Mod parent up. The grand-parent has no idea how economics/taxation works. Every bit of money that the government wastes is money that came from businesses that could have been employing more people or from employees that could have been better spending the money themselves. There is zero proof that wasteful government spending is the only thing that will stave off mass unemployment and by introducing artificial barriers in various markets it is likely to be causing unemployment.
They don't pass laws saying "you can't buy this companies' asphalt" or "you can't upgrade your microscopes to this particular one" either. Their lack of expertise means that they shouldn't be making technical decisions that require expertise.
Saying "we need a road from A to B" or "stem cell research can/can't be funded" doesn't require expertise.
Uh, if they are in my house robbing me I am not suspicious of them being a crook. I know for sure. It's a net gain for society if they die then and there.
Your progeny just might feel more generous towards us if we took a longer view of things.
I couldn't agree more. Let's just hope that we take a longer view on the massive amount of debt we are collecting. Our progeny will not appreciate our destroying all their wealth either.
'global warming' is still a better term than 'global climate change'. At least it has some meaning. Can anyone point to any time in history where the climate was not changing?
Lets say the world's climate does change significantly over the next few hundreds of years. So what? Some people will have to move away from areas that get flooded, they have plenty of warning to do it. Some species may go extinct and some new ones will pop up as well.
I am all for controlling pollution, but certainly not in the inefficient brainless way the environmentalists are clamouring for.
While I don't think you'll win many people over on/. by waving your gun, I do agree that it was ridiculous for her to submit herself to the search. I sure as hell knew better than to allow someone to do that to me at that age.
he went on a shooting rampage because he had easy access to guns.
No. Lots of people have easy access to guns and don't go on shooting rampages. Therefore, that is not why he went on a shooting rampage.
He probably went on a shooting rampage because he had severe mental problems and lacked a good support system. I.e. he did not have parents that were attentive enough, or friends, or any other outlet for his frustration and anger.
In the end, he is the only one responsible for his actions. Not guns, drugs, games, movies, porn, TV, the news, society, his mother, father, sister, brother, dog, goldfish, teacher, pastor, or anything else. They may have been negligent and/or uncaring but that does not put them at fault for murder.
If you actually read the paper you will see that they do not account for these things. They don't even account for improvements in medical technology. The closest they get is to try and account for the change in prevalence of smoking.
Therefore, this is absolutely the correct time to stand up and state that correlation is not causation and they needed to do better to compensate for other factors.
I'm growing to hate money and all who seek it at the cost of being fair, honest, and humane. Greed is a disgusting thing.
I am glad you phrased this the way you did. Many people equate the seeking of money, i.e. payment for your work/goods, as greed. That is not greed. Greed is exactly what you said, seeking money at the cost of being fair, honest, and humane.
Have fun trying to get well educated doctors if you aren't going to pay them. I sure as hell am not going to go through 10 years of schooling and assloads of debt just to make a wage I could have made with 4 years of school.
The self-professed libertarians here who argue that she should be able to do whatever she wants are missing the fact that this is in class. The education of the class would be impossible if anyone could do whatever they wanted.
This is a total straw man. No one, libertarian or otherwise said that everyone should be able to "do whatever they wanted" all the time or in class. Based on that comment I think you are either very confused or willfully ignorant about what libertarianism is.
"effective government oversight" is close enough to being an oxymoron that it is not even funny. You can either have idiot bureaucrats that know nothing about what they are overseeing, or you can have industry people that know what they are doing but may have conflicts of interest. Pick your poison.
What nagging? The first time Internet Explorer starts up and is not the default browser it asks if you want to make it the default browser. Uncheck the "always ask" box and click "no" and it never asks again. I have been doing this for years and never been "nagged". The worst thing that happens is that some programs (non-MS programs even) open sites in IE even when it is not the default browser. If you or anyone can give an example that will cause incessant nagging then please state it, and it should probably be reported as a bug.
As far as sites not being compatible with non-IE browsers or requiring ActiveX or whatever, that is not a reason to say they are acting unfairly by bundling their browser. They offer an extra feature unique to their browser which comes with their operating system, what is unfair about that? People are perfectly free to not use their OS or their browser.
Yer, nice present for the grandchildren (sorry son, we where unable to live within our means so here is some deadly shit for you to either fix or look after for 100,000 years).
If you actually read the links you would have seen that the spent fuel for those reactors has half-lives in the tens of years, not thousands. Lets use some logic here, is it better to hand our grandchildren some radioactive stuff more or less safely and easily encased in concrete or some other capsule, or should we just pump it into the atmosphere and say, "oh, nature will handle it"? My vote is for the former.
The markets *have* spoken. E.g. when the power infrastructure in the UK was privatisied "the market" refused to take nuclear power so it was split off and kept by the government. AFAIK the only way nuclear power can win in "the market" is through government subsidies: eg covering/exempting the insurance cost so that any accident is covered by the taxpayer or exempting companies from the full cleanup costs of normal (non-accident) waste.
And the permits cost tens of millions of dollars. Even if the market wouldn't bear it this instant, that is fine too. As the market recovers from the crash and fuel prices inevitably rise again it makes nuclear ever more attractive. Throw in a straight tax on carbon emissions to account for that externality, and it looks even better.
Nuclear power is cheap, clean, virtually unlimited, and SCALABLE.
None of the "renewable" sources are even close to being scalable.
The nuclear waste problem can be taken care of by using reactors that use up fuel as completely as possible. Even if such reactors are too expensive for now, the amount of radiation released is far less than that of coal and it contained very easily by comparison. Spent fuel can be buried and then dug back up when it is cost effective.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh no,
10^12/8 = 125000000000 = 1.25*10^10 bytes / s
1.25*10^10 / (1024*1024) = 119209.289 Megabytes/s
Mod parent up. The grand-parent has no idea how economics/taxation works. Every bit of money that the government wastes is money that came from businesses that could have been employing more people or from employees that could have been better spending the money themselves. There is zero proof that wasteful government spending is the only thing that will stave off mass unemployment and by introducing artificial barriers in various markets it is likely to be causing unemployment.
Even if that were true, everyone loves the underdog/comeback story.
They don't pass laws saying "you can't buy this companies' asphalt" or "you can't upgrade your microscopes to this particular one" either. Their lack of expertise means that they shouldn't be making technical decisions that require expertise.
Saying "we need a road from A to B" or "stem cell research can/can't be funded" doesn't require expertise.
You contradict yourself. How exactly shall they determine cost/benefit without regard to technical considerations?
Uh, if they are in my house robbing me I am not suspicious of them being a crook. I know for sure. It's a net gain for society if they die then and there.
When the debt must be repaid by taxation thus creating inefficiency in the market, yes it does.
Your progeny just might feel more generous towards us if we took a longer view of things.
I couldn't agree more. Let's just hope that we take a longer view on the massive amount of debt we are collecting. Our progeny will not appreciate our destroying all their wealth either.
Plenty of people try to go for statements like "it snowed in Atlanta, so global warming must be BS"
And plenty of people try to go for statements like, "it snowed in October in the UK, so global climate change must be real".
why does the media love to find global-warming contrarians who are not experts on global warming? There's a question I'd like to see explored.
Look at the number of responses to this article and you have your answer.
'global warming' is still a better term than 'global climate change'. At least it has some meaning. Can anyone point to any time in history where the climate was not changing?
Lets say the world's climate does change significantly over the next few hundreds of years. So what? Some people will have to move away from areas that get flooded, they have plenty of warning to do it. Some species may go extinct and some new ones will pop up as well.
I am all for controlling pollution, but certainly not in the inefficient brainless way the environmentalists are clamouring for.
replying to undo accidental redundant mod. meant to do insightful *sigh* might as well make the most of it.
I think that this doesn't just go for California's legislature but for all legislatures in general.
While I don't think you'll win many people over on /. by waving your gun, I do agree that it was ridiculous for her to submit herself to the search. I sure as hell knew better than to allow someone to do that to me at that age.
he went on a shooting rampage because he had easy access to guns.
No. Lots of people have easy access to guns and don't go on shooting rampages. Therefore, that is not why he went on a shooting rampage.
He probably went on a shooting rampage because he had severe mental problems and lacked a good support system. I.e. he did not have parents that were attentive enough, or friends, or any other outlet for his frustration and anger.
In the end, he is the only one responsible for his actions. Not guns, drugs, games, movies, porn, TV, the news, society, his mother, father, sister, brother, dog, goldfish, teacher, pastor, or anything else. They may have been negligent and/or uncaring but that does not put them at fault for murder.
If you actually read the paper you will see that they do not account for these things. They don't even account for improvements in medical technology. The closest they get is to try and account for the change in prevalence of smoking.
Therefore, this is absolutely the correct time to stand up and state that correlation is not causation and they needed to do better to compensate for other factors.
People on /. only fully appreciate that when the conclusion being jumped to is one they disagree with.
Mod parent up. I consider myself to have strong libertarian leanings, and I couldn't agree with you more.
The governments only legitimate role in the market is one of regulating externalities and ensuring everyone operates legally.
I'm growing to hate money and all who seek it at the cost of being fair, honest, and humane. Greed is a disgusting thing.
I am glad you phrased this the way you did. Many people equate the seeking of money, i.e. payment for your work/goods, as greed. That is not greed. Greed is exactly what you said, seeking money at the cost of being fair, honest, and humane.
Have fun trying to get well educated doctors if you aren't going to pay them. I sure as hell am not going to go through 10 years of schooling and assloads of debt just to make a wage I could have made with 4 years of school.
I think he just invoked Muphry's Law
The self-professed libertarians here who argue that she should be able to do whatever she wants are missing the fact that this is in class. The education of the class would be impossible if anyone could do whatever they wanted.
This is a total straw man. No one, libertarian or otherwise said that everyone should be able to "do whatever they wanted" all the time or in class. Based on that comment I think you are either very confused or willfully ignorant about what libertarianism is.
"effective government oversight" is close enough to being an oxymoron that it is not even funny. You can either have idiot bureaucrats that know nothing about what they are overseeing, or you can have industry people that know what they are doing but may have conflicts of interest. Pick your poison.
What nagging? The first time Internet Explorer starts up and is not the default browser it asks if you want to make it the default browser. Uncheck the "always ask" box and click "no" and it never asks again. I have been doing this for years and never been "nagged". The worst thing that happens is that some programs (non-MS programs even) open sites in IE even when it is not the default browser. If you or anyone can give an example that will cause incessant nagging then please state it, and it should probably be reported as a bug.
As far as sites not being compatible with non-IE browsers or requiring ActiveX or whatever, that is not a reason to say they are acting unfairly by bundling their browser. They offer an extra feature unique to their browser which comes with their operating system, what is unfair about that? People are perfectly free to not use their OS or their browser.
Yer, nice present for the grandchildren (sorry son, we where unable to live within our means so here is some deadly shit for you to either fix or look after for 100,000 years).
If you actually read the links you would have seen that the spent fuel for those reactors has half-lives in the tens of years, not thousands. Lets use some logic here, is it better to hand our grandchildren some radioactive stuff more or less safely and easily encased in concrete or some other capsule, or should we just pump it into the atmosphere and say, "oh, nature will handle it"? My vote is for the former.
The markets *have* spoken. E.g. when the power infrastructure in the UK was privatisied "the market" refused to take nuclear power so it was split off and kept by the government.
AFAIK the only way nuclear power can win in "the market" is through government subsidies: eg covering/exempting the insurance cost so that any accident is covered by the taxpayer or exempting companies from the full cleanup costs of normal (non-accident) waste.
That's why as soon as the U.S. NRC gave an early permit in 2007 companies have lined up to apply for so many reactors?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070319175743.htm/
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf/
And the permits cost tens of millions of dollars. Even if the market wouldn't bear it this instant, that is fine too. As the market recovers from the crash and fuel prices inevitably rise again it makes nuclear ever more attractive. Throw in a straight tax on carbon emissions to account for that externality, and it looks even better.
Nuclear power is cheap, clean, virtually unlimited, and SCALABLE.
None of the "renewable" sources are even close to being scalable.
The nuclear waste problem can be taken care of by using reactors that use up fuel as completely as possible. Even if such reactors are too expensive for now, the amount of radiation released is far less than that of coal and it contained very easily by comparison. Spent fuel can be buried and then dug back up when it is cost effective.
Wasting time and taxpayers money on non-scalable methods is stupid when we have an excellent workable solution already. Give people the permits to build the reactors and the market can take care of this efficiently!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html/