and now, and it certainly doesn't help that it spans multiple political cycles which has its own BS political issues.
Personally I like the alternative energy stuff, I think it adds a good mix of value, they did go a bit overboard with the subsidy pricing and 20 year contracts, as they take all the risk on themselves and are basically guaranteeing corporations money (which is where we are now). That said, we should (years ago) have been investing more heavily in nuclear and planning for more in the future. Wind and solar can only do so much and aren't always appropriate/relevant. I'm also unsure how bright it was for the Conservatives to sell off CANDU to a private company a few years back.
Yes and no.
Perhaps a bit of a gamble that didn't pay off and perhaps it could have been implemented better, but the environmental impacts are real. Unfortunately so is the economic impacts. It isn't exactly short term thinking, but the negative impacts are. Could still see some longer term gain. What is at odds are those generation contracts that basically subsidize green generation in Ontario making it attractive to investors. The idea was to bring "green" jobs to Ontario. However most of the generation stations that are wind or solar have little staff outside of initial construction, and most of the material is produced outside of Ontario and imported in. Had they perhaps attached some strings as to number of jobs, or percentage of Ontario made material it might have been more effective.
At any rate, the entire blame can't be put on the Liberals (though another example of total blame might be the politically motivated gas plant scandal to the tune of 2 Billion I believe)... Power generation and specifically Hydro One (and whatever it was called before that) has been mismanaged by both political stripes over the years. Look at what the employees make at these "corporations" in addition to CEO and executive compensation... I recall long before the Liberals took power having to pay "debt repayments" as part of my bill which is ridiculous. The whole privatization of the industry by the Conservatives was a huge bungle, not to mention the distribution services that preyed on consumers so much that they actually had to make a law specifically to help consumers from being ripped off by private distribution companies.
So yeah, there is some blame to share, but the Liberal green strategy isn't the only cause, and at least as said there has been some positive environmental impacts.
Lastly, "putting farmers out of business"? Really. I doubt it. Is farming really that electrically intensive an operation? I know in Northern Ontario they made the same point about the forestry pulp and paper industry, which is a bit more credible as it is much more power intensive... However even with subsidies you have to wonder just how uncompetitive they are if their margins are so slim and perhaps while power increases highlight the issue, it is a bit more complicated than that.
"Moria... You fear to go into those mines. The Dwarves delved too greedily and too deep. You know what they awoke in the darkness of Khazad-dum... shadow and flame."
Sounds like Gandalf is finally learning that he should just call the Eagles first and let them sort it out... :)
It isn't automation that is at issue but greed.
The article mentions Universal Income. Complicated economic aside, lets assume it works. Who pays for it? Well the government does. Well where do they get the money, taxpayers in the form of income tax. Problem is, with less people working unless the few people that are working get taxed more, how does it add up? Well it doesn't. The companies that go into automation, do not currently pay more corporate tax. However not only do they not have to pay income to workers, but governments are unable to collect income tax from them to support basic income. It is pretty straight forward.
The solution is also pretty straight forward also. Higher corporate tax rate. It is only the company and a select few that profit. However both groups are going to actively lobby against any such changes due to greed.
The reality is that the current trend will continue. Jobs will continue to disappear, yet pay to those who continue to work will not increase, more people will become unemployed or underemployed, governments will struggle to support programs like universal income or equivalents, more and more wealth with become concentrated into corporate coffers and the few that wield them.
Eventually a tipping point will be reached, despite common sense the ultra rich cannot stop accumulating wealth due to greed, and despite best efforts to control outcome political leaders will be replaced with radical change, this will lead to things like wholesale nationalization as a way to re-distribute wealth to be used commonly...
The example you should use is China. They have a significant issue in the next couple of decades. Due to their reproduction policies whole generations had artificially reduced birthrates, so their demographics are all top heavy basically. They've stopped the policy, but I'd imagine that for the period for however long it was in place they will basically have too many old people and too few young people to support them.
You would stagnate our capitalist economy!
Anyway it is probably self limiting. You're assuming growth based on historical data, which assumes no self limiting systems inherently in place. Conflict for example, and other things like famine and sickness. As growth continues it will outstrip resources (baring some sort of magic technology). As resources become more scarce, they become more valuable. As they become more valuable they will become more desired. As they become more desired, well you probably get the point. Most conflict is about resources, this really just takes it to the next level. Arable land, water, power, fossil fuels, mineral, etc...
So yeah it will hit a point where shall we say significant decline is inevitable. Should we not reach that point without doing some pretty bad damage to the Earth, could prompt an even further decline. Will we reach I point where Earth is less habitable than some other planet in our solar system? I think on the planetary/geologic scale that is pretty unlikely. Even were humans intentionally trying to mess up the planet, it will still be better than some barren rock in space.
If the idea is that we better find a way to move our civilization to another planet in the next 1000 years, then we better just give up now because we're all doomed.