Actually, Obamacare/ACA plans are severely restricted from rating people for anything other than 3 factors: (1) Age. (2) County of residence. (3) Smoking status.
In any case, the ratio between highest rate and lowest rate can't exceed 3:1 in a given state. Lower in some states that set their own limits -- NY state is 1:1.
If anything, Obamacare has made insurance LESS intrusive on private lives.
The library is often not open during hours where people who worked 7am to 6pm can go there. Libraries are cutting back due to funding cuts. Got to fund wars, Homeland Security theater, and mass incarceration after all.
And, practically, the Internet is a necessity these days if you're looking for a (better) job.
Europe and Asia make up for it with expensive gas, indirectly punishing high CO2 emissions. Also, as far as smog standards abroad, would you rather have L.A.'s air be like Rome's? Thought not:)
So set ceilings for emissions, then tax gas. Manufacturers will be forced to work within the emissions standards and increase efficiency, maybe by (OMG!) selling smaller/lighter cars. Your average hausfrau doesn't need to drive a 18mpg Silverado.
Tax the fuel, subsidize the low end. Problem solved.
Ironically, "sports cars" are actually pretty efficient. Drive an MR-2 and you'll find out that it gets around 40 mpg. It's muscle cars that guzzle like drunken pigs.
Top-heavy pork-mobiles are also less able to avoid an accident. Inertia's a bitch. Honestly, if I wanted to drive a fuckin' truck, I'd get a job for UPS. I'd drive a Miata, classic MR2, Civic, or motorbike over a bloated SUV any day.
US government has been picking winners and losers since the 60s. See also: the US's unhealthy willingness to go on military homicide sprees (aka wars) to preserve access to oil, and to help stabilize oil-rich Middle Eastern "allies" like the Saudis and Kuwaitis.
If all of the money spend on Middle Eastern homicide sprees over the past 50 years were spend on rolling out electric vehicles and the power generation/delivery structure for them, we wouldn't be driving gassers today.
"American" cars outside the US are often very different than those sold in the US. US automakers have subsidiaries in quite a few non-US countries, and the cars they make are tailored to local markets.
Yep, that's an argument for you to keep the old car as long as you can -- energy costs are a large part of making any consumer good. Thus, government policy should encourage durability and discourage planned obsolescence.
Only because a lot of cowards think that a behemoth is saaaaaaafer than a "normal" car. Plus they can use cheaper/less-developed powertrains, since the fuel economy standards for trucks/SUVs aren't as strict.
It doesn't handicap us -- cars sold outside the US by the same makers won't be subject to US standards anyway. If anything, it will force them to do research to meet future EU/China/Japan standards NOW, and make them more prepared to compete when those laws come down.
Higher US standards would also favor US manufacturers over foreign ones as far as sales in the US.
California already has stricter emission standards that have held up in court (for new cars, you can still bring a "Federal standard" used car into CA if it exceeds 15,000 miles on the clock).
Some counties ban alcohol sale, others allow it year around. Some states allow AR-15s, others ban them from sale. States don't have an obligation to allow a given item to be sold in their state or city.
Solar grand minimum just delays the problem until the next solar cycle. It doesn't go away.
Plus, oil has a limited supply. The goal should be to use it efficiently and eventually move to other tech for transportation. Leave the remaining oil for chemical processes that actually require it.
CAFE (Corp Average Fuel Economy) standards were always a silly way of doing things, since they specified average economy within a given class of vehicle. Car, truck, later there were more categories based on wheelbase and width. It encouraged automakers to make more "trucks" that were used as cars, actually lowering real-life average fuel economy for the cars on US roads.
Better solution would be to tax fuel at a fairly high rate and let the markets decide what to buy. Use the tax money to subsidize clean (electric) transport like electric cars and trains, roll out charging stations, encourage solar installation, maybe even subsidize the (relatively clean compared to fossil fuels) nuclear power industry.
You need the property owner's or city's permission (in the case of a public space or road) to set up a traffic cam. You can't just zip-tie a camera to a phone pole and expect it to still be there next week.
what does living in the country with the highest GDP give the average American? bragging rights over the French, Germans, or Aussies? a shorter life expectancy due to stress? what's the advantage other than a nice number?
Yes, you can film there, but it's unlikely you'd be allowed to put a camera there that records 24/7. Thus your ability to film is limited by your physical presence there.
Effectively, there are limits to you creating the content in the first place. If you dropped a camera in a public place and left it unattended, it would probably get stolen or confiscated fairly quickly. Whereas, a government, with unlimited ability to record in a public place, should be subject to stricter data protection laws.
Middle ground: somewhere like Costa Rica. A neutral country can be much less worried about things like terrorism, and its economy can be a lot better due to lack of military spending waste.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Obamacare/ACA plans are severely restricted from rating people for anything other than 3 factors:
(1) Age.
(2) County of residence.
(3) Smoking status.
In any case, the ratio between highest rate and lowest rate can't exceed 3:1 in a given state. Lower in some states that set their own limits -- NY state is 1:1.
If anything, Obamacare has made insurance LESS intrusive on private lives.
Give me a break...
The library is often not open during hours where people who worked 7am to 6pm can go there. Libraries are cutting back due to funding cuts. Got to fund wars, Homeland Security theater, and mass incarceration after all.
And, practically, the Internet is a necessity these days if you're looking for a (better) job.
Europe and Asia make up for it with expensive gas, indirectly punishing high CO2 emissions. Also, as far as smog standards abroad, would you rather have L.A.'s air be like Rome's? Thought not :)
So set ceilings for emissions, then tax gas. Manufacturers will be forced to work within the emissions standards and increase efficiency, maybe by (OMG!) selling smaller/lighter cars. Your average hausfrau doesn't need to drive a 18mpg Silverado.
Tax the fuel, subsidize the low end. Problem solved. Ironically, "sports cars" are actually pretty efficient. Drive an MR-2 and you'll find out that it gets around 40 mpg. It's muscle cars that guzzle like drunken pigs.
Top-heavy pork-mobiles are also less able to avoid an accident. Inertia's a bitch. Honestly, if I wanted to drive a fuckin' truck, I'd get a job for UPS. I'd drive a Miata, classic MR2, Civic, or motorbike over a bloated SUV any day.
US government has been picking winners and losers since the 60s. See also: the US's unhealthy willingness to go on military homicide sprees (aka wars) to preserve access to oil, and to help stabilize oil-rich Middle Eastern "allies" like the Saudis and Kuwaitis.
If all of the money spend on Middle Eastern homicide sprees over the past 50 years were spend on rolling out electric vehicles and the power generation/delivery structure for them, we wouldn't be driving gassers today.
"American" cars outside the US are often very different than those sold in the US. US automakers have subsidiaries in quite a few non-US countries, and the cars they make are tailored to local markets.
Yep, that's an argument for you to keep the old car as long as you can -- energy costs are a large part of making any consumer good. Thus, government policy should encourage durability and discourage planned obsolescence.
Only because a lot of cowards think that a behemoth is saaaaaaafer than a "normal" car. Plus they can use cheaper/less-developed powertrains, since the fuel economy standards for trucks/SUVs aren't as strict.
Because gas is cheap in the US and cowards equate brute size with safety.
Me? I'll keep riding 50-60mpg motorcycles, because I don't really care...
It doesn't handicap us -- cars sold outside the US by the same makers won't be subject to US standards anyway. If anything, it will force them to do research to meet future EU/China/Japan standards NOW, and make them more prepared to compete when those laws come down.
Higher US standards would also favor US manufacturers over foreign ones as far as sales in the US.
Cheers.
Though calling him an "ADHD clown" gives a bad name to entertainers with ADHD. How about a harmful sociopath?
California already has stricter emission standards that have held up in court (for new cars, you can still bring a "Federal standard" used car into CA if it exceeds 15,000 miles on the clock).
Some counties ban alcohol sale, others allow it year around. Some states allow AR-15s, others ban them from sale. States don't have an obligation to allow a given item to be sold in their state or city.
Solar grand minimum just delays the problem until the next solar cycle. It doesn't go away.
Plus, oil has a limited supply. The goal should be to use it efficiently and eventually move to other tech for transportation. Leave the remaining oil for chemical processes that actually require it.
CAFE (Corp Average Fuel Economy) standards were always a silly way of doing things, since they specified average economy within a given class of vehicle. Car, truck, later there were more categories based on wheelbase and width. It encouraged automakers to make more "trucks" that were used as cars, actually lowering real-life average fuel economy for the cars on US roads.
Better solution would be to tax fuel at a fairly high rate and let the markets decide what to buy. Use the tax money to subsidize clean (electric) transport like electric cars and trains, roll out charging stations, encourage solar installation, maybe even subsidize the (relatively clean compared to fossil fuels) nuclear power industry.
You need the property owner's or city's permission (in the case of a public space or road) to set up a traffic cam. You can't just zip-tie a camera to a phone pole and expect it to still be there next week.
what does living in the country with the highest GDP give the average American? bragging rights over the French, Germans, or Aussies? a shorter life expectancy due to stress? what's the advantage other than a nice number?
Healthcare: if you ignore a call, people can actually be harmed or die.
I.T. outside of nuclear power plants and healthcare: if you ignore a call, people might not be able to use the latest fart app for two hours.
In one instance, selfless dedication is appropriate, in the other, less so. Also, was the 2 out of 3 number for techies for the US or the UK?
Yes, you can film there, but it's unlikely you'd be allowed to put a camera there that records 24/7. Thus your ability to film is limited by your physical presence there.
Perhaps this is Ecuador's revenge for proxy warmongering by the US and UK.
You're limited to placing them on your property or property you rent, you can't go around dropping cameras everywhere. A government can.
That's why they went for the eyes (surveillance). If someone gets hit in the eyes, they're less likely to know where to hit back next.
Effectively, there are limits to you creating the content in the first place. If you dropped a camera in a public place and left it unattended, it would probably get stolen or confiscated fairly quickly. Whereas, a government, with unlimited ability to record in a public place, should be subject to stricter data protection laws.
Middle ground: somewhere like Costa Rica. A neutral country can be much less worried about things like terrorism, and its economy can be a lot better due to lack of military spending waste.