If anyone were allowed to just broadcast on whatever frequencies they like for whatever purpose they like, critical infrastructure could be severely impaired and cause real damage/loss/chaos.
If it is so trivial to impact critical infrastructure and cause real damage/loss/chaos, then why aren't The Terrorists doing it? It is not that hard to build a transmitter.
I know it is possible to cause some amount of economic chaos, but if that chaos becomes too severe, it is easily solvable with a HARM missile.
I think you overstate the necessity of the FCC; however, I am not trying to argue against the necessity of the FCC.
If you use autonomous pre-programed GPS based drones, there isn't even necessarily a radio signal to trace back to the person who launched the drone, potentially from several miles away.
No. That is how the Iranians took down a drone. Fake GPS signals. Use gyroscopic navigation. Rely on nothing external.
That's because he lands rockets and cranks out more than half of the EV's in the world. And builds tunnels under LA. Does he still run a school in his spare time?
I have no idea if I like Elon Musk as a person. I do like everything he is doing and the report of him smoking marijuana and deciding he didn't like it was just a bonus (I like an open mind).
Your words describe why he has no trouble finding funding... but to me, they indict the likes of Bill Gates and friends. Bill could pay for all of SpaceX in CASH. And yet, what is Bill doing? He is securing his wealth rather than doing fun (risky and potentially EXTREMELY profitable) things.
Honestly, it is up to each individual person how they spend their money. Once wealth accumulation reaches Gates level, I am thinking something MUST be broken. Nobody is THAT valuable. Does this give me the right to take away Bill's money and do things with it? Absolutely not. At least until it can be proven what is broken. Until then, all I can do is sit back and look and compare the activities of the various billionaires... and think that only Elon Musk is doing anything interesting.
If it was a whole team of programmers that produced the wrong thing then the only sensible conclusion is that the spec was faulty.
Interestingly enough, there were an army of ISPs that did NOT do this. CenturyLink specifically chose to do this, it was not forced on them. You are correct that an army of lawyers was likely consulted, but it was by the marketing executive who thought of this brilliant strategy to comply. What a bonus that executive will receive for this.
So where are the hifi snobs who get their music on a cell phone while they're out and about, and can't tolerate Bluetooth? Are they doing FLAC on their tiny phones? Ridiculous!
Nice strawman argument there. I want a headphone jack for several reasons, none of which you mentioned. Odd that.
I want a headphone jack because I don't like having to charge headphones.
I want a headphone jack because sometimes I am in a very dense EM environment and bluetooth just doesn't work.
I don't like remembering and performing the various dances that bluetooth devices require in order to connect to my phone.
A headphone jack just makes life simpler since the standard has been around for multiple decades.
It is great that bluetooth suffices for your needs. You are in luck, because bluetooth has been offered on phones for years, even with a headphone jack. You don't have to give up your beloved bluetooth in order for the rest of us to have a headphone jack. How cool is that?
Yes. We get it. Since moving images (movies, tv shows) are not improved, there is absolutely no use for a display that is 8k. Nobody ever uses these for the display of information, they are only used to display moving images where details are not necessarily meaningful. All display devices are to be measured on how useful displaying moving images is. Nothing else matters.
CGA was the pinnacle of displaying information. Being able to actually view the picture elements (pixels for you newbs) provides definition and clarity in the display of information.
For things where details are not terribly important, like live action stories, 480p is fine. Hell, even primitive stick figures are fine to tell stories (thanks Randall!).
If you are displaying information where each detail has meaning, finer resolution means being able to put more information into a display of size X.
You are arguing from use-case 1 and completely disregarding use-case 2... which is weird, because this is supposed to be a site for people interested in details, not pretty pictures.
People like you have informed me that I have no use or need for 4k. I am told there is no discernible difference between 1080p and 4k. I absolutely loved the change the 1080p to 4k despite what I was told and I eagerly look forward to 8k despite what I am being told.
TL;DR, there is a HUGE difference between a device meant to display moving images and a device meant to display information. Feel free to hate on improving the picture quality of the device used to display moving images but for the love of all that is holy, please stop hating on improving devices meant to display information. (hint: the same device used for the display of moving images is the same one being used for display of information)
What does this have to do with equality? This is about civility.
Let me know when we can define civility so well that a malicious human who games the edge cases can not make everyone's lives miserable while following the rules. Until then, this is a bad rabbit hole to be going down.
I'm an unrepentant carnivore, but if you gave me something where the cost and flavor was about the same but it came without the need for animal husbandry and the associated environmental effects, I'd be very open-minded.
I could get behind this, but I would take it a step further: Just offer Bachelor Chow.:)
while the Boomers with guaranteed pensions and social security (both being paid for by us with us likely to see no benefit or payout ourselves) trying to grab more and more.
Yes. It is being paid by you and me. The only reason we are paying it is that the Federal Government took all of the money that was paid into Social Security before the 1980s and put that into bonds, which was then used to increase American Hegemony. So the money that was paid in previous to 1980 was essentially stolen from the people who paid into Social Security and we are left holding the bag.
The dogpiling is to shift attention and blame. The USA is being hollowed out from the inside. There is still a crunchy outer shell, but all of the tasty stuff on the inside is gone. Someone is Bain'ing the United States as a whole.:(
ooooooo I was right. There is sooooooo much wrong with your post. I really did reply too soon. Meh. I am not up to arguing with you about this so I will just leave this little morsel here:
It was never "your money". Social Security is not a savings plan.
Odd. It was always my money and always has been. It is listed right there in my check as me having earned it, they just took it out and made it "theirs".
Hm. After a moment's thought, I am fairly well along on the idea that you are a plant or government agent. The information and attitudes that you are conveying are exactly opposite of what reality is: Social Security was established to be like a bank account where you are forced to put money towards taking care of yourself once you are older and unable to work. It was not until around 1980 that they took all of the money that was in Social Security and bought bonds with it so the Federal Government could spend the hundreds of billions dollars just sitting there. Well, once they spent that money, it became possible to turn everything around, like you are now, and claim that the "money was never yours". Ummm, yes it was. Fuck you for fucking over so many people with your greed. A country is NOTHING without its people so the idea of sacrificing older people on the altar of advancing American Exceptionalism around the world is a gross abuse of the people who make the country what it is.
The cart is before the horse on this one. The country can't be important than its people because the country is nothing without its people.
I am probably replying too early but I HAD to reply after this:
First, the trust fund really got it's start after the Greenspan Commission finished in 1983. Before that, Social Security basically did not have a trust fund. It was more-or-less spending everything that came in, as designed.
No no no no. Up until right around 1980, Social Security was kept as dollars, just sitting there. I was too young to vote or be involved in politics, but I saw the Senators and such discussing this and voting on it. What was said was something like:
We have hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars just sitting here, set aside for Social Security. This money should be put to work instead of just sitting there. Soooooo, they passed a bill to, essentially, buy US Government bonds with those hundreds of billions of dollars. So they did. So now, there are only "promises" in the Social Security account and Social Security payments are made from the General Fund.
A really nifty way to take a few hundred billion dollars. You get the additional benefit of now pointing out that since Social Security payments to individuals are made out of the General Fund, we can all complain about how the old people are costing us money... when the money those older people paid in was already spent! They already paid for their benefits, but now, it is a drag on modern society because the young are now paying for the old since the money that the older people put in (pre 1980) was spent by the Federal Government.
I may have another reply to your voluminous post, but that Social Security statement REALLY riled me up because I remember thinking about what would happen when they changed the system... and it is happening, just as I predicted when I was 11'ish years old.
American Manufacturers have conceded defeat in the sedan arena because they are too greedy and the only way to make HUGE profits is to bilk customers out of 25% of their money through a tariff introduced in 1973 on trucks.
TL;DR, American auto manufacturers admit that buying Japanese is smarter for the consumer because American auto manufacturers are unable to provide the quality that the Japanese can provide at a lower cost to the consumer.
... If we would just legalize drug use we could ensure people got help they needed...
No. No they wouldn't. I do agree that we need to decriminalize drugs but rather because of the huge Black Market that emerges with all of its attendant criminalities.
Seriously how will they get help? They get involved with drugs because reality sucks waaaaaaaaaayyyyyy too much and suicide is not really a good answer. Helping them with addiction is not going to solve the problem with why they started drugs in the first place. The world needs to be an enticing place to live but in America, living is NOT very enticing because being an economic slave is just not very fun or desirable.
Yes, I specifically left the consumers out of the equation so we could keep this discussion within a few paragraphs instead of entire novels. But, alas, no. I will still try to make this as short as possible.
It doesn't matter if you tax the corporation or the individual for the pollution. The result is the same.
The ends do not justify the means. I don't care if the result you are looking for is the same. I care about fairness.
The answer to your question is obvious. Since you purchase/use the products of these "evil" corporations, maybe even you work for them, you are part of the pollution problem.
Sure. But one of the parties in this equation is profiting off of the situation whereas I am not. Furthermore, per-capita is per country but products are being shipped all over the world. So explain to me how the responsibility of the pollution of all the farmers in California feeding all of those Chinese people falls on my shoulders when counting how much pollution a country makes?
I stopped reading right there.
Fine. If you will be intellectually lazy, then it is ok for me too. I will not listen to any further arguments from you why per-capita is a good metric. Have a nice day.:)
why would an individual or an entity get money for creating pollution?
To be strictly accurate, nobody makes pollution for money.
A more accurate way to read what I said is this:
Entities (companies, governments, anything but individuals) make products such as cars or generate electricity or whatever. These entities then sell these things, but the problem is, that in order to make those things, pollution is created.
Very few (1% I believe is the current accepted number?) people profit from these activities. Since I am not sharing in the profits, why am I being included the calculations for pollution? If I am to be included, then I will just down every manufacturing plant since I am being held responsible and yet not receiving any of the benefits. Furthermore, I have zero control over how manufacturers deal with the pollution of making their products. I have zero ability to monitor that any agreements they may have made concerning pollution are actually being used.
TL;DR, A peasant farmer in China does not cause any pollution nor receive any of the benefits of the manufacturing/energy entities that do cause pollution... so why is the peasant farmers existence any part of the equation. Measuring pollution per-capita is only useful if you remove all pollution from the equation that had nothing to do with any single individual.
Power generation and manufacturing are the largest causes of pollution. The profits from those endeavours go to very few people. Those profits should be allocated towards cleaning up the pollution, not my cash. It is rather neat how per-capita measurements make individuals responsible for cleaning up what industry has caused.
China has 900+ million people who essentially cause zero pollution by themselves. They don't have cars and have little need for electricity. Why should the stuff manufactured in China get a free pass for pollution because of that?
Or, look at it from the other direction. America has extremely efficient manufacturing and manufactures a LOT of stuff for the rest of the world. You could take dozens of countries and add their productivity output together to measure against Americas productivity output and still fall short. And yet, there are only 360 million people in America. So by default, America looks like an old 1880s factory spewing fumes because if you divide all of the pollution generated from all of that manufacturing and then divide it across a much smaller population, yeah, per-capita emissions are going to be absolutely astronomical... even though America has some of the cleanest manufacturing facilities in the world.
No. Per-capita measurements of emissions is evil, wrong, and forces the burden of dealing with the pollution from the entities who created and profited from the generation of pollution onto the general population at large. If you have 900 million other people to lay that on, it makes you look good. If you do not have an extra 900 million people, it makes you look like Love Canal is still a thing in America. For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Pollution should be measured by the entities creating it. The resources to fix it should come from the profits that caused it.
Wake me up when the U.S. has reduced carbon enough to get per capita emissions lower than the EU.
Wake me up when the individual gets as much money for the manufacturing/production that creates pollution as the entity that creates the pollution. Until then, take your per-capita measurements and shove them up your ass. Have a nice day.:)
Making excuses for him when they're unwarranted makes you a Trump lover.
On the bright side, now I know how it works. On the dark side, I have found that you are an idiot.
What part of "Congress is responsible for tariffs" do you NOT understand? I understand HOW you could think that the idea of Congress being responsible for tariffs equates to defending Trump, but all that does is paint you as an idiot.
Hope this map is clear enough for you to find your asshole.
Ah. An idiot AND a jackass. Nice combo.
I have seen you around for years and I have never detected that you were so ignorant, so I rarely paid any attention to the insults others have thrown your way. You have now demonstrated that you are capable of intentionally being an idiot and I will discount anything further that you have to say.
I honestly never expected you to be so short sighted that once you made an inaccurate judgement, that you would stick with it in the face of evidence to the contrary. Why? Do you really hate Trump THAT much to see Trump lovers everywhere?
Surprisingly, I am disgusted by your behavior, but I do hope to see better/smarter behavior from you in the future. Good luck.
I should know better than to reply to Anonymous Coward... but, Trump is not in full control. He may be the most important person in the party, he may have absurd levels of influence, but he is NOT in control and individual members of Congress are absolutely required to vote their conscience, not along party lines. Yeah, I know it doesn't always work like that and the issues are even more complex than what I have described, and yet, what I have said is still true.
My instant reply to you is that the fucking President doesn't have the authority to implement a tariff. That is purely the job of Congress... but
"Raising taxes and tariffs is usually Congress’s job. But on Thursday, President Donald Trump officially raised tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, despite widespread opposition from Republicans in Congress — and it was completely in his right to do so.
Trump signed an executive order calling on the Commerce Department to impose a 25 percent tariff on steel imports and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum. His reason: Foreign countries’ current trade practices with the United States are a threat to national security.
By law, that’s enough of a reason to bypass Congress altogether."
And now I am fucked up. Where is the fucking Constitution? Why is it being abrogated and derogated constantly? Is the Rule of Law a quaint notion from a simpler time? WTF is going on?
that you Trump-lovers adore
Ummm.... why are you calling me a Trump lover? Congress is responsible for tariffs. I was not aware that the Constitution had been subverted in that way. I place the blame where it belongs, not where I wish it would be.
Can you explain something to me please? Why do so many people, apparently including you, make assumptions where there is no reason to do so? What I mean is this: I pointed out that Trump is not supposed to be blamed for something and I get called a Trump lover? I am not seeing a connection. We are supposed to be dealing with reality, not rewriting reality to satisfy our inner desires. I mean, if you twist words, you could say I was defending Trump, but what I was really doing is impeaching Congress... and yet you still chose to see that as defending Trump and assuming I am a Trump lover. WTF? Where is the logic in that?
Slashdot Mirror
If anyone were allowed to just broadcast on whatever frequencies they like for whatever purpose they like, critical infrastructure could be severely impaired and cause real damage/loss/chaos.
If it is so trivial to impact critical infrastructure and cause real damage/loss/chaos, then why aren't The Terrorists doing it? It is not that hard to build a transmitter.
I know it is possible to cause some amount of economic chaos, but if that chaos becomes too severe, it is easily solvable with a HARM missile.
I think you overstate the necessity of the FCC; however, I am not trying to argue against the necessity of the FCC.
If you use autonomous pre-programed GPS based drones, there isn't even necessarily a radio signal to trace back to the person who launched the drone, potentially from several miles away.
No. That is how the Iranians took down a drone. Fake GPS signals. Use gyroscopic navigation. Rely on nothing external.
That's because he lands rockets and cranks out more than half of the EV's in the world. And builds tunnels under LA. Does he still run a school in his spare time?
I have no idea if I like Elon Musk as a person. I do like everything he is doing and the report of him smoking marijuana and deciding he didn't like it was just a bonus (I like an open mind).
Your words describe why he has no trouble finding funding... but to me, they indict the likes of Bill Gates and friends. Bill could pay for all of SpaceX in CASH. And yet, what is Bill doing? He is securing his wealth rather than doing fun (risky and potentially EXTREMELY profitable) things.
Honestly, it is up to each individual person how they spend their money. Once wealth accumulation reaches Gates level, I am thinking something MUST be broken. Nobody is THAT valuable. Does this give me the right to take away Bill's money and do things with it? Absolutely not. At least until it can be proven what is broken. Until then, all I can do is sit back and look and compare the activities of the various billionaires... and think that only Elon Musk is doing anything interesting.
If it was a whole team of programmers that produced the wrong thing then the only sensible conclusion is that the spec was faulty.
Interestingly enough, there were an army of ISPs that did NOT do this. CenturyLink specifically chose to do this, it was not forced on them. You are correct that an army of lawyers was likely consulted, but it was by the marketing executive who thought of this brilliant strategy to comply. What a bonus that executive will receive for this.
So where are the hifi snobs who get their music on a cell phone while they're out and about, and can't tolerate Bluetooth? Are they doing FLAC on their tiny phones? Ridiculous!
Nice strawman argument there. I want a headphone jack for several reasons, none of which you mentioned. Odd that.
I want a headphone jack because I don't like having to charge headphones.
I want a headphone jack because sometimes I am in a very dense EM environment and bluetooth just doesn't work.
I don't like remembering and performing the various dances that bluetooth devices require in order to connect to my phone.
A headphone jack just makes life simpler since the standard has been around for multiple decades.
It is great that bluetooth suffices for your needs. You are in luck, because bluetooth has been offered on phones for years, even with a headphone jack. You don't have to give up your beloved bluetooth in order for the rest of us to have a headphone jack. How cool is that?
Yes. We get it. Since moving images (movies, tv shows) are not improved, there is absolutely no use for a display that is 8k. Nobody ever uses these for the display of information, they are only used to display moving images where details are not necessarily meaningful. All display devices are to be measured on how useful displaying moving images is. Nothing else matters.
CGA was the pinnacle of displaying information. Being able to actually view the picture elements (pixels for you newbs) provides definition and clarity in the display of information.
For things where details are not terribly important, like live action stories, 480p is fine. Hell, even primitive stick figures are fine to tell stories (thanks Randall!).
If you are displaying information where each detail has meaning, finer resolution means being able to put more information into a display of size X.
You are arguing from use-case 1 and completely disregarding use-case 2... which is weird, because this is supposed to be a site for people interested in details, not pretty pictures.
People like you have informed me that I have no use or need for 4k. I am told there is no discernible difference between 1080p and 4k. I absolutely loved the change the 1080p to 4k despite what I was told and I eagerly look forward to 8k despite what I am being told.
TL;DR, there is a HUGE difference between a device meant to display moving images and a device meant to display information. Feel free to hate on improving the picture quality of the device used to display moving images but for the love of all that is holy, please stop hating on improving devices meant to display information. (hint: the same device used for the display of moving images is the same one being used for display of information)
Hug you!
Asshole.
(just being silly)
What does this have to do with equality? This is about civility.
Let me know when we can define civility so well that a malicious human who games the edge cases can not make everyone's lives miserable while following the rules. Until then, this is a bad rabbit hole to be going down.
I'm an unrepentant carnivore, but if you gave me something where the cost and flavor was about the same but it came without the need for animal husbandry and the associated environmental effects, I'd be very open-minded.
I could get behind this, but I would take it a step further: Just offer Bachelor Chow. :)
Everything is kosher but one thing:
while the Boomers with guaranteed pensions and social security (both being paid for by us with us likely to see no benefit or payout ourselves) trying to grab more and more.
Yes. It is being paid by you and me. The only reason we are paying it is that the Federal Government took all of the money that was paid into Social Security before the 1980s and put that into bonds, which was then used to increase American Hegemony. So the money that was paid in previous to 1980 was essentially stolen from the people who paid into Social Security and we are left holding the bag.
Have a nice day.
The dogpiling is to shift attention and blame. The USA is being hollowed out from the inside. There is still a crunchy outer shell, but all of the tasty stuff on the inside is gone. Someone is Bain'ing the United States as a whole. :(
ooooooo I was right. There is sooooooo much wrong with your post. I really did reply too soon. Meh. I am not up to arguing with you about this so I will just leave this little morsel here:
It was never "your money". Social Security is not a savings plan.
Odd. It was always my money and always has been. It is listed right there in my check as me having earned it, they just took it out and made it "theirs".
Hm. After a moment's thought, I am fairly well along on the idea that you are a plant or government agent. The information and attitudes that you are conveying are exactly opposite of what reality is: Social Security was established to be like a bank account where you are forced to put money towards taking care of yourself once you are older and unable to work. It was not until around 1980 that they took all of the money that was in Social Security and bought bonds with it so the Federal Government could spend the hundreds of billions dollars just sitting there. Well, once they spent that money, it became possible to turn everything around, like you are now, and claim that the "money was never yours". Ummm, yes it was. Fuck you for fucking over so many people with your greed. A country is NOTHING without its people so the idea of sacrificing older people on the altar of advancing American Exceptionalism around the world is a gross abuse of the people who make the country what it is.
The cart is before the horse on this one. The country can't be important than its people because the country is nothing without its people.
I am probably replying too early but I HAD to reply after this:
First, the trust fund really got it's start after the Greenspan Commission finished in 1983. Before that, Social Security basically did not have a trust fund. It was more-or-less spending everything that came in, as designed.
No no no no. Up until right around 1980, Social Security was kept as dollars, just sitting there. I was too young to vote or be involved in politics, but I saw the Senators and such discussing this and voting on it. What was said was something like:
We have hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars just sitting here, set aside for Social Security. This money should be put to work instead of just sitting there. Soooooo, they passed a bill to, essentially, buy US Government bonds with those hundreds of billions of dollars. So they did. So now, there are only "promises" in the Social Security account and Social Security payments are made from the General Fund.
A really nifty way to take a few hundred billion dollars. You get the additional benefit of now pointing out that since Social Security payments to individuals are made out of the General Fund, we can all complain about how the old people are costing us money... when the money those older people paid in was already spent! They already paid for their benefits, but now, it is a drag on modern society because the young are now paying for the old since the money that the older people put in (pre 1980) was spent by the Federal Government.
I may have another reply to your voluminous post, but that Social Security statement REALLY riled me up because I remember thinking about what would happen when they changed the system... and it is happening, just as I predicted when I was 11'ish years old.
But why it surprises anyone that Uber, perhaps the most amoral company in the world, behaves this way is beyond me
Whoah whoah WHOAH there big guy. Uber? Most amoral?
They are bad, I will grant that. I will even go with very bad... but most amoral? Pharma and energy companies surely beat Uber for most amoral.
To reword what you have said:
American Manufacturers have conceded defeat in the sedan arena because they are too greedy and the only way to make HUGE profits is to bilk customers out of 25% of their money through a tariff introduced in 1973 on trucks.
TL;DR, American auto manufacturers admit that buying Japanese is smarter for the consumer because American auto manufacturers are unable to provide the quality that the Japanese can provide at a lower cost to the consumer.
That makes about as much sense as saying there are "dating nerds". Sports don't matter, and if you think they do, you are not a nerd.
Oooooo. It is unusual for you to display such an obvious blind spot.
The sports nerds don't play sports, they track stats, theory-craft, pontificate, predict, etc.
So yes, there really are sports nerds. I am not one of them, but I have met some before. Have a nice day kind sir. :)
... If we would just legalize drug use we could ensure people got help they needed ...
No. No they wouldn't. I do agree that we need to decriminalize drugs but rather because of the huge Black Market that emerges with all of its attendant criminalities.
Seriously how will they get help? They get involved with drugs because reality sucks waaaaaaaaaayyyyyy too much and suicide is not really a good answer. Helping them with addiction is not going to solve the problem with why they started drugs in the first place. The world needs to be an enticing place to live but in America, living is NOT very enticing because being an economic slave is just not very fun or desirable.
Are you sure? My wife tells me that when I have sex with her, it makes her sick.
Weird. When I have sex with her, she doesn't get sick. I wonder what the difference is? ;)
Yes, I specifically left the consumers out of the equation so we could keep this discussion within a few paragraphs instead of entire novels. But, alas, no. I will still try to make this as short as possible.
It doesn't matter if you tax the corporation or the individual for the pollution. The result is the same.
The ends do not justify the means. I don't care if the result you are looking for is the same. I care about fairness.
The answer to your question is obvious. Since you purchase/use the products of these "evil" corporations, maybe even you work for them, you are part of the pollution problem.
Sure. But one of the parties in this equation is profiting off of the situation whereas I am not. Furthermore, per-capita is per country but products are being shipped all over the world. So explain to me how the responsibility of the pollution of all the farmers in California feeding all of those Chinese people falls on my shoulders when counting how much pollution a country makes?
I stopped reading right there.
Fine. If you will be intellectually lazy, then it is ok for me too. I will not listen to any further arguments from you why per-capita is a good metric. Have a nice day. :)
why would an individual or an entity get money for creating pollution?
To be strictly accurate, nobody makes pollution for money.
A more accurate way to read what I said is this:
Entities (companies, governments, anything but individuals) make products such as cars or generate electricity or whatever. These entities then sell these things, but the problem is, that in order to make those things, pollution is created.
Very few (1% I believe is the current accepted number?) people profit from these activities. Since I am not sharing in the profits, why am I being included the calculations for pollution? If I am to be included, then I will just down every manufacturing plant since I am being held responsible and yet not receiving any of the benefits. Furthermore, I have zero control over how manufacturers deal with the pollution of making their products. I have zero ability to monitor that any agreements they may have made concerning pollution are actually being used.
TL;DR, A peasant farmer in China does not cause any pollution nor receive any of the benefits of the manufacturing/energy entities that do cause pollution... so why is the peasant farmers existence any part of the equation. Measuring pollution per-capita is only useful if you remove all pollution from the equation that had nothing to do with any single individual.
Power generation and manufacturing are the largest causes of pollution. The profits from those endeavours go to very few people. Those profits should be allocated towards cleaning up the pollution, not my cash. It is rather neat how per-capita measurements make individuals responsible for cleaning up what industry has caused.
China has 900+ million people who essentially cause zero pollution by themselves. They don't have cars and have little need for electricity. Why should the stuff manufactured in China get a free pass for pollution because of that?
Or, look at it from the other direction. America has extremely efficient manufacturing and manufactures a LOT of stuff for the rest of the world. You could take dozens of countries and add their productivity output together to measure against Americas productivity output and still fall short. And yet, there are only 360 million people in America. So by default, America looks like an old 1880s factory spewing fumes because if you divide all of the pollution generated from all of that manufacturing and then divide it across a much smaller population, yeah, per-capita emissions are going to be absolutely astronomical... even though America has some of the cleanest manufacturing facilities in the world.
No. Per-capita measurements of emissions is evil, wrong, and forces the burden of dealing with the pollution from the entities who created and profited from the generation of pollution onto the general population at large. If you have 900 million other people to lay that on, it makes you look good. If you do not have an extra 900 million people, it makes you look like Love Canal is still a thing in America. For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Pollution should be measured by the entities creating it. The resources to fix it should come from the profits that caused it.
Wake me up when the U.S. has reduced carbon enough to get per capita emissions lower than the EU.
Wake me up when the individual gets as much money for the manufacturing/production that creates pollution as the entity that creates the pollution. Until then, take your per-capita measurements and shove them up your ass. Have a nice day. :)
Making excuses for him when they're unwarranted makes you a Trump lover.
On the bright side, now I know how it works. On the dark side, I have found that you are an idiot.
What part of "Congress is responsible for tariffs" do you NOT understand? I understand HOW you could think that the idea of Congress being responsible for tariffs equates to defending Trump, but all that does is paint you as an idiot.
Hope this map is clear enough for you to find your asshole.
Ah. An idiot AND a jackass. Nice combo.
I have seen you around for years and I have never detected that you were so ignorant, so I rarely paid any attention to the insults others have thrown your way. You have now demonstrated that you are capable of intentionally being an idiot and I will discount anything further that you have to say.
I honestly never expected you to be so short sighted that once you made an inaccurate judgement, that you would stick with it in the face of evidence to the contrary. Why? Do you really hate Trump THAT much to see Trump lovers everywhere?
Surprisingly, I am disgusted by your behavior, but I do hope to see better/smarter behavior from you in the future. Good luck.
I should know better than to reply to Anonymous Coward... but, Trump is not in full control. He may be the most important person in the party, he may have absurd levels of influence, but he is NOT in control and individual members of Congress are absolutely required to vote their conscience, not along party lines. Yeah, I know it doesn't always work like that and the issues are even more complex than what I have described, and yet, what I have said is still true.
My instant reply to you is that the fucking President doesn't have the authority to implement a tariff. That is purely the job of Congress... but
"Raising taxes and tariffs is usually Congress’s job. But on Thursday, President Donald Trump officially raised tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, despite widespread opposition from Republicans in Congress — and it was completely in his right to do so.
Trump signed an executive order calling on the Commerce Department to impose a 25 percent tariff on steel imports and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum. His reason: Foreign countries’ current trade practices with the United States are a threat to national security.
By law, that’s enough of a reason to bypass Congress altogether."
Taken from: https://www.vox.com/2018/3/8/1...
And now I am fucked up. Where is the fucking Constitution? Why is it being abrogated and derogated constantly? Is the Rule of Law a quaint notion from a simpler time? WTF is going on?
that you Trump-lovers adore
Ummm.... why are you calling me a Trump lover? Congress is responsible for tariffs. I was not aware that the Constitution had been subverted in that way. I place the blame where it belongs, not where I wish it would be.
Can you explain something to me please? Why do so many people, apparently including you, make assumptions where there is no reason to do so? What I mean is this: I pointed out that Trump is not supposed to be blamed for something and I get called a Trump lover? I am not seeing a connection. We are supposed to be dealing with reality, not rewriting reality to satisfy our inner desires. I mean, if you twist words, you could say I was defending Trump, but what I was really doing is impeaching Congress... and yet you still chose to see that as defending Trump and assuming I am a Trump lover. WTF? Where is the logic in that?