We finally got a winner in that Impression V. Lexmark case: the little guy won and it's likely to have vast shockwaves all over various industries.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
Fuck yes. Not just for cheap toner refills, but for kicking the concept of "you don't own that thing you bought, we still own it and can dictate what you do with it" right in the dick.
I'm hoping John Deere is running scared. This means they really have no right to keep farmers from hacking their machines and do part swaps without paying John Deere for a technician and a brand new part.
Big Pharma is running scared too. This makes it clear that the US will not force other countries to honor our patents, ensuring that there will ALWAYS be cheap generic drugs on the market internationally.
A week later, the government still claims to be in complete control of the city, but some number of insurgents remain in various buildings and areas of Marawi, and there is no power. The island has been placed under martial law by Duterte.
So far there's been about a dozen dead soldiers, unknown number of dead Maute, eyewitness reports of child soldiers, and thousands have fled the city.
Here's some pictures of two AFVs, and weapons/equipment, that the Maute captured from the PA, along with some (unverified) context on what they depict.
Last edited:
Apparently Mylan (makers of the EpiPen) may have screwed taxpayers over to the tune of $1.27 billion by classifying the EpiPen as a generic to avoid paying higher reimbursement fees to government programs.
It would have been nice if Sen. Grassley had just gone off on Sen. Manchin on just how much a piece of shit his daughter is.
Wait, so despite resisting the allowance of a generic version of Epipen for years, they had been classifying it on the Medicare/aid paperwork as a generic for that same period of time to avoid the higher reimbursement rate? Do I have that right?
Because if so, that's...an impressive commitment to evil.
Because if so, that's...an impressive commitment to evil.
Reports suggest that you do have it right, and they have been doing so.
And it's not Evil, it's mere Greed. Not malicious, just amoral.
--Patrick
Greed is one of those seven deadly sins, though.
Maybe not on it's own, but it's just the latest in a string. All enabled by Daddy Senator/Governor.
@DarkAudit industrial-scale power storage is NOT a thing yet. It's too expensive. Tesla/Solarcity is trying to change that, but it's still not enough to account for those times when conditions are not favorable. Hence you need to have basically the ENTIRE base-load as "conventional" generation, PLUS the wind/solar stuff. So you aren't really "adding" capacity with those things.
For those who play Space Engineers (on planets, so sun only up 50% of the time), imagine if batteries there cost about 500x as much as they do now, plus they needed platinum (relatively rare for those who don't play). Would solar panels really be as big a part of your energy strategy, or would you be going all-out nuclear ASAP? Hell, you probably already go all-out on nuclear because solar is a PITA when the sun moves. But that's the analogy: right now storage augmenting renewables is way too f'n expensive to be practical at reasonable cost levels.
So his statement isn't exactly groundbreaking from what I've seen. Or maybe I'm missing something in whatever original quote he's quoting the quote of. I'm not exactly a Twitter-ninja.
For those who play Space Engineers (on planets, so sun only up 50% of the time), imagine if batteries there cost about 500x as much as they do now, plus they needed platinum (relatively rare for those who don't play). Would solar panels really be as big a part of your energy strategy, or would you be going all-out nuclear ASAP? Hell, you probably already go all-out on nuclear because solar is a PITA when the sun moves. But that's the analogy: right now storage augmenting renewables is way too f'n expensive to be practical at reasonable cost levels.
So his statement isn't exactly groundbreaking from what I've seen. Or maybe I'm missing something in whatever original quote he's quoting the quote of. I'm not exactly a Twitter-ninja.
"So much for the tolerant left."Dear Gods, he IS that stupid...
Santorum has ingested too much santorum.
I hate this phrase so much it hurts. When these assholes start showing some tolerance, I'll be happy to show them some as well.
Another solution would be to link generation across time zones, but the landmasses on our planet are a bit too far apart to make that convenient. Transmission losses would probably eat any advantage to piping it in to where the Sun don't shine.
--Patrick
Sorry, didn't mean to aggravate that. It's just so stupid and unaware that it makes me laugh, especially on a fitting image, like a tyrannosaur saying it as he gets gored by a triceratops.
No worries man. Sorry, I'm a bit triggered by the insanity lately. There are way too many who buy into the shit that while it seems stupid I'm seeing people buy into it.
Think of it this way: if people aren't already doing it unless they have subsidies, there's probably a good reason why they aren't, otherwise somebody would already be succeeding in making money from it.
Doesn't the oil industry get subsidies? I don't actually know. That's just what I thought.
Depends on who you ask. I'd say "not exactly."
Yes lots of subsidies: http://www.iisd.org/faq/unpacking-canadas-fossil-fuel-subsidies/
No not really: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Is-Canadian-Oil-Actually-Subsidized.html
From the 2nd:
And anything around "Crown Royalties" is the same argument as the USA makes against Softwood Lumber up here: we don't charge as much for logging on crown land as USA private people do, thus the government is subsidizing the industry. The O&G royalty thing is the same.
So the answer I go with is "not really" here. The majority (according to the 1st article) is the Depreciation argument I quote, and thus, no different than any other business. The rest is probably equivalent to any other industry as well, regardless of what they're in (research deductions, etc).
But read both articles yourselves. Both are really biased, but I'd say the 2nd has more detailed numbers, and is more believable.
All big industry gets subsidized at times.
The town where I live got Toyota to build a factory here recently with lots of "incentives," including cheap land. Ontario still hands out millions in grants to the factory, too.
And we all know how much money got poured into the auto industry last recession in both our countries. Actually, we probably don't, because we don't really pay attention to all the dealings at the state/province or city level that happen regularly.
So yeah, our oil industry gets subsidies. I'm sure yours does, too.
And we all know how much money got poured into the auto industry last recession in both our countries. Actually, we probably don't, because we don't really pay attention to all the dealings at the state/province or city level that happen regularly.
So yeah, our oil industry gets subsidies. I'm sure yours does, too.
Last edited:
Oil industry gets subsidies to keep the price of gas down because our societies can't function with fuel costs above a certain amount; there simply isn't infrastructure in place to facilitate people getting to their jobs in the US outside of the major cities like there is in Europe and Asia... but the reason we don't have a robust public transportation system in this country is because the price of gas is kept artificially low due to subsidies and because every podunk gas stop town wants stops for right-of-way, which makes travel time impossibly long.
This will eventually change as market forces make gas and diesel too expensive for everyday use, but that may be a few decades off.
This will eventually change as market forces make gas and diesel too expensive for everyday use, but that may be a few decades off.
Considering that the price of gasoline is at LEAST 25% of the cost (Petro Canada has the easiest-to-understand chart, but here's the Federal Government's numbers), I don't think you're correct about that top sentence.
The rest of it is... remarkably anti-small-town, and a lot of attitude about "why haven't they just moved into the big city already?"
As for that last sentence, do you mean things like carbon taxes, and other related things? Because those aren't market forces. Hell, if there's a rise in the electric car, that'll make these fuels CHEAPER as demand goes down, so they need to find ways to drop prices to compete.
Aye. And those subsidies are listed in your federal government's budget under "Defense."
Depends; sometimes it's easier to recover profit loss by squeezing more out of people who can't make the initial investment of getting an electric car in the first place.
Saudi Arabia (and Egypt, UAE, and Bahrain) cuts ties with Qatar over alleged support for terrorism?
Pot, meet kettle.
Pot, meet kettle.
Good article about the difference between a Carbon Tax and actual emissions reductions: Trump exposes the Paris mirage - The so-called war against climate change has always been about money
I quoted probably the last half of the article, but still, all those measures are about wealth transfer (and economic control), not the environment. Always have been.
I guess I don't follow the logic here:
X is not a part of Y
We withdrew from Y so X will not be supported by us anymore.
???
Also, polluting is cheap. Money will always be a critical part of being environmentally conscious. Saying it is all about money is extremely disingenuous. It involves money. Of course it does! This approach is like saying, "A house costs $400,000! That's 30 years of paying mortgage that is higher than rent. And it ends up costing more than $400,000 after interest. A lot more!" Those things are all true, but what are you getting for your dollars? Possibly a pretty nice place to live (and maybe a decent investment to boot!) Don't ignore the cost, but don't ignore what you get either.
X is not a part of Y
We withdrew from Y so X will not be supported by us anymore.
???
Also, polluting is cheap. Money will always be a critical part of being environmentally conscious. Saying it is all about money is extremely disingenuous. It involves money. Of course it does! This approach is like saying, "A house costs $400,000! That's 30 years of paying mortgage that is higher than rent. And it ends up costing more than $400,000 after interest. A lot more!" Those things are all true, but what are you getting for your dollars? Possibly a pretty nice place to live (and maybe a decent investment to boot!) Don't ignore the cost, but don't ignore what you get either.
That'd be true if it was actually about the environment (debatable), but especially because Carbon Taxes in virtually every case go into General Government Revenue. It's a tax grab, and doesn't actually go to helping the environment at all. A similar case that many might be familiar with would be Tobacco taxes. All the money raised therein does not go to prevention. Or Road Taxes which are often on Gasoline, again, rarely if ever spent 100% on road maintenance.
To put it in your example terms, would you be OK paying the extra amount for... nothing? No house at the end of it? No? So why are you OK with paying a premium "environment" charge with no actual impact on the environment? The money isn't going there.
That's the main point here. And yes, the GCF is intertwined with Paris.
That's a fine argument if true. The stuff you quoted does not make that argument at all, though. It just says, "They are taking our money!!" My point is that it is necessary that money be a part of the equation. "They take our money" is an insufficient argument on its own. "We are not getting enough for our money" would be a better argument, but not one that you (initially) made, or that the article seems to make.
Literally the last 4 sentences/paragraphs (I didn't structure it) that I quoted are about exactly that Mind.