"Boo hoo for them!", say all the Mom-and-Pop stores and American-made manufacturing who were put out of business by economic manipulation and IP theft dragonboating.

"Climate Change"...uh..fraction of a degree of heat...IF the "corrected" data, selective editing, hyperbole, and computer models are correct...means less death and more food. Maybe Gaia worship isn't all it's cracked up to be...

World population is shrinking. Resources always become "scarce." There was a time worldwide doom was predicted because there were not enough wales from which to harvest fuel oil.

Here's an idea, instead of sourcing items from Chinese slavery and pollution then shipping them across the world, perhaps redirect all that to local production in the US where the pollution regulations, as enforced, are the best. Starve the communist slavery business and provide jobs for local people. What a concept!

" fines disproportionately affect the poor and disadvantaged in our society..." ...and people who are lazy and people who are irresponsible.", let's not forget them. The idea that "victims" are always the downtrodden pious is crap.

What happens when people don't return library resources? They are stealing opportunity from other people.

Let's see...public libraries are usually funded by taxes which is money forcibly taken from people who produce so...the "wealthy and advantaged" have already paid for the resource which the "poor and disadvantaged" get without cost.

What incentive is there for anyone to produce if they are "given" everything by forcibly taking it from someone else? None.

In the United States, public libraries are descended from Andrew Carnegie's investments to educate the populace. One of the fundamental differences of the United States was the intentional weakness of copyright law to create an educated populace. Public libraries = good.

STATIC math, not dynamic math. Removing fines changes the environment.

To illustrate: The "math" of the cost of prosecuting minor crimes was considered negative in San Francisco.

Removing penalty rewards undesired activity. Always has, always will.

That was exactly my point.

Political Science and Economics is worthless when the issues are manufacturing, logistical supply, distribution, and controlled use.

These are all theoretical blowhards with no real comprehension of that which they proclaim must happen.

Political Science and Economics are all loosey-goosey play math with aggregate numbers. All they really do is claim to know how things work...but they don't actually make anything.

Let's see, 20 million tests per day to "remobilize the economy."

Who, exactly, creates these tests? Where? How are they distributed? Where do the resources come from? Where does the money come from?

20 million per day is testing everyone in the US in about 2 weeks.

All this does is expose Harvard "experts" as being idiots and Business Insider people as having no bs meter.

These people would look at the classic cartoon of two scientists discussing equations where one scientist says to to the other, "I think you need a little more work here." while pointing to the text on the chalkboard which states "something happens here" and think the cartoon is an instruction of how to "advance."

"single use plastics are still stupid, and we can eliminate them, so we should"
Really? That's a GREAT idea! Cost and effect don't matter.
I suppose you've created the perfect bio-degrable flexible, shatterproff glass?
Plastic films are about 1/100 the mass of rigid containers but...what the heck...we CAN replace them with...metal? Oh, darn, that requires mining and they rust. Um..paper? No, that requires coatings which prevent recycling. Pottery? Yeah! That's the ticket! Obviously, there was no death, disease or destruction in ancient times so we'll live that way.
Who needs electronics, packaging, hygiene, or low cost/high performance structural materials.
It's POSSIBLE for people to live without comsuming much of anything so, therefore, ALL people SHOULD because...you want them to.
So...no plastics, electronics, plumbing, HVAC, hygiene, power, transportation or synthetic fibers.
Uh....yeah...
Don't bother replying. It'll just show you demand other people do what you won't since you'll have to consume power and use plastics to reply.

Uh....no.

Every tech increase creates new need for people. Somebody has to service the new things. Automation cannot replace a human brain, period. Forge the bs from Musk and the other AI people who peddle FUD as clickbait and the scam idiot hedge fund children.

Your idea only works if human thought stops. Queen Victoria knighted a guy for his research which "proved" the world economy would stop because there weren't enough wales to supply whale oil as fuel. Ethernally mythical human replacement AI/automation won't reduce the need for people.

The specific TASKS people perform are replaced by others. Did the world economy collapse when electricity and natural gas replaced physical delivery of coal to homes? Nope. Did the world economy collapse when mass production replaced one-off craftsman creation of shoes? Nope.

Free (to compete on equal terms) market economics has lifted more people out of poverty in the past 20 years than anything else in history. Did that REDUCE or INCREASE the need for labor? It increased it.

There is not, and never will be, any human-created machine that can replace a person. Automation can replace repetitive actions, it cannot communicate or adapt as a person.

Five major factors which HURT people during rapid tech change are:

1) Education systems based on political indoctrination and/or squashing human spirit to force them into being organic repetitive action machines
2) Protein deprivation, intentional or not, which hampers human cognitive ability
3) Population boom when a society's tech advances greater than the society adjusts to declining death rate
4) Evil people who want to control other people. Stereotypical local warlord who controls food supply is a good example.
5) Human stupidity combined with evil people who promote Socialism as a panacea when it is really a method to extort human charity and to steal. Venezuela, anyone?

"Climate denialists, both TV pundits and politicians -- which by the way are not scientists -- are by and large sponsored by polluting industries.

    Look at the donations these asshats receive, all from coal or fossil fuel, automotive and aviation organizations. They don't believe in their own propaganda, they just like the money in their pockets.

There is nothing wrong with conservation and there is nothing wrong with being safer rather than sorry. Whats the worst case if climate change somehow ends up being nothing. what would be the damage?"

so...you proclaim anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong then you ask them a question?!?!

Dogma much?

What harm could possibly come from bankrupting the entire world population and placing them under dictatorial control of non-elected non-representative government which destroys ability to transport, store, or communicate?

Yeah, let's try that. You first.

The ZDNet article states, "where the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) had placed ballistic missiles part of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS)," which led to a lot of mistakes in this thread.

That is both factually and grammatically incorrect.

Here, I fixed it for the author; "where the Missile Defence Agency (MDA) had place ANTI-ballistic missiles AS part of the ..."

Ballistic missiles are ICBMs and SLBMs. They deliver nuclear warheads to targets.

ANTI-ballistic missiles are to destroy incoming ballistic missiles.

Those are two VERY different things.

The articles is about ANTI-ballistic missiles.

FWIW, I was an ICBM Launch Officer and worked on design of control systems during the Clinton era. In my time, this had many, many, layers of physical security, encryption, information separation, and so on which resulted in the equivalent of multi-factor security for physical and information access and communication. I do NOT have knowledge of current systems. However, most likely the basic design philosophy of ballistic missile access control has not changed much.

This seems more like at attempt at fearmongering to get young males on the "burning earth" cult.

A 2C rise in global temperature would INCREASE agricultural land and reduce the % of people who die from cold.

More land = more food. More food = a threat to the powermongers who control people through artificial scarcity.

There are other reasons this post and many of the comments (what a surprise) are basically invalid; they ignore the structural protections of SC voting procedures.

Echo the comments about hundreds of daily port scans. Use an enterprise-class firewall like UTM and see how often your IPs are probed to get an idea of what is really going on.

SC requires people to be registered 30 days prior to an election. Computers used for the elections are not connected to the Internet. Printed materials and data are prepared and distributed in advance of election day. There are multiple layers of redundant and differing methods of validating a voter each step of the way.

Is it possible for someone to vote who is not entitled to vote? Of course. Is it possible to compromise the system? Of course. Is it probable this could happen? Only if certain key people in multiple position work as a team and are not detected.

A much more probably location of fraud is North Carolina given they are prohibited from checking photo ID (which is a basic requirement for everyday life in the US - don't blow that racist lie at me unless you are willing to admit you want to discriminate against people) and same-day registration. When I worked elections there, it was also legal for a person to vote in a precinct other than the one in which they lived. The problem with that is their legal right to vote cannot be verified.

Vote fraud is theft of representation from those who have the right to vote. Last year there was complaining that precincts with less than 50% white population in NC had further to travel to vote than white voters. The average difference was something like 1 mile. The reality is buildings appropriate for voting, with parking and ADA-compliant structure, must be rented and staffed. They do not magically appear in the calculated geographic center of a population. NC also has early voting. 10 years ago this was available for a month before election day.

It's very easy to find some statistical "hindrance" or "threat" to voting integrity. It's quite another to find a valid one.

The electoral college is an equalizer similar to the way each state gets 2 Senators and a population-proportionate number of Representatives.
Without it, the mob rules (queue Black Sabbath from the Heavy Metal soundtrack.)
Historically, it was created because Philadelphia would have been able to dictate to the entire country.
Utter BS to your statement there is no vote fraud. You're playing semantic games. There has always been, and always will be, vote/election fraud. Otherwise, how to explain dead people voting, 100% (sometimes 100%+) turnout for one candidate, people found guilty of fraud, etc.

OP should READ and COMPREHEND before cutting ans pasting.

This rule uses the legally indefinable word, "reasonable" which renders it unenforceable and a total waste of everyone's resources.

That's why it's being killed.

Trump /= Emmanual Goldstein

"You missed the cause of all of this: no nationalized healthcare. A single-buyer can negotiate prices"
Completely wrong, both in your analysis and causal claim.
Reduction in tool failure means human failure will be statistically more common. That does not mean human failure has increased nor does it mean aggregate failure has increased. The "rise" of human failure, all things being equal, is GOOD NEWS. It means tools and methods are far more reliable.
To illustrate: Human failure is far more likely an issue of injury in a vehicle incident now than 40 years ago. Fatality rates are dramatically lower while human cause has increased.
Competition lowers price and increases quality.
It is a system in which success ultimately requires being more productive than your competition.
Monopoly is incentive to do as little as possible while demanding as much as possible.
Competition encourages altruism.
Monopoly encourages extortion.
"Single payer" requires the impossible condition of maximum efficiency and altruism from the most inherently selfish and lazy structure possible.