They dont have to pass anything. Just let it expire. Saying they HAVE to do something is supporting it.
"Can people afford to put a solar array on their house with $70k income? No"
No? only a doofus thinks that. I put one on my home when I made only $40K It's not expensive if you don't use the overpriced made in america solar panels.
I bought China 200 watt panels for less than $1.50 a watt. then installed a syncing inverter and use the grid as my battery. I actually run the meter backwards.
If you make $70K and cant afford solar, then you are either a fool, or someone that can't budget money very well.
I'll give you $50 cash for each of them.
Most will be sold by the end of the summer.
Air is free. I've never had to pay anyone to produce it for my respiration.
Piped and treated water is not free, but water that you catch in a sufficiently clean container is free.
There are some actually free things out there. I can collect firewood on public land, if there are no applicable regulations preventing me, and it used to be that there was common areas available for pastures.
Let's not pretend that there is no such thing as free just because we're regulated and enclosed our resources. We've made a number of things unfree in the name of civilization, and that's not a terrible thing, but let's understand that this isn't an iron law of reality. "Free" exists as something that can be experienced.
And in this case, since $70K isn't actually a poverty line income, the lack of "free" is more obvious. He is a member of a class who probably *did* pay into the fund that paid for his solar panels. The difference is that he got a significantly bigger return on investment than most people do from their taxes.
Of course, I get what you are saying. It is "free to the recipient", but I think people are right to complain about the way the government hides the cost of it's giveaways by providing the illusion that reallocation of money via taxes isn't that, but rather it is a gift from the state to them.
Everyone wants free shit. And they want the government to give them free shit. Perhaps it is time people start considering that it isn't actually free, because the difference between free and reallocation in people's minds is that "free" means everyone can get the same stuff, when really they can't.
Sorry, but if you were black, jew, or a dog back then, you had no chance to become someone "important" in Germany unless you knew something about physics, rockets, nuclear reactions, aeronautics, etc.
Wait... Dogs were important in Germany if they knew about physics, rockets, nuclear reactions, or aeronautics?
You're lying. I never saw that on the History Channel.
You have obviously educated stupid brain. Four corner, 24 hr simultaneous days is truth. One-ness is demonic religion. Internet is always right, and also has four corners.
Next up, free food for "poor" people making $70K.
It's called Soylent Green, and it is what CA plans to do with the people who make less than $25K a year.
"It's the People's Food, that's why it's made with 100% People!"
That's poor for the Bay Area. I assure you, that's not the poverty line in the US. We have plenty of minimum wage workers who make nowhere near 70K a year.
Hell, I made only $26K a year in my first job and I had to cut corners to pay my school loans, but mostly I did okay. Granted that was almost 20 years ago now, but inflation hasn't been *that* bad.
It is, however, misleading. Giving stuff to poor people is fine, but the word "free" does imply that it comes from some government largess that is somehow magically separated from the actual taxes that people pay.
Of course, it's all okay, because it's the rich people who are paying for it and they have plenty of money.
Except of course, it isn't. It's mostly the middle class paying for this sort of thing because there aren't enough rich people out there to have even their higher tax assessments (when they pay them) make up for the amount you need to relieve the middle class from to assert that the rich are actually "paying" for it.
He's not necessarily talking about going off the grid. There's a certain minimum investment to getting *any* panels on your house. It may not be $40k, but it's still not cheap.
Actually their acceptable ads (which you can turn off with a single checkbox and they even offer the option on first install) is exactly what I've been saying for years should be the only ads allowed due to security concerns,
1.- Static only (no Flash or Java, but they go one further and put no animations like GIFs), 2.- No "pop up/ under" ads blocking content (which is more likely to cause the user to click to try to move it, thus making it a good target for a malware link) but again they go farther with actual size requirements, 3.- Ads have to be clearly labeled as ads (so no fake security dialog boxes or images the user might click on concealing ad links) and yet again they go farther than I came up with by rules for borders and a bunch of rules for hyperlinks.
So as long as advertisers follow these rules? The odds of an ad based malware attack drops right off the chart. All your usual threats, third party flash, fake links, etc are removed from the equation. Most of us have no problem with the sites we use having a few adverts to stay afloat but what we DO very much have a problem with is putting users at risk for the profit of website owners. the ABP acceptable ads rules seems to address this concern and goes above and beyond so ATM I can really find no fault with the system.
(unless you're referring to the browser itself not being pre-installed?)
Obviously, I don't believe this requires a large leap on logic. I said users need to intervene to stop ads, you pointed to a browser which meets the exact criteria I gave.. that a user must intervene to stop ads. The browser only changes what a user needs to install to intervene and block ads.
I don't disagree that the problems are hard, but I think reality will show people where they need to be. No one is going to spend tens of billion dollars on a trip to Mars unless they really think it can be done and have something to back that up.
I think it is possible to set up a colony now, it is just extremely likely to fail with the shoestring funds and priority we're allocating to it. I think that any one of a million things can go wrong that would kill every last person who tried to do it. So yeah, Mars One = space suicide pact. That is, if it even gets more than a foot off the ground.
What I don't think is that we lack the suitable technological level or resources to do it. We don't need to have another technological revolution to make the trip possible, we just have to devote the time and resources to devising the solutions. The problem in that case is less of possibility and more of priority. If we made this our top priority, I am 99% certain we could have a successful colony on Mars in short order, but no one is going to make that our #1 priority. So, now we figure out what we can do with the limited resources we've allocated the project.
I'm okay with the sci-fi people being optimistic. Optimistic people make difficult things happen in the face of adversity. Realism takes care of itself.
The federalist papers were written by one man.
NO! Good grief, at least spend 10 seconds searching Wiki before attempting to appear knowledgeable on a subject. You follow a blatant fabrication with a questionable statement, and close with complete crap. The purpose of the Constitution was not to make a 'stronger' Federal government, not even close.