No kidding - you put $30k in on a solar system and that raises house prices? Because people don't need to pay extortionate power rates? What a weird concept.
The fact of the matter is, California has the highest power rates in the nation (I'd assign blame in equal parts to NIMBYs, environmentalists, PG&E, the PUC, and our legislature). Running air conditioning in the summer will kick you up into Tier 5 rates, which are currently around 50c/kWh. Getting a four digit power bill for one month is enough to convince even the most ardent anti-environmentalist of the value of solar.
If you run the numbers, rooftop solar has a levelized cost of about 24c/kWh. So it's worth it to build out capacity to meet however much power you use in the higher tier rates (Tiers 3 through 5). You don't necessarily want to run your power bills to zero (Tiers 1 and 2 are subsidized by the higher rates), but if you do, PG&E will write you a check at the end of the year. (How much has yet to be determined.) Schwarzenegger got that pushed through at the end of his term of governor - before that, PG&E would just pocket any excess capacity you generate.
I actually just had solar put in and finally turned on a couple weeks ago. It's nice running a net positive balance with PG&E, though it's still too cool for air conditioning.
>>Personally, I do, and telling me that I'm being scammed for something that I actively enjoy isn't going to suddenly persuade me that I don't.
Personally, I think the word "scam" in TFA is the wrong word to use.
Scam implies that you buy a 3D whazzit and it doesn't work. But all the 3D stuff I've seen actually works, though it can give you a headache if not done right. IMAX 3D in theatres is occasionally worth the price of admission.
There's plenty of other words for spiffy new tech products that you don't really need: gizmo, tech pron, etc.
Hmm, my buddy drives 75MPH in his Prius and his mileage drops from 50 to 40MPG, which is significant, but still better than most cars on the road.
My 200hp V6 car gets 23MPG consistently, but around 21MPG when I drive it long distances on the highway. So my 4-cyl seems to hold up better at that speed.
Then again, I don't drive 100MPH on the autobahn, so I can't test it at those numbers. Though I'd love to. Interstate speed limits should either be eliminated or increased.
Tickets involve giving points to the driver of the car, which can result in the loss of driving privileges. If there are multiple people registered as owners of a car, how do they know who to give the points to?
>>The difference fuel-consumption between average and high-speed is much greater in a fuel-efficient car (think small engine)
I'd disagree. I have a car with a 150hp 4-cylinder engine + 50hp electric motor and it gets 31 or 32MPG no matter what I do to it. If I really push it hard, I can get it down to 30MPG some times.
>>My 15 year old BMW station-car is more fuel-efficient than a Toyota Prius when going 100Mph down the german autobahn
Have you tested this?
In any event, I think it'd be more a function of aerodynamic drag than anything else.
>>Declaring that the only requirement necessary for outside intervention is siding with the invaded
This was in response to the claim that America invaded North Korea. Apparently, out of thin air.
The North invaded the South so we counterattacked. This is a legitimate thing to do when you have a military alliance or protectorate with another country. You might have heard of "The Allies" in WWII?
Now tell me it with a straight face that "England invaded Germany" without provocation.
Come on. Tell me.
>>You didn't like this notion when applying it to the American Civil War though
I took exception to your ridiculous example of using Korea vs. the USA in the 1800s, which flies in the face of history, not the principle of the thing. That's why I used England vs. The North instead.
>>This is definitely key, and it depends strongly on the particular vehicle in question. Given your numbers, I would say that either you car is very inefficient at low speeds, its total drag is dominated by driveline losses rather than wind resistance (this is the case for aerodynamic vehicles), or your engine is less efficient at lower powers.
My car has a pretty good coefficient of drag, and I'm hard pressed to ever get it out of the 31-32MPG range. If I really drive aggressively I can get 30MPG.
>>Try the same thing in a truck or SUV though; I'm fairly certain that an SUV driving 75 is burning far more fuel than it would doing 65.
Sure. I was just testing my buddies new Pilot (which has an "eco" mode that disables half the cylinders). It could cruise at 30-40MPH while sipping gas (60+ MPG), but at 60+ it wouldn't do better than 24MPG or so.
So issue people that have low coefficient of drag cars stickers that let them drive 80MPH on the freeway. There's no safety concern, and as I found, there's no fuel efficiency reason either.
Your gory math doesn't meet the real world test. Being something of a nerd, I've run extensive testing on my long drives (I do 25k/year for work).
Methodology: fill up the car, accelerate up to target speed, set cruise control, maintain speed on isolated road for 200 miles, fill up and measure gallons used. Compare against the computer's MPG estimate.
75MPH: 31.5 MPG 65 MPH 32 MPG
Watching the instantaneous fuel consumption, there's no difference cruising at the two speeds. The difference is entirely from the additional acceleration / braking from the occasional dipshit driving 60 in a 70.
Conclusion: fuel efficiency is a bullshit reason to limit speeds.
All tickets that pay into the agency issuing them are conflicts of interest. The idea that government agencies are above "revenue generation" has been decisively disproven by the real world.
My city (San Diego) installed red light cameras and then set yellow-times to the minimum. Safety? Heh. Accidents went significantly up as people were suddenly running reds. It was entirely a revenue grab.
There's many situations in which speeding up is the safest option.
It's because of stories like the GP's that I have come to think we should get rid of speed limits entirely and just ticket people if they're going 20mph over the flow of traffic on interstates.
There's a difference between "supporting everything" and "MATLAB won't work". MATLAB2007 is a pretty significant bit of software for Vista and Win7 to break. Mathworks has no interest in fixing the problem (they recommend buying the new version, match), and we can't hire the original author of the code to port it to a newer version of MATLAB due to his Visa restrictions.
>>Hint: believing your (or any country's) government is always right is obedience to authority, a child's level of morality.
Hum, well, I guess Homefront (in which you're fighting against your country's government) must be on an adult's level of morality then.
You asked a question of if it would be ethical for Korea to have invaded America during the Civil War, which was a ridiculous question, because it was so impractical. I replaced it with the question of if it would have been okay for England to invaded the North on Behalf of the South, and I wouldn't have had any quibbles with them on the face of it. Though it would have been propping up an evil regime (the CSA was founded on the defense of slavery), which was one of the reasons why England didn't invade.
In the case of the Korean War, by contrast, the North was the corrupt, evil, state. So there was nothing wrong with America helping South Korea fight against the North in self-defense. (As I said, we were there already in any event.)
>>Perhaps Microsoft should investigate why people are still using XP and haven't upgraded.
For me (and I actually just upgraded this week), the reasons are three: 1) Speed. Win7 is clocking in at about 5% slower than XP in my various benchmarks. File performance, game performance, etc. 2) UI. XP's UI is superior. Fortunately I came across Classic Shell which allows you to restore the better UI. (http://sourceforge.net/projects/classicshell/) 3) Some applications will run in XP but not in Win7. (Win7's XP emulation mode is a joke, BTW.) And we're not talking about Barbie Princess Adventures here. The version of MATLAB we use for work (the MATLAB code only runs on MATLAB 2007) will *not* run on Vista or Win7. As big a deal as Microsoft makes over compatibility, if they don't support something that is mission critical to your business, there's a negative benefit to upgrading.
Win7 has lots of benefits, too, don't get me wrong. But I'm tired of all the hur-hur-just-upgrade mentality on here. There's quite valid reasons not to.
>>Oh noes you might have to abandon decades old technology.
The XP UI is absolutely superior to Win7. As a power user, I could do everything faster in XP, and more deterministically. While Vista allows you to keep the classic start menu, Win7 has no such option, and you have to hack it to get the Quick Launch bar the way it used to be in XP.
I actually just upgraded this week so that I could get TRIM support (and for a couple other reasons), but I was in absolutely no hurry to upgrade. Finding Classic Shell on Sourceforge made all the difference - allowing me to finally get the benefits of the Win7 internals with the XP UI.
>>Before the metric system, there were, for example, literally dozens of different feet. >>A foot is roughly one light-nanosecond, right?
Heh, that's an outstanding point. And the second is the answer to the first - standardizing a foot at a light-nanosecond would actually be pretty reasonable, and makes more sense than standardizing it based on the period of a pendulum (like the meter originally was), which depends on gravitational fields being equal everywhere, which is kind of silly.
>>The old REM (or RAD) was more clever... 100 sounded bad. It was bad. 10 didn't sound so bad. It wasn't do bad. 1 sounded small, and any fraction under that sounded too tiny to worry about. And that was correct too, even if integrated over years.
I agree. It's a pet peeve of mine - measurement units should either be scientific, or arbitrary. If they're scientific, they should be actually scientific, like Kelvin or Light-seconds, instead of faux-scientific like Celcius or Meters. The difference being (if you can't tell) that you need a conversion factor in your basic equations for faux-scientific metrics.
If they're arbitrary, like Fahrenheit or Celcius, they should be appropriate to the quantity being measured. The reason we don't use Kelvin in everyday life is because the habitable range for human experience is narrow, and large (roughly 270K to 310K), so we mentally aren't equipped to deal with it. Whew, 303K today, what a scorcher! 270K? It's freezing!
So all the purists that get hardons making fun of Fahrenheit don't realize that Americans prefer it because A) There's nothing very scientific about Celcius (unless you're boiling water on a daily basis, you really don't care about 0 or 100C) and B) There's a better usable range of temperatures. 100 is hot. 0 is really cold. Psychologically, it works better.
It's perfectly fine to talk about milli-inches or kilo-inches, albeit unusual. The strength of the SI system is the use of base10 numbering, not the base units themselves. There's nothing more scientific about using an inch over a meter.
>>The fact is, imperial units are just more natural for some things and less so for others. The same can be said of metric
That's true. Fahrenheit gives a better range of usable temperatures than Celcius. "It's in the 60s" vs. "It's in the 50s", etc. There's no scientific reason for using Celcius instead of Fahrenheit, either. Unless you are boiling water on a day to day basis, there's really no excuse not to be using Kelvin for everything. If you're not using Kelvin, then STFU about people using Fahrenheit. You can pick any arbitrary number above absolute zero to be the zero of your temperature scale, and it's still just as useless for doing thermodynamic calculations. There is NOTHING more scientific about Celcius than Fahrenheit. We defined a calorie as the amount of energy to raise a gram of water +1C - this could have been defined in Fahrenheit, alternatively, without saddling us with a useless third temperature system. Dooming millions of people to reading XX*C/YY*F everywhere they go in the world.
The power of metric in scientific calculations is the base-10 system, but Celcius doesn't take advantage of it.
Likewise, the fuckers could have kept one Imperial units for distance, etc., and simply tacked base-10 onto it (kiloyards, centiyards) instead replacing them with arbitrary units like meters and saddling us with a secondary measurement system that is no more scientific in terms of the base unit than the Imperial. IMO, the base unit for distance should be the distance light travels in a second, or some fraction thereof. Saving millions of hours for physics students.
The SI units that are derived from other ones (the gram, the calorie/joule, etc) make sense. But the base units chosen are no more scientific than the Imperial units they replaced. All you metric purists that aren't using lightseconds and Kelvin, should really check your sense of superiority at the door. In a nutshell, the base units for SI are no more scientific
>>When asked if it would be moral for Korea to invade the Northern US, the response is the Southern US wanted help. Do you see what happened there? It's a fallacy called shifting goal posts.
I was ignoring your analogy, because we had minimal contact with Korea during the American Civil War, so such a response would have been bizarre. I used a better analogy. If that went over your head, I'm sure I could come up with something involving cars and Libraries of Congress.
America was already in South Korea when the North invaded. We'd been there since the end of World War 2. My grandfather established the Korean Post Office, for example. So when the North (a USSR puppet state) invaded the South (a US puppet state), it made perfect sense for us to shoot at the Norks. If you're honestly trying to pretend the Korean War or the Vietnam War were both simple Civil Wars without any other states involved (akin to Korea vs. the North in 1850s America), then you're crazy.
>>Generally, when a person uses "Period. End of story" you can tell their minds are closed to facts which disagree with their opinions.
In this case, you'd be right.
I deal with enough Amero-bashing, that I don't want to deal with it again in a case where America was blamed for something in complete reverse of the facts.
>>During the American Civil War, should Korea have invaded the northern US states which were attacking the southern states?
During the Civil War, the South was begging for help from Britain and other European powers that they felt they had a natural alliance with due to the cotton trade. Since you're making it a normative question, from the point of view of the South, they'd have loved it if someone had intervened on their behalf.
But you still wouldn't be able to frame it in the form, "England was responsible for the Civil War since they invaded the North."
Slashdot Mirror
No kidding - you put $30k in on a solar system and that raises house prices? Because people don't need to pay extortionate power rates? What a weird concept.
The fact of the matter is, California has the highest power rates in the nation (I'd assign blame in equal parts to NIMBYs, environmentalists, PG&E, the PUC, and our legislature). Running air conditioning in the summer will kick you up into Tier 5 rates, which are currently around 50c/kWh. Getting a four digit power bill for one month is enough to convince even the most ardent anti-environmentalist of the value of solar.
If you run the numbers, rooftop solar has a levelized cost of about 24c/kWh. So it's worth it to build out capacity to meet however much power you use in the higher tier rates (Tiers 3 through 5). You don't necessarily want to run your power bills to zero (Tiers 1 and 2 are subsidized by the higher rates), but if you do, PG&E will write you a check at the end of the year. (How much has yet to be determined.) Schwarzenegger got that pushed through at the end of his term of governor - before that, PG&E would just pocket any excess capacity you generate.
I actually just had solar put in and finally turned on a couple weeks ago. It's nice running a net positive balance with PG&E, though it's still too cool for air conditioning.
>>"by watching the vehicle for a certain period of time. I can use traffic cameras on Google satellite"
Wait... what?
>>Personally, I do, and telling me that I'm being scammed for something that I actively enjoy isn't going to suddenly persuade me that I don't.
Personally, I think the word "scam" in TFA is the wrong word to use.
Scam implies that you buy a 3D whazzit and it doesn't work. But all the 3D stuff I've seen actually works, though it can give you a headache if not done right. IMAX 3D in theatres is occasionally worth the price of admission.
There's plenty of other words for spiffy new tech products that you don't really need: gizmo, tech pron, etc.
Scam implies fraud.
Hmm, my buddy drives 75MPH in his Prius and his mileage drops from 50 to 40MPG, which is significant, but still better than most cars on the road.
My 200hp V6 car gets 23MPG consistently, but around 21MPG when I drive it long distances on the highway. So my 4-cyl seems to hold up better at that speed.
Then again, I don't drive 100MPH on the autobahn, so I can't test it at those numbers. Though I'd love to. Interstate speed limits should either be eliminated or increased.
Tickets involve giving points to the driver of the car, which can result in the loss of driving privileges. If there are multiple people registered as owners of a car, how do they know who to give the points to?
>>The difference fuel-consumption between average and high-speed is much greater in a fuel-efficient car (think small engine)
I'd disagree. I have a car with a 150hp 4-cylinder engine + 50hp electric motor and it gets 31 or 32MPG no matter what I do to it. If I really push it hard, I can get it down to 30MPG some times.
>>My 15 year old BMW station-car is more fuel-efficient than a Toyota Prius when going 100Mph down the german autobahn
Have you tested this?
In any event, I think it'd be more a function of aerodynamic drag than anything else.
>>At what point did Blizzard decide they had to pick one or the other? Maybe this isn't the same company I knew from my youth.
Nuclear launch detected.
Nuclear launch detected.
Nuclear launch detected.
Yeah, it's still fun.
>>Declaring that the only requirement necessary for outside intervention is siding with the invaded
This was in response to the claim that America invaded North Korea. Apparently, out of thin air.
The North invaded the South so we counterattacked. This is a legitimate thing to do when you have a military alliance or protectorate with another country. You might have heard of "The Allies" in WWII?
Now tell me it with a straight face that "England invaded Germany" without provocation.
Come on. Tell me.
>>You didn't like this notion when applying it to the American Civil War though
I took exception to your ridiculous example of using Korea vs. the USA in the 1800s, which flies in the face of history, not the principle of the thing. That's why I used England vs. The North instead.
>>This is definitely key, and it depends strongly on the particular vehicle in question. Given your numbers, I would say that either you car is very inefficient at low speeds, its total drag is dominated by driveline losses rather than wind resistance (this is the case for aerodynamic vehicles), or your engine is less efficient at lower powers.
My car has a pretty good coefficient of drag, and I'm hard pressed to ever get it out of the 31-32MPG range. If I really drive aggressively I can get 30MPG.
>>Try the same thing in a truck or SUV though; I'm fairly certain that an SUV driving 75 is burning far more fuel than it would doing 65.
Sure. I was just testing my buddies new Pilot (which has an "eco" mode that disables half the cylinders). It could cruise at 30-40MPH while sipping gas (60+ MPG), but at 60+ it wouldn't do better than 24MPG or so.
So issue people that have low coefficient of drag cars stickers that let them drive 80MPH on the freeway. There's no safety concern, and as I found, there's no fuel efficiency reason either.
I've never really understood issuing tickets to cars instead of drivers anyway.
Your gory math doesn't meet the real world test. Being something of a nerd, I've run extensive testing on my long drives (I do 25k/year for work).
Methodology: fill up the car, accelerate up to target speed, set cruise control, maintain speed on isolated road for 200 miles, fill up and measure gallons used. Compare against the computer's MPG estimate.
75MPH: 31.5 MPG
65 MPH 32 MPG
Watching the instantaneous fuel consumption, there's no difference cruising at the two speeds. The difference is entirely from the additional acceleration / braking from the occasional dipshit driving 60 in a 70.
Conclusion: fuel efficiency is a bullshit reason to limit speeds.
(Note: your mileage may vary.)
The fuel efficiency argument is nonsense. The difference between 75mph and 65mph in my car is negligable. 2%.
All tickets that pay into the agency issuing them are conflicts of interest. The idea that government agencies are above "revenue generation" has been decisively disproven by the real world.
My city (San Diego) installed red light cameras and then set yellow-times to the minimum. Safety? Heh. Accidents went significantly up as people were suddenly running reds. It was entirely a revenue grab.
There's many situations in which speeding up is the safest option.
It's because of stories like the GP's that I have come to think we should get rid of speed limits entirely and just ticket people if they're going 20mph over the flow of traffic on interstates.
There's a difference between "supporting everything" and "MATLAB won't work". MATLAB2007 is a pretty significant bit of software for Vista and Win7 to break. Mathworks has no interest in fixing the problem (they recommend buying the new version, match), and we can't hire the original author of the code to port it to a newer version of MATLAB due to his Visa restrictions.
So, XP it is for our business machines.
>>Hint: believing your (or any country's) government is always right is obedience to authority, a child's level of morality.
Hum, well, I guess Homefront (in which you're fighting against your country's government) must be on an adult's level of morality then.
You asked a question of if it would be ethical for Korea to have invaded America during the Civil War, which was a ridiculous question, because it was so impractical. I replaced it with the question of if it would have been okay for England to invaded the North on Behalf of the South, and I wouldn't have had any quibbles with them on the face of it. Though it would have been propping up an evil regime (the CSA was founded on the defense of slavery), which was one of the reasons why England didn't invade.
In the case of the Korean War, by contrast, the North was the corrupt, evil, state. So there was nothing wrong with America helping South Korea fight against the North in self-defense. (As I said, we were there already in any event.)
Didn't I just mention ClassicShell in the post you were responding to? =)
>>Perhaps Microsoft should investigate why people are still using XP and haven't upgraded.
For me (and I actually just upgraded this week), the reasons are three:
1) Speed. Win7 is clocking in at about 5% slower than XP in my various benchmarks. File performance, game performance, etc.
2) UI. XP's UI is superior. Fortunately I came across Classic Shell which allows you to restore the better UI. (http://sourceforge.net/projects/classicshell/)
3) Some applications will run in XP but not in Win7. (Win7's XP emulation mode is a joke, BTW.) And we're not talking about Barbie Princess Adventures here. The version of MATLAB we use for work (the MATLAB code only runs on MATLAB 2007) will *not* run on Vista or Win7. As big a deal as Microsoft makes over compatibility, if they don't support something that is mission critical to your business, there's a negative benefit to upgrading.
Win7 has lots of benefits, too, don't get me wrong. But I'm tired of all the hur-hur-just-upgrade mentality on here. There's quite valid reasons not to.
>>Oh noes you might have to abandon decades old technology.
The XP UI is absolutely superior to Win7. As a power user, I could do everything faster in XP, and more deterministically. While Vista allows you to keep the classic start menu, Win7 has no such option, and you have to hack it to get the Quick Launch bar the way it used to be in XP.
I actually just upgraded this week so that I could get TRIM support (and for a couple other reasons), but I was in absolutely no hurry to upgrade. Finding Classic Shell on Sourceforge made all the difference - allowing me to finally get the benefits of the Win7 internals with the XP UI.
>>Before the metric system, there were, for example, literally dozens of different feet.
>>A foot is roughly one light-nanosecond, right?
Heh, that's an outstanding point. And the second is the answer to the first - standardizing a foot at a light-nanosecond would actually be pretty reasonable, and makes more sense than standardizing it based on the period of a pendulum (like the meter originally was), which depends on gravitational fields being equal everywhere, which is kind of silly.
>>The old REM (or RAD) was more clever... 100 sounded bad. It was bad. 10 didn't sound so bad. It wasn't do bad. 1 sounded small, and any fraction under that sounded too tiny to worry about. And that was correct too, even if integrated over years.
I agree. It's a pet peeve of mine - measurement units should either be scientific, or arbitrary. If they're scientific, they should be actually scientific, like Kelvin or Light-seconds, instead of faux-scientific like Celcius or Meters. The difference being (if you can't tell) that you need a conversion factor in your basic equations for faux-scientific metrics.
If they're arbitrary, like Fahrenheit or Celcius, they should be appropriate to the quantity being measured. The reason we don't use Kelvin in everyday life is because the habitable range for human experience is narrow, and large (roughly 270K to 310K), so we mentally aren't equipped to deal with it. Whew, 303K today, what a scorcher! 270K? It's freezing!
So all the purists that get hardons making fun of Fahrenheit don't realize that Americans prefer it because A) There's nothing very scientific about Celcius (unless you're boiling water on a daily basis, you really don't care about 0 or 100C) and B) There's a better usable range of temperatures. 100 is hot. 0 is really cold. Psychologically, it works better.
It's perfectly fine to talk about milli-inches or kilo-inches, albeit unusual. The strength of the SI system is the use of base10 numbering, not the base units themselves. There's nothing more scientific about using an inch over a meter.
>>The fact is, imperial units are just more natural for some things and less so for others. The same can be said of metric
That's true. Fahrenheit gives a better range of usable temperatures than Celcius. "It's in the 60s" vs. "It's in the 50s", etc. There's no scientific reason for using Celcius instead of Fahrenheit, either. Unless you are boiling water on a day to day basis, there's really no excuse not to be using Kelvin for everything. If you're not using Kelvin, then STFU about people using Fahrenheit. You can pick any arbitrary number above absolute zero to be the zero of your temperature scale, and it's still just as useless for doing thermodynamic calculations. There is NOTHING more scientific about Celcius than Fahrenheit. We defined a calorie as the amount of energy to raise a gram of water +1C - this could have been defined in Fahrenheit, alternatively, without saddling us with a useless third temperature system. Dooming millions of people to reading XX*C/YY*F everywhere they go in the world.
The power of metric in scientific calculations is the base-10 system, but Celcius doesn't take advantage of it.
Likewise, the fuckers could have kept one Imperial units for distance, etc., and simply tacked base-10 onto it (kiloyards, centiyards) instead replacing them with arbitrary units like meters and saddling us with a secondary measurement system that is no more scientific in terms of the base unit than the Imperial. IMO, the base unit for distance should be the distance light travels in a second, or some fraction thereof. Saving millions of hours for physics students.
The SI units that are derived from other ones (the gram, the calorie/joule, etc) make sense. But the base units chosen are no more scientific than the Imperial units they replaced. All you metric purists that aren't using lightseconds and Kelvin, should really check your sense of superiority at the door.
In a nutshell, the base units for SI are no more scientific
>>When asked if it would be moral for Korea to invade the Northern US, the response is the Southern US wanted help. Do you see what happened there? It's a fallacy called shifting goal posts.
I was ignoring your analogy, because we had minimal contact with Korea during the American Civil War, so such a response would have been bizarre. I used a better analogy. If that went over your head, I'm sure I could come up with something involving cars and Libraries of Congress.
America was already in South Korea when the North invaded. We'd been there since the end of World War 2. My grandfather established the Korean Post Office, for example. So when the North (a USSR puppet state) invaded the South (a US puppet state), it made perfect sense for us to shoot at the Norks. If you're honestly trying to pretend the Korean War or the Vietnam War were both simple Civil Wars without any other states involved (akin to Korea vs. the North in 1850s America), then you're crazy.
>>Generally, when a person uses "Period. End of story" you can tell their minds are closed to facts which disagree with their opinions.
In this case, you'd be right.
I deal with enough Amero-bashing, that I don't want to deal with it again in a case where America was blamed for something in complete reverse of the facts.
>>During the American Civil War, should Korea have invaded the northern US states which were attacking the southern states?
During the Civil War, the South was begging for help from Britain and other European powers that they felt they had a natural alliance with due to the cotton trade. Since you're making it a normative question, from the point of view of the South, they'd have loved it if someone had intervened on their behalf.
But you still wouldn't be able to frame it in the form, "England was responsible for the Civil War since they invaded the North."