Sure, Hillary should be in jail, but she's not the one in power now is she? Trump while denouncing Hillary, committed and is committing all the same as Hillary had done. Obstruction of justice, violation of emolument clause, willfully ignoring border laws to further political goals, violating Campaign rules, using private emails (surprise, surprise), the list goes on and on.
The fact that this got voted insightful means there are a lot of morons who drunk the trump-aide and refuses to see for what he is. But you got this one right: "if anybody else did the same thing, that person WOULD be prosecuted." Indeed, if Trump was not a sitting president on the forefront of executive power, he WOULD be prosecuted.
Sure, some SJW element may have contributed, but game play is simply bad compared to the previous. Not only is it bad, but was released half-finished with full $60 dollar retail price that was halved not 2 weeks into it. The loyal fans of BF got shafted monetarily AND EA shat on them for bogus reasons of sexism, misogyny, etc, instead of admitting outputting a horribly unfinished game.
Yet, you make SJW front and center. Sure all these things contributed to BF5's demise, but if the game is bad, no amount of politically incorrect themes or historical accuracy will save the game.
"Guess what, LIFE is a gamble, with every decision you make. Nothing is guaranteed, everything is chance. Driving to work every day is a gamble that the risk of the travel will be worth the pay off."
Sure, but do you expect that you will be killed by a raging driver on a regular basis because there is no law against rage driving or traffic regulation at all? Or do you actually believe that collective drivers in a free society will spontaneously organize themselves to some unwritten rule in the absence because..?
"It's also shitty parenting if you keep giving your kids money to blow on loot boxes. Teach them budgeting, you get what you get and that's it."
Who's going to protect the rest of us from actual shitty parents' kids when they grow up? Shitty parenting also begets thieves, murderers, homeless, and general undesirables. Not that all of them turn out that way, of course, but maybe for the sole interest of the minors, regardless of parents, that we should put in place a means to protect them (and us)?
All of your arguments devolve to: there's always going to be X, so laws against X is a form of regulation and therefore is ineffective and should be abolished or not passed in the first place.
Meanwhile in the real world, we pass regulations or laws that we reasonably believe will curtail majority of the problems and not toss the responsibilities to bad parenting or whatever Libertarian beliefs you hold dear to.
So sayeth the Trump shill. Here's a fact for you: over 90% of forest areas in California are federally owned and federally responsible. Let's say you are correct that forest lands were poorly managed, congratulations, you've won in pointing out crippled, incompetent federal agency under Trump.
This is the reality in your free market situation:
You are disgruntled that you are not getting a proper treatment through your provider for the illness you currently have, often straight up denying claims or not covering illnesses that were specified somewhere in fine print in your 1000-page contract. You cancel out of anger and try to sign up for next competitor. The new provider deems you have pre-existing condition and deny you. You say, "oh, shit, I better go back, quick!" But then your previous provider denies you as well for having pre-existing condition even though you insured with them for decades before jumping ship. Now you solely pay out of pocket for exorbitant amount of money draining your savings and/or taking out second mortgage against your house OR you stay with your shitty provider that barely covers you. Few months in, now you're broke and declare bankruptcy.
You think this is a cool story? It happens to millions of people in US every year.
Except that Amazon is asking YOU to create potentially unsustainable, low-paying jobs and PAY for the "privilege" of doing so, so that they don't have to claim responsibility when shits hit the fan in their direction.
Sure we can. Corporations and their variations have special benefits and financial protections afforded to them as incorporated companies. They leave a gigantic foot print to the public infrastructure and services they use as corporations, often more so than the sum of people that comprise said corporations. They are also afforded military protections from our government when operating outside the country. All of these come at a cost, and they should be taxed as corporation, whatever that "fair" amount is. A corporation is also classified as a person by Supreme Court, which should've never been, and ever since enjoys even more benefits that are only meant for an actual human being.
Of course, you can take the position of stripping all of these benefits and not taxing them, but they still exert a significant monetary influence over policies and politics over an individual citizen in capitalist society.
"We tax "them" we're just taxing the people who are part of it and/or their consumers (which we could even call indirect corporation members, short term investors: invest money in, short term ROI: get beneficial product out)."
Some of this is ideal, but needs tax loopholes to be fixed. There is a reason why some CEOs opt to receive only 1 dollar per year salary.
"Taxing corporations is effectively a myth which just adds ineffective useless bureaucracy bloat. You can only end up taxing humans in the end."
In that same line of reasoning, taxing in general is a made up idea/myth/human imagination. How appropriate is that we impose mythical tax idea on a mythical imaginary corporation.
"You can purchase a gun from a private seller without a background check, not from a dealer. That varies by state as there are states that require all sales (including private sellers) to go through an FFL."
And you don't see a problem with that as well? Why is it that only some states are going through FFL and not all?
"Your comments on the AR-15 are incorrect. The reason the 5.56 round was adopted by the Military was to allow soldiers to carry more ammo and fire weapons with reduced recoil. Less recoil and noise reduces flinching in shooters and allows greater accuracy. The AR-15 is no different than a number of other firearms that use 5.56 ammo."
Let's see... Carry more ammo and increase the accuracy... because?
Blue...Red... they are false choices. They share the same donor base. It may be true that many politicians are idiots who should have never been put into office, but you forgot the most corrupting influence of them all: money in politics. In the land where money is speech, you see that politicians are not required to reason or understand experts' opinions, or even have a real party platform. They are merely required to carry out instructions from their wealthy donors.
People are delusional if they think majority of politicians decide to vote one way or the other based on their own ideologies or uninformed/informed opinions. Only profit and control matter.
Sigh... Another case of linking citation with cherry picking your own. Here's the complete NOAA summary. Note that, yes, they do not indeed yet observe detectable changes in ATLANTIC while seeing an emerging trend in PACIFIC. But nowhere in this article refute the link between global warming and tropical cyclones globally.
"Sea level rise–which very likely has a substantial human contribution to the global mean observed rise according to IPCC AR5–should be causing higher storm surge levels for tropical cyclones that do occur, all else assumed equal.
Tropical cyclone rainfall rates will likely increase in the future due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content. Models project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm for a 2 degree Celsius global warming scenario. Tropical cyclone intensities globally will likely increase on average (by 1 to 10% according to model projections for a 2 degree Celsius global warming). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclones globally–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 1-10% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones. However, there is at present only low confidence that such an increase in very intense storms will occur in the Atlantic basin.
In terms of detection and attribution, much less is known about hurricane/tropical cyclone activity changes, compared to global temperature. In the northwest Pacific basin, there is emerging evidence for a detectable poleward shift in the latitude of maximum intensity of tropical cyclones, with a tentative link to anthropogenic warming. In the Atlantic, it is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on hurricane activity. Reduced aerosol forcing since the 1970s probably contributed to the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since then, but the amount of contribution, relative to natural variability, remains uncertain. Human activities may have already caused other changes in tropical cyclone activity that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of these changes compared to estimated natural variability, or due to observational limitations."
lol, why not ask Sweden, Norway, or even Canada, our neighbor, about democratic socialism and how that works out for them? Oh wait, you already drank the Republican propaganda Kool Aid. Great idea, clodhopper!
By your logic since Iraq was next door to Iran for invading Iraq, we should invade Kazakhstan(or any neighboring state) and China to engage future warfare with Russia and North Korea, respectively? Why not invade Iran directly instead of surrounding it? Also, since Pakistan is also a border state, what's your excuse for leaving that one behind? You know, the one that provided harbor for Bin Laden?
He was appointed as one of the commissioners in 2012. Trump put him in chairman position of FCC in 2017. However. The way I see it, both are bidders of the corporate overlords.
https://www.fcc.gov/about/lead...
The irony here is that your "condition" is a regulation that prevents monopolies (which I agree is needed). Whose going to enforce that condition? That's right, a regulatory body of government.
Good luck with your imaginary free market.
Except that we subsidize these corporations to build out infrastructure to areas regardless of income levels. Of course, since they have paid off your politicians, they have no accountability to that promise. Cool story about poor people, though.
The death toll article you linked conveniently omits cancer death rate of.65/TWh from radiation exposure (from the same externe data source it's using), when added with the other types (.019 operational and.018 accidental), puts Nuclear at 0.687/TWh, which shifts its ranking above solar, wind, and hydro in terms of death rate.
The second wiki link puts solar PV at cheaper price than nuclear 2016 and onward (with rapid price fall).
Third link just plain does not indicate carbon footprint advantage over solar or wind. Either these data points are outdated or you have not actually "look[ed] at the math."
ARE YOU SURE you are not supporting solar future "with a little bit of nuclear"?
If this were true, our species would have been reverted back to stone age by now since book burning days of Dark Ages. But that didn't happen now did it?
Uh huh, and who's going to support the society when you're retired and bring no economic value? Maybe we should have a system of mandatory death sentence for idiots like you. You see, you're the same type of morons who block immigrants and support the status quo (because you know, you're going to die anyway), and generally bring net harm to the human specie and its future. Don't want to have kids? Fine, shut the fuck up and get out of the way, so the rest of us can plan a meaningful future.
This method of adiabatic variant seems to be still in development stage and not fully proven, with expected first example of pilot plant going online in 2018. If the hypothetical efficiency of 70% or more is achieved, I am quite in favor of this technology where central system storage is required. However, it is not quite ready for prime time where as battery stations are available now and cost to produce them are massively dropping as the likes of gigafactories are coming online.
Contrary to what you have said, transporting battery grid stations are trivial effort as they are not one monolithic battery store, but many refrigerator sized units strung together. If one fails, you simply replace that unit. No reconstruction required.
All indication of the adiabatic system suggests that it requires underground cavern (drilling) to store the vast quantities of pressurized air, not a simple insulated tank out in the open as you have suggested, with many moving parts (motor, cooling tower, compressor, recuperator, high/low pressure turbines, generators, etc) involved where as battery stations simply need to be charged and can be placed practically anywhere where there is a power line. This also means that battery stations can be a distributed network and not a centralized system. The risk of explosion is frankly overblown with modern battery technology.
However, this is all a mute point as we have not really seen this work in practice. When the first German plant comes online, we will see how practical it is to deploy than deploying battery stations.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, Hillary should be in jail, but she's not the one in power now is she? Trump while denouncing Hillary, committed and is committing all the same as Hillary had done. Obstruction of justice, violation of emolument clause, willfully ignoring border laws to further political goals, violating Campaign rules, using private emails (surprise, surprise), the list goes on and on.
The fact that this got voted insightful means there are a lot of morons who drunk the trump-aide and refuses to see for what he is. But you got this one right: "if anybody else did the same thing, that person WOULD be prosecuted." Indeed, if Trump was not a sitting president on the forefront of executive power, he WOULD be prosecuted.
This.
Sure, some SJW element may have contributed, but game play is simply bad compared to the previous. Not only is it bad, but was released half-finished with full $60 dollar retail price that was halved not 2 weeks into it. The loyal fans of BF got shafted monetarily AND EA shat on them for bogus reasons of sexism, misogyny, etc, instead of admitting outputting a horribly unfinished game.
Yet, you make SJW front and center. Sure all these things contributed to BF5's demise, but if the game is bad, no amount of politically incorrect themes or historical accuracy will save the game.
"Guess what, LIFE is a gamble, with every decision you make. Nothing is guaranteed, everything is chance. Driving to work every day is a gamble that the risk of the travel will be worth the pay off."
Sure, but do you expect that you will be killed by a raging driver on a regular basis because there is no law against rage driving or traffic regulation at all? Or do you actually believe that collective drivers in a free society will spontaneously organize themselves to some unwritten rule in the absence because ..?
"It's also shitty parenting if you keep giving your kids money to blow on loot boxes. Teach them budgeting, you get what you get and that's it."
Who's going to protect the rest of us from actual shitty parents' kids when they grow up? Shitty parenting also begets thieves, murderers, homeless, and general undesirables. Not that all of them turn out that way, of course, but maybe for the sole interest of the minors, regardless of parents, that we should put in place a means to protect them (and us)?
All of your arguments devolve to: there's always going to be X, so laws against X is a form of regulation and therefore is ineffective and should be abolished or not passed in the first place.
Meanwhile in the real world, we pass regulations or laws that we reasonably believe will curtail majority of the problems and not toss the responsibilities to bad parenting or whatever Libertarian beliefs you hold dear to.
It's not all or nothing deal.
So sayeth the Trump shill. Here's a fact for you: over 90% of forest areas in California are federally owned and federally responsible. Let's say you are correct that forest lands were poorly managed, congratulations, you've won in pointing out crippled, incompetent federal agency under Trump.
"Those Wall Street people are working for us in the end.
Do you understand?"
It seems to me that you have no fucking clue what Wall Street does.
This is the reality in your free market situation:
You are disgruntled that you are not getting a proper treatment through your provider for the illness you currently have, often straight up denying claims or not covering illnesses that were specified somewhere in fine print in your 1000-page contract. You cancel out of anger and try to sign up for next competitor. The new provider deems you have pre-existing condition and deny you. You say, "oh, shit, I better go back, quick!" But then your previous provider denies you as well for having pre-existing condition even though you insured with them for decades before jumping ship. Now you solely pay out of pocket for exorbitant amount of money draining your savings and/or taking out second mortgage against your house OR you stay with your shitty provider that barely covers you. Few months in, now you're broke and declare bankruptcy.
You think this is a cool story? It happens to millions of people in US every year.
https://www.cnbc.com/id/100840...
Except that Amazon is asking YOU to create potentially unsustainable, low-paying jobs and PAY for the "privilege" of doing so, so that they don't have to claim responsibility when shits hit the fan in their direction.
Sure we can. Corporations and their variations have special benefits and financial protections afforded to them as incorporated companies. They leave a gigantic foot print to the public infrastructure and services they use as corporations, often more so than the sum of people that comprise said corporations. They are also afforded military protections from our government when operating outside the country. All of these come at a cost, and they should be taxed as corporation, whatever that "fair" amount is. A corporation is also classified as a person by Supreme Court, which should've never been, and ever since enjoys even more benefits that are only meant for an actual human being.
Of course, you can take the position of stripping all of these benefits and not taxing them, but they still exert a significant monetary influence over policies and politics over an individual citizen in capitalist society.
"We tax "them" we're just taxing the people who are part of it and/or their consumers (which we could even call indirect corporation members, short term investors: invest money in, short term ROI: get beneficial product out)."
Some of this is ideal, but needs tax loopholes to be fixed. There is a reason why some CEOs opt to receive only 1 dollar per year salary.
"Taxing corporations is effectively a myth which just adds ineffective useless bureaucracy bloat. You can only end up taxing humans in the end."
In that same line of reasoning, taxing in general is a made up idea/myth/human imagination. How appropriate is that we impose mythical tax idea on a mythical imaginary corporation.
Then pass through he would have, until his passport was revoked.
Nice try.
"You can purchase a gun from a private seller without a background check, not from a dealer. That varies by state as there are states that require all sales (including private sellers) to go through an FFL."
And you don't see a problem with that as well? Why is it that only some states are going through FFL and not all?
"Your comments on the AR-15 are incorrect. The reason the 5.56 round was adopted by the Military was to allow soldiers to carry more ammo and fire weapons with reduced recoil. Less recoil and noise reduces flinching in shooters and allows greater accuracy. The AR-15 is no different than a number of other firearms that use 5.56 ammo."
Let's see... Carry more ammo and increase the accuracy... because?
Blue...Red... they are false choices. They share the same donor base. It may be true that many politicians are idiots who should have never been put into office, but you forgot the most corrupting influence of them all: money in politics. In the land where money is speech, you see that politicians are not required to reason or understand experts' opinions, or even have a real party platform. They are merely required to carry out instructions from their wealthy donors.
People are delusional if they think majority of politicians decide to vote one way or the other based on their own ideologies or uninformed/informed opinions. Only profit and control matter.
Sigh... Another case of linking citation with cherry picking your own. Here's the complete NOAA summary. Note that, yes, they do not indeed yet observe detectable changes in ATLANTIC while seeing an emerging trend in PACIFIC. But nowhere in this article refute the link between global warming and tropical cyclones globally.
"Sea level rise–which very likely has a substantial human contribution to the global mean observed rise according to IPCC AR5–should be causing higher storm surge levels for tropical cyclones that do occur, all else assumed equal.
Tropical cyclone rainfall rates will likely increase in the future due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content. Models project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm for a 2 degree Celsius global warming scenario.
Tropical cyclone intensities globally will likely increase on average (by 1 to 10% according to model projections for a 2 degree Celsius global warming). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclones globally–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 1-10% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones. However, there is at present only low confidence that such an increase in very intense storms will occur in the Atlantic basin.
In terms of detection and attribution, much less is known about hurricane/tropical cyclone activity changes, compared to global temperature. In the northwest Pacific basin, there is emerging evidence for a detectable poleward shift in the latitude of maximum intensity of tropical cyclones, with a tentative link to anthropogenic warming. In the Atlantic, it is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on hurricane activity. Reduced aerosol forcing since the 1970s probably contributed to the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since then, but the amount of contribution, relative to natural variability, remains uncertain. Human activities may have already caused other changes in tropical cyclone activity that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of these changes compared to estimated natural variability, or due to observational limitations."
lol, why not ask Sweden, Norway, or even Canada, our neighbor, about democratic socialism and how that works out for them? Oh wait, you already drank the Republican propaganda Kool Aid. Great idea, clodhopper!
Oil was not the sole reason, but a largest contributer. To say otherwise is to turn a blind eye on motivations behind military-industrial complex.
https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19...
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
http://www.washingtonsblog.com...
By your logic since Iraq was next door to Iran for invading Iraq, we should invade Kazakhstan(or any neighboring state) and China to engage future warfare with Russia and North Korea, respectively? Why not invade Iran directly instead of surrounding it? Also, since Pakistan is also a border state, what's your excuse for leaving that one behind? You know, the one that provided harbor for Bin Laden?
And guess who's the biggest sponsor of terrorism now - Saudi Arabia - but we are allies with them?
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
https://www.newsbud.com/2017/0...
https://www.salon.com/2016/01/...
http://www.newsweek.com/why-sa...
You see, we see it as what it is. A complete bullshit by neocons running the White House.
And do not run a campaign for presidency.
He was appointed as one of the commissioners in 2012. Trump put him in chairman position of FCC in 2017. However. The way I see it, both are bidders of the corporate overlords. https://www.fcc.gov/about/lead...
The irony here is that your "condition" is a regulation that prevents monopolies (which I agree is needed). Whose going to enforce that condition? That's right, a regulatory body of government. Good luck with your imaginary free market.
Except that we subsidize these corporations to build out infrastructure to areas regardless of income levels. Of course, since they have paid off your politicians, they have no accountability to that promise. Cool story about poor people, though.
The death toll article you linked conveniently omits cancer death rate of .65/TWh from radiation exposure (from the same externe data source it's using), when added with the other types (.019 operational and .018 accidental), puts Nuclear at 0.687/TWh, which shifts its ranking above solar, wind, and hydro in terms of death rate.
The second wiki link puts solar PV at cheaper price than nuclear 2016 and onward (with rapid price fall).
Third link just plain does not indicate carbon footprint advantage over solar or wind. Either these data points are outdated or you have not actually "look[ed] at the math."
ARE YOU SURE you are not supporting solar future "with a little bit of nuclear"?
If this were true, our species would have been reverted back to stone age by now since book burning days of Dark Ages. But that didn't happen now did it?
Only a complete moron thinks the model 3 will sell for 60,000 minimum when model S at its lowest price point WITHOUT tax incentives is 68,000.
I call bullshit on this. It's pure greed, no other reasoning.
Uh huh, and who's going to support the society when you're retired and bring no economic value? Maybe we should have a system of mandatory death sentence for idiots like you. You see, you're the same type of morons who block immigrants and support the status quo (because you know, you're going to die anyway), and generally bring net harm to the human specie and its future. Don't want to have kids? Fine, shut the fuck up and get out of the way, so the rest of us can plan a meaningful future.
This method of adiabatic variant seems to be still in development stage and not fully proven, with expected first example of pilot plant going online in 2018. If the hypothetical efficiency of 70% or more is achieved, I am quite in favor of this technology where central system storage is required. However, it is not quite ready for prime time where as battery stations are available now and cost to produce them are massively dropping as the likes of gigafactories are coming online. Contrary to what you have said, transporting battery grid stations are trivial effort as they are not one monolithic battery store, but many refrigerator sized units strung together. If one fails, you simply replace that unit. No reconstruction required. All indication of the adiabatic system suggests that it requires underground cavern (drilling) to store the vast quantities of pressurized air, not a simple insulated tank out in the open as you have suggested, with many moving parts (motor, cooling tower, compressor, recuperator, high/low pressure turbines, generators, etc) involved where as battery stations simply need to be charged and can be placed practically anywhere where there is a power line. This also means that battery stations can be a distributed network and not a centralized system. The risk of explosion is frankly overblown with modern battery technology. However, this is all a mute point as we have not really seen this work in practice. When the first German plant comes online, we will see how practical it is to deploy than deploying battery stations.