Good points, but you are using faulty numbers to dispute #2. Unemployment is down only if you exclude those that dropped out of the labor force. But that may (probably) can't be blamed solely on the administration. I'm looking at the Fed for pumping money into banks, and banks not lending the money out to small businesses (which has pushed the market up somewhat).
Being a puppet for Wall Street? Sure, that seems like a valid criticism. Of this and every other administration in recent times, I suppose.
The answer to this is a MSA + a high deductible insurance plan. You use the MSA to cover smaller expenses and the insurance plan for situations like yours (which sounds like it was bad).
The added benefit of an MSA is that it causes people to shop around a little.
Insurance is not a bad thing by any stretch. Even that dream of single payer is really just an national insurance plan. It starts to get problematic when large numbers of people want insurance to cover smaller issues ("insurance covers birth control? I want my Viagra free!"). This leads to the costs going up on everyone.
But... The affordable healthcare act is NOT universal healthcare. It mandates that everyone has coverage (with a penalty for those who do not), but it doesn't do anything in terms of guaranteeing it.
This article sounds like someone trying to find some positive tech angle for a piece of legislation.
It may help lower costs (or increase them), but that is something we will see soon enough.
What would be the point? Gay people would still want both in order to have full equality. Some churches are happy to marry gay couples.
Goes along the lines of group membership...
All citizens of a country should operate under the same rules. Hence, having a 'domestic partnership' for all citizens can work if the majority want that.
However, not all citizens are members of the same faith. If a person wants to have their religious union honored, they can either a) change religions, or b) change the religion they follow. But it is preferred that you still remain a member of that religion if you go for b).
I think Silver stands out because unlike too many modern American politicians, he is interested in the facts, and not what bullshit he can use the data to support.
So it's not so much that he's done a fantastic job figuring all this out, it's just that he's fucking honest about the results unlike a certain perpetually-deluded political party I'm sick of naming.
You are only thinking of one perpetually deluded political party? I have the opposite experience. I can't name a political party/organization that wasn't perpetually deluded.
I'm sorry, but if a 2% cut to expenditure is crippling, then the system deserves to fail.
Know what a government with 2% less money looks like? Take a look at the budget from 2010. That's what it looks like. I know, using the 2010 budget for 2013. Complete madness!
That may work for pro sports, but not for college sports. In fact, because teams usually lose their nucleus after winning it all (players declare for the draft), it is rare for a team to make it to the final game two or more years in a row.
Except that it was signed under the Clinton Administration. True, Bush (the elder) did start the whole thing, but Clinton came into office, made some changes, and endorsed it.
Invested in the US government? Really? I guess you are making a semantic argument, but then people in the press wouldn't refer to SS going into "red"... meaning that it is paying out more than it is taking in.
In the commonly used definition of an investment, the institution does not/can not go into the red and remain viable. If it does, then that means it has failed, and everybody loses their money.
Your definition of investment seems more in line with Bernie Madoff's.
I agree with the parent. There is no reason for a reviewer to know the authors names/university affiliations. Only the editors should be allowed this information. Are there any journals that follow this practice?
With a weakened social safety net, rampant unemployment, eastern-european migrants taking over the few remaining jobs and the super-rich from abroad (mostly the middle east) causing housing prices to skyrocket...
It also has nothing to do with the looting of the public done by the banksters and their enablers, the politicians.
Finally, the Met police are trusted and can't be blamed for the vandals and looter's complete despise for the actions of the law enforcement... it's not the fault of the police that they are unaccountable.
That's no justification to smash the shops and cars of people mostly unrelated to the issues you cited.
Don't try to say that there is a reason for this. Marches/sit-ins/hunger-strikes are peaceful, noble forms of expression. Rioting is juvenile and only hurts your fellow citizens.
Re:Kevin Bacon has played many roles in his career
on
X-Men: First Class
·
· Score: 2
Halle Berry would have been too young to show up in this film. Had Storm been one of the first class members, she would be in her late forties/early fifties when they shift to present day stories. Wolverine and Mystique both age slowly, so they can make cameos without breaking continuity.
"Independent Judgment. When requested to provide advice on a particular issue, the IAC assembles an international panel of experts. Serving on a voluntary basis, panel members meet and review current, cutting-edge knowledge on the topic; and prepare a draft report on its findings, conclusions, and recommendations. All IAC draft reports undergo an intensive process of peer-review by other international experts. Only when the IAC Board is satisfied that feedback from the peer review has been thoughtfully considered and incorporated is a final report released to the requesting organization and the public. Every effort is made to ensure that IAC reports are free from any national or regional bias",
But then again, THAT report was only signed by 2500 scientists...
So the plant is suppose to produce 480,000 MWh per year which works out to an average capacity of 55 MW. So we get 0.8 permanent employees per MW. http://www.tonopahsolar.com/
At slashdot's favorite nuclear power plant Vermont Yankee, there are more that 650 employees for a plant that does not manage to run at 620 MW all that well. Let's give them 80% up time. That is 1.3 employees per MW.
Nuclear power seems less efficient than solar power by this measure. Maybe nuclear power is just a "make work" type jobs program which actually hurts the economy overall.
Couple of issues:
1) The solar plant is still a PROJECT. So the claim of MW generated and number of employees needed are estimates. They may be accurate, but it is not fair to compare estimates against an existing installation.
2) Generational differences. Comparing an existing nuclear plant to a to-be-built solar plant is unfair. You should compare the solar plant to a to-be built or recently built nuclear plant so that the nuke can also benefit from the same technological advancements.
I'm a big fan of solar, but this type of comparison is not proper.
Similar to how chip manufacturers will compare an existing competitors chip to the theoretical performance of one of their future processors.
The current climate of the US is shifting away from valuing science and logic. And it is not solely because of the religious right. Look at the dwindling numbers of US-born science majors in universities. Science is just not that popular. (But was it ever really cool?) Look at the reaction to Dr. Summers of Harvard when he put forth a HYPOTHESIS about the small percentage of women in science. He got butchered.
When you look at our society, you can see that people have very bad reactions to ideas that don't fit into their own framework of how the world works. This shouldn't be surprising; humans have been this way for long time. What has changed, however, is that now, people start responding to these challenging ideas, not with logic or reason, but emotional arguments. This happens on both sides. The only difference is that the religous are easy targets.
I've been wishing that I could purchase TV programming by the show or channel instead of getting a large package of 50 channels when I don't watch 40 of them anyway. This has the potential to allow someone like me to purchase individual shows (channels in the future?) without any extra costs. But I don't know if that is the direction they want to take.
You're comment on a "near-universal" acceptance of a theory makes me cringe. At various points in time:
A majority of scientists thought that the Earth was flat. There was that one guy who disagreed, but he was a nut.
A majority of scientists believed that the best cure for a headache was to bleed the patient. I'm glad some nut disagreed.
A majority of scientists believed that human flight was impossible. Thank goodness for nuts.
My point is, the majority has been wrong from time to time. What needs to be examined is the quality of the research and the data. And I think labelling people "quacks" and "charlatons" does nothing to advance the debate. (I know you didn't do anything like that, but I had to say this)
As far as the actual debate on global warming, I usually go from question to question. The latest is that at one point there were discrepancies between surface measurements, balloon measurements, and satellite measurements. What was the solution to this problem? Last time I checked (a couple of years ago), the surface temperatures were in disagreement with the other two.
And how do we account for the Sun in all of this? And why is Mars warming as well?
I don't claim that these points are still open questions. Just that I have not read or seen the answers yet. I'd appreciate someone helping me fix that.
The problem I have is that there is too many questions to answer for me to feel comfortable going one way or the other. And no, assuming that worst is coming is not the best strategy. That would put the breaks on the world economy, which I think would be a bad thing.
Okay, so we agree. For the planet, we don't have to care. For the human race, we should pay attention. Just like the dinosaurs. They were the dominant life forms at one point. Then the environment shifted and, before they can blink, they are fossils in museums. There is a difference, however. We can adapt. Let's say that the oceans do actually rise, as predicted by the global warming theory. Do you expect a sudden "Day after Tomorrow" type shift, or a gradual (weeks-months-years) change? Given the rate of change we are seeing, I would guess the latter (months-years). Unless something drastic were to happen (say, a meteor strike), in which case, we are screwed anyway. Now, given the tenacity of animal and plant life, as long as a proper level of oxygen and drinking water can be found(which would be the case if the changes are gradual ie months-years), I think humanity will survive. As long as the population is not packed into a small area on the planet and instead is spread out around the globe, someone will survive. So fear for the human race (from my perspective) in general is not so great. If you are worried about large segments of our population, well... large segments are already pretty screwed anyway. I always smirk whenever I hear people around me (in the US) talk about being poor. I think back to my trip to India to visit my family there. A peson has no idea of poor until they see it in a "developing" country. These are large segments of the population that have almost no chance of improving their lives. I am digressing now, and I apologize. Getting back to the subject, I think the only individuals that are concerned about the "assumed" level of approaching chaos are the ones that are already comfortable. Like, say, people that can spend hours typing away on silly machines discussing the fate of humanity;)
I think the real fear people have is for their "way of life". For instance, people in the US would be upset if, say, California were sunk in the ocean. Okay, not all of us, but quite a few. And people would be upset if they have to move north to avoid high temperatures. But, unless I am missing something, all the changes that are forcast are manageable in the sense that people can move to higher elevations and north (or south) to avoid increased temps. The ones that are in power right now won't like it since their precious land will become useless in many cases, but so what?
One last thought to ponder. From what I've read, the sun does have some contribution to the climate on this planet. It varies depending on your source, but it seems that, if it were not for humans, there would still be some warming. Look at Mars, for example.
http://www.mos.org/cst/article/80/9.html
My question is: What should the steady state temperature of the Earth be, if no humans were around? Given the state of the sun and the solar system, could it be possible that the Earth is really correcting for being a little too cold? I'm thinking of a kettle on a stove. Right when the heat is applied, the water in the kettle has not changed in temp too much. But gradually, it does increase.
Okay, if you made sense of that last bit, you are quite intelligent. Because I am plain tired:)
I have to use this quote on the subject of fear. My English teacher would never forgive me if I missed this opportunity. I apologize if you get this all the time from the nickname:
"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when...
it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain."
And with that, I look forward to more debate...
You bring up some good points. However, the Earth has experienced much more extreme weather without human intervention. Is fear of an extreme valid if the extreme is really not that extreme in terms of the planet?
I remember watching a Carl Sagan video series. I believe it was called "Cosmos" or something to that effect. Anyway, Carl mentioned that global cooling was possible. This was back in the early 80s. The point is that there was a significant population of scientists who were afraid of global COOLING. This was not too long ago, yet there were significant numbers that were worried about the opposite of today's fears. As time passed, we found errors in our models, noticed an increase, and the global warming fears started up. Now, we should believe that scientists understand every interaction on a planetwide scale to make such claims? Sorry, but I'm not convinced that human activity is the major contributor to large scale global climate change. There are too many differing opinions in the scientific community. Try googling with "Global Warming Solar Activity" for some more "interesting" sites. I believe those sites are just as "factual" as the ones you cited.
>Sir, *you* are a kook. I guess that's why you're posting as AC.
>*PLONK!*
Why the HELL is the parent post modded up when the grandparent post is still at 0? The grandparent was at least trying to refute the originating post, which got a five. The post directly above this one is just a first grader's response to criticism. Are you friends with Cally or something?
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. Wait, are we discussing the tweets or the Steele dossier?
Good points, but you are using faulty numbers to dispute #2. Unemployment is down only if you exclude those that dropped out of the labor force. But that may (probably) can't be blamed solely on the administration. I'm looking at the Fed for pumping money into banks, and banks not lending the money out to small businesses (which has pushed the market up somewhat).
Being a puppet for Wall Street? Sure, that seems like a valid criticism. Of this and every other administration in recent times, I suppose.
The answer to this is a MSA + a high deductible insurance plan. You use the MSA to cover smaller expenses and the insurance plan for situations like yours (which sounds like it was bad).
The added benefit of an MSA is that it causes people to shop around a little.
Insurance is not a bad thing by any stretch. Even that dream of single payer is really just an national insurance plan. It starts to get problematic when large numbers of people want insurance to cover smaller issues ("insurance covers birth control? I want my Viagra free!"). This leads to the costs going up on everyone.
But... The affordable healthcare act is NOT universal healthcare. It mandates that everyone has coverage (with a penalty for those who do not), but it doesn't do anything in terms of guaranteeing it.
This article sounds like someone trying to find some positive tech angle for a piece of legislation.
It may help lower costs (or increase them), but that is something we will see soon enough.
What would be the point? Gay people would still want both in order to have full equality. Some churches are happy to marry gay couples.
Goes along the lines of group membership...
All citizens of a country should operate under the same rules. Hence, having a 'domestic partnership' for all citizens can work if the majority want that.
However, not all citizens are members of the same faith. If a person wants to have their religious union honored, they can either a) change religions, or b) change the religion they follow. But it is preferred that you still remain a member of that religion if you go for b).
I think Silver stands out because unlike too many modern American politicians, he is interested in the facts, and not what bullshit he can use the data to support.
So it's not so much that he's done a fantastic job figuring all this out, it's just that he's fucking honest about the results unlike a certain perpetually-deluded political party I'm sick of naming.
You are only thinking of one perpetually deluded political party? I have the opposite experience. I can't name a political party/organization that wasn't perpetually deluded.
I'm sorry, but if a 2% cut to expenditure is crippling, then the system deserves to fail.
Know what a government with 2% less money looks like? Take a look at the budget from 2010. That's what it looks like.
I know, using the 2010 budget for 2013. Complete madness!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Total_outlays_in_recent_budget_submissions
If you are really brave, take a look at the budget from 2001 (Clinton). 1.9 trillion.
That may work for pro sports, but not for college sports. In fact, because teams usually lose their nucleus after winning it all (players declare for the draft), it is rare for a team to make it to the final game two or more years in a row.
Except that it was signed under the Clinton Administration. True, Bush (the elder) did start the whole thing, but Clinton came into office, made some changes, and endorsed it.
Invested in the US government? Really? I guess you are making a semantic argument, but then people in the press wouldn't refer to SS going into "red"... meaning that it is paying out more than it is taking in.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/5/social-security-red-first-time-ever/
In the commonly used definition of an investment, the institution does not/can not go into the red and remain viable. If it does, then that means it has failed, and everybody loses their money.
Your definition of investment seems more in line with Bernie Madoff's.
I agree with the parent. There is no reason for a reviewer to know the authors names/university affiliations. Only the editors should be allowed this information. Are there any journals that follow this practice?
With a weakened social safety net, rampant unemployment, eastern-european migrants taking over the few remaining jobs and the super-rich from abroad (mostly the middle east) causing housing prices to skyrocket...
It also has nothing to do with the looting of the public done by the banksters and their enablers, the politicians.
Finally, the Met police are trusted and can't be blamed for the vandals and looter's complete despise for the actions of the law enforcement... it's not the fault of the police that they are unaccountable.
That's no justification to smash the shops and cars of people mostly unrelated to the issues you cited.
Don't try to say that there is a reason for this. Marches/sit-ins/hunger-strikes are peaceful, noble forms of expression. Rioting is juvenile and only hurts your fellow citizens.
Halle Berry would have been too young to show up in this film. Had Storm been one of the first class members, she would be in her late forties/early fifties when they shift to present day stories. Wolverine and Mystique both age slowly, so they can make cameos without breaking continuity.
Oh really? http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/IAC_report/IAC%20Report.pdf
"Independent Judgment. When requested to provide advice on a particular issue, the IAC assembles an
international panel of experts. Serving on a voluntary basis, panel members meet and review current,
cutting-edge knowledge on the topic; and prepare a draft report on its findings, conclusions, and
recommendations. All IAC draft reports undergo an intensive process of peer-review by other
international experts. Only when the IAC Board is satisfied that feedback from the peer review has been
thoughtfully considered and incorporated is a final report released to the requesting organization and the
public. Every effort is made to ensure that IAC reports are free from any national or regional bias",
But then again, THAT report was only signed by 2500 scientists...
Right, nothing ever gets past the IPCC...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
So the plant is suppose to produce 480,000 MWh per year which works out to an average capacity of 55 MW. So we get 0.8 permanent employees per MW. http://www.tonopahsolar.com/
At slashdot's favorite nuclear power plant Vermont Yankee, there are more that 650 employees for a plant that does not manage to run at 620 MW all that well. Let's give them 80% up time. That is 1.3 employees per MW.
Nuclear power seems less efficient than solar power by this measure. Maybe nuclear power is just a "make work" type jobs program which actually hurts the economy overall.
Couple of issues:
1) The solar plant is still a PROJECT. So the claim of MW generated and number of employees needed are estimates. They may be accurate, but it is not fair to compare estimates against an existing installation.
2) Generational differences. Comparing an existing nuclear plant to a to-be-built solar plant is unfair. You should compare the solar plant to a to-be built or recently built nuclear plant so that the nuke can also benefit from the same technological advancements.
I'm a big fan of solar, but this type of comparison is not proper.
Similar to how chip manufacturers will compare an existing competitors chip to the theoretical performance of one of their future processors.
It goes a little deeper than just yes and no.
The current climate of the US is shifting away from valuing science and logic. And it is not solely because of the religious right. Look at the dwindling numbers of US-born science majors in universities. Science is just not that popular. (But was it ever really cool?) Look at the reaction to Dr. Summers of Harvard when he put forth a HYPOTHESIS about the small percentage of women in science. He got butchered.
When you look at our society, you can see that people have very bad reactions to ideas that don't fit into their own framework of how the world works. This shouldn't be surprising; humans have been this way for long time. What has changed, however, is that now, people start responding to these challenging ideas, not with logic or reason, but emotional arguments. This happens on both sides. The only difference is that the religous are easy targets.
I've been wishing that I could purchase TV programming by the show or channel instead of getting a large package of 50 channels when I don't watch 40 of them anyway. This has the potential to allow someone like me to purchase individual shows (channels in the future?) without any extra costs. But I don't know if that is the direction they want to take.
"the fact that the science has reached the status of accepted fact in popular discourse."
"News for nerds, stuff that matters."
Since when do nerds care about what is popular?
Seriously, we should be focusing on the areas of legitimate debate, not what a bunch of people believe because Ben Affleck says it is so.
You're comment on a "near-universal" acceptance of a theory makes me cringe. At various points in time:
A majority of scientists thought that the Earth was flat. There was that one guy who disagreed, but he was a nut.
A majority of scientists believed that the best cure for a headache was to bleed the patient. I'm glad some nut disagreed.
A majority of scientists believed that human flight was impossible. Thank goodness for nuts.
My point is, the majority has been wrong from time to time. What needs to be examined is the quality of the research and the data. And I think labelling people "quacks" and "charlatons" does nothing to advance the debate. (I know you didn't do anything like that, but I had to say this)
As far as the actual debate on global warming, I usually go from question to question. The latest is that at one point there were discrepancies between surface measurements, balloon measurements, and satellite measurements. What was the solution to this problem? Last time I checked (a couple of years ago), the surface temperatures were in disagreement with the other two.
And how do we account for the Sun in all of this? And why is Mars warming as well?
I don't claim that these points are still open questions. Just that I have not read or seen the answers yet. I'd appreciate someone helping me fix that.
The problem I have is that there is too many
questions to answer for me to feel comfortable going one way or the other. And no, assuming that worst is coming is not the best strategy. That would put the breaks on the world economy, which I think would be a bad thing.
Okay, so we agree. For the planet, we don't have to care. For the human race, we should pay attention. Just like the dinosaurs. They were the dominant life forms at one point. Then the environment shifted and, before they can blink, they are fossils in museums. There is a difference, however. We can adapt. Let's say that the oceans do actually rise, as predicted by the global warming theory. Do you expect a sudden "Day after Tomorrow" type shift, or a gradual (weeks-months-years) change? Given the rate of change we are seeing, I would guess the latter (months-years). Unless something drastic were to happen (say, a meteor strike), in which case, we are screwed anyway. Now, given the tenacity of animal and plant life, as long as a proper level of oxygen and drinking water can be found(which would be the case if the changes are gradual ie months-years), I think humanity will survive. As long as the population is not packed into a small area on the planet and instead is spread out around the globe, someone will survive. So fear for the human race (from my perspective) in general is not so great. If you are worried about large segments of our population, well... large segments are already pretty screwed anyway. I always smirk whenever I hear people around me (in the US) talk about being poor. I think back to my trip to India to visit my family there. A peson has no idea of poor until they see it in a "developing" country. These are large segments of the population that have almost no chance of improving their lives. I am digressing now, and I apologize. Getting back to the subject, I think the only individuals that are concerned about the "assumed" level of approaching chaos are the ones that are already comfortable. Like, say, people that can spend hours typing away on silly machines discussing the fate of humanity;) I think the real fear people have is for their "way of life". For instance, people in the US would be upset if, say, California were sunk in the ocean. Okay, not all of us, but quite a few. And people would be upset if they have to move north to avoid high temperatures. But, unless I am missing something, all the changes that are forcast are manageable in the sense that people can move to higher elevations and north (or south) to avoid increased temps. The ones that are in power right now won't like it since their precious land will become useless in many cases, but so what? One last thought to ponder. From what I've read, the sun does have some contribution to the climate on this planet. It varies depending on your source, but it seems that, if it were not for humans, there would still be some warming. Look at Mars, for example. http://www.mos.org/cst/article/80/9.html My question is: What should the steady state temperature of the Earth be, if no humans were around? Given the state of the sun and the solar system, could it be possible that the Earth is really correcting for being a little too cold? I'm thinking of a kettle on a stove. Right when the heat is applied, the water in the kettle has not changed in temp too much. But gradually, it does increase. Okay, if you made sense of that last bit, you are quite intelligent. Because I am plain tired:) I have to use this quote on the subject of fear. My English teacher would never forgive me if I missed this opportunity. I apologize if you get this all the time from the nickname: "I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when ...
it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain."
And with that, I look forward to more debate...
You bring up some good points. However, the Earth has experienced much more extreme weather without human intervention. Is fear of an extreme valid if the extreme is really not that extreme in terms of the planet?
I remember watching a Carl Sagan video series. I believe it was called "Cosmos" or something to that effect. Anyway, Carl mentioned that global cooling was possible. This was back in the early 80s. The point is that there was a significant population of scientists who were afraid of global COOLING. This was not too long ago, yet there were significant numbers that were worried about the opposite of today's fears. As time passed, we found errors in our models, noticed an increase, and the global warming fears started up. Now, we should believe that scientists understand every interaction on a planetwide scale to make such claims? Sorry, but I'm not convinced that human activity is the major contributor to large scale global climate change. There are too many differing opinions in the scientific community. Try googling with "Global Warming Solar Activity" for some more "interesting" sites. I believe those sites are just as "factual" as the ones you cited.
>Sir, *you* are a kook. I guess that's why you're posting as AC.
>*PLONK!*
Why the HELL is the parent post modded up when the grandparent post is still at 0? The grandparent was at least trying to refute the originating post, which got a five. The post directly above this one is just a first grader's response to criticism. Are you friends with Cally or something?