Ah, I misunderstood. When you said the crappy parts were all pre-privatization, I assumed that there were still animals in them. You're saying they put the animals in new enclosures. How did you get into the older animal-free areas, and what was there?
Now, how much do you know about the Friends of the Zoo? It is a non-profit group that decided they wanted to make money off the zoo. They got the city to basically give it to them, and pay for half the animal handlers. They then proceeded to rake in the cash and pay themselves huge salaries. Calling them a non profit is technically true, but still a joke. After they took over, the quality of exhibits and animal care took a nose dive, and people stopped going to the zoo in droves. Now, it sounds like they may have gotten their act together, but for many years, their management of the zoo was a nightmare for patrons and animals both.
It makes me so mad when I see people with such poor reading comprehension and logic skills even here, a sire where part of the intellectual elite are supposed to inhabit. You don't even understand the point I'm making. And you don't seem to understand the real economics of ripping people off. If it's a free market solution, it must be great, eh? No privately owned company has ever ripped anyone off! Dumbass.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't, huh? Spend too much, Government BAD! Cut costs, Government BAD! Where I'm from, the government is less likely to cut corners because if they cut costs, their budget gets cut. Sad, but true.
So, government cutting corners makes it okay for corporations to to do it? I suppose Clinton getting a blow job means it's okay that Bush lied to get us into a war? Nice logic.
At least with government there is some accountability to all citizens, not just voting shareholders.
I'm not being dense. Older zoo habitats are a nightmare for the animals, just bare metal and concrete cages. They should have fixed those problems before expanding, for the sake of the animals. If they cared about the animals instead of profit, they might have.
So they haven't spent any money fixing up the crappy parts? They've owned that zoo for over ten years and they can't fix up the areas that were built back in the thirties?
As for the thieving zookeepers, I read that in the SF Bay Guardian, whose online archives only go back to 2001. Sounds like you live in the area, how about you hit up a library and look it up yourself?
I see the tiger attack as part of a pattern of abuse, neglect, fraud and theft that has been ongoing since the new firm took over zoo management. It's hardly a pet issue.
I'm saying the tiger escape is part of a pattern that has occurred ever since the zoo was privatized. It's the tragedy of privatization: people can simply run a business or resource into the ground, take the profits and invest them in the next looting spree. With publicly owned resources, people all share the resource and want it to last because they enjoy it. Private ownership encourages fraud, short sighted cost cutting, and externalizing every expense you can.
Back when the zoo was built, no one knew the enclosure height was a problem. Now, with a private, profit driven entity controlling the zoo, you might think they have an incentive to avoid lawsuits. But what they really have an incentive to do is profit, and if that means letting people die because lawsuits are cheaper than building a replacement enclosure, then so be it. With a public zoo like we have here in Albuquerque, they are more worried about educating the public, conserving species diversity, and yes, their image, than they are about making money.
Sorry to challenge your free market ideology like that, but privatization sucks because profit over everything as a motive sucks. Modern economic research shows that most non-sociopaths are driven more by ideals of fairness and reciprocity than personal gain, so they will not try to profit over all else. What our system actually does is encourage sociopaths.
It's only speculation, but inspectors did look at the enclosure. Management says the inspectors said nothing. I'm guessing, based on past experience with zoo management cutting corners, that they might have said the enclosure wasn't safe, and the management did nothing.
You just hate it when anyone points out where privatization goes bad, don't you? Bet you must love what's going on with the water systems of South America!
This is an example of the tragedy of privatization. The SF used to be a public zoo. It also used to be a good zoo. Then it was privatized, and the company cut costs and corners. In the 90s, zookeepers were caught stealing branches off of people's eucalyptus trees because there was no budget for koala food. It would not surprise me to learn that the zoo's management knew all about the potential problem and refused to do anything based on cost.
I have problems with Christianity as a religion and a philosophy, but I've never had problems with Christians, at least never with any of you that actually try to live the teachings. Just be careful with that embracing suffering thing. Don't know if you saw the Penn & Teller Bullshit episode debunking saints, but Mother Theresa embraced suffering, a little too much. She had a bit of a suffering fetish, which I take it is not uncommon in your religion. All well and good, until it leads people to refuse to give proper medical treatment to others because suffering brings them closer to God. It's been proven that she did that in her hospitals and orphanages.
If you can keep it at, "Suffer and love anyway," then that's a good thing.
Another possibility is a universe without a real beginning, no first or uncaused cause. And I just have to say, if your religion embraces suffering, it's worse than anything Neitzsche put out. And if you can blame him for what the Nazis then I can blame Christianity for the Inquisition, witch hunts, etc.
There is no source for rights, nor does there need to be. Our rights are whatever we can defend, or convince society to help us uphold. Nothing more, nothing less.
You are making a logical error, extrapolating too far. There does not need to be an uncreated creator, if that is possible then an uncreated universe is also possible. Ahhh, so many logical fallacies in religious thinking. You've done about as well as: God is Love, Love is Blind, Stevie Wonder is Blind, therefor, Stevie Wonder is God. Your logic works about as well.
Don't talk to me about suffering like that. You've never really suffered, have you? I dare you to go to someone who's just, say, lost a child and tell them that.
You can't hinder evolution. If you think that's even possible, you don't understand evolution. All you can do is change the fitness criteria. Having genes that made you infertile once made you unfit, now it doesn't. What makes a species fit today makes it an unfit anachronism tomorrow.
What? Who said anything about a right? Last I heard, we all had the right to purchase legal medical services, which includes fertility treatment. Now, if your invisible skydaddy says not to, that's your business, but don't you go implying that I don't have a right to seek medical help in conceiving a child.
I suppose praying for a child when you can't conceive is acceptable, just not taking your eggs out and fertilizing them in a dish? By that logic, people with life threatening diseases shouldn't accept medical treatment either, I mean, God must want them to die in pain, right? Where do you draw the line? Where the Pope tells you to? Think for yourself, you wouldn't be the first Catholic to do so.
Catholics who can't conceive are gonna be pissed too. Though I thought nowadays it was acceptable to simply ignore the pope when he makes an ass out of himself.
Lying may be goodIn the short term, if individuals are motivated solely by personal gain. But they aren't. Modern economic research shows that people are more motivated by ideals of fairness and reciprocity than personal gain. In these experiments, people are willing to give up months worth of salary to enforce fairness and reciprocity. Human beings value openness and honesty. They value the ability to tell the truth to another human being. So even in the short run, lying hurts people. That's why it doesn't feel good.
Basically, individual and social good are aligned genetically. Society does not create that alignment, it screws it up. Leave them alone, and most people are going to be good. What is good for society naturally feels good to the individual. Society exists to protect normal individuals from sociopaths.
Oh, I hope you get modded up. Very insightful, and all good suggestions.
You may be interested in Chile's early 70s project, Cyberyn. It was a central nervous system for a planned economy. (I know you, not your favorite concept, but keep an open mind;-) More info here and here. Unfortunately, I can't find the article on it I was specifically looking for, describing a pilot program to extend it to several small villages and use the system for day to day direct democracy. Or I may be confusing Cyberyn with another South American direct democracy project of the early 70s, I first read about it a long time ago.
Does anyone else know more about this project, or other direct democracy projects in other countries?
It has to be painful pulling garbage like this out of their asses. Not when you're THAT big of an asshole. The RIAA could pull a dump truck out of their asses and not feel a thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I misunderstood. When you said the crappy parts were all pre-privatization, I assumed that there were still animals in them. You're saying they put the animals in new enclosures. How did you get into the older animal-free areas, and what was there?
Now, how much do you know about the Friends of the Zoo? It is a non-profit group that decided they wanted to make money off the zoo. They got the city to basically give it to them, and pay for half the animal handlers. They then proceeded to rake in the cash and pay themselves huge salaries. Calling them a non profit is technically true, but still a joke. After they took over, the quality of exhibits and animal care took a nose dive, and people stopped going to the zoo in droves. Now, it sounds like they may have gotten their act together, but for many years, their management of the zoo was a nightmare for patrons and animals both.
It makes me so mad when I see people with such poor reading comprehension and logic skills even here, a sire where part of the intellectual elite are supposed to inhabit. You don't even understand the point I'm making. And you don't seem to understand the real economics of ripping people off. If it's a free market solution, it must be great, eh? No privately owned company has ever ripped anyone off! Dumbass.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't, huh? Spend too much, Government BAD! Cut costs, Government BAD! Where I'm from, the government is less likely to cut corners because if they cut costs, their budget gets cut. Sad, but true.
So, government cutting corners makes it okay for corporations to to do it? I suppose Clinton getting a blow job means it's okay that Bush lied to get us into a war? Nice logic.
At least with government there is some accountability to all citizens, not just voting shareholders.
I'm not being dense. Older zoo habitats are a nightmare for the animals, just bare metal and concrete cages. They should have fixed those problems before expanding, for the sake of the animals. If they cared about the animals instead of profit, they might have.
So they haven't spent any money fixing up the crappy parts? They've owned that zoo for over ten years and they can't fix up the areas that were built back in the thirties?
Can't JFGI, eh? Here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=San+Francisco+zoo+privatization&btnG=Google+Search
As for the thieving zookeepers, I read that in the SF Bay Guardian, whose online archives only go back to 2001. Sounds like you live in the area, how about you hit up a library and look it up yourself?
Admittedly, I have not been since I left San Francisco in 2004. Has it gotten better since then?
I see the tiger attack as part of a pattern of abuse, neglect, fraud and theft that has been ongoing since the new firm took over zoo management. It's hardly a pet issue.
I'm saying the tiger escape is part of a pattern that has occurred ever since the zoo was privatized. It's the tragedy of privatization: people can simply run a business or resource into the ground, take the profits and invest them in the next looting spree. With publicly owned resources, people all share the resource and want it to last because they enjoy it. Private ownership encourages fraud, short sighted cost cutting, and externalizing every expense you can.
Back when the zoo was built, no one knew the enclosure height was a problem. Now, with a private, profit driven entity controlling the zoo, you might think they have an incentive to avoid lawsuits. But what they really have an incentive to do is profit, and if that means letting people die because lawsuits are cheaper than building a replacement enclosure, then so be it. With a public zoo like we have here in Albuquerque, they are more worried about educating the public, conserving species diversity, and yes, their image, than they are about making money.
Sorry to challenge your free market ideology like that, but privatization sucks because profit over everything as a motive sucks. Modern economic research shows that most non-sociopaths are driven more by ideals of fairness and reciprocity than personal gain, so they will not try to profit over all else. What our system actually does is encourage sociopaths.
It's only speculation, but inspectors did look at the enclosure. Management says the inspectors said nothing. I'm guessing, based on past experience with zoo management cutting corners, that they might have said the enclosure wasn't safe, and the management did nothing.
You just hate it when anyone points out where privatization goes bad, don't you? Bet you must love what's going on with the water systems of South America!
I'm saying they probably knew and did nothing about it.
This is an example of the tragedy of privatization. The SF used to be a public zoo. It also used to be a good zoo. Then it was privatized, and the company cut costs and corners. In the 90s, zookeepers were caught stealing branches off of people's eucalyptus trees because there was no budget for koala food. It would not surprise me to learn that the zoo's management knew all about the potential problem and refused to do anything based on cost.
I have problems with Christianity as a religion and a philosophy, but I've never had problems with Christians, at least never with any of you that actually try to live the teachings. Just be careful with that embracing suffering thing. Don't know if you saw the Penn & Teller Bullshit episode debunking saints, but Mother Theresa embraced suffering, a little too much. She had a bit of a suffering fetish, which I take it is not uncommon in your religion. All well and good, until it leads people to refuse to give proper medical treatment to others because suffering brings them closer to God. It's been proven that she did that in her hospitals and orphanages.
If you can keep it at, "Suffer and love anyway," then that's a good thing.
Another possibility is a universe without a real beginning, no first or uncaused cause. And I just have to say, if your religion embraces suffering, it's worse than anything Neitzsche put out. And if you can blame him for what the Nazis then I can blame Christianity for the Inquisition, witch hunts, etc.
There is no source for rights, nor does there need to be. Our rights are whatever we can defend, or convince society to help us uphold. Nothing more, nothing less.
You are making a logical error, extrapolating too far. There does not need to be an uncreated creator, if that is possible then an uncreated universe is also possible. Ahhh, so many logical fallacies in religious thinking. You've done about as well as: God is Love, Love is Blind, Stevie Wonder is Blind, therefor, Stevie Wonder is God. Your logic works about as well.
Don't talk to me about suffering like that. You've never really suffered, have you? I dare you to go to someone who's just, say, lost a child and tell them that.
You can't hinder evolution. If you think that's even possible, you don't understand evolution. All you can do is change the fitness criteria. Having genes that made you infertile once made you unfit, now it doesn't. What makes a species fit today makes it an unfit anachronism tomorrow.
What? Who said anything about a right? Last I heard, we all had the right to purchase legal medical services, which includes fertility treatment. Now, if your invisible skydaddy says not to, that's your business, but don't you go implying that I don't have a right to seek medical help in conceiving a child.
I suppose praying for a child when you can't conceive is acceptable, just not taking your eggs out and fertilizing them in a dish? By that logic, people with life threatening diseases shouldn't accept medical treatment either, I mean, God must want them to die in pain, right? Where do you draw the line? Where the Pope tells you to? Think for yourself, you wouldn't be the first Catholic to do so.
Catholics who can't conceive are gonna be pissed too. Though I thought nowadays it was acceptable to simply ignore the pope when he makes an ass out of himself.
Lying may be goodIn the short term, if individuals are motivated solely by personal gain. But they aren't. Modern economic research shows that people are more motivated by ideals of fairness and reciprocity than personal gain. In these experiments, people are willing to give up months worth of salary to enforce fairness and reciprocity. Human beings value openness and honesty. They value the ability to tell the truth to another human being. So even in the short run, lying hurts people. That's why it doesn't feel good.
Basically, individual and social good are aligned genetically. Society does not create that alignment, it screws it up. Leave them alone, and most people are going to be good. What is good for society naturally feels good to the individual. Society exists to protect normal individuals from sociopaths.
Are those the kind that grow from the ceiling or the floor?
Oh, I hope you get modded up. Very insightful, and all good suggestions.
;-) More info here and here. Unfortunately, I can't find the article on it I was specifically looking for, describing a pilot program to extend it to several small villages and use the system for day to day direct democracy. Or I may be confusing Cyberyn with another South American direct democracy project of the early 70s, I first read about it a long time ago.
You may be interested in Chile's early 70s project, Cyberyn. It was a central nervous system for a planned economy. (I know you, not your favorite concept, but keep an open mind
Does anyone else know more about this project, or other direct democracy projects in other countries?
If they take away people's confidence in our elections, people won't care as much when they do away with elections altogether.
If you're a donkey, I suppose...
It sucks because it just fucking sucks big hairy donkey balls.