Sounds great, but is the climate data going to be massaged first to make the early 20th century colder, and the late 20th century warmer?
I am sure it will - just waiting for the Drudge Report to tell me so! The argument that there's a giant conspiracy to concoct logical arguments and huge amounts of data in support of a theory that is bad news for everyone makes much more sense than the idea that the activities of billions of humans could ever influence the environment.
I can tell in two seconds if it's an ad I've already seen, and in that case, forcing me to watch it again is just annoying me and wasting your bandwidth.
And the customers all win! Sure, that might work out ok for Netflix, but we don't want the internet to get any more fractured. It's already annoying that so many sites don't let you use proxy servers, and crap like ESPN360. We don't need more of it. I wish Netflix would have used this to push for net neutrality.
Does Philadelphia really have 4 internet providers?! I live in New York, and that seems extravagant compared to our situation (I, like most of the city, don't actually have access to FiOS). I hope that companies folding on this will encourage the FTC and/or Justice Department to take some sort of action before we get a new President and another Bush-style housecleaning over there.
Can you imagine if we didn't have the SEC, the FDA, price gouging laws, consumer protection laws... etc...
Yeah, maybe people would actually have to *gasp* think for themselves.
Regulation reflects people thinking about something and saying "I would rather have the world work in this orderly way, and use my brainpower on more important tasks than researching every company I buy food from, buy cars from, borrow money from, or engage with in any way. In order to have the freedom to spend my time some other way, I support the existence of public institutions working on my behalf for the public good."
I suppose it's foolish to respond to stupid comments like this, but I'll try: gas taxes are necessary to force people who produce a negative externality to pay extra to account for that externality and lead to utility-maximizing outcomes. If the full costs associated with an activity or good are not included in the price, it can lead to inefficient overconsumption, as in the case of gasoline, resulting in more pollution and global warming and less conservation than is socially optimal.
Let me get this straight -- "increasing the cost" of rural areas will make living in a city more expensive (?? this does seem like a zero-sum game to me), and you seem to think all the rural subsidies (seldom-used, too-broad highways, etc.) should be counted as subsidies to cities, since that's where the consumers of most goods produced in rural areas live -- aren't they more clearly susbidies to rural areas, which are then able to produce/deliver goods more cheaply?
Have you thought of looking at it in a per-capita way? Regardless, what we should think about is not city v. rural as if they must always be at war, but policies that encourage more efficient living. Gas taxes manifestly do that, regardless of where you think the burden will lie. If you are concerned about regressive taxes, we can always just give everyone $500, or something similar to make up for it while retaining the price-based incentive of gas taxes.
Exactly right. The value doesn't actually come from the algorithms, it comes from the position of the bank which gives it access to information before the rest of the market, allowing the big banks to (illegally? certainly unethically) skim money while essentially creating no new value for the marketplace. There are plenty of people who could write those programs, but only a few people in strategic positions can make sure the banks get the inside track to screw everyone else on earth. Hooray for deregulation!
We definitely need a tax on politically active scientists.
This is modded insightful because . . . . ? If there's one thing a democracy requires, it's a politically active citizenry. In particular, we need our experts to be involved in the topics relevant to their expertises. Were it possible, we should tax Know-Nothingism of the sort displayed in the parent.
The regressive argument is laughable on it's face, as it's easy to offset any intelligently-designed, inherently valuable taxation of a negative externality by just returning all the money to the entire population in whatever progressive or flat way one prefers. This would keep the efficiency-driving effect of the tax, while eliminating the regressive aspect.
I suspect, however, that this argument is normally only raised to sway liberals and/or pretend to be sympathetic to the poor.
No. A tax on income is a tax on everything (except inheritance and other unearned wealth that the upper class depends on). A tax on carbon is a tax on almost everything, but in ways that are aligned with the damage done by consuming/producing the good much more accurately than things like income taxes.
The last time America faced a serious economic crisis, it was deepened by unexpected increases in energy prices. That will be *more* likely to happen the longer we remain dependent upon limited, non-renewable, semi-monopolized resources for most of our energy.
Insightful? The modding compels a response. The logic in this statement is totally lacking, as people just now discovered the value of these crystals. Clearly this couldn't have been a factor in natural selection leading up to now, unless you believe in some sort of psychic evolution, which could anticipate future needs. I hope the problem was just strange modding, not people actually thinking that was a logical argument. Perhaps funny would have been a better mod? I dunno.
That episode was about people. Americans, Israelis, and Middle Easterners are all people. You are exactly wrong, it seems to me, since the Middle East is not an exception to the show's point: people are distrustful and get crazy when exposed to any vaguely negative change.
surely, moderators, you meant to mod this pedantic annoying crap as 'offtopic,' not 'insightful.'
besides being annoying, the "better way to state the sentence" isn't.
And don't buy cars that are going to explode either!
People like quality control. Hopefully Nintendo will maintain some sort of minimum standards, was, I think, the point being made. I imagine they will, though.
It might make the police statistically more successful at their job of catching criminals, but the use of these technologies might actually make them worse at working when the criminals aren't caught in the act. Likewise, it might make them rely on these technologies over rapport with the community, which could likewise reduce their long-term effectiveness. It seems that crime rates haven't dropped as much as one might expect if every technological advance really increased the efficiency of the police that much.
(All of that said, my comment was in reference to the fact that the story submitter actually questioned the usefulness in police work of these advance, which was ignored in the ggpp)
I don't disagree that in most English-speaking countries the police are generally and technically responsible to publically elected officials. I just think the actual amount of democratic oversight and transparency is far less than it ought to be. Given the amount of local power the police wield, skepticism seems the only reasonable approach towards thinking about their role.
It is simpler and cheaper for both sides to just have one case to decide this. Since states have far less money for litigation than corporations Dell's size, this is clearly in favor of the state.
"Teachers now make more than the private sector, and in many instances, significantly more. Coupled with essentially "free" benefits for life, and it's quite the cushy job."
You clearly have never been a teacher. It's hard work, there's very very little prospect of significant financial gain, and in many many schools it's a completely thankless job.
I assume by 'the private sector' you mean teachers at private (religious) schools, who often do even worse than the average teacher (but work in those schools out of dedication to their missions or somesuch). Everybody makes more than SOMEBODY in the private sector, which is why your comment was stupid/pointless/confusing.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that your dislike of teachers is thanks to the constant negative press teacher's unions get, and not completely random. Here's not the place to discuss whether the unions are good or bad for education, but I would ask you to keep in mind that even if the union has some political power, that doesn't mean individual teachers are doing well financially. They aren't.
Slashdot Mirror
No. It's Obama's attempt to prove he can read without a teleprompter however.
Read what?
Sounds great, but is the climate data going to be massaged first to make the early 20th century colder, and the late 20th century warmer?
I am sure it will - just waiting for the Drudge Report to tell me so! The argument that there's a giant conspiracy to concoct logical arguments and huge amounts of data in support of a theory that is bad news for everyone makes much more sense than the idea that the activities of billions of humans could ever influence the environment.
I can tell in two seconds if it's an ad I've already seen, and in that case, forcing me to watch it again is just annoying me and wasting your bandwidth.
Same here. Also, in the other case.
And the customers all win! Sure, that might work out ok for Netflix, but we don't want the internet to get any more fractured. It's already annoying that so many sites don't let you use proxy servers, and crap like ESPN360. We don't need more of it. I wish Netflix would have used this to push for net neutrality.
Does Philadelphia really have 4 internet providers?! I live in New York, and that seems extravagant compared to our situation (I, like most of the city, don't actually have access to FiOS). I hope that companies folding on this will encourage the FTC and/or Justice Department to take some sort of action before we get a new President and another Bush-style housecleaning over there.
My ISP is going to give me what they are advertising or I'll switch ISPs.
So you can do this once before you run out of ISPs, right?
Nice use of pi. It's better at being random than our brains are.
This is the kind of thing that will make me want to carry around a hammer or an EMP device. Ads already pollute enough of my life.
Can you imagine if we didn't have the SEC, the FDA, price gouging laws, consumer protection laws... etc...
Yeah, maybe people would actually have to *gasp* think for themselves.
Regulation reflects people thinking about something and saying "I would rather have the world work in this orderly way, and use my brainpower on more important tasks than researching every company I buy food from, buy cars from, borrow money from, or engage with in any way. In order to have the freedom to spend my time some other way, I support the existence of public institutions working on my behalf for the public good."
I suppose it's foolish to respond to stupid comments like this, but I'll try: gas taxes are necessary to force people who produce a negative externality to pay extra to account for that externality and lead to utility-maximizing outcomes. If the full costs associated with an activity or good are not included in the price, it can lead to inefficient overconsumption, as in the case of gasoline, resulting in more pollution and global warming and less conservation than is socially optimal.
Let me get this straight -- "increasing the cost" of rural areas will make living in a city more expensive (?? this does seem like a zero-sum game to me), and you seem to think all the rural subsidies (seldom-used, too-broad highways, etc.) should be counted as subsidies to cities, since that's where the consumers of most goods produced in rural areas live -- aren't they more clearly susbidies to rural areas, which are then able to produce/deliver goods more cheaply?
Have you thought of looking at it in a per-capita way? Regardless, what we should think about is not city v. rural as if they must always be at war, but policies that encourage more efficient living. Gas taxes manifestly do that, regardless of where you think the burden will lie. If you are concerned about regressive taxes, we can always just give everyone $500, or something similar to make up for it while retaining the price-based incentive of gas taxes.
Exactly right. The value doesn't actually come from the algorithms, it comes from the position of the bank which gives it access to information before the rest of the market, allowing the big banks to (illegally? certainly unethically) skim money while essentially creating no new value for the marketplace. There are plenty of people who could write those programs, but only a few people in strategic positions can make sure the banks get the inside track to screw everyone else on earth. Hooray for deregulation!
We definitely need a tax on politically active scientists.
This is modded insightful because . . . . ? If there's one thing a democracy requires, it's a politically active citizenry. In particular, we need our experts to be involved in the topics relevant to their expertises. Were it possible, we should tax Know-Nothingism of the sort displayed in the parent.
I meant "its," not "it's." Apologies to the grammar nazis and easily-offended eyes.
I suspect, however, that this argument is normally only raised to sway liberals and/or pretend to be sympathetic to the poor.
A tax on carbon is a tax on everything.
No. A tax on income is a tax on everything (except inheritance and other unearned wealth that the upper class depends on). A tax on carbon is a tax on almost everything, but in ways that are aligned with the damage done by consuming/producing the good much more accurately than things like income taxes.
The last time America faced a serious economic crisis, it was deepened by unexpected increases in energy prices. That will be *more* likely to happen the longer we remain dependent upon limited, non-renewable, semi-monopolized resources for most of our energy.
Insightful? The modding compels a response. The logic in this statement is totally lacking, as people just now discovered the value of these crystals. Clearly this couldn't have been a factor in natural selection leading up to now, unless you believe in some sort of psychic evolution, which could anticipate future needs. I hope the problem was just strange modding, not people actually thinking that was a logical argument. Perhaps funny would have been a better mod? I dunno.
why would i have been involved?
That episode was about people. Americans, Israelis, and Middle Easterners are all people. You are exactly wrong, it seems to me, since the Middle East is not an exception to the show's point: people are distrustful and get crazy when exposed to any vaguely negative change.
surely, moderators, you meant to mod this pedantic annoying crap as 'offtopic,' not 'insightful.' besides being annoying, the "better way to state the sentence" isn't.
And don't buy cars that are going to explode either!
People like quality control. Hopefully Nintendo will maintain some sort of minimum standards, was, I think, the point being made. I imagine they will, though.
It might make the police statistically more successful at their job of catching criminals, but the use of these technologies might actually make them worse at working when the criminals aren't caught in the act. Likewise, it might make them rely on these technologies over rapport with the community, which could likewise reduce their long-term effectiveness. It seems that crime rates haven't dropped as much as one might expect if every technological advance really increased the efficiency of the police that much.
(All of that said, my comment was in reference to the fact that the story submitter actually questioned the usefulness in police work of these advance, which was ignored in the ggpp)
I don't disagree that in most English-speaking countries the police are generally and technically responsible to publically elected officials. I just think the actual amount of democratic oversight and transparency is far less than it ought to be. Given the amount of local power the police wield, skepticism seems the only reasonable approach towards thinking about their role.
Who claimed that these technologies have made the police better at their jobs? And who claimed that "the public" tells the police what to do?
There are several degrees of separation between the public and control of the police, and that vast gulf is no good for society, on the whole.
It is simpler and cheaper for both sides to just have one case to decide this. Since states have far less money for litigation than corporations Dell's size, this is clearly in favor of the state.
"Teachers now make more than the private sector, and in many instances, significantly more. Coupled with essentially "free" benefits for life, and it's quite the cushy job."
You clearly have never been a teacher. It's hard work, there's very very little prospect of significant financial gain, and in many many schools it's a completely thankless job.
I assume by 'the private sector' you mean teachers at private (religious) schools, who often do even worse than the average teacher (but work in those schools out of dedication to their missions or somesuch). Everybody makes more than SOMEBODY in the private sector, which is why your comment was stupid/pointless/confusing.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that your dislike of teachers is thanks to the constant negative press teacher's unions get, and not completely random. Here's not the place to discuss whether the unions are good or bad for education, but I would ask you to keep in mind that even if the union has some political power, that doesn't mean individual teachers are doing well financially. They aren't.