Nuclear plants don't take ten years to build. Nuclear plants take two years to build, and safety inspectors take eight years to get over their woo-woo-scary feelings.
"We must judge weather someone is a recipient of a lie, and can be reasoned with, or someone is the teller of lies and must be confronted. I agree that an antagonistic approach is not the only answer, but it is sometimes the best."
And it's so much more satisfying to jump and scream and throw shit, isn't it? You don't have to do any of that empathy stuff, you can just get your rage rocks off and not have to feel guilty afterwards, right?
You say that as though all those white-collar workers aren't going to be collecting Social Security. Like they're going to say "oh, I have a 401(k), I don't need Social Security so I'm going to send this check back."
So are you actually going to answer the question or are you just trolling?
See, sometimes in these comments you seem serious and it makes us want to engage you in actual discussion. Then you bust out stupid shit like this and we wonder why we bother.
"...if they’re subsidizing the phone, and customers are buying the phones and walking away from them, isn’t that just boneheaded business practice?"
If you buy a "contract phone" you get a discount, but you're also required to maintain the contract (and abide by its no-voiding-warranty and early-termination-fee terms.)
If you buy the phone but don't sign a contract, it's typically a lot more expensive (i.e. $500 for an iPhone instead of $200.)
"tangent: I can certainly work on my washing machine without voiding the warranty"
You are permitted to conduct certain service and maintenance activities. You aren't permitted to rewire the motor to double the spin speed or agitator torque, or rejigger the logic to change the length of cycles, or change the proportions of hot and cold water to get better wash performance. (Or, rather, if you do any of these things then you're no longer eligible for warranty coverage on service--just like what happens if you jailbreak your phone.)
PS make sure you understand the distinction between "jailbreak" and "unlock", because they aren't the same thing in the context of smartphones.
Well, no, because the people getting pensions are poor. It's the duty of the wage-earngers to pay for the poor, even if the poor are actually getting more income than the earners who are paying them. (It's always funny to see people arguing that a retail clerk making $50,000 a year has a moral obligation to contribute to the $120,000-a-year pension of a retired police chief.)
You beg the question of whether the "extreme wealth inequality" is a bad thing. Are we assuming that wealth inequality is bad based on historical experience? Because in historical experience, the low end of the equality scale was generally starving to death. In modern America, the low end of the equality scale has cars and TVs and cell phones and is so well-fed that their biggest health problem is obesity.
And it seems to me that this is something that Kain alludes to in his mention of Sweden, with business and labor working cooperatively. American unions always seem to act like it's 1921 and Andrew Carnegie is making asbestos-scrapers buy their own dust masks.
I'm saying that when you describe the "rubber sheet" model of gravity, you wind up with someone wondering what happens if you poke a hole in the sheet.
HIPAA making such identity-linked reportage illegal, for example.
And you might as well also suggest that for certain categories, the mother in question should perhaps be given some kind of indicator to show her poor moral character. Maybe a red "A" sewn on a white piece of fabric, and she's legally required to wear it everywhere.
It's been my experience that any attempt to use analogy to explain a physics principle will result in trouble. It's important, when making an analogy, to explain where it's limited and how far you can generalize it.
At no time did the published papers change. What happened was that No True Scot started to come into play as people pointed out that the AGW "consensus" wasn't nearly as solid as the AGW supporters said that it was.
Supporters like GeneralNBForrest, right down-thread.
We'd have more scientists and engineers if we had more jobs for them to do. But we'd rather give money to old people and poor people, so we don't have any jobs for scientists or engineers anymore.
And many deniers would love to be taken seriously when they do present factual arguments that prove the contrary. Instead they're told all about how their anti-science denierism is blinding them to the obvious truth, leading them to err in their interpretation, leading them to cherry-pick data, leading them to assume all the errors will go their preferred way...
On “Labor 2.0 (initial thoughts)”
In case you've forgotten, your argument was that the power to punish was not "isomorphic" to the power to compel.
"
Nuclear plants don't take ten years to build. Nuclear plants take two years to build, and safety inspectors take eight years to get over their woo-woo-scary feelings.
"
This is an interesting reversal for you, given your arguments regarding the "mandate" in Obamacare.
On “How Not to Read with Charity”
"We must judge weather someone is a recipient of a lie, and can be reasoned with, or someone is the teller of lies and must be confronted. I agree that an antagonistic approach is not the only answer, but it is sometimes the best."
And it's so much more satisfying to jump and scream and throw shit, isn't it? You don't have to do any of that empathy stuff, you can just get your rage rocks off and not have to feel guilty afterwards, right?
On “Labor 2.0 (initial thoughts)”
You say that as though all those white-collar workers aren't going to be collecting Social Security. Like they're going to say "oh, I have a 401(k), I don't need Social Security so I'm going to send this check back."
Or are you suggesting means-testing?
"
So are you actually going to answer the question or are you just trolling?
See, sometimes in these comments you seem serious and it makes us want to engage you in actual discussion. Then you bust out stupid shit like this and we wonder why we bother.
On “The Public Pension Problem”
Yeah, first thing that came to my mind.
"
"...if they’re subsidizing the phone, and customers are buying the phones and walking away from them, isn’t that just boneheaded business practice?"
If you buy a "contract phone" you get a discount, but you're also required to maintain the contract (and abide by its no-voiding-warranty and early-termination-fee terms.)
If you buy the phone but don't sign a contract, it's typically a lot more expensive (i.e. $500 for an iPhone instead of $200.)
"tangent: I can certainly work on my washing machine without voiding the warranty"
You are permitted to conduct certain service and maintenance activities. You aren't permitted to rewire the motor to double the spin speed or agitator torque, or rejigger the logic to change the length of cycles, or change the proportions of hot and cold water to get better wash performance. (Or, rather, if you do any of these things then you're no longer eligible for warranty coverage on service--just like what happens if you jailbreak your phone.)
PS make sure you understand the distinction between "jailbreak" and "unlock", because they aren't the same thing in the context of smartphones.
On “The State of the Unions”
Which is worse, a society with full employment and expensive goods, or a society with cheap goods that everyone buys with their dole cards?
On “The Public Pension Problem”
Well, no, because the people getting pensions are poor. It's the duty of the wage-earngers to pay for the poor, even if the poor are actually getting more income than the earners who are paying them. (It's always funny to see people arguing that a retail clerk making $50,000 a year has a moral obligation to contribute to the $120,000-a-year pension of a retired police chief.)
"
Close the loopholes in the tax code? Yeah, like that 1099 loophole. How'd that one work out for you?
"
Since when was Toyota unionized?
"
"If you don’t want to be forced by the majority of your co-workers, why wouldn’t you just change jobs?"
If you don't like your employer's compensation package, why wouldn't you just change jobs?
On “The State of the Unions”
"At the low end of the equality scale, people are out of work, and their children are depending on charity and/or free school lunches for food."
So, not starving, then. Not "earning their keep" in a middle-class Puritan-values sense, but not actually dying for lack of food.
And do you deny that this is a unique situation in world history thus far, that the destitute worry not about food but about work?
"
And some of the Swedes' best friends are black, right?
"
If you don't put sick-time payouts in the contract then we'll STRIKE.
"
You beg the question of whether the "extreme wealth inequality" is a bad thing. Are we assuming that wealth inequality is bad based on historical experience? Because in historical experience, the low end of the equality scale was generally starving to death. In modern America, the low end of the equality scale has cars and TVs and cell phones and is so well-fed that their biggest health problem is obesity.
"
And it seems to me that this is something that Kain alludes to in his mention of Sweden, with business and labor working cooperatively. American unions always seem to act like it's 1921 and Andrew Carnegie is making asbestos-scrapers buy their own dust masks.
On “Science, Non-Scientists, and the Mind-Killer”
I don't understand.
I'm saying that when you describe the "rubber sheet" model of gravity, you wind up with someone wondering what happens if you poke a hole in the sheet.
On “Searching for Oskar Schindler”
"Of course there are problems with this."
HIPAA making such identity-linked reportage illegal, for example.
And you might as well also suggest that for certain categories, the mother in question should perhaps be given some kind of indicator to show her poor moral character. Maybe a red "A" sewn on a white piece of fabric, and she's legally required to wear it everywhere.
On “Science, Non-Scientists, and the Mind-Killer”
It's been my experience that any attempt to use analogy to explain a physics principle will result in trouble. It's important, when making an analogy, to explain where it's limited and how far you can generalize it.
On ““Reasonable” People”
At no time did the published papers change. What happened was that No True Scot started to come into play as people pointed out that the AGW "consensus" wasn't nearly as solid as the AGW supporters said that it was.
Supporters like GeneralNBForrest, right down-thread.
On “The Financial Class and the Middle Class”
We'd have more scientists and engineers if we had more jobs for them to do. But we'd rather give money to old people and poor people, so we don't have any jobs for scientists or engineers anymore.
On ““Reasonable” People”
And many deniers would love to be taken seriously when they do present factual arguments that prove the contrary. Instead they're told all about how their anti-science denierism is blinding them to the obvious truth, leading them to err in their interpretation, leading them to cherry-pick data, leading them to assume all the errors will go their preferred way...
"
You say that as though the Democrats are out there intellectually bench-pressing bulldozers.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.