Right, so the problem is that we're writing laws but not specifying intent. My suggestion is that all laws must come with an accompanying intent description. Violation of the intent would then constitute violation of the law even if you managed to avoid the specific verbiage. Failing that, we'd need a separate legal language where every word has exactly one meaning.
You're painting Libertarians with a pretty broad brush. Although the vast majority would oppose REGULATION of carbon emissions, a carbon TAX (of the Pigovian type) resolves a crucial externality issue which is fair game for any libertarian who is more than just a corporate shill. Ensuring a level playing field, like defense, is one of the legitimate purposes of government. There are of course people who disagree with that notion but they're more properly considered Anarcho-Capitalists rather than Libertarians.
If that gets to the point where it's reliable and it's cheaper than owning a car I'd switch in a hot minute. It would have to be better than calling a taxi though, like average wait times of less than 10 minutes.
We deliberately wait three days because I know if anything bad happens it will show up on Slashdot before we deploy.
So the Luddite Fallacy is basically an economics maxim that says that while technological improvement destroys jobs, it actually creates more jobs than it destroys due to the fact that humans have infinite wants. There are several problems with this idea: 1) As it turns out most humans don't really have infinite wants, just really big ones. Consumption spending as a percentage of income declines as ones net worth increases. 2) The maxim is based on a measly two data points, the transition from Agriculture to Manufacturing and the transition from Manufacturing to service work. 3) There is a limit to the number of sectors of our society. If we accept the most generous definition there are five sectors: resources, goods, services, intellectual work and high level decision making. The resource sector is down to roughly 2.5% and manufacturing looks like it's headed the same direction. The service sector is at the beginning of the automation cycle but we're seeing exactly the same pattern that happened previously. There are three problems with this shift: 1) I don’t see how the intellectual and high decision making sectors can grow large enough to accommodate large sections of the work force 2) Many workers don’t have the innate talents necessary to compete in that market 3) Those sectors tend to be ones where the income distribution is heavily skewed to a small number of superstars. Suppose for a moment that the manufacturing and service sectors achieve levels of automation equivalent to the agricultural sector. If it only takes 7.5% of the population to provide all resources, goods and services is there really going to be enough demand for creative work to keep the rest of the population gainfully employed and earning a decent wage? To make things worse, before the automation of the service sector is even complete we're already starting to see early signs that we may be able to automate much of the intellectual and high decision sectors as well. I'm not saying that there will be NO jobs, just that large portions of the population will be unable to sell their labor for wages. In a society where you have to work in order to participate in the economy that's going to cause severe economic distortion and eventually social chaos. Traditionally one of the ways that labor market participants have compensated for this trend is to increase their inherent value through education. Two hundred years ago basic read, writing and math skills were valuable, one hundred years ago a high school education was great, fifty years ago a bachelors degree was a ticket to success, ten years ago a masters degree kept you ahead of the game. Today, even masters and phd holders are starting to have trouble staying relevant. The minimum required IQ & education to be a meaningful participant keeps increasing and there are hard limits on how much those items can currently be improved. What happens when the average person has no useful commercial value at any wage large enough to keep them fed?
It does if you're taking out debt to pay for it.
What's wrong with you people? They actually make a reboot that's better than any of the originals and all you can do is complain. Frankly I thought it rocked, we had action, character development, a bit of romance, a bad guy that actually makes sense and although there were plenty of special effects they served the story rather than the other way around. I don't see how you could do any better in a movie format.
Changing from 0.15 to 0.08 was an obvious improvement. At 0.15 you're not just drunk you're plastered and definitely shouldn't be behind the wheel. The move from 0.08 to 0.05 though is much less straightforward. Zero tolerance is not an appropriate answer to all questions.
Separation of corporation and state.
If the shortage is so terrible why aren't we seeing tons of stories talking about exploding pay rates and people hopping from company to company because of ridiculous job offers? Oh that's right, it's because there is no shortage of talent, just an unwillingness for them to pay the market rate.
Sure, we'll upgrade when the support runs out, no reason to before then. They should be careful what they ask for though, because upgrade doesn't necessarily mean moving to the newest MS OS, we're probably going to switch to a mix of OSX, SLED and Win 7.