The argument is not whether or not the proposal will "work." The issue is that jobs providing products and services that consumers actually want will be reduced to pay for a robotics program that consumers do not want. This proposal evinces an antimarket bias. It also has an antiforeign bias, in that it attempts to increase market share at the expense of foreigners for no apparent reason beyond base protectionism, ignoring the benefits of comparative advantage and the specialization of labor. Instead of Europe producing what it is best position to do so and satisfying consumer demand, it will be wasting jobs and resources in an attempt to "beat" disfavoured foreigners in market share in robotics.
This is another example of corporate welfare masquerading as a jobs plan, combined with protectionist sentiment. The central planners will take money out of the productive economy and spend it on a corporate giveaway to favoured interests. Jobs that otherwise would have been created in the productive sector will be lost, while only the 240,000 pork barrel jobs will be noticed by the superficial. Whether Europe is best positioned for the robotic industry will be ignored. Instead of this boondoggle, it would be better to leave well enough alone and let jobs be created where they are most needed, and let comparative advantage and the specialization of labor decide Europe's share of the robotics market.
Artificial meat isn't meat for vegetarians, you aren't the target market. It's meant for omnivores. And experience has shown that some will pay extra for perceived ethical improvements, e.g. cage-free eggs vs. battery eggs. People would also be willing to pay some amount more for artificial meat.
"The idea is that switching away from cable TV will simple make consumers more beholden to their internet connections, and removing (i.e. acquiring) the competition will let Comcast raise rates without losing customers."
Cable companies don't compete with each other, they have their own territories. There's nothing stopping them from raising rates without hypothetically losing customers now.
You cannot take the legal doctrine of disparate impact and apply it carte blanche to every other aspect of human relations. It is not a general principle, and should not be misused as such. To claim otherwise is entirely novel and requires far more than a bare assertion of its new definition.
Disparate impact has no relevance to this situation, as it is not employment-related.
Nothing racist about avoiding crime-plagued areas. Now, if the app was avoiding black middle-class areas, would be entirely different, but that's not what's happening here.
Something fishy when the uber-parent claims that war "seems likely," when the House will almost vote war down, and the Senate is about to experience a filibuster.
Pause[d] and stopped mean the same thing. You're just trolling.
You might have noticed that the press release was dealing with predictions, not the past record. If I was a serious opponent, I could try pointing out that it states "we will continue to see temperatures like those which resulted in 2000-2009 being the warmest decade in the instrumental record dating back to 1850," but that isn't inconsistent with global warming ending in 1998. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF does argue that global warming stopped, although in 2000, not 1998.
I'm going off of the UK's Met Office, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2259012/Global-warming-Met-Office-releases-revised-global-temperature-predictions-showing-planet-NOT-rapidly-heating-up.html. Also http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/16/2012_temperature_figures/. And http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html.
The "recent slowdown recent slowdown in the pace of warming" is more accurately written as "the cessation of global warming since 1998." When AGW proponents make accurate but misleading claims, it's not a surprise when the rest of us look on in doubt.
It's possible Windows 3.0--which Wikipedia claims was the first pre-installed Windows--outsold Macintoshes running System 6 in 1990, but historical data is needed to validate the claim that assuming Gartner's sale estimates Apple devices would be outselling Windows devices "for the first time ever."
So we're the Saudi Arabia of natural gas and coal, and have vast amounts of oil to last for decades at minimum. Why does he want to spend our money on this?