And other morons will trust gigabytes of data on a single hard drive with no backups kept behind a dusty desk in their home...though I guess you could sell your dead hard drive for people to extract the trading cards off of if you really wanted.
If money was so easy to create, we'd have huge inflation. There is some growth of the world wealth, but it's mostly poorer countries becoming industrialized. When we have large growth, it's generally unsustainable and we get things like the housing bubble.
Environmental policy definitely is a luxury - and the US is definitely rich enough to afford it as the wealthiest country. It's also an investment in the future of the country. Coal/Oil are unsustainable fuel sources, so the quicker we move off of them, the better off we'll be in the future, even if we seem poorer compared to third world countries growth wise.
If you make a lot of money from a song, the money is coming from the people that pay to listen to the song.
The environmentalists that you read about on the news blocking projects are the most extreme ones. They don't represent the whole movement, but they do counter the people that have no regard for the planet and would seek to destroy the coastline in order to get a slightly cheaper source of oil.
Money doesn't appear out of thin air - it comes from somewhere and goes somewhere. Replacing coal plants with cleaner sources will hurt the coal industry, but others will benefit.
Pretty much all projects will have people upset - usually NIMBY complaints. I agree it's ridiculous to complain about wind/solar/wave/geothermal/nuclear power when the alternative will be a more polluting source, not nothing.
Well the debate on whether the climate is changing is pretty much over. The current debate is whether it's caused by humans. The oil companies would like you to believe that it isn't and we should keep buying their product.
And what if we spend trillions of dollars to end up with more advanced technology and a better planet? That's bad for some reason? This point shows the real reason why people want to ignore global warming - it's an inconvenient truth.
No one said the debate was over - science is always looking for more answers.
The exact atomic weight of hydrogen might not be known, but we're pretty sure it's a positive number, not 0 or negative. Of course you could probably find some scientists that will tell you it's 0 for the right price.
That argument that "science is not a democracy" is ignoring what the situation is. It's not that scientists have voted and decided on global warming, it's that multiple independent and reputable scientists have come to the same conclusions through peer review. The data points to the same place. There are only a few fringe groups with suspect funding sources that think there is no global warming. Following their methods and research you would come to the same conclusion.
I suppose next you're going to tell me that the moon landing was fake too because you saw a scientist on youtube tell you there are no stars.
There are scientests on both sides, as there should be. But the vast majority of them endorse global warming as the most valid theory. I'm sure you could find some scientists that would explain to you why the Earth is flat if you looked hard enough, that's not where the scientific consensus is.
If you were trying to push people towards a new way of living that would vitalize a new industry, wouldn't you also invest in that industry?
In a few years, people will look back on the anti-science conspiracy theorists as ignorant and stuck to the past.
Well at least in the end, science usually wins out. Despite your political views on the former vice president, he has done some great work raising awareness of the issue and pushing the subject to improve the science.
Scientists weren't embarrassed when their models aren't perfect. If science proved (or at least had strong evidence) that the world wasn't warming, then that's what we'd be going with.
The anti-science people that deny the existence of climate change on the other hand are generally basing their beliefs on...nothing.
His statement on race was misunderstood by people looking to attack him. He was pointing a similar issue where people were stuck to a past view point, but eventually moved overwhelmingly to the new view. Other similar issues are the Earth being flat, gays being sick pedophiles, and the earth not changing temperature.
Probably would have been best to use the Earth being flat (though then he would have offended the Catholic church instead of the racists).
So it wasn't about slavery, but slavery was the issue that caused it?
The southern slave states just wanted their slaves. They didn't want to travel with slaves to non-slave states and have their slaves freed, they didn't want run away slaves to be safe in non-slave states, and they didn't want to have the fed tell them not to have slaves. So they wanted states' rights when it was THEIR state.
I didn't call you either of those things. It's a sad day when people who are faced with science stick their fingers in their ears and sing.
No need to look for political advice as I'm looking at this from a scientific point of view.
Most global warming deniers are generally stupid, or as Al Gore aptly put it, they'll be looked upon the same as the people who though blacks were inferior because of their skin color. If you're going to trust people, go with the consensus of experts - not the think tanks funded by oil companies or the scientists with no experience int he field of climate.
Some things like philosophy can be debated (e.g. Laffer Cuve peak), while others such as global warming should be properly researched, not ignored as a giant conspiracy by science to _____? help the Earth?
Personally I believe there is a curve, but without any evidence, I can't be sure. There's unlikely to be any proof unless some countries do some serious changes in tax rates.
This isn't like global warming where we have trends to go off of and lots of data collected. There is very little data on the subject and mostly just philosophical musing on the subject (such as all your posts have).
You're basing your proof on what you appear to believe an absolute truth on...nothing. Common sense might make it true in your mind, but that's not a scientific method.
It's possible (though unlikely) that it doesn't exist. You don't have proof because you haven't run any experiments or have anything to observe tax income at different rates. Either way, it's not relevant since the peak is much higher than we're at. It's like how in physics you learn that F=mA, even though that's not exactly true, for the cases that it's used it works. Ignoring the existence of the Laffer Curve makes no difference to the debate over whether taxes should be raised a small amount.
Now saying that vaccines cause retardation is both unscientific and harmful to the debate of the subject. See the difference here?
If we're no where near the maximum on the curve, then for the point of debate, it doesn't exist.
I'm sure you can find some ideological issues if you look a bit harder, even if the democrats make it a lot more difficult than the republicans. This just wasn't a good example.
Perhaps you misread my post. No one denies it exists. People that don't like paying taxes just think it's heavily weighted to the lower end.
The GOP likes to take the position against Science, in many places - saying the Democrats are the same because they don't have the same position on a philosophical position is a poor comparison.
I can see that you also are not a science type by the way you throw around philosophy in the same group as evolution, and think you have a proof in you post.
The Laffer Curve is a theoretical construct with no actual evidence to define where it would take place. Yes most people agree that taxes at 100% would reduce output, but at what point people stop caring is highly debatable (and no where near the US tax rate). It's a different topic than having a minimum tax to prevent companies from moving to a country with the lowest tax rate (typically countries with other incomes sources).
Because that's still just a form of DRM. More of a pain to the user, and a little hassle to the pirates, but still possible to circumvent using a virtual version
Even worse, they tend to blacklist blocks of IPs, so I've been having problems where users aren't get activation emails when they sign up for my forum. The messages don't even go to the junk folder, they just get bounced back.
Slashdot Mirror
And other morons will trust gigabytes of data on a single hard drive with no backups kept behind a dusty desk in their home...though I guess you could sell your dead hard drive for people to extract the trading cards off of if you really wanted.
What about a dog or child sitting behind your car below where you can see out back?
This is a feature to protect them, not you.
If money was so easy to create, we'd have huge inflation. There is some growth of the world wealth, but it's mostly poorer countries becoming industrialized. When we have large growth, it's generally unsustainable and we get things like the housing bubble.
Environmental policy definitely is a luxury - and the US is definitely rich enough to afford it as the wealthiest country. It's also an investment in the future of the country. Coal/Oil are unsustainable fuel sources, so the quicker we move off of them, the better off we'll be in the future, even if we seem poorer compared to third world countries growth wise.
If you make a lot of money from a song, the money is coming from the people that pay to listen to the song.
The environmentalists that you read about on the news blocking projects are the most extreme ones. They don't represent the whole movement, but they do counter the people that have no regard for the planet and would seek to destroy the coastline in order to get a slightly cheaper source of oil.
Money doesn't appear out of thin air - it comes from somewhere and goes somewhere. Replacing coal plants with cleaner sources will hurt the coal industry, but others will benefit.
Pretty much all projects will have people upset - usually NIMBY complaints. I agree it's ridiculous to complain about wind/solar/wave/geothermal/nuclear power when the alternative will be a more polluting source, not nothing.
Because all that money would just be burned? No, it would go into better technology and be payed to companies to produce it.
Well the debate on whether the climate is changing is pretty much over. The current debate is whether it's caused by humans. The oil companies would like you to believe that it isn't and we should keep buying their product. And what if we spend trillions of dollars to end up with more advanced technology and a better planet? That's bad for some reason? This point shows the real reason why people want to ignore global warming - it's an inconvenient truth.
No one said the debate was over - science is always looking for more answers.
The exact atomic weight of hydrogen might not be known, but we're pretty sure it's a positive number, not 0 or negative. Of course you could probably find some scientists that will tell you it's 0 for the right price.
That argument that "science is not a democracy" is ignoring what the situation is. It's not that scientists have voted and decided on global warming, it's that multiple independent and reputable scientists have come to the same conclusions through peer review. The data points to the same place. There are only a few fringe groups with suspect funding sources that think there is no global warming. Following their methods and research you would come to the same conclusion.
I suppose next you're going to tell me that the moon landing was fake too because you saw a scientist on youtube tell you there are no stars.
There are scientests on both sides, as there should be. But the vast majority of them endorse global warming as the most valid theory. I'm sure you could find some scientists that would explain to you why the Earth is flat if you looked hard enough, that's not where the scientific consensus is. If you were trying to push people towards a new way of living that would vitalize a new industry, wouldn't you also invest in that industry? In a few years, people will look back on the anti-science conspiracy theorists as ignorant and stuck to the past.
Well at least in the end, science usually wins out. Despite your political views on the former vice president, he has done some great work raising awareness of the issue and pushing the subject to improve the science. Scientists weren't embarrassed when their models aren't perfect. If science proved (or at least had strong evidence) that the world wasn't warming, then that's what we'd be going with. The anti-science people that deny the existence of climate change on the other hand are generally basing their beliefs on ...nothing.
His statement on race was misunderstood by people looking to attack him. He was pointing a similar issue where people were stuck to a past view point, but eventually moved overwhelmingly to the new view. Other similar issues are the Earth being flat, gays being sick pedophiles, and the earth not changing temperature.
Probably would have been best to use the Earth being flat (though then he would have offended the Catholic church instead of the racists).
So it wasn't about slavery, but slavery was the issue that caused it?
The southern slave states just wanted their slaves. They didn't want to travel with slaves to non-slave states and have their slaves freed, they didn't want run away slaves to be safe in non-slave states, and they didn't want to have the fed tell them not to have slaves. So they wanted states' rights when it was THEIR state.
I didn't call you either of those things. It's a sad day when people who are faced with science stick their fingers in their ears and sing. No need to look for political advice as I'm looking at this from a scientific point of view.
Most global warming deniers are generally stupid, or as Al Gore aptly put it, they'll be looked upon the same as the people who though blacks were inferior because of their skin color. If you're going to trust people, go with the consensus of experts - not the think tanks funded by oil companies or the scientists with no experience int he field of climate.
Some things like philosophy can be debated (e.g. Laffer Cuve peak), while others such as global warming should be properly researched, not ignored as a giant conspiracy by science to _____? help the Earth?
Personally I believe there is a curve, but without any evidence, I can't be sure. There's unlikely to be any proof unless some countries do some serious changes in tax rates.
This isn't like global warming where we have trends to go off of and lots of data collected. There is very little data on the subject and mostly just philosophical musing on the subject (such as all your posts have).
Well at 100%, the government will also be providing more services. There could be more to think about with a fully communist community.
You're basing your proof on what you appear to believe an absolute truth on...nothing. Common sense might make it true in your mind, but that's not a scientific method.
It's possible (though unlikely) that it doesn't exist. You don't have proof because you haven't run any experiments or have anything to observe tax income at different rates. Either way, it's not relevant since the peak is much higher than we're at. It's like how in physics you learn that F=mA, even though that's not exactly true, for the cases that it's used it works. Ignoring the existence of the Laffer Curve makes no difference to the debate over whether taxes should be raised a small amount.
Now saying that vaccines cause retardation is both unscientific and harmful to the debate of the subject. See the difference here?
If we're no where near the maximum on the curve, then for the point of debate, it doesn't exist.
I'm sure you can find some ideological issues if you look a bit harder, even if the democrats make it a lot more difficult than the republicans. This just wasn't a good example.
Perhaps you misread my post. No one denies it exists. People that don't like paying taxes just think it's heavily weighted to the lower end.
The GOP likes to take the position against Science, in many places - saying the Democrats are the same because they don't have the same position on a philosophical position is a poor comparison.
I can see that you also are not a science type by the way you throw around philosophy in the same group as evolution, and think you have a proof in you post.
The Laffer Curve is a theoretical construct with no actual evidence to define where it would take place. Yes most people agree that taxes at 100% would reduce output, but at what point people stop caring is highly debatable (and no where near the US tax rate). It's a different topic than having a minimum tax to prevent companies from moving to a country with the lowest tax rate (typically countries with other incomes sources).
Because that's still just a form of DRM. More of a pain to the user, and a little hassle to the pirates, but still possible to circumvent using a virtual version
And when it changes to a single LED scanning back and forth you know it's gone rogue.
On the flip side, we don't pay extra to call mobile numbers - though fewer countries even have that these days.
Even worse, they tend to blacklist blocks of IPs, so I've been having problems where users aren't get activation emails when they sign up for my forum. The messages don't even go to the junk folder, they just get bounced back.