What the fook are you talking about? Israelis grow food in their own desert. The same methods can be used in Sahara and all other "hot" deserts — including the giant Sinai peninsula, which remains bare and barren since its return to Egypt.
It is possible and we know how to do it. We aren't doing it, but we can. And, should a compelling need arise, we will.
(and the water being overexploited)
There is no such thing.
I'm not sure that can be done cost effectively just yet.
It does not need to be done today. By 2100 we will be able to.
Though given that much of the non-populated near arctic is tundra on top of granite I am not sure how feasible that really is.
Is it really worse than Svalbard? People live there too. Longyearbyen may not be much today, but it is likely to expand, if more habitable areas elsewhere become too crowded.
Canada, Midwest, Siberia, and Antarctica do have plenty of water already. For the hot deserts there is desalination — all you need is electricity. In fact, looking at Israel's agriculture, one learns, that the hot deserts are great for crops-growing — if you manage to water them enough.
And we can — with nuclear or fusion reactors...
Quantity of people is not a problem — not now, not in 2100. Quality, on the other hand, has always been a problem...
Land is plentiful, water is, indeed, needed to make it arable, but desalination is a solved problem — you just need electricity. And we can provide that even today in abundance with fission (nuclear plants) and will certainly be able to have it even better in the future with fusion.
It starts to sound a lot like living off-Earth at that point, no?
All of the problems you listed are several orders of (decimal) magnitude worse on other bodies of the Solar System. And the problem of inter-star travel has not been solved yet even in theory — nor even is it obvious, the solution will ever be found.
We will, probably, colonize Mars some day, but the South Pole is much more comfortable for humans than any spot of the Red Planet. And the ping-times are much shorter...
Preferably for people who want to turn America's farmland into some sprawling metropolis...
You blithering idiot! A blubbering fool! A nincompoop! Nobody is talking about your precious farmland (which produces far too much stuff anyway, but that's a separate story).
Vast areas of Earth remain unpopulated. In no particular order:
American Midwest
Most of Canada
Australia's Outback
Siberia
Sahara and other hot deserts
Antarctica — a whopping continent
Sure, some of the above would require some work to make comfortable, but it can be done even with today's technology — by 2100 even an individual (or a family) would convert surroundings to their tastes. And it would certainly be easier, than moving an appreciable quantity of people off-Earth...
Dignity is the only thing, that suffers, when a cop violates an innocent man's privacy. If dignity has nothing to do with it, than "innocent man going to prison" does not either — yet you brought up the latter yourself earlier...
this contract cannot be violated
The contract was in no more danger before the change in Apple's attitude, really, than it is now — a court order was still required for Apple to act.
The legal theories have not changed — only the practical hurdles the law enforcement has to deal with (having to compel the individual phone-owner, rather than Apple).
Many of Robert Heinlein works were truly Science Fiction. His characters' travels around the Solar System, for example, are described enumerating the challenges and details such travel are likely to have in real life. He also has several descriptions of human life outside of Earth — on Ganymede, on Mars, and on the Moon. None of the descriptions were patently unscientific, when they were written (knowing what we do now, he would not have described life on Venus as he did, of course).
He wrote many of such books for children (and published in children publications) or about children — so you can read them with/to your kids. The bonus is, such reading would not even seem like work — you are likely to truly enjoy it...
it's better for ten guilty men to go free than one innocent man to go to prison
I said nothing about "going to prison" — an overzealous pig would find nothing incriminating on my phone. It is not that "I have nothing to hide" — I do. But I have no evidence of crimes on my phone either. My dignity will suffer, sure, but I will not be imprisoned.
When the proverbial relation you quoted changes to "10 guilty men to go free than 1000 innocent men's dignity to be violated", the answer becomes less obvious...
the police have more than enough tools for catching criminals without needing to violate the constitution.
With this turn by Apple, the police have one less tool.
It sure is comforting to know, a pig would not be able to access the data on my phone until a judge agrees with him and orders me to divulge the PIN. Is such reassurance of dignity for millions of honest folks worth the increased chances for hundreds of criminals of getting away? Probably...
Could it be because you (or someone you love) want more and more things? A new iPhone, a better car, a nicer TV? But a single person does not statistics make...
allowing for extreme stratification of wealth
Allowing, huh? Is there something you'd like to disallow? Spell it out... And then explain, why it would be ethical for you to compel — with threat of arms — the more successful to share their wealth with you to let you work less.
For a long time, the Robin Hood of folklore was considered a hero for violating the private property of the wealthy for the benefit of those less fortunate
Sure. The beneficiaries of any action are always likely to consider the action "ethical". If you arguments are as tainted by an obvious conflict of interest as this one, you may want to reconsider your overall debating strategy.
I suppose, based on your ethical system, that you'd consider him a villain?
Like most other Illiberals, you got your Robin Hood analogy all wrong. He was not robbing "the rich" to give gifts to the poor. He was robbing the tax-collectors to return to the taxed. Sheriff of Nottingham was — Robin's main enemy — was not his target for his wealth, but rather because he was an agent of the oppressive government (of King John). He was no Che Guevara — if a Robin Hood-like figure were to appear today, you'd dismiss him with the derision you and yours have shown to the Tea Party.
And yet here we are, with you explaining to me that we need as large a percentage of our population to be working today as we did hundreds of years ago.
Nobody has to work longer — nor harder — than they want to. Everybody is welcome to work exactly as much, as they need to in order to be able to afford, whatever they want.
entertain a conversation about trillions of dollars given to the poor
Irrelevant. No one — not even a billionaire — can be ethically forced to give a crumb of bread to a starving infant. Convinced — yes. Compelled — no...
Irrelevant to what? His stated purpose was to make the public aware of what the NSA was doing
Irrelevant to the real — rather than potential — abuses of power by the government. For all the talk about NSA, none of the information they collected has been abused — not yet. The worst we've seen so far was the other law-enforcement agencies prosecuting people based on NSA-provided tips (and using "parallel reconstruction" to hide the tips), but none of those thus prosecuted has actually been innocent. The danger of real abuse is there, but it remains potential for the time being.
The actual abuse of the government power has taken place in a different Federal bureaucracy — one much dearer to Statists' hearts. For some reason, none of the people fighting that have made it onto cool T-shirts yet...
You people and your protestant work ethic. I just don't get it.
Neah, I'm a USSR-raised atheist, thank you very much.
Clearly the hundreds of billionaires we have in this country couldn't possibly afford to fund this kind of utopia
The cost of the "War on Poverty", since Lyndon Johnson first waged it 50 years ago, is 22 trillion of 2012-vintage dollars. That's more than all of the Republic's actual (as in military) wars cost combined. I don't think, the hundreds of billionaires could shoulder that kind of expense. They'd need help from thousands of millionaires — and millions of the rest of us. And even that would be insufficient — you'd need to borrow money from abroad...
But whoever wants to help others work less than their spending requires, is welcome to do it. My objection is to spending tax-monies (you know, the funds collected at gunpoint) on it. For it is not only stupid, it is also un-Constitutional — according to an educated opinion of one of the document's very authors:
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
Because for a person born and raised in America to be unable to afford Internet service (as well as a phone, vehicle, decent shelter, and food) is a shame. Millions of immigrants here — legal and even illegal ones — manage to not only do well for themselves, they are also able to support extended families back home. That's despite the culture shock, not knowing the predominant language very well, and — in many cases — dubious legal status.
But if you feel like continuing the failed "War on Poverty" for another fifty years — go ahead. Just don't force me at gunpoint (via the IRS, that is) to join you.
However, perfect information is never possible in the real world.
The growing proliferation of smart phones perfects the information access to the degree, where various governmental certifications are no longer necessary.
Without certification from a professional body, it would be very difficult for consumers to judge if a supplier is competent or not
The professional body itself need not be governmental. A consumer may not be able to judge the quality of electrical work, but comparing certification authorities is much easier. It will never be perfect, but it is unlikely to be worse than the current situation.
do you really want the system that "certifies" doctors to be based on trial and error (someone has to be the first patient).
It is based on trial and error today. Ever heard of hospital interns? Or student-dentists — working under supervision of seasoned doctors (supposedly) — people agree to be treated by them in exchange for steep discounts. This risk/cost balancing can — and should — be left to individuals, if they are as free as the citizens of this country like to fancy themselves.
Unfortunately, somebody will have to be the first person to write the "Woke up in the morning upside down in a ditch with my pants missing.
Unfortunately, nothing prevents just the same from happening with regular taxis — you've surrendered an essential liberty (of hiring whoever you want) in exchange for security and, predictably, lost both. It will just be less likely to happen with Uber — because the company's entire business is staked on the quality of the reviews (and drivers).
For many jobs no one requires a certified plumber or electrician or anything.
Where I live (NJ), all electrical work must be done by a licensed electrician — nobody else would simply be issued a permit.
For certain jobs it is a requirement to get a permit, but that is to protect lives.
Yes, sure. The benevolent government bureaucrats in their omniscient wisdom just have higher concern for my life, than I do myself...
In any case, such requirements as the exists, are demanded not by government but by bankers, insurance companies
That would be great, if it were true. It is not. The work must be accepted by the city's employee, who is not personally responsible for it anyway — the installer is. The inspector may — depending on his disposition that day and his general opinion of the house-owner and the installer (their origins, religion, race, personal hygiene) — choose to overlook something fairly important, or make an issue of nothing just to delay the work and the family's moving-in. There is no oversight, no (meaningful) way to appeal, and no alternative.
good recommendations from people who had no expertise in critiquing the actual work
So, you are suggesting, the work of certain professions simply can not be reviewed by the actual consumers — and the sole available fount of the necessary expertise, in your opinion, are the above-mentioned government workers — who do not even have any skin of their own in the game.
And, in a typically Illiberal fashion, you want to impose your opinion on the rest of us — instead of simply allowing people, who are as concerned as you claim to be, to hire independent inspectors — or relying on their insurance companies (or the morgage-holding banks) to hire them (the way they already hire various appraisers). At least, the insurer risks (substantial) money, if your house blows. On the other hand, if the insurer gets overzealous (as numerous building inspectors do), you can switch the insurer. You'll have a choice, in other words — without selling your house and moving to another town.
This was absolutely Uber's right to do, after all the contractors could just leave, but I think it speaks to an issue with capitalistic fantasy.
What "fantasy"? It works exactly the way Capitalism is supposed to — a moment Uber slips-up, various competitors (GetT, Lyft, others) will pick up the disgruntled drivers — many of them are already signed with all of these companies anyway.
All you need to do to game the system as an Uber driver is put together a network of colluders to give you good reviews after you give them "rides".
How exactly would you do it? Are they going to be friends of yours? Will you be giving them good rides, while robbing others? And you'll still be a single bad driver of the Uber's "stable" of millions...
In the past, you only needed to find a few bad actors within the government
An entrenched incumbent — such as a health-inspector or taxi commissioner — is much harder to dislodge from government, than your imaginary bad driver would be. And what incentive will the government have of even attempting such dislodging? Only the general distaste for corruption — hardly a powerful force, unfortunately. On contrast, Uber's entire business is staked on the quality of the reviews so they are far more likely to keep their system functioning well.
now literally anyone can help you with your racket
You are yet to explain, how the racket would work: what exactly will the incentive be for the fraudulent reviewers... Remember, you can only give a review to a driver, if you've driven with him — and paid him (and Uber) real money. And the driver must maintain his rating above 4.3 — or he gets thrown out. So three upset passengers giving the "racketeer" 1-star reviews will negate ten 5-star responses from his buddies (53/13 = 4.07)...
The source of the decrease is fairly obvious — if people can not profit from an activity, they are likely to reduce partaking in it. It goes from being a profession into a hobby.
Historically, governments justified the "certification" requirements imposed on people wishing to pursue various professions by the consumers' inability to share the information required to make an informed choice of a service provider.
For example, arriving to a new city, you don't know, what taxi company is decent and which hires serial rapists — the city hall should issue "medallions" to the good drivers and fight attempts by the non-vetted to provide the same services without paying the authorities their due.
Uber is showing, how the consumer feedback, that's easy to provide and is immediately available to anyone with a smart phone, obviates the need for such certifications — along with the associated costs and the abuse-potential. Taxi-services is not the only market, where things can (and should!) be changed by the pervasive smart-phones. Plumbers and electricians would be next on my list of professions, which should not require certifications (though some may seek approvals from non-governmental authorities like "Angie's List", if they choose to). Then restaurateurs — patrons could report roach-sightings just as well (or better) than a city's health-inspector. Then lawyers and eventually, even veterinarians and human doctors...
For the same reason politicians become politicians (and policemen become pigs) — the feeling of control over fellow human beings gives them a high...
The way I see it, if this all bogus, we end up with cleaner air, less pollution and a better place to live.
Not obviously, actually. Tesla's wonderful batteries, for example, are a hell to make and aren't particularly easy to dispose of either. The early "green" toilets don't use enough water to do the job quite often — requiring multiple flushes, where an old one would've done with one. The mandatory recycling of this and that requires additional trucks on the road to haul the "special" refuse without clear benefits to the environment — in fact, often enough the stuff ends up in general refuse anyway after incurring all of the costs (financial and environmental) of the separate handling. The certified "green" buildings (sometimes?) use more energy, than regular structures...
You win either way.
Yeah. There is this line of thinking — Blaise Pascal, in his time, put forth the same idea on whether or not God exists.
Good to see, you aren't (any longer?) claiming it is the science, that drives your thinking about global warming... You aren't alone.
Slashdot Mirror
What the fook are you talking about? Israelis grow food in their own desert. The same methods can be used in Sahara and all other "hot" deserts — including the giant Sinai peninsula, which remains bare and barren since its return to Egypt.
It is possible and we know how to do it. We aren't doing it, but we can. And, should a compelling need arise, we will.
There is no such thing.
It does not need to be done today. By 2100 we will be able to.
Is it really worse than Svalbard? People live there too. Longyearbyen may not be much today, but it is likely to expand, if more habitable areas elsewhere become too crowded.
False. Ample food can be grown in American Midwest as it is.
And the hot deserts can also be turned around very nicely. Earth can easily grow a lot more food than it does. It would be nice to waste less of it too...
And we can — with nuclear or fusion reactors...
Quantity of people is not a problem — not now, not in 2100. Quality, on the other hand, has always been a problem...
Land is plentiful, water is, indeed, needed to make it arable, but desalination is a solved problem — you just need electricity. And we can provide that even today in abundance with fission (nuclear plants) and will certainly be able to have it even better in the future with fusion.
All of the problems you listed are several orders of (decimal) magnitude worse on other bodies of the Solar System. And the problem of inter-star travel has not been solved yet even in theory — nor even is it obvious, the solution will ever be found.
We will, probably, colonize Mars some day, but the South Pole is much more comfortable for humans than any spot of the Red Planet. And the ping-times are much shorter...
You truly are a blithering nincompoop, aren't you? Can't tell the difference between population and population density ...
You blithering idiot! A blubbering fool! A nincompoop! Nobody is talking about your precious farmland (which produces far too much stuff anyway, but that's a separate story).
I said Midwest. The Midwest, that is so bloody empty of anything (crops included), towns are offering free land to anybody willing to build a home. And still they can't attract enough people...
Vast areas of Earth remain unpopulated. In no particular order:
Sure, some of the above would require some work to make comfortable, but it can be done even with today's technology — by 2100 even an individual (or a family) would convert surroundings to their tastes. And it would certainly be easier, than moving an appreciable quantity of people off-Earth...
Dignity is the only thing, that suffers, when a cop violates an innocent man's privacy. If dignity has nothing to do with it, than "innocent man going to prison" does not either — yet you brought up the latter yourself earlier...
The contract was in no more danger before the change in Apple's attitude, really, than it is now — a court order was still required for Apple to act.
The legal theories have not changed — only the practical hurdles the law enforcement has to deal with (having to compel the individual phone-owner, rather than Apple).
Many of Robert Heinlein works were truly Science Fiction. His characters' travels around the Solar System, for example, are described enumerating the challenges and details such travel are likely to have in real life. He also has several descriptions of human life outside of Earth — on Ganymede, on Mars, and on the Moon. None of the descriptions were patently unscientific, when they were written (knowing what we do now, he would not have described life on Venus as he did, of course).
He wrote many of such books for children (and published in children publications) or about children — so you can read them with/to your kids. The bonus is, such reading would not even seem like work — you are likely to truly enjoy it...
I said nothing about "going to prison" — an overzealous pig would find nothing incriminating on my phone. It is not that "I have nothing to hide" — I do. But I have no evidence of crimes on my phone either. My dignity will suffer, sure, but I will not be imprisoned.
When the proverbial relation you quoted changes to "10 guilty men to go free than 1000 innocent men's dignity to be violated", the answer becomes less obvious...
With this turn by Apple, the police have one less tool.
It sure is comforting to know, a pig would not be able to access the data on my phone until a judge agrees with him and orders me to divulge the PIN. Is such reassurance of dignity for millions of honest folks worth the increased chances for hundreds of criminals of getting away? Probably...
Could it be because you (or someone you love) want more and more things? A new iPhone, a better car, a nicer TV? But a single person does not statistics make...
Allowing, huh? Is there something you'd like to disallow? Spell it out... And then explain, why it would be ethical for you to compel — with threat of arms — the more successful to share their wealth with you to let you work less.
Sure. The beneficiaries of any action are always likely to consider the action "ethical". If you arguments are as tainted by an obvious conflict of interest as this one, you may want to reconsider your overall debating strategy.
Like most other Illiberals, you got your Robin Hood analogy all wrong. He was not robbing "the rich" to give gifts to the poor. He was robbing the tax-collectors to return to the taxed. Sheriff of Nottingham was — Robin's main enemy — was not his target for his wealth, but rather because he was an agent of the oppressive government (of King John). He was no Che Guevara — if a Robin Hood-like figure were to appear today, you'd dismiss him with the derision you and yours have shown to the Tea Party.
Nobody has to work longer — nor harder — than they want to. Everybody is welcome to work exactly as much, as they need to in order to be able to afford, whatever they want.
Irrelevant. No one — not even a billionaire — can be ethically forced to give a crumb of bread to a starving infant. Convinced — yes. Compelled — no...
Irrelevant to the real — rather than potential — abuses of power by the government. For all the talk about NSA, none of the information they collected has been abused — not yet. The worst we've seen so far was the other law-enforcement agencies prosecuting people based on NSA-provided tips (and using "parallel reconstruction" to hide the tips), but none of those thus prosecuted has actually been innocent. The danger of real abuse is there, but it remains potential for the time being.
The actual abuse of the government power has taken place in a different Federal bureaucracy — one much dearer to Statists' hearts. For some reason, none of the people fighting that have made it onto cool T-shirts yet...
Neah, I'm a USSR-raised atheist, thank you very much.
The cost of the "War on Poverty", since Lyndon Johnson first waged it 50 years ago, is 22 trillion of 2012-vintage dollars. That's more than all of the Republic's actual (as in military) wars cost combined. I don't think, the hundreds of billionaires could shoulder that kind of expense. They'd need help from thousands of millionaires — and millions of the rest of us. And even that would be insufficient — you'd need to borrow money from abroad...
But whoever wants to help others work less than their spending requires, is welcome to do it. My objection is to spending tax-monies (you know, the funds collected at gunpoint) on it. For it is not only stupid, it is also un-Constitutional — according to an educated opinion of one of the document's very authors:
Because for a person born and raised in America to be unable to afford Internet service (as well as a phone, vehicle, decent shelter, and food) is a shame. Millions of immigrants here — legal and even illegal ones — manage to not only do well for themselves, they are also able to support extended families back home. That's despite the culture shock, not knowing the predominant language very well, and — in many cases — dubious legal status.
But if you feel like continuing the failed "War on Poverty" for another fifty years — go ahead. Just don't force me at gunpoint (via the IRS, that is) to join you.
The growing proliferation of smart phones perfects the information access to the degree, where various governmental certifications are no longer necessary.
The professional body itself need not be governmental. A consumer may not be able to judge the quality of electrical work, but comparing certification authorities is much easier. It will never be perfect, but it is unlikely to be worse than the current situation.
It is based on trial and error today. Ever heard of hospital interns? Or student-dentists — working under supervision of seasoned doctors (supposedly) — people agree to be treated by them in exchange for steep discounts. This risk/cost balancing can — and should — be left to individuals, if they are as free as the citizens of this country like to fancy themselves.
Unfortunately, nothing prevents just the same from happening with regular taxis — you've surrendered an essential liberty (of hiring whoever you want) in exchange for security and, predictably, lost both. It will just be less likely to happen with Uber — because the company's entire business is staked on the quality of the reviews (and drivers).
Where I live (NJ), all electrical work must be done by a licensed electrician — nobody else would simply be issued a permit.
Yes, sure. The benevolent government bureaucrats in their omniscient wisdom just have higher concern for my life, than I do myself...
That would be great, if it were true. It is not. The work must be accepted by the city's employee, who is not personally responsible for it anyway — the installer is. The inspector may — depending on his disposition that day and his general opinion of the house-owner and the installer (their origins, religion, race, personal hygiene) — choose to overlook something fairly important, or make an issue of nothing just to delay the work and the family's moving-in. There is no oversight, no (meaningful) way to appeal, and no alternative.
So, you are suggesting, the work of certain professions simply can not be reviewed by the actual consumers — and the sole available fount of the necessary expertise, in your opinion, are the above-mentioned government workers — who do not even have any skin of their own in the game.
And, in a typically Illiberal fashion, you want to impose your opinion on the rest of us — instead of simply allowing people, who are as concerned as you claim to be, to hire independent inspectors — or relying on their insurance companies (or the morgage-holding banks) to hire them (the way they already hire various appraisers). At least, the insurer risks (substantial) money, if your house blows. On the other hand, if the insurer gets overzealous (as numerous building inspectors do), you can switch the insurer. You'll have a choice, in other words — without selling your house and moving to another town.
What "fantasy"? It works exactly the way Capitalism is supposed to — a moment Uber slips-up, various competitors (GetT, Lyft, others) will pick up the disgruntled drivers — many of them are already signed with all of these companies anyway.
How exactly would you do it? Are they going to be friends of yours? Will you be giving them good rides, while robbing others? And you'll still be a single bad driver of the Uber's "stable" of millions...
An entrenched incumbent — such as a health-inspector or taxi commissioner — is much harder to dislodge from government, than your imaginary bad driver would be. And what incentive will the government have of even attempting such dislodging? Only the general distaste for corruption — hardly a powerful force, unfortunately. On contrast, Uber's entire business is staked on the quality of the reviews so they are far more likely to keep their system functioning well.
You are yet to explain, how the racket would work: what exactly will the incentive be for the fraudulent reviewers... Remember, you can only give a review to a driver, if you've driven with him — and paid him (and Uber) real money. And the driver must maintain his rating above 4.3 — or he gets thrown out. So three upset passengers giving the "racketeer" 1-star reviews will negate ten 5-star responses from his buddies (53/13 = 4.07)...
The source of the decrease is fairly obvious — if people can not profit from an activity, they are likely to reduce partaking in it. It goes from being a profession into a hobby.
Now, what would the source of increase be?
Historically, governments justified the "certification" requirements imposed on people wishing to pursue various professions by the consumers' inability to share the information required to make an informed choice of a service provider.
For example, arriving to a new city, you don't know, what taxi company is decent and which hires serial rapists — the city hall should issue "medallions" to the good drivers and fight attempts by the non-vetted to provide the same services without paying the authorities their due.
Uber is showing, how the consumer feedback, that's easy to provide and is immediately available to anyone with a smart phone, obviates the need for such certifications — along with the associated costs and the abuse-potential. Taxi-services is not the only market, where things can (and should!) be changed by the pervasive smart-phones. Plumbers and electricians would be next on my list of professions, which should not require certifications (though some may seek approvals from non-governmental authorities like "Angie's List", if they choose to). Then restaurateurs — patrons could report roach-sightings just as well (or better) than a city's health-inspector. Then lawyers and eventually, even veterinarians and human doctors...
For the same reason politicians become politicians (and policemen become pigs) — the feeling of control over fellow human beings gives them a high...
Not obviously, actually. Tesla's wonderful batteries, for example, are a hell to make and aren't particularly easy to dispose of either. The early "green" toilets don't use enough water to do the job quite often — requiring multiple flushes, where an old one would've done with one. The mandatory recycling of this and that requires additional trucks on the road to haul the "special" refuse without clear benefits to the environment — in fact, often enough the stuff ends up in general refuse anyway after incurring all of the costs (financial and environmental) of the separate handling. The certified "green" buildings (sometimes?) use more energy, than regular structures...
Yeah. There is this line of thinking — Blaise Pascal, in his time, put forth the same idea on whether or not God exists.
Good to see, you aren't (any longer?) claiming it is the science, that drives your thinking about global warming... You aren't alone.