"At 150K miles you do have to replace the oil used to cool the battery charger."
Why? In a traditional car, the oil looses its ability to lubricate. What exactly does the oil in a battery charger do after 150K?
No idea.
So lets say that's your unavoidable future. Do you want air conditioning in the desert, or no? Let's say you'll spend the next 5 years cleaning toilets - do you prefer they be the kind where you can flush the toilet paper, or the kind where you make the used toilet paper the maid's problem?
Incremental improvements remain better than no improvements. Do you know much about working and living conditions during the American industrial revolution? Living in 7-story walk-ups, heavy industry with child labor and no thought to safety at all, company stores, etc? And still people flocked to those jobs because it was better than rural America for most. It gets better, one increment at a time.
Fixing the problem starts with popular acceptance of the idea that one can say we're sending too much without being some extremist calling for the end of government. Less does not mean none - spread the word!
If you want zero taxes, go to Somalia.
Fuck you very much sir troll; fuck you very much.
It's worth noting that the more we depend on income taxes on high earners, the more federal revenue will suffer in bad economic times (the very times when the left would argue we need to spend most). Changes to the sum total of income of the bottom 95% in bad times are pretty small: maybe unemployment goes from 5% to 8%, so how much does that affect the total tax base? But top-tier incomes are really unstable, they go down fast in a downturn and up fast in an upturn, so federal revenue takes it on the chin from that group during times like 2008-2011.
That's probably the dominant factor in changes federal revenue as a percentage of GOP these days, now that 1% of tax payers pay about 1/3 of all income taxes, and that noise drowns out any signal we might get from changes in top marginal rate.
Otherwise known as, "regulation to keep the competition out".
It seems to me that the tendency to over-regulate in order to give advantage to existing market movers simply isn't justified. Yes, you need to deal with liability, but there's nothing that says that over-regulation is the only (or the best) way to do it.
They build the hardware, however they do not make or have access to the source code or take the lions share of the profits. So more a source code demand along with an economic preference as well as pay back for communications exclusions. You seriously didn't think there were not going to be repercussions for that. The government of China knows full well the US government is run by US corporations, hence any actions taken by the US government against China's interests will be paid back by economic attacks upon US or applicable multi-national corporations. Thus forcing the US or multinational corporations to make their puppet alter it's policies with regard to China. Get used to it, every time the US misbehaves Russia and China as well as large chunks of the rest of the world will take it out against those that control the US government and force policy change.
No claim can be made about the moment of his decision, it was his own. Clearly no plan had gone into a more peaceful exit via nitrogen or drugs, instead a more brutal immediate method was chosen on the spur of the moment, that moment where the stresses of continuing exceeded the survival instinct. No one is a slave not even to their own life. It is really rather shallow to pick apart someone's demise. The law enforcement agency was clearly to blame purposefully apply as much stress as possible on order to force compliance to their demands, a ludicrously inflated sentence or false admission of fault for a reduced sentence. That pressure succeeded forcing a spur of the moment decision, one that ensures escape.
Can you read maths formulas, hmm?
So, according to you, unfalsifiable hypotheses, like astrology, or creationism, can be considered science the same way we consider astronomy and evolution?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Your beliefs are colliding with facts again
Of course Karl Popper didn't define science - he simply wrote about the most basic requirement for the scientific method, that of falsifiability.
If you'd like to assert that falsifiability isn't required, by what method do you exclude astrology or creationism from being "science"? If falsifiability is not going to be the tool you use for demarcation, exactly what do you propose?
With your bare hands?!?
