I'm sorry, but subscribing to the idea that the [doctor/lawyer/whatever] is [God/infallible] which you are advocating is dumb. Why else is seeking a second opinion a frequently given piece of advice? Professionals are people. People are fallible. People are *gasp* occasionally even self-centered or malicious. So are professionals on occasion.
Much as I agree with you and think this and other heavy-handed government intervention in our daily lives should come as a clarion call to make people want smaller, less powerful government, you will lose. As soon as you shoot the fed, it becomes a federal case, and you get to be the star in your own Ruby Ridge. The fed PR will spin you as some sort of ticking-time-bomb reclusive introvert who was estranged from your family and society... yadda yadda yadda and no societal backlash against the gov. Those of us who want smaller, more distributed government have got to be better on the PR front.
Aww... but we've got the stakes all ready for the witch/heretic burnings. It takes quite a bit of work, you know. You should be more appreciative of everything we (the gov) do *for* you.
Given the scarcity of support for rational restriction of government power and its centralization in the federal executive, I think perhaps you should be less picky about those who would lend you their support against any facet of it. It would perhaps be more productive to work with people on issues you can agree on regardless of motivation. Thusly is a coalition built that has a better chance of getting something done to further your cause. Sure you should try to persuade those you work with to agree with you on more issues, but to ostracize and refuse support from someone because they don't agree with you on every issue is so counterproductive that you should go home to your ivory tower and cry it out.
snow... shaved ice... whatever. i think you can sacrifice a few litres of ice from your margarita machine in the name of... well, it's not science, but its damn cool.
i don't see a plan to thwart anything here, just a good old fashioned fiefdom territory grab. Stem cells are an attractive avenue, therefore gov managers want to be associated with the success. its good for the career.
yes, all investments have risk. there's no such thing as a sure thing. yadda yadda yadda.
Act now!
for only three payments of $99.95...
(I'm betting that easily recoverable resources of any stripe will continue to be valuable. We keep discovering more industrial uses for the materials around us, and the number of us people competing for use of those resources keeps increasing.)
and you point out *policy* limitations, which were amongst the thousands of other contributing factors that I omitted in favor of keeping my argument clear. but yes, there are some process for some isotopes that have varying degrees of economic cost/benefit (again, in the instant case neglecting both policy and potential for storage to go badly (fail catastrophically))
and there will always be some portion of the waste stream of any activity that makes little sense to continue recovery efforts on.
Well, i thought it followed logically that in the absence of a major current industry people would either have a lower standard of living or have to move to another location, but hey, sometimes it takes a bit of prodding to see the obvious conclusion.
Shortly, WV's economy is as it is today. Coal mining is a large part of it, providing income from outside the state (however paltry compared to other industries in other states.) Removing that segment of the economy forces those workers into the unemployed labor pool, lowering the prevailing wage, or in the case of minimum wages, increasing the unemployment rate over the long term. You may argue that some magical *other* industry will step in to take advantage of these lower cost workers. The data regarding business climate in WV I presented above indicates that that possibility is less likely to occur, and certainly not in sufficient scale to absorb the available labor pool resulting from firing all those workers.
Further, I assert that were such a trend of new industry creating jobs in WV to be likely, we would see indications of it happening already because WV has both high unemployment and low wages already. Unfortunately, WV is very unfriendly to business and so few new businesses are starting and succeeding. So, with no jobs to replace those lost in the coal industry, yes, I feel very comfortable in my assertion that West Virginians will be worse off with the loss of the coal industry, and will be even worse off if that industry is removed precipitously.
but so too is there evidence linking piracy and global temperatures.
There are other industries in WV and SWVa. Forestry for example. However, there is also a cultural acceptance of the status quo there as normal, both externally (we expect it to be so) and internally (they buy into it too).
Other correlations might be drawn to WV's economic situation, like for example, taxation and business costs. Infrastructure's another one, but thanks to a mountain of cash brought back to WV by its congressional delegation *cough* Byrd *cough*, there are vastly overprovisioned Interstate highways versus the traffic in the state. Why has business lagged in expanding to WV if it's so attractive? There must be a reason other industries aren't flocking in to take advantage of the low labor costs in WV. And thus drive up wages somewhat through competition until they reach equilibrium with the surrounding states.
The other 10 states below WV in the second resource rankings all have other factors buoying their economies. In the case of NY, NYCs dwindling preeminence in finance is being milked to keep their economy and standard of living better than their business cost environment would merit. WV hasn't got a NYC to milk.
Usually having your source of materials close by gives you a competitive advantage in making something... just history talking that nonsense again. It is, however, perfectly possible for Bolivians to price themselves out of the market as it stands now, but in a decade or two their prices might seem quite reasonable. And depending on what the difference is, it may make sense for them to leave the Lithium where it is, collecting interest as an investment of sorts... but that's not what people who want to exploit both the resource and the current owners of that resource want to hear.
Oil and coal are also STORAGE mediums for energy. It's just that *we* didn't expend time or effort or resources ourselves to put the energy in the storage. The energy in oil and coal is stored in chemical bonds that are stable, but with just a bit of added energy and the right conditions release far more than it cost to get them started. It could be about chemical potential energy or somesuch, but whatever. When all is said and done energy comes from two major places: the sun, and any matter we turn into energy through fission and eventually fusion. And in those cases, it's still coming from technically *STORED* energy. In the case of the sun, it will eventually (or so say some PhD mumbo jumbo dudes) run out of reaction mass and die. In the case of nuclear energy, we will eventually run out of either atoms on the earth or places to put the consumed ones we haven't developed a way of working with yet.
Who knows, maybe the Bolivian land owners will be savvy enough to throw the battery makers and car manufacturers over the barrel. That'd be nice and un-communist. One might even say libertarian-capitalist. But if they did, we'd probably just overthrow their government like we did Iran's in the 50s. For the same reason. Which is a Communist (or rather collectivist-fascist) action on our part. So sometimes Communism really is just a Redd Herring.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but subscribing to the idea that the [doctor/lawyer/whatever] is [God/infallible] which you are advocating is dumb. Why else is seeking a second opinion a frequently given piece of advice? Professionals are people. People are fallible. People are *gasp* occasionally even self-centered or malicious. So are professionals on occasion.
careful, you're using reason and critical thinking. we can't have any of that here. put it away and tow the line.
since when is an ad hominem attack on lawyers flamebait?
E.g. What do you call 1000 lawyers chained to the bottom of the ocean?
wtf?
"If someone is willing to ignore the obvious Constitutional objection, they'll just ignore the law as well."
Because neither of these things is a hallmark of our government in the last few decades?
We no longer have the rule of law here.
We have the rule of public opinion polls.
Much as I agree with you and think this and other heavy-handed government intervention in our daily lives should come as a clarion call to make people want smaller, less powerful government, you will lose. As soon as you shoot the fed, it becomes a federal case, and you get to be the star in your own Ruby Ridge. The fed PR will spin you as some sort of ticking-time-bomb reclusive introvert who was estranged from your family and society... yadda yadda yadda and no societal backlash against the gov. Those of us who want smaller, more distributed government have got to be better on the PR front.
how the hell is this flamebait? drop the groupthink hero-worship for a minute and read the post on its merits.
and the next space tourist will *pay* to drink it.
at least the astronauts / cosmonauts are getting paid.
Aww... but we've got the stakes all ready for the witch/heretic burnings. It takes quite a bit of work, you know. You should be more appreciative of everything we (the gov) do *for* you.
err... decentralization from the federal executive, rather.
Given the scarcity of support for rational restriction of government power and its centralization in the federal executive, I think perhaps you should be less picky about those who would lend you their support against any facet of it. It would perhaps be more productive to work with people on issues you can agree on regardless of motivation. Thusly is a coalition built that has a better chance of getting something done to further your cause. Sure you should try to persuade those you work with to agree with you on more issues, but to ostracize and refuse support from someone because they don't agree with you on every issue is so counterproductive that you should go home to your ivory tower and cry it out.
and they're down under: they can just fall off the planet rather than having to deal with all this escape velocity tripe.
snow... shaved ice... whatever. i think you can sacrifice a few litres of ice from your margarita machine in the name of... well, it's not science, but its damn cool.
unless the zerg got nerfed :p
i don't see a plan to thwart anything here, just a good old fashioned fiefdom territory grab. Stem cells are an attractive avenue, therefore gov managers want to be associated with the success. its good for the career.
and I was pointing out that that third option appears to be closed to WV in the broad sense.
or lice, communicable diseases, etc.
might be promising though if given some proactive research (looking for the problems before they bite us in the rear after deployment.)
would make wigs more expensive though...
what about hair from other species? like poodles.
mmm... FUD
yes, all investments have risk. there's no such thing as a sure thing. yadda yadda yadda.
Act now!
for only three payments of $99.95...
(I'm betting that easily recoverable resources of any stripe will continue to be valuable. We keep discovering more industrial uses for the materials around us, and the number of us people competing for use of those resources keeps increasing.)
and you point out *policy* limitations, which were amongst the thousands of other contributing factors that I omitted in favor of keeping my argument clear. but yes, there are some process for some isotopes that have varying degrees of economic cost/benefit (again, in the instant case neglecting both policy and potential for storage to go badly (fail catastrophically))
and there will always be some portion of the waste stream of any activity that makes little sense to continue recovery efforts on.
Well, i thought it followed logically that in the absence of a major current industry people would either have a lower standard of living or have to move to another location, but hey, sometimes it takes a bit of prodding to see the obvious conclusion.
Shortly, WV's economy is as it is today. Coal mining is a large part of it, providing income from outside the state (however paltry compared to other industries in other states.) Removing that segment of the economy forces those workers into the unemployed labor pool, lowering the prevailing wage, or in the case of minimum wages, increasing the unemployment rate over the long term. You may argue that some magical *other* industry will step in to take advantage of these lower cost workers. The data regarding business climate in WV I presented above indicates that that possibility is less likely to occur, and certainly not in sufficient scale to absorb the available labor pool resulting from firing all those workers.
Further, I assert that were such a trend of new industry creating jobs in WV to be likely, we would see indications of it happening already because WV has both high unemployment and low wages already. Unfortunately, WV is very unfriendly to business and so few new businesses are starting and succeeding. So, with no jobs to replace those lost in the coal industry, yes, I feel very comfortable in my assertion that West Virginians will be worse off with the loss of the coal industry, and will be even worse off if that industry is removed precipitously.
and it's fun to note that all that was done by mangling an early doctrine aimed at keeping European governments out of the western hemisphere.
silly geek, those two-three characters on the end of URLs don't mean anything. They're just filler.
but so too is there evidence linking piracy and global temperatures.
There are other industries in WV and SWVa. Forestry for example. However, there is also a cultural acceptance of the status quo there as normal, both externally (we expect it to be so) and internally (they buy into it too).
Other correlations might be drawn to WV's economic situation, like for example, taxation and business costs. Infrastructure's another one, but thanks to a mountain of cash brought back to WV by its congressional delegation *cough* Byrd *cough*, there are vastly overprovisioned Interstate highways versus the traffic in the state. Why has business lagged in expanding to WV if it's so attractive? There must be a reason other industries aren't flocking in to take advantage of the low labor costs in WV. And thus drive up wages somewhat through competition until they reach equilibrium with the surrounding states.
and oh, wait, here's a bit of evidence:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/small-business-entrepreneurs/2009/02/02/the-7-worst-states-to-start-a-business.html
and its primary source:
http://www.sbecouncil.org/uploads/sbsi%202008%5B1%5D1.pdf
The other 10 states below WV in the second resource rankings all have other factors buoying their economies. In the case of NY, NYCs dwindling preeminence in finance is being milked to keep their economy and standard of living better than their business cost environment would merit. WV hasn't got a NYC to milk.
Usually having your source of materials close by gives you a competitive advantage in making something... just history talking that nonsense again. It is, however, perfectly possible for Bolivians to price themselves out of the market as it stands now, but in a decade or two their prices might seem quite reasonable. And depending on what the difference is, it may make sense for them to leave the Lithium where it is, collecting interest as an investment of sorts... but that's not what people who want to exploit both the resource and the current owners of that resource want to hear.
Oil and coal are also STORAGE mediums for energy. It's just that *we* didn't expend time or effort or resources ourselves to put the energy in the storage. The energy in oil and coal is stored in chemical bonds that are stable, but with just a bit of added energy and the right conditions release far more than it cost to get them started. It could be about chemical potential energy or somesuch, but whatever. When all is said and done energy comes from two major places: the sun, and any matter we turn into energy through fission and eventually fusion. And in those cases, it's still coming from technically *STORED* energy. In the case of the sun, it will eventually (or so say some PhD mumbo jumbo dudes) run out of reaction mass and die. In the case of nuclear energy, we will eventually run out of either atoms on the earth or places to put the consumed ones we haven't developed a way of working with yet.
Who knows, maybe the Bolivian land owners will be savvy enough to throw the battery makers and car manufacturers over the barrel. That'd be nice and un-communist. One might even say libertarian-capitalist. But if they did, we'd probably just overthrow their government like we did Iran's in the 50s. For the same reason. Which is a Communist (or rather collectivist-fascist) action on our part. So sometimes Communism really is just a Redd Herring.