Where does one obtain this free government ID? Methinks you are full of shit.
At any Secretary of State/DMV office in the State you are a citizen and current resident of which offers free personal IDs.
It's the same ID that the local Social Services office tells you to go get to be eligible to receive various forms of State and Federal assistance if you try to apply without any ID, in order to comply with State and Federal laws. To avoid fraud they say, but I guess by many peoples' opinions here, that's a lie and they're all racist and bigoted whether the ID is free or not, as is anyone who advocates for laws to protect against voter fraud.
If personal ID was offered free in every State/county/city/etc would you then be for requiring ID to cast a vote? Methinks not, because your goal is not to increase vote integrity, but the opposite.
Someone should inform Trump of this immediately. Kamkar is a foreign sounding name, he should be deported immediately. Put Steve Bannon on it right away!
That'll fix it!
What do you mean, he's already sacked Bannon?? That was quick.
Is the only protected form of the speech the soap box in the park?
Sure...as long as you get the proper permissions, permits, and pay any fees due, and if your opinions are judged to be inflammatory enough by TPTB, you may also be required to pay for special insurance and security. If you're on the property of a US publicly-funded university or college, you may be denied the right of free speech and association if your views do not comport with those of the university/college administration. Heck, you can't even hand out free copies of the nations' founding document at many publicly-funded educational institutions without getting permission first, and that permission has never been given to my knowledge. Heck, that would actually be news!
But sure, other than those little niggles you're free to say anything that isn't inciting to violence or a danger to public safety. Or anything at all that makes a cop angry.
Of course, the freedom of political and religious thought and principles like TANSTAAFL illustrated in many Heinlein novels (which IMO is one of the major reasons Heinlein's work is so good) is anathema to Leftists, Socialists, Communists, Fascists, and other authoritarians/collectivists. It's no small wonder that Heinlein gets little love on Left-leaning Slashdot.
IRS to go after any one that wins in game cash now?
You won in game cash and you need to pay us for it.
Aren't things like "XP" (experience points) earned in-game and used to purchase items/abilities/etc the same thing?
If criminal currency laws apply to in-game currencies, will people who play computer games that use XP or similar in-game transactional "currencies" need to fill out an IRS Form 1099 after every game session? What about the value of "property" bought within the game, is it taxable? Should State sales tax be levied against in-game currencies?
I'd hate to receive a tax bill for the ~15 million C-Bills I've got sitting in my Mech Warrior Online game account.
PS: What's with this shit about "no proof" on Trump being racist?
Reading comprehension, much?
News story about Trump being racist? No proof he isn't, must be legit.
Besides, the accusation of being a "racist" has been so over- and mis-used that regular people are burned out on the ridiculousness and immediately dismiss such accusations anymore.
The inclusion of subsidies does not make the price comparisons invalid, it makes them more accurate. Unless you want to start to calculate the actual, unsubsidized cost of oil/coal as well.
What you call "subsidies" matters.
Oil/coal/gas receive normal tax write-offs on capital investment and depreciation like every other business including wind/solar and other renewables. However, wind/solar/other renewables get special tax breaks that oil/coal/gas do not.
And as other posters to this thread point out, getting solid numbers on energy consumed and pollution generated from wind/solar manufacturers in places like China is problematic at best and likely to be 'adjusted' by the Chinese government.
. It's not Facebook, guys, nor racism,... There's no mystery here why voters rejected her. Heck, she couldn't even get the majority of votes from white women
Your facts are in violent disagreement with your conclusions.
You're quite right.
Racism on the part of BLM and similar groups, and the Democrats who support them, turned off many voters to Clinton and the Democrats including many lifelong Democrat voters.
Well, no, that's not quite the case [wikipedia.org].
Sorry, but I have no faith in numbers from Wiki or the LCOE they cite, and further, they include TCO figures for wind/solar that are largely based on speculation and guesswork and also include things like tax breaks in mitigating renewable cost calculations.
A big LIE is of course the cost of solar and wind, which are now already cheaper than coal and oil, even without subsidies.
FTFY
If that were true that they were cheaper everyone would be figuratively storming the gates to use wind/solar, the wind/solar equipment makers couldn't keep the stuff on the shelves, and they'd be abandoning other generation means within a couple years because they'd make more money.
That's not happening.
Is wind/solar getting cheaper? Yes, of course. Is it more economical than other types? Not yet. I'm sure we'll get there, but "we ain't there yet".
What higher prices for electricity and other forms of energy also do besides cause people to use less, is it also causes people to die who otherwise would not. Artificial increases to the price of energy can be measured in lives lost and human suffering, malnutrition, and more. Energy prices affect the price of practically everything else, including food.
How many frozen grandmothers, elderly, disabled, and babies/children's lives is it worth to use energy price increases to curtail energy usage? How many frozen grannies per cent/kWh are enough? How many frozen grannies are too much?
If you favor increasing energy prices as a means of social engineering, would you be willing to personally go to the people who dies' family's homes and explain why it was necessary that they had to die? If not, why do you think it's OK for them to die for your agenda as long as you don't have to face any personal consequences?
I don't know why I typed "HIV" when I have hepatitis-C, not HIV. I think it was because I was thinking of an acquaintance who has HIV when I read the OP.
I do expect he'll keep the relatively easy promises. A conservative appointment to the Supreme Court, deregulation, and other bones to the fossil fuel industry and a big "fuck you" to attempts to mitigate CO2. I suspect his foreign policy in other ways will ultimately look a lot like the last seventy years, simply because the alternative would be international chaos. In return Congress will let him produce some big fat deficits to drop short-lived infrastructure programs on the Rust Belt, before a Democrat is elected and is forced to deal with it.
Sort of like Trump now having to deal with the messes left from 8 years of Obama.
The problem that affects both parties is that *solving* problems doesn't get you elected/re-elected.
*Promising* to solve problems gets you elected/re-elected.
Then you simply take no real actions and blame it on the other side. Rinse-and-repeat. Both parties have been doing this back-and-forth dance for decades.
Yes, it Is ironic, as in this election the Conservatives (ie. the *opposite* of the Progressives - go look up irony, there, sport) who will be in the White House (Trump, Guilianai, Gingrich) are *literally* the cheating husbands.
I guess it depends on your definition of Conservative.
Trump, from his past patterns of support, appears to be a Progressive who donned conservative garb to win the election and Gingrich and Giuliani are establishment-Republicans, hardly "conservative" in anything but name.
I actually expect much less to change with Trump than what many either want or fear.
If you have some actual independent confirmation of the veritas claim, please provide it.
But you don't, because it was a load of horseshit.
The video itself is a primary source you imbecile. How many times do you think somebody is going to be able to get something like that? How about watching it before shooting your stupid mouth off?
The Progressives have much in common with a cheating husband.
They get caught red-handed cheating and then tell you; "Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"
We're WAY past starting down that road. "Sin Taxes" have been a major factor for decades, maybe centuries, and they're one of the least-invasive ways the government has of guiding social and market behavior.
That's the whole point.
The government should fuck right off about "guiding" markets, society, or anything else except guiding themselves to a copy of the US Constitution. The government is there to be guided by "We The People", not the other way around.
The number HAS been published... the Western world has to cut 80% of its power consumption and the developing world 60% of its power consumption, and the whole planet has just 32 years to do it.
Now before you scream solar and wind, read the above sentence, then read it again, because I'm 99% sure you won't read it correctly the first few times.
There is zero chance of that happening.
Well, I'd say well-north of zero. An all-out thermonuclear/chemical/biological war would probably do nicely.
s/ Of course there will be naysayers whining their bleeding-heart nonsense about the cure being worse than the disease and you can't wipe out humanity to save the Earth, but isn't it humans that are the cause of all the Earths' problems in the first place and AGW simply another proof that Earth should be sanitized and made human-free?
Humans are so arrogant that many think that just because their species, and the beginnings of life it evolved from, evolved here that they are somehow "natural" to the Earth. Such stunning hubris is impossible to comprehend./s
If you're looking to alter behavior with taxes rather than generate revenue, you could simply redistribute the proceeds.
I believe that using taxes as a social-engineering tool and/or instrument of wealth redistribution is wrong and ultimately leads to tyranny, as anything that can be weaponized for political gain will be. Once you start down that road there's a never-ending list of government initiatives to push via taxes and wealth-inequality to "correct". There's no way to have both individual freedom and equal outcomes, only equal opportunities.
There are alternatives to carbon release, and the free market will find them if you make carbon release expensive. You know what doesn't work, though? Cap and trade schemes. Carbon caps are helpful, but if you let people trade you miss the point entirely. If you tax, then alternatives will be found.
One of the problems with artificially increasing energy costs with taxes/fees/etc is that they are in effect an extremely regressive tax which affects the poorest the worst and the quickest. It actually costs real lives. You hear about people found frozen to death because they couldn't pay their heating bill reported in the news every winter. How many frozen grannies per cent/kWh price increase is "OK"? How many frozen grannies per cent-kWh price increase are too much? Can you justify their unnecessary deaths to their grandchildren face-to-face and walk away without them calling you a monster?
If you care about the poor, lower energy costs are a huge assist to not only lower heating/lighting costs but also lower food costs, housing costs, etc etc etc. Energy prices affect the price of almost everything, including healthcare.
Far too many people reach for the tax-hammer when every problem is not a revenue-nail nor solvable with the same tool(s) without dire results, and fail to think through the consequences of their proposals.
I'm sure Hollywood and major music studios/labels would be delighted to give up domestic US Copyright protections and tech/aerospace tickled to give up domestic US Patent protections as domestic US entities and suddenly become foreign entities to the US government./s
No, California won't be leaving by their own will anytime soon. With a Trump POTUS and (R)-majority Congress, maybe CA should be more concerned about whether or not they'll be allowed to stay rather than whether or not to leave.
The question of whether states have the right to secede from the United States was settled conclusively in 1865. If every dipshit state could leave the Union any time it wanted to because it gets butthurt over some election that doesn't go the way they wanted then this country would have fallen apart a long time ago.
The question California needs to ask itself is; "Do I feel lucky?" because with a Trump POTUS and Republican controlled Congress, California might well get little choice in leaving!:D
I wish stories like this included a disclaimer. No one on the planet is opposed to network neutrality. Lots and lots of us are opposed to Network Neutrality, Inc.(TM) - a government overreach brought to you by corporate sponsors to use against their corporate opponents and customers which may or may not involve networks and certainly contains no neutrality.
Part of the reason we all hate the media so much is that they tend to switch back and forth between the concept and the instance in an intentionally deceptive way. Please, slashdot editors, for each story like this, insist that the submitter pick a meaning, tell us which, and stick to it.
Came here to say exactly that, thank you.
When the politicians talk about "Net Neutrality" they're talking about a set of laws that may or may not have anything to do with what nerds/geeks here think when the term "net neutrality" is used. Remember the PATRIOT Act? How little "patriotism" was actually in it? Same deal here.
Being opposed to "Net Neutrality" the FCC Act/mandate/policy is not the same as being opposed to net neutrality the concept. One can be for the latter while opposed to the former and still remain ideologically/intellectually consistent as they are not interchangeable.
Slashdot Mirror
Where does one obtain this free government ID? Methinks you are full of shit.
At any Secretary of State/DMV office in the State you are a citizen and current resident of which offers free personal IDs.
It's the same ID that the local Social Services office tells you to go get to be eligible to receive various forms of State and Federal assistance if you try to apply without any ID, in order to comply with State and Federal laws. To avoid fraud they say, but I guess by many peoples' opinions here, that's a lie and they're all racist and bigoted whether the ID is free or not, as is anyone who advocates for laws to protect against voter fraud.
If personal ID was offered free in every State/county/city/etc would you then be for requiring ID to cast a vote? Methinks not, because your goal is not to increase vote integrity, but the opposite.
Strat
Someone should inform Trump of this immediately. Kamkar is a foreign sounding name, he should be deported immediately. Put Steve Bannon on it right away!
That'll fix it!
What do you mean, he's already sacked Bannon?? That was quick.
No worries. Trump already hired Steve's brother.
https://youtu.be/diAGexlJtHk
Strat
Is the only protected form of the speech the soap box in the park?
Sure...as long as you get the proper permissions, permits, and pay any fees due, and if your opinions are judged to be inflammatory enough by TPTB, you may also be required to pay for special insurance and security. If you're on the property of a US publicly-funded university or college, you may be denied the right of free speech and association if your views do not comport with those of the university/college administration. Heck, you can't even hand out free copies of the nations' founding document at many publicly-funded educational institutions without getting permission first, and that permission has never been given to my knowledge. Heck, that would actually be news!
But sure, other than those little niggles you're free to say anything that isn't inciting to violence or a danger to public safety. Or anything at all that makes a cop angry.
Ain't freedom grand?
Strat
trademark Heinlein sophomore political commentary
Of course, the freedom of political and religious thought and principles like TANSTAAFL illustrated in many Heinlein novels (which IMO is one of the major reasons Heinlein's work is so good) is anathema to Leftists, Socialists, Communists, Fascists, and other authoritarians/collectivists. It's no small wonder that Heinlein gets little love on Left-leaning Slashdot.
Strat
IRS to go after any one that wins in game cash now?
You won in game cash and you need to pay us for it.
Aren't things like "XP" (experience points) earned in-game and used to purchase items/abilities/etc the same thing?
If criminal currency laws apply to in-game currencies, will people who play computer games that use XP or similar in-game transactional "currencies" need to fill out an IRS Form 1099 after every game session? What about the value of "property" bought within the game, is it taxable? Should State sales tax be levied against in-game currencies?
I'd hate to receive a tax bill for the ~15 million C-Bills I've got sitting in my Mech Warrior Online game account.
Strat
PS: What's with this shit about "no proof" on Trump being racist?
Reading comprehension, much?
News story about Trump being racist? No proof he isn't, must be legit.
Besides, the accusation of being a "racist" has been so over- and mis-used that regular people are burned out on the ridiculousness and immediately dismiss such accusations anymore.
Strat
The inclusion of subsidies does not make the price comparisons invalid, it makes them more accurate. Unless you want to start to calculate the actual, unsubsidized cost of oil/coal as well.
What you call "subsidies" matters.
Oil/coal/gas receive normal tax write-offs on capital investment and depreciation like every other business including wind/solar and other renewables. However, wind/solar/other renewables get special tax breaks that oil/coal/gas do not.
And as other posters to this thread point out, getting solid numbers on energy consumed and pollution generated from wind/solar manufacturers in places like China is problematic at best and likely to be 'adjusted' by the Chinese government.
Strat
You're quite right.
Racism on the part of BLM and similar groups, and the Democrats who support them, turned off many voters to Clinton and the Democrats including many lifelong Democrat voters.
Strat
Harvested a lot of agricultural products, have you? Many plants growing in the soil lack well developed APIs.
No problem!
Just fund a grant to Monsanto and Oracle to create a standard cotton API.
The one most obvious problem is that the resulting API(s) may or may not have copyright/patent issues with 3rd-party implementations.
Strat
Well, no, that's not quite the case [wikipedia.org].
Sorry, but I have no faith in numbers from Wiki or the LCOE they cite, and further, they include TCO figures for wind/solar that are largely based on speculation and guesswork and also include things like tax breaks in mitigating renewable cost calculations.
Strat
A big LIE is of course the cost of solar and wind, which are now already cheaper than coal and oil, even without subsidies.
FTFY
If that were true that they were cheaper everyone would be figuratively storming the gates to use wind/solar, the wind/solar equipment makers couldn't keep the stuff on the shelves, and they'd be abandoning other generation means within a couple years because they'd make more money.
That's not happening.
Is wind/solar getting cheaper? Yes, of course. Is it more economical than other types? Not yet. I'm sure we'll get there, but "we ain't there yet".
What higher prices for electricity and other forms of energy also do besides cause people to use less, is it also causes people to die who otherwise would not. Artificial increases to the price of energy can be measured in lives lost and human suffering, malnutrition, and more. Energy prices affect the price of practically everything else, including food.
How many frozen grandmothers, elderly, disabled, and babies/children's lives is it worth to use energy price increases to curtail energy usage? How many frozen grannies per cent/kWh are enough? How many frozen grannies are too much?
If you favor increasing energy prices as a means of social engineering, would you be willing to personally go to the people who dies' family's homes and explain why it was necessary that they had to die? If not, why do you think it's OK for them to die for your agenda as long as you don't have to face any personal consequences?
Strat
Norris? That's silly!
Everyone knows it will be Steven Seagal, since he's already become an actual law enforcement officer IRL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Strat
I'm in the final stages of HIV, so done and done.
I don't know why I typed "HIV" when I have hepatitis-C, not HIV. I think it was because I was thinking of an acquaintance who has HIV when I read the OP.
Strat
I'm in the final stages of HIV, so done and done.
Your turn.
I do expect he'll keep the relatively easy promises. A conservative appointment to the Supreme Court, deregulation, and other bones to the fossil fuel industry and a big "fuck you" to attempts to mitigate CO2. I suspect his foreign policy in other ways will ultimately look a lot like the last seventy years, simply because the alternative would be international chaos. In return Congress will let him produce some big fat deficits to drop short-lived infrastructure programs on the Rust Belt, before a Democrat is elected and is forced to deal with it.
Sort of like Trump now having to deal with the messes left from 8 years of Obama.
The problem that affects both parties is that *solving* problems doesn't get you elected/re-elected.
*Promising* to solve problems gets you elected/re-elected.
Then you simply take no real actions and blame it on the other side. Rinse-and-repeat. Both parties have been doing this back-and-forth dance for decades.
Strat
Yes, it Is ironic, as in this election the Conservatives (ie. the *opposite* of the Progressives - go look up irony, there, sport) who will be in the White House (Trump, Guilianai, Gingrich) are *literally* the cheating husbands.
I guess it depends on your definition of Conservative.
Trump, from his past patterns of support, appears to be a Progressive who donned conservative garb to win the election and Gingrich and Giuliani are establishment-Republicans, hardly "conservative" in anything but name.
I actually expect much less to change with Trump than what many either want or fear.
Strat
It would only be ironic if I supported Trump and denied the truth OR the untruth of any of the allegations against him.
Nice attempt at distraction. It almost worked.
Strat
The Progressives have much in common with a cheating husband.
They get caught red-handed cheating and then tell you; "Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"
Strat
We're WAY past starting down that road. "Sin Taxes" have been a major factor for decades, maybe centuries, and they're one of the least-invasive ways the government has of guiding social and market behavior.
That's the whole point.
The government should fuck right off about "guiding" markets, society, or anything else except guiding themselves to a copy of the US Constitution. The government is there to be guided by "We The People", not the other way around.
Strat
The number HAS been published... the Western world has to cut 80% of its power consumption and the developing world 60% of its power consumption, and the whole planet has just 32 years to do it.
Now before you scream solar and wind, read the above sentence, then read it again, because I'm 99% sure you won't read it correctly the first few times.
There is zero chance of that happening.
Well, I'd say well-north of zero. An all-out thermonuclear/chemical/biological war would probably do nicely.
s/ Of course there will be naysayers whining their bleeding-heart nonsense about the cure being worse than the disease and you can't wipe out humanity to save the Earth, but isn't it humans that are the cause of all the Earths' problems in the first place and AGW simply another proof that Earth should be sanitized and made human-free?
Humans are so arrogant that many think that just because their species, and the beginnings of life it evolved from, evolved here that they are somehow "natural" to the Earth. Such stunning hubris is impossible to comprehend. /s
Strat
If you're looking to alter behavior with taxes rather than generate revenue, you could simply redistribute the proceeds.
I believe that using taxes as a social-engineering tool and/or instrument of wealth redistribution is wrong and ultimately leads to tyranny, as anything that can be weaponized for political gain will be. Once you start down that road there's a never-ending list of government initiatives to push via taxes and wealth-inequality to "correct". There's no way to have both individual freedom and equal outcomes, only equal opportunities.
Strat
There are alternatives to carbon release, and the free market will find them if you make carbon release expensive. You know what doesn't work, though? Cap and trade schemes. Carbon caps are helpful, but if you let people trade you miss the point entirely. If you tax, then alternatives will be found.
One of the problems with artificially increasing energy costs with taxes/fees/etc is that they are in effect an extremely regressive tax which affects the poorest the worst and the quickest. It actually costs real lives. You hear about people found frozen to death because they couldn't pay their heating bill reported in the news every winter. How many frozen grannies per cent/kWh price increase is "OK"? How many frozen grannies per cent-kWh price increase are too much? Can you justify their unnecessary deaths to their grandchildren face-to-face and walk away without them calling you a monster?
If you care about the poor, lower energy costs are a huge assist to not only lower heating/lighting costs but also lower food costs, housing costs, etc etc etc. Energy prices affect the price of almost everything, including healthcare.
Far too many people reach for the tax-hammer when every problem is not a revenue-nail nor solvable with the same tool(s) without dire results, and fail to think through the consequences of their proposals.
Strat
Can't deny that "calixit" has a nice ring to it!
I'm sure Hollywood and major music studios/labels would be delighted to give up domestic US Copyright protections and tech/aerospace tickled to give up domestic US Patent protections as domestic US entities and suddenly become foreign entities to the US government. /s
No, California won't be leaving by their own will anytime soon. With a Trump POTUS and (R)-majority Congress, maybe CA should be more concerned about whether or not they'll be allowed to stay rather than whether or not to leave.
Then the meme would be "CALBOOT".
Strat
The question of whether states have the right to secede from the United States was settled conclusively in 1865. If every dipshit state could leave the Union any time it wanted to because it gets butthurt over some election that doesn't go the way they wanted then this country would have fallen apart a long time ago.
The question California needs to ask itself is; "Do I feel lucky?" because with a Trump POTUS and Republican controlled Congress, California might well get little choice in leaving! :D
Strat
I wish stories like this included a disclaimer. No one on the planet is opposed to network neutrality. Lots and lots of us are opposed to Network Neutrality, Inc.(TM) - a government overreach brought to you by corporate sponsors to use against their corporate opponents and customers which may or may not involve networks and certainly contains no neutrality.
Part of the reason we all hate the media so much is that they tend to switch back and forth between the concept and the instance in an intentionally deceptive way. Please, slashdot editors, for each story like this, insist that the submitter pick a meaning, tell us which, and stick to it.
Came here to say exactly that, thank you.
When the politicians talk about "Net Neutrality" they're talking about a set of laws that may or may not have anything to do with what nerds/geeks here think when the term "net neutrality" is used. Remember the PATRIOT Act? How little "patriotism" was actually in it? Same deal here.
Being opposed to "Net Neutrality" the FCC Act/mandate/policy is not the same as being opposed to net neutrality the concept. One can be for the latter while opposed to the former and still remain ideologically/intellectually consistent as they are not interchangeable.
Strat