Yes, this is how business thinks. However, profits will mean nothing if civilization has fallen. Pieces of paper in your pocket might be good for kindling. Magnetic states on rusty platters in the depths of some building will slowly decay.
You need to care. And it'll cost you nothing: just vote for candidates that want to fight climate change, increase taxes on the wealthy, and either provide support for the 80% or want to increase minimum wage.
Just because it's doctors that access it, doesn't mean they are the only ones who benefit from it. Anyone living in the US will probably benefit from it at some point in his or her life.
If we were to "charitize" all government services, how much time would it take to donate to all of the various organizations that would be created if we got rid of government? Would you remember all of those organizations? Or would you forget some, or just say "I've spent a week donating to charities. There must be some better way..." I have a hard time just tracking 5 charities. Imagine if that were 500?
- various medical research programs
- various tech research programs
- various energy research programs
- various military research programs
- various infrastructure maintenance programs
- general military support
- general law and order support
- legislation
- trade regulation
- weather monitoring
- communications regulation
- environmental regulation and that's just the stuff that comes to mind quickly.
Yes, there are bad parts of our government. Getting rid of it will create even bigger problems.
Over the years, I've heard of several people "ghosting" their employers. However, in these cases, it was because they had passed away at home, and they lived alone. Since the employer doesn't know why the employee has stopped coming in, they call the police for a wellness check. The police arrive and find the person has passed on.
Long story short, don't ghost, or you may be treated is if you might have become one.
It would be better to spend the money replacing existing fossil fuel generation with renewable generation, and there's no point in switching to a monetary system that consumes 7 GW producing new money. Yes, there will be climate refugees, but it's cheaper to build a home on solid ground. Unless you really want your house floating around in a cat 4 or cat 5 hurricane...
Humans have always had problems. They always will. It gets easier and easier to deal with them as time passes and resources and knowledge increase. Note: it's "deal with them", not "prevent them" like some characters in a movie who won't listen to Jeff Goldblum's dramatic warnings.
Nope. We're pretty good at preventing problems, too. For instance, we've stopped putting lead in paint and gasoline, because we found out they caused problems. Easier to prevent lead poisoning than fix it. Similarly, we've developed a set of rules for installing electrical wiring when constructing homes and buildings. These rules prevent fires and electrocutions. If a fire does start somehow, buildings and homes are also built to a set of rules to increase the probability people get out alive and with minimal harm. Considering the cost of renewable energy is now as cheap as gas electricity, there's no reason not to start switching. We won't be able to *finish* until storage gets less expensive, but we can wait a little longer for that.
The Marshall Islands? 2050? The possibility that they — the people of the Marshall Islands — might have trouble with high sea levels 30 years from now? Is that really one of the things that matter most? (Why? Are the 2050 Marshall Islanders the chosen ones? There's no one today, in your home town, who needs help?)
The chosen ones? Be serious. It's just an example. The problems we will face through inaction are too numerous to list here. The more we can do today, the shorter that list will actually be. As for local people needing help, I am more concerned about those who will have problems because of my actions. If someone gets hooked on opiates, I know I wasn't involved in that. (Yes, that is just one example.)
There's zero reason to believe it matters very much. You had a climate guy for 8 years. How much did it truly matter? A little maybe? You want to be upset about maybe a little difference?
Thousands of people smarter than either of us think this problem is one of the most important. We aren't going to go bankrupt doing it. We'll actually be better off once we do. Not only will we reduce future climate-related problems, we'll reduce future health problems. No more pneumonia cases or asthma attacks caused by air pollution from fossil fuel combustion. Yeah, the last president understood. This problem takes more than 8 years to solve, and he can't do it with half the government fighting common sense.
That area is subsiding. It has been for a very long time, just as sea levels have been rising for a long time. Virginia is a rich state, especially right near the coast. Perhaps they should formulate their own plan to use their own resources to deal with their problems.
You're assuming I want to fix Virginia's problems. You're wrong. I simply want to reduce the size of the problem they will face as much as possible.
And being upset about some vaguely-defined potential future problem you can't change is wise?
It's only "vaguely defined" if you are unwilling to listen. We already have inexpensive solutions to mitigate some of what's coming. The more quickly and more broadly we apply these solutions, the smaller the problems will be.
- Record high stock market - Record low unemployment - Skyrocketing consumer confidence - Increased US Manufacturing - North Korea giving up all their nukes
- Record high stock market is easy when companies are allowed to poison people and the environment, in addition to taking financial advantage of them whenever possible. No more Consumer Financial Protections for us. - Record low unemployment is easy when you inherit most it from your predecessor. - Increased US Manufacturing and consumer confidence, and NK are all good things, but Trump isn't the only one who can achieve those. - As for Stormy Daniels, I'm considering it to be slightly better than President Clinton's scandal with Monica Lewinsky. I say "better" because, while both were affairs, Stormy wasn't on Clinton's payroll. There was still a lot of hubbub about the Lewinsky scandal.
You did leave a couple things off, however: - Increased health care costs due to more health problems from pollution. - Further increased health care costs due to people not getting their health problems treated early, thus requiring them to go to the expensive emergency room. - Increased property insurance costs due to climate change.
1. I wasn't demanding EVERYONE pay for anything. If anything, I was demanding people to be responsible for their actions, such as how people are reimbursed and how companies handle waste disposal. 2. I can't afford the hundreds of billions of dollars the US loses every year due to health problems caused by fossil fuel pollution. 3. I can't afford the extra tens of billions the US will lose every year due to property damage from climate change.
Norfolk, Virginia is having flooding problems due to rising sea levels. That's a short trip for any President or Presidential Candidate to see what is happening with climate change. Maybe a city going underwater isn't important to you.
Anticipating the future is important. It helps is take steps today to give us the best chance at the best future. Ignoring the large group of well-informed people that is warning us that much worse is in store is idiocy, def. "foolishness".
And you are right. Knowledge of the future isn't helping me. It sickens me to think of the problems the next generations of humans are going to have. Do these predictions not bother you? If the Marshall Islands become submerged in 2050, will you see the news and say, "Not my problem, I didn't cause it."? I'd solve it myself if I could, but this problem requires a team effort at solution. We should be able to make significant progress on this with a few deniers, but not when one of them is the president.
Watch Nova's Decoding the Weather Machine. The science is settled. Global temperatures are rising. Sea levels are rising. Severe weather is getting worse.
The only uncertainty is whether we Americans will get off our collective ass and help fix the problem we helped to create.
It's time for YOU to accept the idiot you elected is going to cause "only" serious problems for the lucky people and devastation for the unlucky people. If 19 out of 20 doctors said you had cancer that was treatable, would you listen? Or would you listen to the one doctor who says "This is natural," even though you've been feeling like crap for the last year and getting worse?
Then you're listening to the wrong people. The problems from climate change aren't an all-or-nothing deal. The more we do today, the fewer and/or smaller problems we'll have in the future. We just gotta stop listening to shills from the fossil fuel industry, get off our butts, and do what is in our individual power today. Some people can afford EVs. Some people can afford solar panels. Some can only practice conservation at this point. Any of those options are good if it's the most you can do and if they make sense for your situation.
Actually, probably the most important thing is to vote for politicians who want to leave as healthy a planet as possible for our children.
(Note, for those considering an EV: If you don't like the models available today, the Kia Kona may be out in the next year.)
Except you're then giving the ISP preference over other VOIP and streaming video services. Would an ISP pay for its own prioritized VOIP/video? Would Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/etc? Would a new startup VOIP/video service be able to pay for that for all ISPs looking to get their it-would-be-a-shame-if-something-happened-to-your-stream money?
The only thing I could see "prioritized" would be VOIP calls to emergency services, but that should be included in the cost of the VOIP plan.
"You never get something for nothing after you leave Mom and Dad's," was something one of my college professors said quite frequently. Unless we pay money for a social networking service, our data will be the revenue stream, not our wallets.
Are any of the services suggested in the summary supported by cash from subscriptions?
I still can't believe the parent post is +5 insightful. It's BS. The whole point of science is to use evidence to figure out the laws of physics. When the sitting president bans scientists from using the term "evidence-based", it should be clear the president DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT about science. Why would anyone expect real scientists to support him? (Real scientists: people interested in founding out how things actually work, as compared to snake oil salespeople claiming their mystical bracelet will cure all your ailments.)
If you want to throw out science that has been proven for centuries, you might as well go to a doctor who thinks leeches can fix broken bones.
The laws of physics aren't for or against anyone. They just exist. It's our job to figure out how they work, and then how they can be used to help the world.
Ignoring mountains of existing, thoroughly peer-reviewed evidence would be like saying the $1,000 on your bank statement actually means $100 million, then going to the bank to ask for a full withdrawl. The world doesn't work like that.
Analog broadcast is dead. Digital is working great in my neck of the woods. DB4 antenna and a RadioShack pre-amp. Dropped cable 4 years ago when they wanted to encrypt the broadcast channels. I'm not paying multiple monthly fees just to watch the broadcast channels. We haven't regretted it.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't see an estimate in the story of when the storm might leave the area. Anyone have an alternate site?
Yes, this is how business thinks. However, profits will mean nothing if civilization has fallen. Pieces of paper in your pocket might be good for kindling. Magnetic states on rusty platters in the depths of some building will slowly decay.
You need to care. And it'll cost you nothing: just vote for candidates that want to fight climate change, increase taxes on the wealthy, and either provide support for the 80% or want to increase minimum wage.
Just because it's doctors that access it, doesn't mean they are the only ones who benefit from it. Anyone living in the US will probably benefit from it at some point in his or her life.
If we were to "charitize" all government services, how much time would it take to donate to all of the various organizations that would be created if we got rid of government? Would you remember all of those organizations? Or would you forget some, or just say "I've spent a week donating to charities. There must be some better way..." I have a hard time just tracking 5 charities. Imagine if that were 500?
- various medical research programs
- various tech research programs
- various energy research programs
- various military research programs
- various infrastructure maintenance programs
- general military support
- general law and order support
- legislation
- trade regulation
- weather monitoring
- communications regulation
- environmental regulation
and that's just the stuff that comes to mind quickly.
Yes, there are bad parts of our government. Getting rid of it will create even bigger problems.
Over the years, I've heard of several people "ghosting" their employers. However, in these cases, it was because they had passed away at home, and they lived alone. Since the employer doesn't know why the employee has stopped coming in, they call the police for a wellness check. The police arrive and find the person has passed on.
Long story short, don't ghost, or you may be treated is if you might have become one.
It would be better to spend the money replacing existing fossil fuel generation with renewable generation, and there's no point in switching to a monetary system that consumes 7 GW producing new money. Yes, there will be climate refugees, but it's cheaper to build a home on solid ground. Unless you really want your house floating around in a cat 4 or cat 5 hurricane...
Humans have always had problems. They always will. It gets easier and easier to deal with them as time passes and resources and knowledge increase. Note: it's "deal with them", not "prevent them" like some characters in a movie who won't listen to Jeff Goldblum's dramatic warnings.
Nope. We're pretty good at preventing problems, too. For instance, we've stopped putting lead in paint and gasoline, because we found out they caused problems. Easier to prevent lead poisoning than fix it. Similarly, we've developed a set of rules for installing electrical wiring when constructing homes and buildings. These rules prevent fires and electrocutions. If a fire does start somehow, buildings and homes are also built to a set of rules to increase the probability people get out alive and with minimal harm. Considering the cost of renewable energy is now as cheap as gas electricity, there's no reason not to start switching. We won't be able to *finish* until storage gets less expensive, but we can wait a little longer for that.
The Marshall Islands? 2050? The possibility that they — the people of the Marshall Islands — might have trouble with high sea levels 30 years from now? Is that really one of the things that matter most? (Why? Are the 2050 Marshall Islanders the chosen ones? There's no one today, in your home town, who needs help?)
The chosen ones? Be serious. It's just an example. The problems we will face through inaction are too numerous to list here. The more we can do today, the shorter that list will actually be. As for local people needing help, I am more concerned about those who will have problems because of my actions. If someone gets hooked on opiates, I know I wasn't involved in that. (Yes, that is just one example.)
There's zero reason to believe it matters very much. You had a climate guy for 8 years. How much did it truly matter? A little maybe? You want to be upset about maybe a little difference?
Thousands of people smarter than either of us think this problem is one of the most important. We aren't going to go bankrupt doing it. We'll actually be better off once we do. Not only will we reduce future climate-related problems, we'll reduce future health problems. No more pneumonia cases or asthma attacks caused by air pollution from fossil fuel combustion. Yeah, the last president understood. This problem takes more than 8 years to solve, and he can't do it with half the government fighting common sense.
That area is subsiding. It has been for a very long time, just as sea levels have been rising for a long time. Virginia is a rich state, especially right near the coast. Perhaps they should formulate their own plan to use their own resources to deal with their problems.
You're assuming I want to fix Virginia's problems. You're wrong. I simply want to reduce the size of the problem they will face as much as possible.
And being upset about some vaguely-defined potential future problem you can't change is wise?
It's only "vaguely defined" if you are unwilling to listen. We already have inexpensive solutions to mitigate some of what's coming. The more quickly and more broadly we apply these solutions, the smaller the problems will be.
Bah: Stormy wasn't on Trump's payroll.
- Record high stock market
- Record low unemployment
- Skyrocketing consumer confidence
- Increased US Manufacturing
- North Korea giving up all their nukes
- Record high stock market is easy when companies are allowed to poison people and the environment, in addition to taking financial advantage of them whenever possible. No more Consumer Financial Protections for us.
- Record low unemployment is easy when you inherit most it from your predecessor.
- Increased US Manufacturing and consumer confidence, and NK are all good things, but Trump isn't the only one who can achieve those.
- As for Stormy Daniels, I'm considering it to be slightly better than President Clinton's scandal with Monica Lewinsky. I say "better" because, while both were affairs, Stormy wasn't on Clinton's payroll. There was still a lot of hubbub about the Lewinsky scandal.
You did leave a couple things off, however:
- Increased health care costs due to more health problems from pollution.
- Further increased health care costs due to people not getting their health problems treated early, thus requiring them to go to the expensive emergency room.
- Increased property insurance costs due to climate change.
1. I wasn't demanding EVERYONE pay for anything. If anything, I was demanding people to be responsible for their actions, such as how people are reimbursed and how companies handle waste disposal.
2. I can't afford the hundreds of billions of dollars the US loses every year due to health problems caused by fossil fuel pollution.
3. I can't afford the extra tens of billions the US will lose every year due to property damage from climate change.
Norfolk, Virginia is having flooding problems due to rising sea levels. That's a short trip for any President or Presidential Candidate to see what is happening with climate change. Maybe a city going underwater isn't important to you.
Anticipating the future is important. It helps is take steps today to give us the best chance at the best future. Ignoring the large group of well-informed people that is warning us that much worse is in store is idiocy, def. "foolishness".
And you are right. Knowledge of the future isn't helping me. It sickens me to think of the problems the next generations of humans are going to have. Do these predictions not bother you? If the Marshall Islands become submerged in 2050, will you see the news and say, "Not my problem, I didn't cause it."? I'd solve it myself if I could, but this problem requires a team effort at solution. We should be able to make significant progress on this with a few deniers, but not when one of them is the president.
Watch Nova's Decoding the Weather Machine. The science is settled. Global temperatures are rising. Sea levels are rising. Severe weather is getting worse.
The only uncertainty is whether we Americans will get off our collective ass and help fix the problem we helped to create.
No. We need to fight this. If people give up now, there will be much more damage done by the time President Trump is voted out.
Yes, we realize she lost.
It's time for YOU to accept the idiot you elected is going to cause "only" serious problems for the lucky people and devastation for the unlucky people. If 19 out of 20 doctors said you had cancer that was treatable, would you listen? Or would you listen to the one doctor who says "This is natural," even though you've been feeling like crap for the last year and getting worse?
Then you're listening to the wrong people. The problems from climate change aren't an all-or-nothing deal. The more we do today, the fewer and/or smaller problems we'll have in the future. We just gotta stop listening to shills from the fossil fuel industry, get off our butts, and do what is in our individual power today. Some people can afford EVs. Some people can afford solar panels. Some can only practice conservation at this point. Any of those options are good if it's the most you can do and if they make sense for your situation.
Actually, probably the most important thing is to vote for politicians who want to leave as healthy a planet as possible for our children.
(Note, for those considering an EV: If you don't like the models available today, the Kia Kona may be out in the next year.)
how do you hire the good engineers so you can have good IT infrastructure?
Parent needs to be modded up, badly.
I wanted to watch the video from the near misses, but YouTube is starting with a one minute commercial.
Except you're then giving the ISP preference over other VOIP and streaming video services. Would an ISP pay for its own prioritized VOIP/video? Would Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/etc? Would a new startup VOIP/video service be able to pay for that for all ISPs looking to get their it-would-be-a-shame-if-something-happened-to-your-stream money?
The only thing I could see "prioritized" would be VOIP calls to emergency services, but that should be included in the cost of the VOIP plan.
"You never get something for nothing after you leave Mom and Dad's," was something one of my college professors said quite frequently. Unless we pay money for a social networking service, our data will be the revenue stream, not our wallets.
Are any of the services suggested in the summary supported by cash from subscriptions?
Are the padded mailers even recyclable? They aren't marked as such.
Oh. *facepalm*
Thanks, swillden.
My apologies, your eminence.
I still can't believe the parent post is +5 insightful. It's BS. The whole point of science is to use evidence to figure out the laws of physics. When the sitting president bans scientists from using the term "evidence-based", it should be clear the president DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT about science. Why would anyone expect real scientists to support him? (Real scientists: people interested in founding out how things actually work, as compared to snake oil salespeople claiming their mystical bracelet will cure all your ailments.)
If you want to throw out science that has been proven for centuries, you might as well go to a doctor who thinks leeches can fix broken bones.
The laws of physics aren't for or against anyone. They just exist. It's our job to figure out how they work, and then how they can be used to help the world.
Ignoring mountains of existing, thoroughly peer-reviewed evidence would be like saying the $1,000 on your bank statement actually means $100 million, then going to the bank to ask for a full withdrawl. The world doesn't work like that.
Analog broadcast is dead. Digital is working great in my neck of the woods. DB4 antenna and a RadioShack pre-amp. Dropped cable 4 years ago when they wanted to encrypt the broadcast channels. I'm not paying multiple monthly fees just to watch the broadcast channels. We haven't regretted it.