Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: This is why my hair always stands on end (Score 1) 259

by bigpat (#47923447) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance
The perfect example of this is the tax on dividends which should be exactly the same rate as other income, but it was argued that it was already being taxed as corporate profits so the rate was set lower. The perverse effect is that people that actually make a wage or salary would pay higher income tax rates compared to those who can shift their income to dividends.

Comment: Re: Most taxes are legalized theft (Score 2) 259

by bigpat (#47923351) Attached to: New Global Plan Would Crack Down On Corporate Tax Avoidance
It is hard to convince people they are better off knowing how much is really being taken from them. But the worst things about indirect or obfuscated taxation are that it is harder to have an informed electorate when taxation is hidden so indirect taxes undermine Liberty and democratic systems and it is harder for even the most well informed to accurately judge whether the tax burden is equitable, progressive or regressive. As far as I can tell the tax system is primarily responsible for the erosion of the middle-class in the US because it is a regressive burden on the middle-class more so than the very wealthy. But try convincing a wealthy person that the higher tax bracket they see and combined taxation is actually less of a tax burden on them than the middle-class. Most people just don't understand how insideous and distorting indirect taxation can be to all our perceptions.

Comment: Re:What now? (Score 1) 131

by bigpat (#47912573) Attached to: The FCC Net Neutrality Comment Deadline Has Arrived: What Now?

When I say "corrupt" when referring to a body of government I usually mean systemically corrupt and not just the paper bag full of money under the table kind of corruption or the laundered campaign contributions or jobs for friends and family kind of corruption which corrupts individuals.

In the systemically corrupt sense the FCC itself is a corruption of a representative form of government in that it is a complete abdication of lawmaking authority by Congress and the President to a commission made up of people who have made big money in the industry they supposedly regulate and to which they undoubtedly expect to return to make big money especially when they are rewarded by the industry for the regulations they craft. So it is both systemically corrupt in that it is a corruption of lawmaking authority which should be held by Congress and the president and not delegated to an unelected commission, but it is also clearly individually corrupt with most of the commissioners deep in the pocket and beholden to the industry they regulate.

Comment: Re: they really think... (Score 2) 73

by bigpat (#47901719) Attached to: NSA Metadata Collection Gets 90-Day Extension
Nobody thinks that this law does anything to curtail mass surveillance. They just added some language to make it appear to restrict phone call record collection, but since everyone calls the phone company and even terrorists can order pizza or call any one of a million phone numbers that are common to everyone, then restricting the number of hops to anything more than one "hop" means they can still collect every single phone record. This law is about distraction and plausible deniability for Congress people.

Comment: Re: Fucking Government doesn't care about US (Score 1) 73

by bigpat (#47901607) Attached to: NSA Metadata Collection Gets 90-Day Extension
The fourth amendment doesn't need to be "extended" by laws. The fourth amendment is a limitation on what laws and government action are constitutional. The current and proposed mass surveillance laws are a blatant violation of the 4th amendment and so are the actions of the Obama administration.

Comment: Re:Not just Reno (Score 1) 440

by bigpat (#47893291) Attached to: If Tesla Can Run Its Gigafactory On 100% Renewables, Why Can't Others?

Renewables alone are going to be insufficient for the world's energy needs.

The energy needs of a world with no more people could easily be covered by renewables.

Easily... meaning after another 50 to 100 years of large scale fossil fuel emissions? Because even for developed economies with plenty of resources it is looking like 20, 30 or even 40 years to get to 100% renewables. Even if you believe that that would be a good thing for the environment, which I think that really 100% renewables would be a bigger negative impact on the environment than keeping a large percentage of nuclear is. That still means that developing economies are going to have to also have to stay away from coal, oil and natural gas for their own economic development.

Comment: Re: Not just Reno (Score 2) 440

by bigpat (#47890241) Attached to: If Tesla Can Run Its Gigafactory On 100% Renewables, Why Can't Others?

people don't understand until you tell them nuclear fuel is a million times more energy dense than chemical fuel.

Could have just left it at "people don't understand"... The PR problem is that nuclear is economically disruptive to the fossil fuel industry so there is a lot of money at stake in spreading fear uncertainty and doubt about nuclear. The industry doesn't really fear solar or wind, because it isn't a large scale or near term threat for fossil fuel dominance. Compared with even a single new nuclear power plant which can power a large part of an entire region with consistent electricity and combined with an affordable and economically viable electric car that combination could almost completely replace fossil fuels.

Comment: Re:Not just Reno (Score 5, Insightful) 440

by bigpat (#47889325) Attached to: If Tesla Can Run Its Gigafactory On 100% Renewables, Why Can't Others?

Climate change and the benefits of using renewables in place of fossil fuels are observable, measurable and given the volume of data we now have it is an irrefutable fact that renewables are preferable to fossil fuels.

Totally agree, but when people cite Germany as being well on their way to using 100% renewables they are missing the facts that Germany has increased its CO2 emissions in the last several years with its shift away from nuclear and they are increasing use of cheap dirty coal to balance the higher costs of renewables.

Renewables alone are going to be insufficient for the world's energy needs. And industrial scale renewables have their own very negative effects on habitats and the environment. Just as shifting food production to biofuels caused food shortages and food riots, there are going to be negative effects if we have to blanket large areas of the planet with solar panels and wind "farms". Just as we found that the downstream effects of hydro-electric dams are often very negative to fisheries, estuaries and sometimes to agriculture.

And I've said it once and I will say it a million times, nuclear is a far better option with far less negative consequences and with even far less risk than even renewables.

Comment: Re:Meanwhile in the real world... (Score 1) 427

by bigpat (#47872561) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013
How do you emit less CO2 burning more coal? Most or all of these new coal plants are not intended to do underground sequestration as far as I can tell. And the reporting indicates that they expect to increase net coal consumption not just replace older plants. I think cleaner means fewer particulate emissions, which is good for lung diseases and quality of life, but still the plan is to burn more coal and therefore more CO2 which is bad for Global Climate Change.

Asynchronous inputs are at the root of our race problems. -- D. Winker and F. Prosser

Working...