Normal people? They are happy that they can use the tech.
Ridiculously unintelligent comment.
Normal people almost always generally hate a reduction in functionality of which they are accustomed to, regardless of what that level was before hand.
My decidedly unarrogant and unnerdy mother is ready to throw away her new TV because it doesn't do a single thing she wants, no matter how many times I tell her she can do it another way.
People become accustomed to a way things are done. Quit thinking your minimalist future is The One True Path, and that everyone who disagrees with you must be somehow less enlightened, you arrogant fuck.
Pulse really did have a legitimate need, even though the implementation for a long time was a pile of shit.
ALSA is not a great sound system as far as routing and mixing goes. Pulse makes it very seemless to have multiple sources and sinks, and prevent apps from taking over the sound device (something desired on a desktop platform that may have multiple things playing sounds at the same time)
And no- routing to bluetooth isn't done in hardware on phones.
That's what systemd replaced on both Red Hat distributions and Ubuntu.
Ubuntu, yes. Redhat, no.
Redhat used sysvinit up until the systemd switch-over. You're thinking of Fedora, the community developed Redhat-funded desktop distro.
RHEL and its clones used sysvinit.
That's so insanely reductionist.
I administrate 187 machines along with one other person at a large regional ISP/Business internet services/colocation provider.
I understand it very, very well (all of our centos7 deployments use it, after all)
I have very legitimate beefs with it (and some things that I think are positively fantastic about it)
I will say, that like pulse audio, systemd has evolved from a massive pile of shit, to something pretty decent, but it's still done a fairly terrible thing to the ecosystem, which is make way too many parts of the system as a whole dependent on the functioning socket communications of the systemd organism.
Go ahead and try to log into a systemd system with a daemon that has gone insane and is flooding the journal. Don't worry, I'll wait.
Honestly, I love the init replacement. I just wish the interdependencies in certain arenas weren't... well, interdependent.
Anyway, your claim that "systemd sucks" is a euphemism for "I have no understand of, or experience with systemd, but I like to pretend I do on Slashdot" just shows that you're a tool who has no fucking idea what he's talking about. You're literally the same person, on the other side of the fence, as the people who blindly hate it.
Erm... How else does one verify type at function/method invocation in a ducktyped language?
Duck typing basically enforces that rote programming for checking type in the way that languages with less advanced error handling paradigms enforce (or don't if you're insane) enclosing every single function call in an if statement...
Nope, I sure am not. But I'm a software engineer, and I bet what I consider "non-obvious" in terms of software design differs very drastically from that of an aerodynamicists opinion on the subject. Fortunately, the patent requires non-obviousness within the field covered by the invention.
Also, as it turns out, there are quite a lot of people who are highly qualified in this field.
I'm not either, but I know how to use Google, and I know that the characteristics of the dimples can have a large impact on a ball's flight.
Just as use of a user-space shared-memory IPC mechanism vs. a kernel-mediated one can have a large impact on multi-threaded application performance.
Any software engineer knows this. Why don't all people do it that way? A million factors including ease of implementation, economic factors (time to develop vs. performance needed)
So, developing a new pattern which makes a ball fly straighter, or flatter, or with any other desired characteristic is a useful invention.
If indeed it is a non-obvious improvement upon the established knowledge, sure.
If you don't think a new arrangement can provide an improvement so it can be patented, then you'll agree that other manufacturers can stick to the old patterns and not be at any competitive disadvantage, so there would be no reason for them to even try to copy the patented pattern.
This argument is crap- no offense intended.
Capitalism doesn't work like that, just like evolution doesn't.
Manufacturers expend resources to out-compete, not to progress simply for the sake of progress. The progress of the system as a whole, let's call it the group-velocity of progress, is in no way predicated upon waiting for these inventions to happen.
Why didn't the other manufacturers change the design to be better before now? Because they didn't need to.
I am again, not weighing in on whether or not this *is* valid as a patentable invention. I am simply saying that I suspect most people in the field of aerodynamics who understand dimple dynamics probably have a very different opinion as to whether the patent is obvious or not, and a company should not be rewarded simply for being the ones to bring it to market. That's just regular competition.
If they have truly done something spectacular, then they should be provided a patent to reward them for it. State-granted monopolies are to reward for making improvements in sciences and processes public domain. They're not to reward the first guy who bothered to slap an electric motor on a scooter.
In any case, here are the patents, go look them up instead of asking what they're about: 6994638, 8123632, 8444507, 9320944, 8025593, 8257201, 7331878, 6358161, 7887439, 7641572, 7163472.
I don't give a shit what they're about, personally. I didn't look them out because I don't care.
I responded to:
I take it you wouldn't deny the actual inventor legal recourse.
with:
That really depends on what they "invented"
I had absolutely no opinion on this actual litigation. Hopefully your jackass comment is moderated positively for the informative quality, at the least.
Why so? There may be significant R&D which goes into the aerodynamics.
Because rearranging the dimples is hardly a new invention or a new technical solution to a problem. It isn't anything that anyone couldn't figure out. Patents aren't a reward for you having done work, they're a reward for you having done innovative work. An invention.
You should get a patent for a cotton gin. You shouldn't get a patent for slapping an electric motor on one.
Na, because when the patent for a bill with dimples covering at least 80% of the surface with a solid core, they'll patent a ball with at least 79.996% of the surface covered in dimples with an elastic core.
I take it you wouldn't deny the actual inventor legal recourse.
That really depends on what they "invented"
Knowing the way the patent system is abused, knowing the simplicity of a golf ball, and how old the concepts are that govern their design, I believe any patent claims against a golf ball in *20-fucking-17* should be viewed with a massive fucking grain of salt.
For example, dimples being understood to provide highly improved aerodynamics was pantented back in 1905.
Are that patents here number, shape, and size of the dimples? If so- bullshit patent. But perfectly valid in today's patent system- until it goes to court (and even then, depends how far away you are from East Texas)
(a) In General: The Commission and each State commission with regulatory jurisdiction over telecommunications services shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans (including, in particular, elementary and secondary schools and classrooms) by utilizing, in a manner consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.
(b) Inquiry: The Commission shall, within 30 months after the date of enactment of this Act, and regularly thereafter, initiate a notice of inquiry concerning the availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans (including, in particular, elementary and secondary schools and classrooms) and shall complete the inquiry within 180 days after its initiation. In the inquiry, the Commission shall determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. If the Commission's determination is negative, it shall take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.
That is Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which is far less contentious than the status-based regulatory jurisdiction granted by the FTC act, limited to a poorly defined "common carrier".
No, the Republicans know the FTC doesn't have the legal jurisdiction to rule on this, and are thus claiming that it is the realm of the FTC to rule on. The FCCs jurisdiction by passed law was less contentious, so Obama sent it that way to get the job done, since he knew damn well the Republicans weren't going to clearly empower the FTC to do it, since they are idiologically against the idea of limiting the size of dildo you're allowed to penetrate American consumers with.
But your story sure sounds so much easier to defend.
Democrats are absolutely against education, they kill every attempt at charter schools they can. The only exception is the labor union run schools which are the same schools failing our children. It's all about pandering to a block of votes. Pandering to the unions that take money from members to support political candidates that those members may not themselves support.
This is an intellectually weak argument. Are you truly so dim?
A is against B because they don't support C, which I equate with B, but A does not. God you're so fucking smart. It must seem so simple to you. So little nuance.
Health insurance? Are you kidding? If you like your plan you can keep it, period. Unless you're poor enough to be subsidized or you're a 25 year old child on your parent's plan, your plan premium likely went way up and your plan benefits likely went down.
My premium did go up... Though my benefits did not... But you know what? my premium has gone up every fucking year for as long as I can remember. What was your point again? The ACA did almost fucking nothing to healthcare premiums as far as the trend is concerned... and that's too bad. But it did put a whole fuckton of people on insurance who previously were not.
The EPA needs to be curbed. Remember Obama wanting our thermostats to be centrally controlled? To hell with that.
No, nobody remembers that, because it didn't fucking happen. Thanks for the Brand New Information, Kellyanne.
The EPA is out of control and it's hurting US based businesses which in turn hurts jobs, which hurts the livelihood of the nation.
The EPA is doing its job balancing the interests of people who don't want to choke down poisonous fumes and liquids against the interests of the ultracapitalists. You may think that hurts the livelihood of the nation, but I don't.
Again with the A is against B because they don't support C which you equate with B, and they do not... (And neither do most people, in this instance)
The US can't compete in some industries because there is no way to meet the EPA's restrictions and compete with foreign countries that don't have to.
Frankly, I don't give a fuck if we lose the twinkie manufacturing business if China can do it cheaper. I don't care if we lose steel either. If they don't act like a faithful supplier, the value of steel will go up, and we'll start producing our own again. Quit trying to save jobs for the sake of jobs. We shouldn't be racing the third world to the bottom of the barrel in terms of standard of living and per capita economic worth. You're concerned about the country, remember? Start worrying more about the 99% and less about the 1%. My former HS computer class teacher was a logger that lost his job due to NAFTA, was sent to school on the government dime, and became... a fucking teacher. That counts as a job lost due to NAFTA. But what is it really? A person who's had their life improved, because we exported a shit ass job out of our first world country.
It's not about wanting to dump toxic waste in rivers, it's about not wanting to let the US bear the brunt of pollution concerns while other nations profit handsomely while polluting like maniacs.
This is complete bullshit, and you know it. We care not about whether or not El Salvador makes more money logging because they don't have our restrictions, we only care that we're fleecing people as much as we can possibly fucking fleece them. Regulations are a barrier to the maximum monetization of your consumer base, and that is their ONLY beef with them. And I say fuck them.
Our EPA policies is making the air there unbreathable. Congrats forward thinkers.
No, the fact that their EPA does what you want ours to do is making their air unbreathable. You want to compete with them in that arna. Congrats, you fucking moron.
I'm not actually arguing that I disagree with the logic of just stopping by the grocery store, I'm just saying the claim of energy usage is simply wrong.
The cost of shipping any individual item when done in bulk is vastly more efficient than even what it takes for you to pull off into that grocery store and restart your car... There's just no way around it. The efficiency ratio for your car vs. a delivery truck can best be described as using a locomotive to to move a single rail car, even when factoring in that it's only a small diversion from a path you otherwise would have taken. I'd stop at the grocery store too- the efficiency claim is just wrong on its face.
Now, diverting the conversation to a political one, and using such general labels such as "liberals" kind of makes me doubt any kind of conversation with you can even be constructive, but I'm a generous liberal, and even trolls need to eat.
One can complain about a systemic problem and fight against the problem without committing themselves to solely undertake the action the system needs to take. In fact, one would even call that fucking logical.
You don't change an entrenched system by crossing your arms and doing what the system needs to do in a huff. The system just laughs at you.
If leaded gasoline and CFCs had been tackled only by concerned consumers refraining from using those things, abso-fucking-lutely nothing would have been accomplished. Your argument is bullshit. Cheers.
Nuclear energy. It's clean, it's safe, and it would be cheap if it weren't for paranoid over-regulation. Yes, some safety regulation is needed, but the nuclear industry has far more than it needs, which only restricts its much needed development.
Man... I want to agree with you...
I want more nuclear, but I think you're off the rails with some of your assertions.
It's clean
No- no it fucking is not. Its waste is however highly concentrated and easily sequestered, politics aside, unlike other unclean power generation forms.
it's safe
Except when it's not. Nothing but *very* fucking stringent oversight makes that energy source safe. Don't fool yourself- you're dealing with the power of the atom here. Ionizing radiation and fissile byproducts is no fucking joke, and aren't remotely safe.
and it would be cheap if it weren't for paranoid over-regulation
And unsafe. Cheap and unsafe. We have enough of that now, thanks.
Yes, some safety regulation is needed, but the nuclear industry has far more than it needs, which only restricts its much needed development
I'm sorry, your argument should scare people *away* from nuclear power. I can only hope that if we re-embrace fission energy (and I hope we do), then saner minds than yours are at he helm.
Fission energy isn't something we can be reckless with. I have faith in humanities ability to control it, but I do *NOT* have faith in capitalism's desire to keep it safe. The amount of fucks the CEO has to give falls off at the inverse square of the distance of his house from the plant.
In GP's assertion, a 1 lb. item burns an impressive amount of fuel-per-pound for that UPS/FedEx/Whatever truck if it's just the one item, even if the truck were to only go a block out of its way... even worse when its cumulative, which was his point.
I don't understand what you and GP are trying to say... I mean, of course a 1lb item for a truck is terrible efficiency. A truck will be more efficient than a car only if the truck is loaded more than a car in terms of ratio of carried weight vs. weight of the vehicle.
In no way will the efficiency of any commuter vehicle touch the efficiency of a loaded truck, though. Your commuter vehicle, loaded with as many groceries as you like, will always spend the majority of its energy moving its own weight. That ratio reverses with a loaded truck.
Sorry. We just can't muster the energy to effect climactic changes on that scale, short of having a Nuclear War.
We need to muster very little energy in fact. Just as you can raise the temperature in your home, by kilowatts, with just a few newtons of force. Closing your window.
I'm pretty sure all acts of espionage are classed as treason.
Unfortunately, your confidence is misplaced, because you are flat out wrong.
Espionage is espionage, and though it can be a capital crime, it is not treason, and in fact has a lower bar to be met than treason in burden of proof.
This is because treason is the one crime actually defined in the US constitution, specifically to prevent fuckwits from calling everyone who disagrees with them a traitor.
Second, they're all aware that Michael Hastings was killed
Paranoid delusional right-wing conspiracy theorist plows his car into a tree at high speed after entire family notes that he was straight up off the fucking rails, and he was killed by the jackbooted thugs over at the Obama administration through the FBI controlled by a Republican, and outed by a lifelong Progressive saying it's plausible.
I'm unsure what that has to do with treason. He was tried under UCMJ martial law, a code that in ye olden days has been used to execute people for taking a horse.
While I agree it doesn't make much difference to the guy who got hanged, for the rest of us, there is a distinction between terrible shit the military does when it is in control of an area, and the constitutional laws of our country.
What are you talking about? The poorest 50% of the US pays 0 taxes.
That really, really, REALLY isn't true.
Your claims are false on many, many levels.
God, the irony.
You took a soundbite and morphed it to fit a bullshit narrative. It's absolutely true that (almost) 50% of the US pays no *income* taxes.
It does not mean they're poor, and it does not mean they don't make money.
44% pay no income tax
61% (27% total) of that 45% pay no income or payroll taxes after deductions. (This *really* isn't hard to do, and it doesn't take you being poor.)
39% (17% total) of that 45% pay no income or payroll taxes, period. (They are unemployed. Rich, poor, old aren't distinctions you can make from the data)
You took some numbers that were close, changed what the numbers actually were, and then drew inferences from them that can't be made.
Donny, is that you?
DNC split into 2 parties, as you said, and 51 of the 54 that split went back to the DNC for life and were welcomed.
That's not really relevant, but it is true. It's not relevant, because it says nothing about the voters and the fact that Republicans came to take up the positions those Democrats held. Today's Republican platform is the Dixiecrat platform of the 60s, in terms of social policy.
Again, I ask you, did the south magically go from 100% blue in 1964 to almost 100% red today because the voters all had a change of heart? Or did the parties change to reflect the voters?
Nothern Democrats came to dominate National Democratic party politics, and the Republicans were failing against the Democrats in the North. The Republicans had to take on the southern voters if they wanted to stay relevant, just as the Democrats required them before they came to dominate the North. The shift is obvious. Education didn't fail me, but logic fails you.
Just ask yourself this,
Did the South become Republican in the 20th century, or did the Republicans become beholden to the Southern Vote?
The geographic representative map for the vote on the CRA/1964 makes it pretty clear who was against Civil Rights, and it wasn't a Party. it was a geographical location.
Lets clarify..
Republicans - Ended slavery, Democrats opposed to the point of a shooting war.
Republicans - Pushed Civil Rights, Democrats (specifically their honored KKK member like Robert Byrd with the help of Al Gore) opposed
Republicans - Pushed for women to vote, Democrats opposed.
Almost all true.
Civil Rights legislation was pushed by Northern Democrats. Northern Republicans simply rode the wave after balking for a decade.
You could argue the Dems stole their win on that one, but it's also important to understand that the Democratic party was split into 2 very separate parties at that point in time, more or less, along the mason-dixon line.
Again, the bigotry espoused by the Democratic party, which absolutely cannot be denied, was a north/south issue, not a democrat/republican issue.
More Democrats voted for Civil Rights than Republicans. A larger percentage of Republicans voted for Civil Rights than Democrats. This is because the Democratic party was split north/south, but still had a commanding majority in the north, where the Republicans had zero presence in the south.
The only pattern I see is your willful ignorance to the nuances of the actual demographic split and attempt at turning political parties into your favorite sports team.
Slashdot Mirror
Normal people? They are happy that they can use the tech.
Ridiculously unintelligent comment.
Normal people almost always generally hate a reduction in functionality of which they are accustomed to, regardless of what that level was before hand.
My decidedly unarrogant and unnerdy mother is ready to throw away her new TV because it doesn't do a single thing she wants, no matter how many times I tell her she can do it another way.
People become accustomed to a way things are done. Quit thinking your minimalist future is The One True Path, and that everyone who disagrees with you must be somehow less enlightened, you arrogant fuck.
Pulse really did have a legitimate need, even though the implementation for a long time was a pile of shit.
ALSA is not a great sound system as far as routing and mixing goes. Pulse makes it very seemless to have multiple sources and sinks, and prevent apps from taking over the sound device (something desired on a desktop platform that may have multiple things playing sounds at the same time)
And no- routing to bluetooth isn't done in hardware on phones.
That's what systemd replaced on both Red Hat distributions and Ubuntu.
Ubuntu, yes. Redhat, no.
Redhat used sysvinit up until the systemd switch-over. You're thinking of Fedora, the community developed Redhat-funded desktop distro.
RHEL and its clones used sysvinit.
That's so insanely reductionist.
I administrate 187 machines along with one other person at a large regional ISP/Business internet services/colocation provider.
I understand it very, very well (all of our centos7 deployments use it, after all)
I have very legitimate beefs with it (and some things that I think are positively fantastic about it)
I will say, that like pulse audio, systemd has evolved from a massive pile of shit, to something pretty decent, but it's still done a fairly terrible thing to the ecosystem, which is make way too many parts of the system as a whole dependent on the functioning socket communications of the systemd organism.
Go ahead and try to log into a systemd system with a daemon that has gone insane and is flooding the journal. Don't worry, I'll wait.
Honestly, I love the init replacement. I just wish the interdependencies in certain arenas weren't... well, interdependent.
Anyway, your claim that "systemd sucks" is a euphemism for "I have no understand of, or experience with systemd, but I like to pretend I do on Slashdot" just shows that you're a tool who has no fucking idea what he's talking about. You're literally the same person, on the other side of the fence, as the people who blindly hate it.
Erm... How else does one verify type at function/method invocation in a ducktyped language?
Duck typing basically enforces that rote programming for checking type in the way that languages with less advanced error handling paradigms enforce (or don't if you're insane) enclosing every single function call in an if statement...
Are you an aerodynamicist?
Nope, I sure am not. But I'm a software engineer, and I bet what I consider "non-obvious" in terms of software design differs very drastically from that of an aerodynamicists opinion on the subject. Fortunately, the patent requires non-obviousness within the field covered by the invention.
Also, as it turns out, there are quite a lot of people who are highly qualified in this field.
I'm not either, but I know how to use Google, and I know that the characteristics of the dimples can have a large impact on a ball's flight.
Just as use of a user-space shared-memory IPC mechanism vs. a kernel-mediated one can have a large impact on multi-threaded application performance.
Any software engineer knows this. Why don't all people do it that way? A million factors including ease of implementation, economic factors (time to develop vs. performance needed)
So, developing a new pattern which makes a ball fly straighter, or flatter, or with any other desired characteristic is a useful invention.
If indeed it is a non-obvious improvement upon the established knowledge, sure.
If you don't think a new arrangement can provide an improvement so it can be patented, then you'll agree that other manufacturers can stick to the old patterns and not be at any competitive disadvantage, so there would be no reason for them to even try to copy the patented pattern.
This argument is crap- no offense intended.
Capitalism doesn't work like that, just like evolution doesn't.
Manufacturers expend resources to out-compete, not to progress simply for the sake of progress. The progress of the system as a whole, let's call it the group-velocity of progress, is in no way predicated upon waiting for these inventions to happen.
Why didn't the other manufacturers change the design to be better before now? Because they didn't need to.
I am again, not weighing in on whether or not this *is* valid as a patentable invention. I am simply saying that I suspect most people in the field of aerodynamics who understand dimple dynamics probably have a very different opinion as to whether the patent is obvious or not, and a company should not be rewarded simply for being the ones to bring it to market. That's just regular competition.
If they have truly done something spectacular, then they should be provided a patent to reward them for it. State-granted monopolies are to reward for making improvements in sciences and processes public domain. They're not to reward the first guy who bothered to slap an electric motor on a scooter.
In any case, here are the patents, go look them up instead of asking what they're about: 6994638, 8123632, 8444507, 9320944, 8025593, 8257201, 7331878, 6358161, 7887439, 7641572, 7163472.
I don't give a shit what they're about, personally. I didn't look them out because I don't care. I responded to:
I take it you wouldn't deny the actual inventor legal recourse.
with:
That really depends on what they "invented"
I had absolutely no opinion on this actual litigation. Hopefully your jackass comment is moderated positively for the informative quality, at the least.
Why so? There may be significant R&D which goes into the aerodynamics.
Because rearranging the dimples is hardly a new invention or a new technical solution to a problem. It isn't anything that anyone couldn't figure out. Patents aren't a reward for you having done work, they're a reward for you having done innovative work. An invention.
You should get a patent for a cotton gin. You shouldn't get a patent for slapping an electric motor on one.
Na, because when the patent for a bill with dimples covering at least 80% of the surface with a solid core, they'll patent a ball with at least 79.996% of the surface covered in dimples with an elastic core.
The produced balls will remain identical.
I take it you wouldn't deny the actual inventor legal recourse.
That really depends on what they "invented"
Knowing the way the patent system is abused, knowing the simplicity of a golf ball, and how old the concepts are that govern their design, I believe any patent claims against a golf ball in *20-fucking-17* should be viewed with a massive fucking grain of salt.
For example, dimples being understood to provide highly improved aerodynamics was pantented back in 1905.
Are that patents here number, shape, and size of the dimples? If so- bullshit patent. But perfectly valid in today's patent system- until it goes to court (and even then, depends how far away you are from East Texas)
(a) In General: The Commission and each State commission with regulatory jurisdiction over telecommunications services shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans (including, in particular, elementary and secondary schools and classrooms) by utilizing, in a manner consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.
(b) Inquiry: The Commission shall, within 30 months after the date of enactment of this Act, and regularly thereafter, initiate a notice of inquiry concerning the availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans (including, in particular, elementary and secondary schools and classrooms) and shall complete the inquiry within 180 days after its initiation. In the inquiry, the Commission shall determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. If the Commission's determination is negative, it shall take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.
That is Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which is far less contentious than the status-based regulatory jurisdiction granted by the FTC act, limited to a poorly defined "common carrier".
That's just a flat out lie. You're lying.
No, you're just an ignorant ass.
No, the Republicans know the FTC doesn't have the legal jurisdiction to rule on this, and are thus claiming that it is the realm of the FTC to rule on. The FCCs jurisdiction by passed law was less contentious, so Obama sent it that way to get the job done, since he knew damn well the Republicans weren't going to clearly empower the FTC to do it, since they are idiologically against the idea of limiting the size of dildo you're allowed to penetrate American consumers with.
But your story sure sounds so much easier to defend.
Democrats are absolutely against education, they kill every attempt at charter schools they can. The only exception is the labor union run schools which are the same schools failing our children. It's all about pandering to a block of votes. Pandering to the unions that take money from members to support political candidates that those members may not themselves support.
This is an intellectually weak argument. Are you truly so dim?
A is against B because they don't support C, which I equate with B, but A does not. God you're so fucking smart. It must seem so simple to you. So little nuance.
Health insurance? Are you kidding? If you like your plan you can keep it, period. Unless you're poor enough to be subsidized or you're a 25 year old child on your parent's plan, your plan premium likely went way up and your plan benefits likely went down.
My premium did go up... Though my benefits did not... But you know what? my premium has gone up every fucking year for as long as I can remember. What was your point again? The ACA did almost fucking nothing to healthcare premiums as far as the trend is concerned... and that's too bad. But it did put a whole fuckton of people on insurance who previously were not.
The EPA needs to be curbed. Remember Obama wanting our thermostats to be centrally controlled? To hell with that.
No, nobody remembers that, because it didn't fucking happen. Thanks for the Brand New Information, Kellyanne.
The EPA is out of control and it's hurting US based businesses which in turn hurts jobs, which hurts the livelihood of the nation.
The EPA is doing its job balancing the interests of people who don't want to choke down poisonous fumes and liquids against the interests of the ultracapitalists. You may think that hurts the livelihood of the nation, but I don't. Again with the A is against B because they don't support C which you equate with B, and they do not... (And neither do most people, in this instance)
The US can't compete in some industries because there is no way to meet the EPA's restrictions and compete with foreign countries that don't have to.
Frankly, I don't give a fuck if we lose the twinkie manufacturing business if China can do it cheaper. I don't care if we lose steel either. If they don't act like a faithful supplier, the value of steel will go up, and we'll start producing our own again. Quit trying to save jobs for the sake of jobs. We shouldn't be racing the third world to the bottom of the barrel in terms of standard of living and per capita economic worth. You're concerned about the country, remember? Start worrying more about the 99% and less about the 1%. My former HS computer class teacher was a logger that lost his job due to NAFTA, was sent to school on the government dime, and became... a fucking teacher. That counts as a job lost due to NAFTA. But what is it really? A person who's had their life improved, because we exported a shit ass job out of our first world country.
It's not about wanting to dump toxic waste in rivers, it's about not wanting to let the US bear the brunt of pollution concerns while other nations profit handsomely while polluting like maniacs.
This is complete bullshit, and you know it. We care not about whether or not El Salvador makes more money logging because they don't have our restrictions, we only care that we're fleecing people as much as we can possibly fucking fleece them. Regulations are a barrier to the maximum monetization of your consumer base, and that is their ONLY beef with them. And I say fuck them.
Our EPA policies is making the air there unbreathable. Congrats forward thinkers.
No, the fact that their EPA does what you want ours to do is making their air unbreathable. You want to compete with them in that arna. Congrats, you fucking moron.
If this means they can make some money by selling my info then perhaps my internet bill out-of-pocket will come down over time.
Ya, that's why my cable bill went down when they started putting ads in their programming.
I'm not actually arguing that I disagree with the logic of just stopping by the grocery store, I'm just saying the claim of energy usage is simply wrong.
The cost of shipping any individual item when done in bulk is vastly more efficient than even what it takes for you to pull off into that grocery store and restart your car... There's just no way around it. The efficiency ratio for your car vs. a delivery truck can best be described as using a locomotive to to move a single rail car, even when factoring in that it's only a small diversion from a path you otherwise would have taken. I'd stop at the grocery store too- the efficiency claim is just wrong on its face.
Now, diverting the conversation to a political one, and using such general labels such as "liberals" kind of makes me doubt any kind of conversation with you can even be constructive, but I'm a generous liberal, and even trolls need to eat.
One can complain about a systemic problem and fight against the problem without committing themselves to solely undertake the action the system needs to take. In fact, one would even call that fucking logical.
You don't change an entrenched system by crossing your arms and doing what the system needs to do in a huff. The system just laughs at you.
If leaded gasoline and CFCs had been tackled only by concerned consumers refraining from using those things, abso-fucking-lutely nothing would have been accomplished. Your argument is bullshit. Cheers.
Nuclear energy. It's clean, it's safe, and it would be cheap if it weren't for paranoid over-regulation. Yes, some safety regulation is needed, but the nuclear industry has far more than it needs, which only restricts its much needed development.
Man... I want to agree with you...
I want more nuclear, but I think you're off the rails with some of your assertions.
It's clean
No- no it fucking is not. Its waste is however highly concentrated and easily sequestered, politics aside, unlike other unclean power generation forms.
it's safe
Except when it's not. Nothing but *very* fucking stringent oversight makes that energy source safe. Don't fool yourself- you're dealing with the power of the atom here. Ionizing radiation and fissile byproducts is no fucking joke, and aren't remotely safe.
and it would be cheap if it weren't for paranoid over-regulation
And unsafe. Cheap and unsafe. We have enough of that now, thanks.
Yes, some safety regulation is needed, but the nuclear industry has far more than it needs, which only restricts its much needed development
I'm sorry, your argument should scare people *away* from nuclear power. I can only hope that if we re-embrace fission energy (and I hope we do), then saner minds than yours are at he helm.
Fission energy isn't something we can be reckless with. I have faith in humanities ability to control it, but I do *NOT* have faith in capitalism's desire to keep it safe. The amount of fucks the CEO has to give falls off at the inverse square of the distance of his house from the plant.
In GP's assertion, a 1 lb. item burns an impressive amount of fuel-per-pound for that UPS/FedEx/Whatever truck if it's just the one item, even if the truck were to only go a block out of its way... even worse when its cumulative, which was his point.
I don't understand what you and GP are trying to say... I mean, of course a 1lb item for a truck is terrible efficiency. A truck will be more efficient than a car only if the truck is loaded more than a car in terms of ratio of carried weight vs. weight of the vehicle.
In no way will the efficiency of any commuter vehicle touch the efficiency of a loaded truck, though. Your commuter vehicle, loaded with as many groceries as you like, will always spend the majority of its energy moving its own weight. That ratio reverses with a loaded truck.
Sorry. We just can't muster the energy to effect climactic changes on that scale, short of having a Nuclear War.
We need to muster very little energy in fact. Just as you can raise the temperature in your home, by kilowatts, with just a few newtons of force. Closing your window.
I'm pretty sure all acts of espionage are classed as treason.
Unfortunately, your confidence is misplaced, because you are flat out wrong.
Espionage is espionage, and though it can be a capital crime, it is not treason, and in fact has a lower bar to be met than treason in burden of proof.
This is because treason is the one crime actually defined in the US constitution, specifically to prevent fuckwits from calling everyone who disagrees with them a traitor.
Second, they're all aware that Michael Hastings was killed
Paranoid delusional right-wing conspiracy theorist plows his car into a tree at high speed after entire family notes that he was straight up off the fucking rails, and he was killed by the jackbooted thugs over at the Obama administration through the FBI controlled by a Republican, and outed by a lifelong Progressive saying it's plausible.
Seems legit. Keep up the good work, Truth Seeker.
I'm unsure what that has to do with treason. He was tried under UCMJ martial law, a code that in ye olden days has been used to execute people for taking a horse.
While I agree it doesn't make much difference to the guy who got hanged, for the rest of us, there is a distinction between terrible shit the military does when it is in control of an area, and the constitutional laws of our country.
What are you talking about? The poorest 50% of the US pays 0 taxes.
That really, really, REALLY isn't true.
Your claims are false on many, many levels.
God, the irony.
You took a soundbite and morphed it to fit a bullshit narrative. It's absolutely true that (almost) 50% of the US pays no *income* taxes.
It does not mean they're poor, and it does not mean they don't make money.
44% pay no income tax
61% (27% total) of that 45% pay no income or payroll taxes after deductions. (This *really* isn't hard to do, and it doesn't take you being poor.)
39% (17% total) of that 45% pay no income or payroll taxes, period. (They are unemployed. Rich, poor, old aren't distinctions you can make from the data)
You took some numbers that were close, changed what the numbers actually were, and then drew inferences from them that can't be made.
Donny, is that you?
DNC split into 2 parties, as you said, and 51 of the 54 that split went back to the DNC for life and were welcomed.
That's not really relevant, but it is true. It's not relevant, because it says nothing about the voters and the fact that Republicans came to take up the positions those Democrats held. Today's Republican platform is the Dixiecrat platform of the 60s, in terms of social policy.
Again, I ask you, did the south magically go from 100% blue in 1964 to almost 100% red today because the voters all had a change of heart? Or did the parties change to reflect the voters?
Nothern Democrats came to dominate National Democratic party politics, and the Republicans were failing against the Democrats in the North. The Republicans had to take on the southern voters if they wanted to stay relevant, just as the Democrats required them before they came to dominate the North. The shift is obvious. Education didn't fail me, but logic fails you.
Just ask yourself this,
Did the South become Republican in the 20th century, or did the Republicans become beholden to the Southern Vote?
The geographic representative map for the vote on the CRA/1964 makes it pretty clear who was against Civil Rights, and it wasn't a Party. it was a geographical location.
Lets clarify.. Republicans - Ended slavery, Democrats opposed to the point of a shooting war. Republicans - Pushed Civil Rights, Democrats (specifically their honored KKK member like Robert Byrd with the help of Al Gore) opposed Republicans - Pushed for women to vote, Democrats opposed.
Almost all true.
Civil Rights legislation was pushed by Northern Democrats. Northern Republicans simply rode the wave after balking for a decade.
You could argue the Dems stole their win on that one, but it's also important to understand that the Democratic party was split into 2 very separate parties at that point in time, more or less, along the mason-dixon line.
Again, the bigotry espoused by the Democratic party, which absolutely cannot be denied, was a north/south issue, not a democrat/republican issue.
More Democrats voted for Civil Rights than Republicans. A larger percentage of Republicans voted for Civil Rights than Democrats. This is because the Democratic party was split north/south, but still had a commanding majority in the north, where the Republicans had zero presence in the south.
The only pattern I see is your willful ignorance to the nuances of the actual demographic split and attempt at turning political parties into your favorite sports team.