Reading these two sentences one might be surprised to learn that "citizens" and "consumers" are in fact the same entity also called humans
"featherless carbon based bipeds" is also a good definition for humans. The choire of terms is guided by our interests and perception of relevance. Why is it admissible to make recommendations about communication media, an issue which has fundamental relevance to democracy, without the word "citizen" mentionned? Indeed, you might read the whole letter and get the impression that communication has nothing to do with politics. Do you/they really believe that? Or is this really an exercise in newspeak.
People can play different rolls
My point exactly. Now since you criticize my criticism of the letter written by the 37 as being exceesively uni-dimensional, could you please quote the place in the letter that shows that the authors are aware of those human dimensions that go beyond consumption, and craft their recommendations with this awareness in mind? I did not say that people aren't consumers, but the letter clearly recommends that we view communication as nothing more than a marketable and consumable object.
Voting is not a divine path to the ?public good.?
Indeed, but neither is economic growth. From a democratic perspective, the public good is not given, and the road to the public good is difficult to find, and that is why we need a public square where we can meet and discuss the public good. The economist theology of the letter believes on the contrary that the public good is known and beyond discussion --economic growth, and therefore that there is nothing to discuss and that the public square is just another piece of real-estate which me might as well sell.
*both* parties try to put in judges who view the constitution in the same way as they do.
I am not talking about the supreme court only. Judges are appointed because of their political affiliations in all levels. The senate blockade of Clinton's nominees was mostly for federal and appelate judges, not the supreme court. Plus, you have just said what I said. Judges have a political affiliation that is crucial to their decision. You can dress it up as constitutional interpretation. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it is raw favoritism ( cf. Gore vs. Bush. ).
If you look at the actual voting records rather than the political and media hype, you'll find that your best friend on the court (most likely to vote in your favor when faced with government power or intrusion) is Thomas... followed by Scalia.
I see you have been an intern on Pravda. Could you please supply us with some precise examples of Thomas and Scalia protecting me ( assuming 'me' to be an ordinary citizen without big pockets) against anything?
There have been a number of statistical studies of the supreme court. There is little doubt that except for the dramatically out of line Warren court the US Supreme court has never been in the business of protecting ordinary Americans against anything. The typical supreme court decision protecting against over-zealous government is Dred Scott Vs. Stanford, Row vs. Wade is rather the exception.
But then, since you are a fan of Scalia, I assume you think Dred Scot was a shining example of protecting personal liberties. Good for you!
you have a rather skewed view of the approaches taken by the two parties here ..
I believe I have a realistic understanding that the Republican party is doing what it can to close the door of the court to all but the insanely rich. You are welcome to prove me wrong.
No see, judges have a specific purpose in civil suits, to decide who is right and who is wrong in the eyes of the law
If you were right judges' political affiliation would be irrelevant. As you know, however, most judges get their position because of their political affiliation. Since Nixon, the Republicans have been engaged in a concerted effort to control the benches, which unforunately wasn't met by the proper resistence by the Democrats. During the Clinton administration the Republican senate efficively freezed the proccess of nominating lower judges, in order to protect the Republican control of the bench.
All these wrangeling would be a waste of time if judges were making impartial apolitical decisions. I find it hard to believe that politicians spend massive political capital on fights without political repercussion. So I find it hard to believe that the political affiliation of judges has no relevance to their decisions. Ergo, you are wrong.
( and this is even without taking into account the massively available research data on the relations between judicial decisions and political color.)
It gets worse. The first paragraph says that their plan will be of great benefit to "consumers, entrepreneurs, and the growth of our economy".
That is the kind of thinking that distinguishes economic theory as ideological justification of the interests of corporations. There is no public interest in a society without a public composed of citizens. Consumers do not agregate into a public but into "demand".
The 37 liers do not recognize a real "public interest" because they have no concept of citizenship and of public. They offer a political revolution but they pretend to say nothing political. "Objective" economic theory allows them to masquerade as technocrats offering "increased efficiency" without political implications.
In itself, there is nothing wrong with selling off the spectrum and allowing a market to "create efficiencies", as long as one remembers the public purpose of markets, and especially the public function of communication. But as the letter clearly shows, the promoters of markets today have all but forgotten these public functions. Their only notion of the good is economic growth, and the only aspect of humanity they are aware of is consumption. Under such circumstances, their plan is an invitation for another corporate landgrab that will leave our society even poorer that it is.
Of course, this letter comes just in time as the FCC got Little Powell as its new chairperson. Since Little Powell has made it clear that his idea of the public good is corporate welfare, I expect this proposition to given a serious and sympathetic airing.
Despite you shouting it, it isn't so simple.
A few drugs are physically addictive at high regular doses (Heroin, Cocain, Nicotine, Alcohol ). Most drugs, including pot as well as all halucinogens are not addictive. Even the addictive drugs are not going to get you hooked unless you have an addictive predisposition, which only a tiny percentage of people have. I drink alcohol a few times a week for many years and I got drunk only once in my life by mistake. Most people don't enjoy the high level of consumption that leads to physical addiction. ( the only exception is the completely legal nicotine.)
There were reasons for outlawing certain drugs.
I am not completely versed in the history of drug laws, but I heard/read that the "reasons" most drugs were outlawed in the first place was their associations with particular ethnic groups.
I am not saying that there is never reason to outlaw certain drugs ( hint: I am not a libertarian). But most of the national drug talk is purely irrational and based on crackpot science. I believe that putting millions in jail, spending billions of dollars, and totally wrecking quite a few neighboring nations ( with millions of deaths involved), on the basis of a mix of prejudice, political pandering and hysteria is a crime against humanity in a completely unmetaphorical sense.
If the OSS community don't want to play nice with AOL and acknowledges AOLs right to not play nice with the OSS community, why is it that everyone screaming when AOL blocks another client?
Non Sequitor, you have a right to vote for Bush and I have a right to scream that you're an idiot, and you have the right to scream back. How is all this relevant?
OSS developers want to co-operate with AOL. They have a right to scream that AOL is playing dirty. They even have the right to complain to the anti-trust division of the DOJ. AOL has the right to not co-operate ( until a judge says othewise ). AOL has the right to scream that OSS developers are playing dirty. And OSS developers have the right to deafeat AOL obstruction of inter-operability( until a judge says otherwise).
No it's called theft of service
No it isn't called that way. Just because you call it that way doesn't make it so. I call it providing interoperability, now what? There is no settled law in this area. And only a court can call an unprecedent event theft. As long as it is not settled law, developers can do what they believe bona fide to be right. So please, if you think it is theft, call the police.
Too bad you don't have time to parse arguments before you hit submit. All the troubles you mention are a result of a particular mix of circumstances. Any way you look at it, they are certainly not the result of a hypotethical market that I described, because that market does not exist.
No arguments, irrelevant facts and name calling -- You have a bright political future.
Good idea! Unfortunately, if you make a game called "war on drugs" you will probably be sued for promoting violent, murderous, and plain damn stupid behavior.
Every time there's and AOL vs GAIM article the same comments arise. Mod this down if you want but AOL has no oligation of playing nice with the OSS community.
You are damn right. And the OSS community has no obligation to play it nice with AOL either. It's called competition, so whose side are you on?
I think the bottom line is, be glad we have what we have, they could have given us nothing. If you really think AOL and AIM sucks, why not switch to Jabber or something else... you don't HAVE to use AIM.
Did someone confuse linus torvald with the dalai lama? Why on earth should we be glad with what we have? We owe AOL nothing. It is a public company, and all its decisions are based on maximizing profits. Whatever they gave us, they did it because it payed them to do so. Open source developer can do everything legal in their country to get access to AOL customers. If you don't like it, complain at a local police station near you.
Thank you for calling me a hypocrite, I always appreciate a frank exchange of ideas. In return, please accept my calling you an idiot. Now that we're done with the testosterone effect, let's get down to business.
because you know that if your viewpoint makes it into law, the vast majority of the cost will be borne by others (who may or may not agree with you)
Externality is defined as cost born by those who are not parties to the transaction. If you think having other people pay for your pleasure is bad, than you should want externalities to be internalized in the cost. Yet you seem to want that others pay for your pleasure and you're pissed because others pass laws that make you pay for your pleasure.
Simple imaginary scenario. Generating electricity causes soot which causes cancer. When you pay for the electricity at cost, someone else's health subsidizes your extra-large refrigerator. You think that is moral, but that passing a law that would force electricity companies to pay for that externality, and raise the price you pay, is an immoral forcing yourself on others. And to think you called me a hyp... no let us not go there.
So what is to be done? Let's find a hispanic neighborhood where the people are to lowdown to complain, they will get the cancer and you will get your extra refrigerator on the cheap. Right? And if they do complain they are communists, right?
Now, my definition of green is based on a simple notion of utility. If you want your extra refrigerator, you should pay someone to agree to a higher risk of cancer. That is the fair market price of electricity. At that price, when you buy electricity, the total utility increases and the market allocates resources efficiently. When you exclude externalities, the total utility of a transaction may be negative, which simply means that the market becomes extremely inefficient in allocating resources.
I'm living in California...the reason for the so-called electricity crisis is none other than hypocrisy.
If you read the papers you know that there are more reasons offered for the power crisis in California than Californian residents. So let's eschew simplifications. A complex event has many causes, think of a car accident. If you are the police, you will accuse the drunken driver. If you are in charge of road signs, you will point out the the stop sign was hidden by a tree. If you are Ralf Nader you will point out that the car manufacturer tried to save a few bucks on the brakes. Each view has a point, but each is governed by a perspective on what improvements are more salient.
Those who oppose the construction of generation facilities should have their power turned off first.
Your explanation, that the crisis results from strict regulation, has problems with the fact that municipalities that did not deregulate are in much better shape today, which suggests that deregulation had something to do with it.
Your solution is to punish hypocritical consumers that want power but resist power generating facilities. Lo and behold, I suggested something similar, but based on the market. I want those who create more demand to pay to those who resist the building of power plants until they agree to host them. It may be the same people, or it may be other people, what does it matter?
If Joe San-Diego doesn't want a powerplant in his backyard, I assume that is because it disturbs him to some degree. If you want a powerplant in his backyard, I suggest you offer Joe enough to get him to change his mind. As you raise your offer, Joe, or someone else, will eventually accept, because the utility of the payment will be greater for them then the disutility of having a powerplant in their backyard. Electricity prices will be higher, but they will reflect exactly the disutility of generating it. You may still have your extra-large refrigerator, or the price might convince you invest in a more efficient model. That is what markets are for.
It isn't subtle at all. It is Prince George's standard trick. He did it with the 1.6T tax cut, he did it with the drilling in Alaska. In both cases Bush knew he had low popular support and in both cases the chances of getting it through congress are slim, yet he pushed anyway.
I did not mean a Democrat running on an nuclear platform. However, a Democrat president who is at least mildly respected by greens and has registered in the first term a solid record on the environment will be able, in the second term, to "discover", that nuclear energy technology has changed enough to warrant reconsideration. Such a president will be able to muster enough public support at the center and get Congress approval with a bipartisan majority. I think a Republican president, even one more moderate than the current usurper, will probably get fried.
I thought "green" meant getting power from crystals or butterflies or some shit.
green means different things to different people. To me it means first that the cost of every product should reflect not only how much money it took the producer to produce it, but also the cost of cleaning up the mess that third parties are left with as a result of both its consumption and its production. Second, green means that we should not party at the expense of our grandchildren. Taken together, what I want to say simply is that green means fair. But then again, I am a green-red colorblind.
The idiot in the Whitehouse is certainly not someone I would trust to ensure that safety standards were enforced.
From the reasons you mentionned and the way the two parties have positioned themselves in the last two decades, I suspect that reviving nuclear power in the US is something that no Republican president can pull off. It would just cause too much fallout ( political, not nuclear). Only a Democrat running on a green message will carry enough trust to overcome the fears of the public.
PS.
The Idiot is a diversion, mind the crooks in the background.
Overall, the political, technical and economic feasibility of disposal of all types of waste and of decommissioning plants has yet to be proven anywhere in the world. A responsible policy would appear to be to carry out investigations into these processes so that there is confidence that when these processes are required, they are technically proven and the resources to carry them out are available.
Waste is the deal breaker. I am sure that it is possible to find a feasible solution to this problem. But it will require heavy governmental subsidy from countries richer than South Africa. It will take time, and it probably won't be cost efficient unless the cost of dirty electricity factors in the whole gamut of environmental externalities including global warming.
Next month Dick "The Nanny" Cheney will come out with recommendations for a new US energy policy, that will probably include nuclear power. This could be a good opportunity to put funds into waste disposal research that could turn results in a decade. My suspicion, however, is that this is not what we are going to see. The proposal will most likely suggest building reactors here and now, and giving subsidies to energy utilities that will be used mostly to disburse dividends. Given the likelihood that the plan will generate extreme political outrage, I strongly suspect that its real purpose is to draw fire, paint environamentalists as extremists, and finally "compromise" on good old coal and gas subsidies. What a pity! But then, I may be wrong -- we will know that next month.
Since almost any work can result in CTS, the CTS prone person carry a financial burden in his genetic make-up. Someone is going to pay for this burden eventually. The alternatives are: his family, his employer, all others employees (insurance), all other citizens ( taxes ), nobody (yet another homeless ).
All solutions will come out of the GNP anyway
( except homelessness, and I know that some/. contributors have no problems with this solution, but these angry white males are beyond hope, and I am not trying to convince them anyway).
However the implementation cost differs as well as the distribution of risk. From a purely financial perspective, I'd say that insurance is the most efficient. But that implies a universal health insurance, which the US doesn't have because big business oppose it ( they like the power that medical insurance gives them and they like the way it screws up small competitors ). The next best thing is putting the burden on the employer, because the employer is more efficient then the welfare system and more likely to have sufficient funds then the family.
I'm talking above about the cost of the result of CTS. You call the prevention cost "excessive". This can't be done without reference to the cost of the result. If the result of CTS is X dollars of income lost for the inflicted person over a lifetime, plus a subjective Y cost of physical and emotional pain ( courts know how to calculate this), the cost of prevention can be excessive only if it is higher than X+Y. I don't think anyone here ( myself included) has done the numbers, so I really don't see any meaning to excessive except "wow, I don't feel like paying that". If prevention is not excessive, the same methods of distribution are available. Insurance is ruled out because there is no risk issue. And, because prevention must implemented by the employer anyway, letting the employer manage it ( under supervision ) seems the most efficient way.
I have a pair of flat magnapan. Their bass is real. It isn't good for amplified electric music that tends to have extra bass. But I listen almost exclusively to accoustic music, and I can hear low contrabass tones that sometimes you won't be able to hear at the concert hall. I never heard such good speakers anywhere else, certainly not for a $500 pricetag.
They do need about 30% more power to drive them tough.
Another important thing is that they cannot be placed against the wall because that kills the sound. So altough they are thin ( about 1'' ), they need a foot of clearence behind them. I wonder if the object of the article does better in this respect.
As long as the company publicizes their moral behavior, it is reasonably in the best interests of the company.
As you have just admitted, moral judgement in corporate behavior is subordinated to interest. That is a big difference. I expect my fellow humans to engage in moral behavior towards me even if that harms their own interest. Whether they ( and I) live up to it or not is another matter, but this is my expectation. I don't have such expectations from corporations and therefore I don't feel morally obliged by them.
Thus, whatever people do to AOL, if it has a reasonable chance of surviving legal challenge, is totally KOSHER.
I hope you turn a profit on AOL shares, and I appreciate your voting against management. But this changes nothing. See, if AOL makes money by doing something immoral, you will enjoy the profit, but you won't feel personally responsible ( after all, you can always say, you were against it). That is good enough reason why my obligation to behave morally towards you does not extend to the company you own.
And immoral behavior is not acceptable because the victim is a corporation.
actually, it is. Coporations are legally bound to treat me and you in the most profitable way that is still legal, without regard to morality. A corporation that does not maximize profit because of moral qualms can be sued by their shareholders. The most basic thing about morality is reciprocity. Why shouldn't individuals treat corporation in the same ammoral but legal fashion? Corporations are legal creatures one of whose purpose is to release their shareholders from moral ( and legal ) responsability. Why would I have problems then with anyone using the law to royally screw a corporation.
The alleged scheme might work and might be legal. But is is a huge waste of the limited resource of open source community to implement it now.
As The article suggested, using the path of aim.exe is of dubious legality. However, using the proposed scheme is also of dubious legality. That does not mean that either is illegal. It only means that we will never know their legal status until a court challenge is resolved. So why try the more difficult path first?
I suggest the jabber developers start by using the easier method. It might help to consult a lawyer first. It might help to publish the patch in a country that is less hostile to the public good than the US. It might help if several patches are written independently in several jurisdictions. Then let AOL sue. Then let the suit unwind itself through all legal levels and appeals. All the while the patches are easily found on the internet. Then, if, and it is a great if, jabber looses in all jurisdictions, start developing the more difficult procedure suggested in the article.
Programmers are suppose to be lazy. And this is a good time for acting on that principle. With lack, the more difficult strategy will become moot, because...
Sorry to lash out at you. I have misunderstood you. As a ( lame) excuse, your key note "work harder" was close enough to familiar capitalist propaganda to confuse me.
I guess I got all souped up about the familiar mantra that "all problems would vanish if people stopped bitching and worked harder" after I heard our braindead Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, explain that a tax cut is needed to give Americans an incentive to work harder.
Slashdot Mirror
Reading these two sentences one might be surprised to learn that "citizens" and "consumers" are in fact the same entity also called humans
"featherless carbon based bipeds" is also a good definition for humans. The choire of terms is guided by our interests and perception of relevance. Why is it admissible to make recommendations about communication media, an issue which has fundamental relevance to democracy, without the word "citizen" mentionned? Indeed, you might read the whole letter and get the impression that communication has nothing to do with politics. Do you/they really believe that? Or is this really an exercise in newspeak.
People can play different rolls
My point exactly. Now since you criticize my criticism of the letter written by the 37 as being exceesively uni-dimensional, could you please quote the place in the letter that shows that the authors are aware of those human dimensions that go beyond consumption, and craft their recommendations with this awareness in mind? I did not say that people aren't consumers, but the letter clearly recommends that we view communication as nothing more than a marketable and consumable object.
Voting is not a divine path to the ?public good.?
Indeed, but neither is economic growth. From a democratic perspective, the public good is not given, and the road to the public good is difficult to find, and that is why we need a public square where we can meet and discuss the public good. The economist theology of the letter believes on the contrary that the public good is known and beyond discussion --economic growth, and therefore that there is nothing to discuss and that the public square is just another piece of real-estate which me might as well sell.
*both* parties try to put in judges who view the constitution in the same way as they do.
I am not talking about the supreme court only. Judges are appointed because of their political affiliations in all levels. The senate blockade of Clinton's nominees was mostly for federal and appelate judges, not the supreme court. Plus, you have just said what I said. Judges have a political affiliation that is crucial to their decision. You can dress it up as constitutional interpretation. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it is raw favoritism ( cf. Gore vs. Bush. ).
If you look at the actual voting records rather than the political and media hype, you'll find that your best friend on the court (most likely to vote in your favor when faced with government power or intrusion) is Thomas... followed by Scalia.
I see you have been an intern on Pravda. Could you please supply us with some precise examples of Thomas and Scalia protecting me ( assuming 'me' to be an ordinary citizen without big pockets) against anything?
There have been a number of statistical studies of the supreme court. There is little doubt that except for the dramatically out of line Warren court the US Supreme court has never been in the business of protecting ordinary Americans against anything. The typical supreme court decision protecting against over-zealous government is Dred Scott Vs. Stanford, Row vs. Wade is rather the exception.
But then, since you are a fan of Scalia, I assume you think Dred Scot was a shining example of protecting personal liberties. Good for you!
you have a rather skewed view of the approaches taken by the two parties here . .
I believe I have a realistic understanding that the Republican party is doing what it can to close the door of the court to all but the insanely rich. You are welcome to prove me wrong.
No see, judges have a specific purpose in civil suits, to decide who is right and who is wrong in the eyes of the law
If you were right judges' political affiliation would be irrelevant. As you know, however, most judges get their position because of their political affiliation. Since Nixon, the Republicans have been engaged in a concerted effort to control the benches, which unforunately wasn't met by the proper resistence by the Democrats. During the Clinton administration the Republican senate efficively freezed the proccess of nominating lower judges, in order to protect the Republican control of the bench.
All these wrangeling would be a waste of time if judges were making impartial apolitical decisions. I find it hard to believe that politicians spend massive political capital on fights without political repercussion. So I find it hard to believe that the political affiliation of judges has no relevance to their decisions. Ergo, you are wrong.
( and this is even without taking into account the massively available research data on the relations between judicial decisions and political color.)
why do they put "public interest" in quotes.
It gets worse. The first paragraph says that their plan will be of great benefit to "consumers, entrepreneurs, and the growth of our economy".
That is the kind of thinking that distinguishes economic theory as ideological justification of the interests of corporations. There is no public interest in a society without a public composed of citizens. Consumers do not agregate into a public but into "demand".
The 37 liers do not recognize a real "public interest" because they have no concept of citizenship and of public. They offer a political revolution but they pretend to say nothing political. "Objective" economic theory allows them to masquerade as technocrats offering "increased efficiency" without political implications.
In itself, there is nothing wrong with selling off the spectrum and allowing a market to "create efficiencies", as long as one remembers the public purpose of markets, and especially the public function of communication. But as the letter clearly shows, the promoters of markets today have all but forgotten these public functions. Their only notion of the good is economic growth, and the only aspect of humanity they are aware of is consumption. Under such circumstances, their plan is an invitation for another corporate landgrab that will leave our society even poorer that it is.
Of course, this letter comes just in time as the FCC got Little Powell as its new chairperson. Since Little Powell has made it clear that his idea of the public good is corporate welfare, I expect this proposition to given a serious and sympathetic airing.
Despite you shouting it, it isn't so simple. A few drugs are physically addictive at high regular doses (Heroin, Cocain, Nicotine, Alcohol ). Most drugs, including pot as well as all halucinogens are not addictive. Even the addictive drugs are not going to get you hooked unless you have an addictive predisposition, which only a tiny percentage of people have. I drink alcohol a few times a week for many years and I got drunk only once in my life by mistake. Most people don't enjoy the high level of consumption that leads to physical addiction. ( the only exception is the completely legal nicotine.)
There were reasons for outlawing certain drugs.
I am not completely versed in the history of drug laws, but I heard/read that the "reasons" most drugs were outlawed in the first place was their associations with particular ethnic groups.
I am not saying that there is never reason to outlaw certain drugs ( hint: I am not a libertarian). But most of the national drug talk is purely irrational and based on crackpot science. I believe that putting millions in jail, spending billions of dollars, and totally wrecking quite a few neighboring nations ( with millions of deaths involved), on the basis of a mix of prejudice, political pandering and hysteria is a crime against humanity in a completely unmetaphorical sense.
If the OSS community don't want to play nice with AOL and acknowledges AOLs right to not play nice with the OSS community, why is it that everyone screaming when AOL blocks another client?
Non Sequitor, you have a right to vote for Bush and I have a right to scream that you're an idiot, and you have the right to scream back. How is all this relevant?
OSS developers want to co-operate with AOL. They have a right to scream that AOL is playing dirty. They even have the right to complain to the anti-trust division of the DOJ. AOL has the right to not co-operate ( until a judge says othewise ). AOL has the right to scream that OSS developers are playing dirty. And OSS developers have the right to deafeat AOL obstruction of inter-operability( until a judge says otherwise).
Satisfied that everybody got their rights?
No arguments, irrelevant facts and name calling -- You have a bright political future.
Good idea! Unfortunately, if you make a game called "war on drugs" you will probably be sued for promoting violent, murderous, and plain damn stupid behavior.
Every time there's and AOL vs GAIM article the same comments arise. Mod this down if you want but AOL has no oligation of playing nice with the OSS community.
You are damn right. And the OSS community has no obligation to play it nice with AOL either. It's called competition, so whose side are you on?
I think the bottom line is, be glad we have what we have, they could have given us nothing. If you really think AOL and AIM sucks, why not switch to Jabber or something else... you don't HAVE to use AIM.
Did someone confuse linus torvald with the dalai lama? Why on earth should we be glad with what we have? We owe AOL nothing. It is a public company, and all its decisions are based on maximizing profits. Whatever they gave us, they did it because it payed them to do so. Open source developer can do everything legal in their country to get access to AOL customers. If you don't like it, complain at a local police station near you.
I almost tried to answer, nice trolling!
because you know that if your viewpoint makes it into law, the vast majority of the cost will be borne by others (who may or may not agree with you)
Externality is defined as cost born by those who are not parties to the transaction. If you think having other people pay for your pleasure is bad, than you should want externalities to be internalized in the cost. Yet you seem to want that others pay for your pleasure and you're pissed because others pass laws that make you pay for your pleasure.
Simple imaginary scenario. Generating electricity causes soot which causes cancer. When you pay for the electricity at cost, someone else's health subsidizes your extra-large refrigerator. You think that is moral, but that passing a law that would force electricity companies to pay for that externality, and raise the price you pay, is an immoral forcing yourself on others. And to think you called me a hyp... no let us not go there.
So what is to be done? Let's find a hispanic neighborhood where the people are to lowdown to complain, they will get the cancer and you will get your extra refrigerator on the cheap. Right? And if they do complain they are communists, right?
Now, my definition of green is based on a simple notion of utility. If you want your extra refrigerator, you should pay someone to agree to a higher risk of cancer. That is the fair market price of electricity. At that price, when you buy electricity, the total utility increases and the market allocates resources efficiently. When you exclude externalities, the total utility of a transaction may be negative, which simply means that the market becomes extremely inefficient in allocating resources.
I'm living in California...the reason for the so-called electricity crisis is none other than hypocrisy.
If you read the papers you know that there are more reasons offered for the power crisis in California than Californian residents. So let's eschew simplifications. A complex event has many causes, think of a car accident. If you are the police, you will accuse the drunken driver. If you are in charge of road signs, you will point out the the stop sign was hidden by a tree. If you are Ralf Nader you will point out that the car manufacturer tried to save a few bucks on the brakes. Each view has a point, but each is governed by a perspective on what improvements are more salient.
Those who oppose the construction of generation facilities should have their power turned off first.
Your explanation, that the crisis results from strict regulation, has problems with the fact that municipalities that did not deregulate are in much better shape today, which suggests that deregulation had something to do with it.
Your solution is to punish hypocritical consumers that want power but resist power generating facilities. Lo and behold, I suggested something similar, but based on the market. I want those who create more demand to pay to those who resist the building of power plants until they agree to host them. It may be the same people, or it may be other people, what does it matter?
If Joe San-Diego doesn't want a powerplant in his backyard, I assume that is because it disturbs him to some degree. If you want a powerplant in his backyard, I suggest you offer Joe enough to get him to change his mind. As you raise your offer, Joe, or someone else, will eventually accept, because the utility of the payment will be greater for them then the disutility of having a powerplant in their backyard. Electricity prices will be higher, but they will reflect exactly the disutility of generating it. You may still have your extra-large refrigerator, or the price might convince you invest in a more efficient model. That is what markets are for.
I thought "green" meant getting power from crystals or butterflies or some shit.
green means different things to different people. To me it means first that the cost of every product should reflect not only how much money it took the producer to produce it, but also the cost of cleaning up the mess that third parties are left with as a result of both its consumption and its production. Second, green means that we should not party at the expense of our grandchildren. Taken together, what I want to say simply is that green means fair. But then again, I am a green-red colorblind.
The idiot in the Whitehouse is certainly not someone I would trust to ensure that safety standards were enforced.
From the reasons you mentionned and the way the two parties have positioned themselves in the last two decades, I suspect that reviving nuclear power in the US is something that no Republican president can pull off. It would just cause too much fallout ( political, not nuclear). Only a Democrat running on a green message will carry enough trust to overcome the fears of the public.
PS. The Idiot is a diversion, mind the crooks in the background.
Overall, the political, technical and economic feasibility of disposal of all types of waste and of decommissioning plants has yet to be proven anywhere in the world. A responsible policy would appear to be to carry out investigations into these processes so that there is confidence that when these processes are required, they are technically proven and the resources to carry them out are available.
Waste is the deal breaker. I am sure that it is possible to find a feasible solution to this problem. But it will require heavy governmental subsidy from countries richer than South Africa. It will take time, and it probably won't be cost efficient unless the cost of dirty electricity factors in the whole gamut of environmental externalities including global warming.
Next month Dick "The Nanny" Cheney will come out with recommendations for a new US energy policy, that will probably include nuclear power. This could be a good opportunity to put funds into waste disposal research that could turn results in a decade. My suspicion, however, is that this is not what we are going to see. The proposal will most likely suggest building reactors here and now, and giving subsidies to energy utilities that will be used mostly to disburse dividends. Given the likelihood that the plan will generate extreme political outrage, I strongly suspect that its real purpose is to draw fire, paint environamentalists as extremists, and finally "compromise" on good old coal and gas subsidies. What a pity! But then, I may be wrong -- we will know that next month.
All solutions will come out of the GNP anyway ( except homelessness, and I know that some /. contributors have no problems with this solution, but these angry white males are beyond hope, and I am not trying to convince them anyway).
However the implementation cost differs as well as the distribution of risk. From a purely financial perspective, I'd say that insurance is the most efficient. But that implies a universal health insurance, which the US doesn't have because big business oppose it ( they like the power that medical insurance gives them and they like the way it screws up small competitors ). The next best thing is putting the burden on the employer, because the employer is more efficient then the welfare system and more likely to have sufficient funds then the family.
I'm talking above about the cost of the result of CTS. You call the prevention cost "excessive". This can't be done without reference to the cost of the result. If the result of CTS is X dollars of income lost for the inflicted person over a lifetime, plus a subjective Y cost of physical and emotional pain ( courts know how to calculate this), the cost of prevention can be excessive only if it is higher than X+Y. I don't think anyone here ( myself included) has done the numbers, so I really don't see any meaning to excessive except "wow, I don't feel like paying that". If prevention is not excessive, the same methods of distribution are available. Insurance is ruled out because there is no risk issue. And, because prevention must implemented by the employer anyway, letting the employer manage it ( under supervision ) seems the most efficient way.
They do need about 30% more power to drive them tough.
Another important thing is that they cannot be placed against the wall because that kills the sound. So altough they are thin ( about 1'' ), they need a foot of clearence behind them. I wonder if the object of the article does better in this respect.
As long as the company publicizes their moral behavior, it is reasonably in the best interests of the company.
As you have just admitted, moral judgement in corporate behavior is subordinated to interest. That is a big difference. I expect my fellow humans to engage in moral behavior towards me even if that harms their own interest. Whether they ( and I) live up to it or not is another matter, but this is my expectation. I don't have such expectations from corporations and therefore I don't feel morally obliged by them.
Thus, whatever people do to AOL, if it has a reasonable chance of surviving legal challenge, is totally KOSHER.
I hope you turn a profit on AOL shares, and I appreciate your voting against management. But this changes nothing. See, if AOL makes money by doing something immoral, you will enjoy the profit, but you won't feel personally responsible ( after all, you can always say, you were against it). That is good enough reason why my obligation to behave morally towards you does not extend to the company you own.
And immoral behavior is not acceptable because the victim is a corporation.
actually, it is. Coporations are legally bound to treat me and you in the most profitable way that is still legal, without regard to morality. A corporation that does not maximize profit because of moral qualms can be sued by their shareholders. The most basic thing about morality is reciprocity. Why shouldn't individuals treat corporation in the same ammoral but legal fashion? Corporations are legal creatures one of whose purpose is to release their shareholders from moral ( and legal ) responsability. Why would I have problems then with anyone using the law to royally screw a corporation.
As The article suggested, using the path of aim.exe is of dubious legality. However, using the proposed scheme is also of dubious legality. That does not mean that either is illegal. It only means that we will never know their legal status until a court challenge is resolved. So why try the more difficult path first?
I suggest the jabber developers start by using the easier method. It might help to consult a lawyer first. It might help to publish the patch in a country that is less hostile to the public good than the US. It might help if several patches are written independently in several jurisdictions. Then let AOL sue. Then let the suit unwind itself through all legal levels and appeals. All the while the patches are easily found on the internet. Then, if, and it is a great if, jabber looses in all jurisdictions, start developing the more difficult procedure suggested in the article.
Programmers are suppose to be lazy. And this is a good time for acting on that principle. With lack, the more difficult strategy will become moot, because...
IANAL
I guess I got all souped up about the familiar mantra that "all problems would vanish if people stopped bitching and worked harder" after I heard our braindead Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, explain that a tax cut is needed to give Americans an incentive to work harder.
Propaganda gets me after all.