My experience visiting California and trying to get my deposits back is that the locals use the deposit as a moral justification for littering. The general sentiment seems to be that leaving their bottles and cans left outdoors is a way for them to give to the homeless by letting them collect their litter and get the deposits back.
2. Steel is also very economical to recycle, it's just not for households and consumers. But when you consider industrial scrap, iron and steel are the most recycled substance in the world.
So your plan is to promise to pay people for their work and then stiff them in the future? That sure sounds like a great way to save humanity... Debt isn't made up, it's owed to somebody. It's not just on a computer screen. If that's all debt is and it can be canceled out with no consequences, I hope you have a lot of physical resources at home because all your savings and assets are just numbers on a computer screen too.
But we don't have scientific consensus that the cost of mitigating it today is lower than the cost of dealing with it in the future. From an economic and human prosperity standpoint it's entirely possible that doing nothing today is the best course of action because it lifts the most people out of poverty and advancing technology will allow us to live in a warmer global climate more comfortably than we live today.
Based on whose projections? There is a known and guaranteed cost today of mitigating potential future climate change. The costs of the future are unknown and unknowable. So yes, they could be an economic catastrophe, but they could also be an economic boom. Maybe a warmer climate will increase valuable oceanfront property? Maybe a warmer climate will reduce cold weather costs like snow removal and ice melting? Maybe a warmer climate will make areas of current tundra open to agriculture? Maybe a warmer climate will increase fresh water resources due to more rain on average?
If you believe that a warmer climate only has negative effects on life, economics, and prosperity, than you have drank the Kool Aid.
So they'd rather spend their lives dealing with the consequences of new policies? Namely, a possibly slightly cooler planet with extreme levels of national debt to pay for the potential mitigating policies that have been proposed?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the UK the majority of regular police are not armed. Doesn't seem like they have a problem with excessive crime or police shootings... I would say it is worth a shot.
If Mercury is close to the other planets, it may be beneficial to get to there rather than to Mars.
If you could travel to planets as the light flies, perhaps. What matters when traveling is not the straight line distance, it's the delta-v. Mars is much closer in delta-v to earth, thus is it easier to get to. Venus is the closest planet in delta-v, so it's the easiest to travel to.
Actually, the closest approach doesn't necessarily matter, especially for the inner planets as the traveled path usually uses gravity assists. Here is an example of Parker's path to get close to the sun: https://directory.eoportal.org...
If by "chaotic mismanagement of the grounding" you mean, "waited until there was evidence to make a decision affecting safety" then sure. Exactly 0 incident occurred between the time of the crash in Africa and the grounding of the aircraft in the USA. Seems they acted rationally to wait for evidence before grounding aircraft out of media fear...
Why is it that the standard for a jury is "innocent until proven guilty beyond ______" (insert standard of evidence) but for the cops, the death penalty standard is "reasonable fear for their own safety?"
Plenty of people have reasonable fears, but it's illegal for them to shoot an innocent person over it. Deadly force standard should be "confirmed deadly force threat against officer, or reasonable beyond doubt threat against the safety of the public."
It sounds horrible to say, but I'd rather have police doing the right thing die at the hands of criminals over police killing innocent people because they had any level of fear.
I'm with you. I think resources would be better spent investing in technologies to allow us to adapt to climate change rather than dumping that money into CO2 reductions that may only be responsible for a fraction of actual warming. Efficiency improvements, insulation, transportation, and genetic modification of crops are better solutions to climate change than manufacturing endless solar and wind farms that aren't displacing base load generation. Natural gas from fracking has done more for CO2 reductions than all the renewables development.
As far as I am concerned, news sites that won't let you use an adblocker but start autoplaying videos obviously don't give a shit about how much their bandwidth or content creation costs...
Yes, it's just an input for composting or other processes, but I doubt the AC reply would like to test the safety of compost to consume... I sure know from the smell alone that you wouldn't want to ingest it. The composting process eliminates some pathogens, but the entire composted mix is literally alive with all sorts of microbes because that's how it works. You don't want any of that in your body.
My point is that agriculture uses a ton of things you wouldn't consume on their own. But the key is that it is safe for plants and the resulting plants aren't contaminated after going through all the processing to turn them into food. In general, pesticides improve crop yields by protecting plants and safety isn't compromised for the consumer. Now whether the application of the pesticides is safe is another issue. Farmers should for sure be warned of the hazards of exposure and be given proper instructions and recommended protective equipment on how to handle and apply anything added to their fields. They should also avoid contaminating non-crop areas with anything that is meant for use on crops.
Poop is a common fertilizer in "organic" farming, yet it is not safe to consume. I don't see why being able to drink something used in agriculture is any sort of standard for safety.
My argument is that the process should be fair to everyone who needs asylum regardless of origin and we should process the requests in a controlled manner. Having mobs of people crossing all willy nilly and claiming asylum when caught is not a reasonable immigration system. It's unmanageable and inhumane because we cannot process them when they arrive in caravans.
I'm not the OP, but I use TinkerCAD for most of my modeling. It's not super powerful, but it's very user friendly and easy to learn quickly. It's all done in the browser too and for free!
As far as the smoothness of the prints, that's going to come down to the printer resolution and print settings. I've gotten some surprisingly smooth prints out of a cheapo monoprice mini printer, but you've gotta print in thin layers and at slow speeds. I usually choose to print faster and then sand and/or paint the final product.
The US is culpable for most of it around the world. Why does central america get to flood the border and not the Middle East, southeast Asia, Africa, and North Korea?
See, that false dichotomy is why there cannot be any compromise. Maybe the conservatives see: a horde of desperate people - impoverished, oppressed, starving, fleeing lives of violence and hoping to start a new life by crossing illegally into a foreign land with no prospects other than handouts or illegal labor to get them out of poverty. And by letting them in with no consequences, we encourage more refugees to do the same. Are some of the migrants criminals, murderers, and rapists? Most definitely, but that's a poor excuse to build the wall.
One way or another, there needs to be an orderly control of the border. I don't know that a wall is effective, but the symbolism of a barrier might be an effective deterrent.
I don't know how someone can be a "monster" by turning away people to leave them to die when a huge percentage of the world's population is in the same or worse circumstances and there is no way we can save them all. Someone needs to turn some people away. Why should people who are lucky enough to have easy land access be given priority by virtue of not having a restriction on entry? And the bigger question is, are we making it worse by having desperate people put their lives on the line trying to get here by any means necessary without regard for laws or order?
You can't have compromise on moral issues. And the Democrats have made everything Trump says immoral. Now, I will grant you that a lot of the stuff Trump does is immoral, but seriously even serving McDonalds is an abomination now? Peace with North Korea? How can you be against that?
No solution to healthcare that doesn't put more control in the hands of the patient is going to make things worse. Federal control for sure isn't going to give patients more control. Why should my company's HR department pick my plan and deal with coverage? Even worse, for anyone who has ever dealt with insurance problems and had to get their HR involved, HR generally sides with the insurance company... What are you going to do? Quit?
I am not a Republican, but thanks for assuming. I'm not saying the people should have no say. I'm saying they ALREADY have a say through the House of Representatives. But their say shouldn't be the only say. Direct democracy is a horrible idea. Don't let a powerful minority control the future of the country, but don't let a powerful MAJORITY control it either. You need a balance between who gets control and how much control they have.
The citizens have largely turned toward voting themselves government benefits at the expense of 1) the elites who you claim are controlling everything and 2) future generations through debt. It just so happens that Democrats are much more for spending other people's money than Republicans (who I will note still are very much for spending other people's money).
Direct election of senators was a horrible idea. It made the senate not a voice of the states, but a shitty house of representatives with a horrible representation of the population. The senate needs to go back to being accountable to the states and not the people.
The people are really a shitty way to run the government because the people are largely stupid, easily manipulated, and unwilling to fix the real problems of government.
Slashdot Mirror
My experience visiting California and trying to get my deposits back is that the locals use the deposit as a moral justification for littering. The general sentiment seems to be that leaving their bottles and cans left outdoors is a way for them to give to the homeless by letting them collect their litter and get the deposits back.
2. Steel is also very economical to recycle, it's just not for households and consumers. But when you consider industrial scrap, iron and steel are the most recycled substance in the world.
So your plan is to promise to pay people for their work and then stiff them in the future? That sure sounds like a great way to save humanity... Debt isn't made up, it's owed to somebody. It's not just on a computer screen. If that's all debt is and it can be canceled out with no consequences, I hope you have a lot of physical resources at home because all your savings and assets are just numbers on a computer screen too.
But we don't have scientific consensus that the cost of mitigating it today is lower than the cost of dealing with it in the future. From an economic and human prosperity standpoint it's entirely possible that doing nothing today is the best course of action because it lifts the most people out of poverty and advancing technology will allow us to live in a warmer global climate more comfortably than we live today.
Based on whose projections? There is a known and guaranteed cost today of mitigating potential future climate change. The costs of the future are unknown and unknowable. So yes, they could be an economic catastrophe, but they could also be an economic boom. Maybe a warmer climate will increase valuable oceanfront property? Maybe a warmer climate will reduce cold weather costs like snow removal and ice melting? Maybe a warmer climate will make areas of current tundra open to agriculture? Maybe a warmer climate will increase fresh water resources due to more rain on average?
If you believe that a warmer climate only has negative effects on life, economics, and prosperity, than you have drank the Kool Aid.
So they'd rather spend their lives dealing with the consequences of new policies? Namely, a possibly slightly cooler planet with extreme levels of national debt to pay for the potential mitigating policies that have been proposed?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the UK the majority of regular police are not armed. Doesn't seem like they have a problem with excessive crime or police shootings... I would say it is worth a shot.
If Mercury is close to the other planets, it may be beneficial to get to there rather than to Mars.
If you could travel to planets as the light flies, perhaps. What matters when traveling is not the straight line distance, it's the delta-v. Mars is much closer in delta-v to earth, thus is it easier to get to. Venus is the closest planet in delta-v, so it's the easiest to travel to.
https://external-preview.redd....
Actually, the closest approach doesn't necessarily matter, especially for the inner planets as the traveled path usually uses gravity assists. Here is an example of Parker's path to get close to the sun:
https://directory.eoportal.org...
And one for Messenger going to Mercury:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/Ab...
It's not like you can take a direct route without using a shitload of fuel.
If by "chaotic mismanagement of the grounding" you mean, "waited until there was evidence to make a decision affecting safety" then sure. Exactly 0 incident occurred between the time of the crash in Africa and the grounding of the aircraft in the USA. Seems they acted rationally to wait for evidence before grounding aircraft out of media fear...
Why is it that the standard for a jury is "innocent until proven guilty beyond ______" (insert standard of evidence) but for the cops, the death penalty standard is "reasonable fear for their own safety?"
Plenty of people have reasonable fears, but it's illegal for them to shoot an innocent person over it. Deadly force standard should be "confirmed deadly force threat against officer, or reasonable beyond doubt threat against the safety of the public."
It sounds horrible to say, but I'd rather have police doing the right thing die at the hands of criminals over police killing innocent people because they had any level of fear.
Streets of Sim City does...
I'm with you. I think resources would be better spent investing in technologies to allow us to adapt to climate change rather than dumping that money into CO2 reductions that may only be responsible for a fraction of actual warming. Efficiency improvements, insulation, transportation, and genetic modification of crops are better solutions to climate change than manufacturing endless solar and wind farms that aren't displacing base load generation. Natural gas from fracking has done more for CO2 reductions than all the renewables development.
As far as I am concerned, news sites that won't let you use an adblocker but start autoplaying videos obviously don't give a shit about how much their bandwidth or content creation costs...
Yes, it's just an input for composting or other processes, but I doubt the AC reply would like to test the safety of compost to consume... I sure know from the smell alone that you wouldn't want to ingest it. The composting process eliminates some pathogens, but the entire composted mix is literally alive with all sorts of microbes because that's how it works. You don't want any of that in your body.
My point is that agriculture uses a ton of things you wouldn't consume on their own. But the key is that it is safe for plants and the resulting plants aren't contaminated after going through all the processing to turn them into food. In general, pesticides improve crop yields by protecting plants and safety isn't compromised for the consumer. Now whether the application of the pesticides is safe is another issue. Farmers should for sure be warned of the hazards of exposure and be given proper instructions and recommended protective equipment on how to handle and apply anything added to their fields. They should also avoid contaminating non-crop areas with anything that is meant for use on crops.
Poop is a common fertilizer in "organic" farming, yet it is not safe to consume. I don't see why being able to drink something used in agriculture is any sort of standard for safety.
How's that denuclearized North Korea thing working out?
Better than it has been previously? I mean, it's at least a step toward peace and he's not doing it through appeasement.
My argument is that the process should be fair to everyone who needs asylum regardless of origin and we should process the requests in a controlled manner. Having mobs of people crossing all willy nilly and claiming asylum when caught is not a reasonable immigration system. It's unmanageable and inhumane because we cannot process them when they arrive in caravans.
I'm not the OP, but I use TinkerCAD for most of my modeling. It's not super powerful, but it's very user friendly and easy to learn quickly. It's all done in the browser too and for free!
As far as the smoothness of the prints, that's going to come down to the printer resolution and print settings. I've gotten some surprisingly smooth prints out of a cheapo monoprice mini printer, but you've gotta print in thin layers and at slow speeds. I usually choose to print faster and then sand and/or paint the final product.
The US is culpable for most of it around the world. Why does central america get to flood the border and not the Middle East, southeast Asia, Africa, and North Korea?
See, that false dichotomy is why there cannot be any compromise. Maybe the conservatives see: a horde of desperate people - impoverished, oppressed, starving, fleeing lives of violence and hoping to start a new life by crossing illegally into a foreign land with no prospects other than handouts or illegal labor to get them out of poverty. And by letting them in with no consequences, we encourage more refugees to do the same. Are some of the migrants criminals, murderers, and rapists? Most definitely, but that's a poor excuse to build the wall.
One way or another, there needs to be an orderly control of the border. I don't know that a wall is effective, but the symbolism of a barrier might be an effective deterrent.
I don't know how someone can be a "monster" by turning away people to leave them to die when a huge percentage of the world's population is in the same or worse circumstances and there is no way we can save them all. Someone needs to turn some people away. Why should people who are lucky enough to have easy land access be given priority by virtue of not having a restriction on entry? And the bigger question is, are we making it worse by having desperate people put their lives on the line trying to get here by any means necessary without regard for laws or order?
You can't have compromise on moral issues. And the Democrats have made everything Trump says immoral. Now, I will grant you that a lot of the stuff Trump does is immoral, but seriously even serving McDonalds is an abomination now? Peace with North Korea? How can you be against that?
This. This. And this again.
No solution to healthcare that doesn't put more control in the hands of the patient is going to make things worse. Federal control for sure isn't going to give patients more control. Why should my company's HR department pick my plan and deal with coverage? Even worse, for anyone who has ever dealt with insurance problems and had to get their HR involved, HR generally sides with the insurance company... What are you going to do? Quit?
I am not a Republican, but thanks for assuming. I'm not saying the people should have no say. I'm saying they ALREADY have a say through the House of Representatives. But their say shouldn't be the only say. Direct democracy is a horrible idea. Don't let a powerful minority control the future of the country, but don't let a powerful MAJORITY control it either. You need a balance between who gets control and how much control they have.
The citizens have largely turned toward voting themselves government benefits at the expense of 1) the elites who you claim are controlling everything and 2) future generations through debt. It just so happens that Democrats are much more for spending other people's money than Republicans (who I will note still are very much for spending other people's money).
Direct election of senators was a horrible idea. It made the senate not a voice of the states, but a shitty house of representatives with a horrible representation of the population. The senate needs to go back to being accountable to the states and not the people.
The people are really a shitty way to run the government because the people are largely stupid, easily manipulated, and unwilling to fix the real problems of government.