Methane is non-toxic, so it's a bit of a moot point.

He predicted that a Keynesian economic policy would fail because it wasn't big enough? So if it fails it reinforces his views, and if it succeeds it reinforces his views.

How can anybody be taken in by this?

More likely all those products become cheaper and cheaper until they're practically free. At some point it becomes feasible for a small number of talented individuals to provide free alternatives to everyone else -- kinda like the open source community. Heck, we already have people with 3D printers donating time and materials to various causes.

The more salient point that most people miss is that pumping money into the college industry has directly lead to tuition inflation. Thus making student loan debts all the much worse.

This is a recurring theme in government programs. Efforts to make something more affordable just make it more expensive -- kind of like targeted inflation. It can take the form of free loans or grants or tax credits or rule changes... there are lots of ways to screw things up while meaning well.

What we need is some sort of death penalty for government programs or institutions. They should "go out of business" if they screw up too badly. Alas, we seem to be heading in the opposite direction where now certain large corporations aren't allowed to fail.

Perhaps a few thousand jobs are worth more than whatever corporate taxes they would have collected? I don't know Marx's stance on jobs, but I've heard they're beneficial to an economy.

Plus, some countries even tax the income from jobs. Strange but true!

Holy shit, transmission lines? Water pipelines?! Thank god this madman was stopped! Sure, some cities in the area might need both of those things, but the important point is this guy wanted to make money off of it. The nerve!

I understand where you're coming from, but there are some practical and philosophical distinctions between the two:

• With an actual subsidy they're directly redistributing money from one group to another.
• With a tax break it's a lot less clear cut. For all we know it's a net tax gain from the extra payroll taxes, etc.
• A subsidy can actually prop up a failing business, whereas tax breaks (while helpful) can't help if your expenses are still greater than your income.
• It's cheaper to give a tax break of $100 than a subsidy of $100, since money tends to evaporate as it passes through a bureaucracy.
• Ideologically, you don't want to encourage the idea that all income is the government's until they let you keep it.
• Politicians aren't being honest when they spin tax credits as subsidies or reductions in budget growth as budget cuts (for another example).

So the article writer assumes that not taking money is the same as giving money. That is some screwed up logic right there. It makes me wonder why we're subsidizing this writer (by not taxing his income at a higher rate).

Sure, you can complain about the tax system and about all the tax breaks so-and-so qualifies for, but it's dishonest to say that the government is subsidizing EA. I'd even say it's pandering, since by the second paragraph they mention (and have a screenshot of) Dead Space 2. The implication being that "YOUR TAX DOLLARS" are funding "EVIL VIOLENT MURDER GAMES".

At least it's marked as an editorial, right? Wait, no it's not.

According to Wikipedia methane is non-toxic, colorless, and odorless.

So clearly Wikipedia is in the pocket of Big Methane. Someone should make a documentary about how Wikipedia has sold out. For citations they can cite this post, and I'm sure you can find enough anecdotes to fill a movie.

Or this might be better, depending on the quality of the query optimizer:
select table1.foo from table1 inner join table2 on table1.id=table2.id AND table2.criteria='something''

When your personal information is stripped out of it per existing federal law. RTFA, this is about doctors not patients.

1) Not patented.
2) Are marked.
3) Cannot contaminate the biosphere with naturally growing varieties with some of the interesting side effect proteins they produce as part of the GMO process.

So you're okay with GM crops as long as:
1) There's no inventive to research them.
2) They're singled out for no health-related reason.
3) They can't cross breed, but I'm also guessing you'd complain if they're sterile. (i.e. seeds need to be bought each year.)

But for some reason, the large GMO companies don't want you to know what corn you eat is GMO.
Why?
????

GMO companies don't want their products singled out by ignorant fearmongers? You're right, that is a mystery.

If it were up to some people the official GMO symbol would incorporate a skull and crossbones.

In that quote, Schmidt was referencing the government's ability to demand your information. Google had recently lost a court case about it, which is why he brought the subject up.

A lot of privacy crusaders seem to mix up private and public information, though. Whatever you do in Wal Mart is public, and you can't demand that they erase all footage of you from their security cameras and make every employee that saw you forget that you were there.

Similarly, if you freely give information to Google, like search terms and your IP address, should you be able to force them to forget it?

Sensitive personal data -- SSN, bank account numbers, etc. -- I can understand special provisions for. But your unhealthy Febreeze obsession? The only thing protecting you there is your obscurity and Wal Mart's desire not to drive you away .

Nobody remembers because that's not relevant to anyone's day to day life. I mean, who says "880 yards" instead of "half a mile"? And if you ever do need to calculate it, you most likely have the ability to look up the answer at your fingertips.

You know what else is needlessly complex? The Japanese language. Why do they use such an over-elaborate system that nobody else in the world even uses? It's rather incomprehensible. /sarcasm

I think they could hire more people and do both. I mean, I'm pretty sure the Half Life franchise is profitable in and of itself.

All this kinda reminds me of when the government does some trivial bullshit while some bigger problem is happening. People breathlessly complain about it, but I'm pretty sure the government can do more than one thing at a time.