Then why do the people that push for carbon taxes always say the exact words: "pay the cost of [the] externalities"

You are admitting that they are lying in order to sell their carbon tax scheme. So why do you trust anything that they say then?

Yes, so they are business friendly whereas we are business hostile. You don't seem to be making the point that you wanted to make.

What does that have to do with anything? It seems like you are just reaching for whatever data point you think can be sloppily spun into something that supports higher corporate tax rates, but your reasoning is so poor that you arent realizing that these data points are either irrelevant (a specific spending datapoint) or actually do the opposite of supporting your narrative.

Irrelevant without also comparing them to the tax rates of other countries over the same periods. I know why you arent doing that. Its because the United States never had the highest corporate tax rates until recently. Everyone else has figured out that having the highest corporate tax rates is bad for their respective economies. We havent yet, and its because of people like you that dont even know what the right questions to ask are.

No they arent. One term carries no content and is in fact wishy-washy shit that is purposely not specific about anything so that the goalposts can be arbitrarily shifted around. When 'green' is suggested to mean 'efficient' it frequently later gets altered to mean 'sustainable', 'carbon neutral', or even shit like 'a step in the right direction.'

Yes. A specific goal. "Green" isnt a specific anything unless you are talking about color and clearly you didnt mean the fucking color when you said it. You meant the nebulous catch-all goalpost-moving crap that all falls under the wishy-washy way-you-feel-about-it umbrella.

This is part of the reason why you find it so hard to accomplish anything. You wont narrow down what you want to accomplish to something specific enough that people can later on say "yeah, they accomplished what they intended" ---- why not just call these things slush funds and be done with it?

You missed gun regulation bills because "some use guns to murder", banking regulation bills because "the fraud laws that were violated arent good enough", gambling regulation bills because "some people gamble away their house", ....

...pretty much everything they do... including all the liberal shit that you didnt want to mention and probably dont even realize is the exact same thing...

Hmm... please consider this statement carefully.

Lets assume that these two things are true:

(A) Carbon emissions has an "external cost" associated with it, and that this cost is born by the people of earth.

(B) A Carbon tax can be levied that is approximately equal to the "external cost" of (A)

Your statement is still not correct. Paying a tax to the government is not at all the same as paying the external cost born by people, even if the tax is exactly equal the cost.

Your argument is essentially the same as if I accidentally burned down my neighbors house, that instead of buying him a new house I have to hand over an equivalent amount of money to the government and then he gets whatever the government decides that he will get.

Do you feel that if I do pay the government an amount equal to a new home for my neighbor that I have paid my neighbors costs? Really? yeah, I didnt think so.

The problem here is that "external cost" is a nebulous thing which allows you to be equally nebulous with your thinking about what "paying external costs" actually means.

Carbon taxes do not pay the external costs of carbon emissions. Full stop.

Our corporate tax rates are the highest in the world, and that only happened recently (Japan's used to be higher, but they wised up.)

Now I'm sure you will retort that companies don't pay the actual tax rates - they get tax exemptions, subsidies, and so forth. This is true only if they are chosen to get those exemptions or subsidies. Plenty of businesses arent getting any of either. Plenty of businesses in the United States pay the highest corporate tax rates in the world with no exemptions or subsidies to easy the harm done to them.

Now, while you were reaching for the exemption and subsidy card did you notice that you skipped over part of the problem? There are two problems. One of them is those exemptions and subsidies, and the other is that without them its the highest corporate tax rates in the world. The industries that can capitalize on those exemptions and subsidies can compete in the global market, whereas the industries that are unable to capitalize on them are not only at a disadvantage on a global level but also on the local level because foreign competitors can easily drive them into oblivion.

It is the complete ignorance of whats going on that is part of the problem. We have this debate about taxes and regulation and some fool going off saying that taxes are down. Taxes arent down at all. You would know not to say such ignorant things if you werent so ignorant that you didnt know that America has the highest corporate tax rates in the world. A problem of course is that the statement "taxes are down" can later be justified by reaching for actual truths, but you arent knowledgeable enough to have led off with the truth itself. You just know that somehow there is a grain of truth to the statement.

You cannot rationally debate about the consequences of inaction nor can you debate about the consequences of proposed solutions if you arent leading off with the truth itself. You need to discuss whats actually happening, rather than bullshit hyperbole like "taxes are down", in order to discuss these things rationally.

Let me quote Hillary Clinton on the subject: "windfall profits"

When you say 7% it doesnt sound like much, but when you say "windfall profits" those evil oil companies are instead robber barons.

If you want to see real windfall profits, look at coffee retailers like Starbucks.

Citation needed. Even the IPCC isnt saying that.

You keep saying it, but the fact that you are saying "green" instead of "efficient" tells us that you think that the word "green" is justification enough.

Its not.

The debate ends here unless the "green" side is willing to offer up more than that word. Its your choice if you wish to end the debate with what is quite obviously not a justification to anyone that isnt feeling you.

If its coming from 3000 miles away and transiting over 3 or 4 different networks, the its certainly his fault and not his isp's fault.

This is the sort of thing that happens when you don't use your ISP's (or at least one on their network) name server.

The cases you describe where a logical sector is only partially written to but luckily the sector was trimmed simply is not a frequent occurrence and even if it were it doesnt pass the smell test because it is the OS that handles writing to partial sectors. The OS always writes complete sectors to a drive (there is no "only write part of a sector" command that HDD's or SSD's understand.)

So even in the case where your scenario were amazingly frequently occurring, the OS would be handling it and not the SSD.

As for your numbers, block sizes are massive on the latest drives. For Intel's 320 series they are 2MB in size.

Also important is that block size is not to be confused with sector size (which is 4KB for the 320 series.)

This is important because READS and WRITES are in sector-sized units while ERASES are in block-sized units. A sector can only be written to once for each erase of the block that contains it.

The drive presents a logical sector layout to the outside world which is different from the physical sector layout. We really only care about the physical sectors for this discussion.

Physical sectors exist in 3 different states:

1) Mapped (contains data important to the logical drive)
2) Unmapped (waiting to be written to)
3) Trimmed (the data within the sector isnt important any more)

The OS isnt the only source of trimmed sectors. Every time the OS writes to a logical sector more than once the old physical sector assigned to that logical sector is marked as trimmed.

The performance benefit of trimmed sectors is that while the drive is idle it can erase blocks that contain only trimmed sectors producing blocks of ready-to-be-written-to unmapped sectors. This is important because erasing a block is the slowest operation a flash chip can do, and there is your performance advantage: As long as you have a pool of unmapped sectors then writes do not wait for erases.

Now dont open your mouth acting like an expert when really you know that you are fucking ignorant.

If loading quickly is important, than Open/LibreOffice Writer doesnt fit the bill. Even on a very fast SSD that thing takes several seconds to load. My guess is Microsoft Word plays on the same bloated field.

Landmines...

The difference between micro-economists and macro-economists is that micro-economists are wrong about specific things, and macro-economists are wrong about things in general...

You know who knows their shit? People that make their living making predictions about markets and economies. I do not mean people that get paid to talk about it - I mean people that put their money on the line and make money when and because they are right. Warren Buffet, Peter Schiff, etc..

..and I do not mean listen to what these people say (which like politicians can be the opposite of what they do.) I mean actually pay attention to what they do (like you should be doing with politicians but probably aren't.) Talk is cheap.

What is Buffet doing? Well the top four stocks for him right now are Wells Fargo, Coca-Cola, American Express, and IBM. His company has about $68 billion in holdings in these 4 companies alone.