And he's obviously the type of people who would have supported Hitler
In the US, and in the UK, pretty much all the talking heads of the time supported Hitler. Hmm, among the Brits, a King of England. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII_of_the_United_Kingdom In the US, Henry Ford, even post Pearl Harbor, is worth looking at. But the attempted military coup against FDR seems relevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot. So I think that complaint about Beck, if true, is pretty weak. There are just too many people who are of that type to give your complaint a real zing.
Now "Hope, Faith, and Charity" might be fun to analyze, but it is not going to be quite as immediately and obviously as nasty as "Blood and Soil". And for the last, we need to keep up our vigilance against opera fans:-)
alas, I was responding to your statement, an advocacy statement, much more than I was advocating command economies. Let us realize you had not mentioned command economies as best I recall and I figure I was noting a factual matter. I do notice a lot of "mind reading" and unsupported assumptions around me and probably in me.
Looking at the 1500's in the new world, you are not going to find any capitalists, but perhaps some successful rich nations. Hmm, Spain overall reached its goals very nicely. Being mercantile, the main goal was to get a lot of gold. They proceeded to collapse spectacularly, thus demonstrating mercantilism was yet another piece of voodoo economics. Think Bush and Obama. Please recall that mercantilism was about as heavy a command economy as they could actually manage to get back then. Very much government controlled.
Hmm, I suspect your view of history is a bit narrow. Try considering post 1400's as current history.
Anyway, most of the people most of the time have been slaves or serfs etc, which might make you think of a command economy. And the scale of Imperial Rome, definitely a slave economy, might be big enough to suggest it as a counter example.
As far as voluntarily joining a small mission, I do not think you read the article very well. Think slave labor. Probably there might be some quibbles about voluntary.
Looking at economic ideology, I figure it is mainly just junk, dangerous junk. It is not like the economic talking heads on tv ever demonstrate any science, you know, kind of how an expert is able to make valid predictions. Frankly, if the population was sane and had an appropriate cultural level, I figure most any economic superstructure would at least sort of work. And it would be easy to work a lot better than current economic policy. Oh well.
As far as the usual Soviet Union command economy example, it is hard to ignore its great successes and its great failures. Against your complaints about command economies not working, recall it went from nothing to a super power in a few generations. Ah, but it then collapsed politically and socially, and I think the reason is easy to see. Just not what you like. Marxist Leninism economic innovation with respect to Marx was the idea that the party could keep variable capital way down indefinitely. Stalin in the thirties took it further and figured he could keep variable capital way way down. He was not quite as bad that way as the Schachtian slave labor camps in Germany, but there was more resistance from the population so the imposition of the austerity killed a lot more people.
So the semi-official unemployment figures for the US are now being quoted at 22% and from a demographic point of view, this is low ball. I see on Doonesbury yesterday that Simpson said "Social security is like a milk cow with 310 million tits." It is pretty hard to not notice that big-time austerity is high on the a lot of people's agenda in the US. Isn't it great about how capitalism, particularly financial capitalism, is our great savior in the sky. The invisible hand will reach down and make everything right. Ah my, I got polemical. I did not start out with that intention.
This is sufficiently silly so I am sure you know you are wrong I know this is not quite what you mean. But I do note for your processing that Washington has a nasty revenue tax and not any income tax. Hmm, also a sales tax. Oregon has a income tax, but not a sales tax. Both have some sort of property tax and so on. Very broadly, the differences are not very important. But if we were to make a sane choices about what "wealth" we desire to produce, we might be able to push up the wealth production rather broadly and to the point that the tax component was not an issue because it was sufficiently relatively small. Now the invisible hand nuts are right to think that the feds do not produce much wealth under the present situation, but wrong to think that the random profitable private business does produce wealth. If the last was so, then I guess Goldman Sucks quants actually produce wealth:-).So they do produce money, but people like to confuse money and wealth. As we gen up fed reserve policy requiring yet another 3 trillion in fiat money, we will get to notice the difference rather soon in a sensuous manner. Hah, you yourself could well be a trillionaire before you know it.
Practice, hmm, 1500's, renegade jesuits?, pacific coast of south america, nice little totalitarian theocracy, sort of a God says this is what you do, not really a money economy, highly communal, worked pretty good until the Pope or someone noticed. Then the Spanish put some military in and hung the priests. Interesting economic experiment though.
Did not look real hard, but this seems to provide some context. Jesuits, but not always renegade, but too successful.
hmm,might be wrong now, but back in the day I paid attention to this, and as best I know, anyone can deliver mail. You just need to have a valid post office issued stamp on the mail. So if you pay the US{PS, you can play. And, for the invisible hand nuts, who are also usually some sort of strict constitutionist types, let us note post office stuff is an explicitly delegated power of the feds. But my "authority" is simply that my mom was a post mistress, as it was called then, for a long time.:-)
Googling around, the first mail thingy in the "US" was 1692, and was a government authorized operation.
Universal Service Obligation and monopoly status
Article I, section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution grants U.S. Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads. The Federal Government has interpreted this clause as granting a de facto Congressional monopoly over the delivery of mail. According to the government, no other system for delivering mail - public or private - can be established absent Congress's consent. Congress has delegated to the Postal Service the power to decide whether others may compete with it, and the Postal Service has carved out an exception to its monopoly for extremely urgent letters.
The mission of the Postal Service is to provide the American public with trusted universal postal service at affordable prices. While not explicitly defined, the Postal Service’s universal service obligation (USO) is broadly outlined in statute and includes multiple dimensions: geographic scope, range of products, access to services and facilities, delivery frequency, affordable and uniform pricing, service quality, and security of the mail. While other carriers claim to voluntarily provide delivery on a universal basis, the Postal Service is the only carrier with the obligation to provide all the various aspects of universal service at affordable rates.
Proponents of postal service monopoly claim that since any obligation must be matched by the financial capability to meet that obligation, the postal monopoly was put in place as a funding mechanism for the USO, and it has been in place for over a hundred years. It consists of two parts: the Private Express Statutes (PES) and the mailbox access rule. The PES refers to the Postal Service’s monopoly on the delivery of letters, and the mailbox rule refers to the Postal Service’s exclusive access to customer mailboxes.
Proponents of postal service monopoly further claim that eliminating or reducing the PES or mailbox rule would have an impact on the ability of the Postal Service to provide affordable universal service. If, for example, the PES and the mailbox rule were to be eliminated, and the USO maintained, then either billions of dollars in tax revenues or some other source of funding would have to be found. As the operating environment of the Postal Service continues to change, additional flexibilities will likely be necessary to fulfill the USO.
However, several professional economists advocate the privatization of the mail delivery system, or at least a relaxation of the monopoly that currently exists.[28] Rick Geddes argued in 2000:[29]
* First, basic economics implies that rural customers are unlikely to be without service under competition; they would simply have to pay the true cost of delivery to them, which may or may not be lower than under monopoly.
* Second, basic notions of fairness imply that the cross-subsidy should be eliminated. To the extent that people make choices about where they live, they should assume the costs of that decision.
* Third, there is no reason why the government monopoly is necessary to ensure service to sparsely populated areas. The government could easily award competitive contracts to private firms for that service.
* Fourth, early concerns that rural residents of the United States would someho
As I said, no legal obstacle. Really. I live in Oregon. Mostly public nudity here is used as an attention driver for some sort of political demonstration. No cop problems. Not even any public outrage problems. There are some odd circumstances where people feel obliged to criminalize public nudity in particular locations in particular cities, but really, we just do not seem to be inclined to get around to making a big thing out of this.
It happens that if you are severely depressed, for some reason, an identifying symptom is standing in your window and exposing yourself to little kids. I have read of it happening in this state and people do not like it, but it is not like it is illegal.
Hmm, I used to live in a small town in Washington. Some nude drunk was wandering up and down the middle of main street in the middle of the night. The local cops wanted to arrest him but could not. Nudity was not illegal and there was no motor vehicle involved.
I have not noticed any big collapses of the local social fabric.
The dictionary does not seem to me to be a product of divine revelation.
But suppose you get pissy about everything around you and go off and be a hermit. It seems obvious to me that you have chosen to define your existence in terms of whatever you are pissy about in your old environment. But yet all the pissy things are not around you any more.
As far as "christian nation" is concerned, there are lot of occasions where people like to think that if you name something, then the object is in fact what you have named it. Some sort of magic? I think the word "nominalism" applies.:-) This is hardly a particularly fundie problem, but perhaps there is an association with literalism. But I don't know anything.
haha, where I live (in the US), there is no legal obstacle to walking down main street nude. Now I can imagine getting off on doing that since exhibitionism is often popular, but, for me, I would have to consider my unattractive belly:-) But you know, I would think the public street is a more intrusive location for bad aesthetics than the public airways. And so I am not quite old enough to really know, but I think within the last century in the US, it was popular to put cloth covers on the legs of the dining room table to avoid the obvious? sexual connotations. Perhaps there was a fear of driving men insane? It might be fun if we could avoid some of the local to time and place rules now and again.
might be useful to know that decay rate has not been considered exactly a fixed constant for a while. When I was a kid, 50 years ago, yeah. But as I recall, a lot of pressure will slow down decay and a high electrostatic field will speed it up. But perhaps the last was a beta decay case, for all I know.
but Godel? As best I recall, A true, not A true, at the same time. Does this not allow a tautology that is not exactly certain? For the math impaired, broadly, math is not true.But a simple enough logic system would be, by which we might mean complete and consistent. So a tautology might there be certain, if we took care not to embed it in anything interesting. So at that restriction, are you interested. Maybe, maybe not.
But I like to do neoplatoism and so "true knowledge" to me probably means something a bit more limited than the reader would expect. Maybe efficient with respect to a physically existing universe? Maybe just a little more than that. Some odd relationship to conflicting concepts, each derived from their own sets of conflicting sense data. Ah well, I can at least claim that change, in each and every part of the universe, is certain. Maybe that starts to say something about how to act?
Haha, an even stronger silliness factor is that it is really not very useful to analyze current events. Pretty much the important "facts" for a correlation are simply not referred to by anyone. So a couple weeks ago the fed went into knives out mode around Bernaeke's hyperinflation policy. All the regional chairs are publicly very diplomatic so far, but I think next week you see more interesting leaks and there might be media coverage. And the policy in question is driven of course by what everyone at this point realizes is a near term big time economic collapse. Now this drives various adventures and also last week as I recall, the Israel PM got some big-time internal support for an attack on Iran. Back when the communications systems had sort of ordinary people involved in them, everyone who paid attention realized that all the big nations were careful not to surprise any other interested nation. Perhaps some sort of fateful decision has been made. So if you want to analyze this radio signal change, why bother? So it changed. It is not like it is a primary causation. If you were able to directly affect the signal, what would that do to help make the surrounding correlations less lethal? And given that you have perhaps chosen to live in a big time acute malthusian crisis, should you be concerned about lethality anyway? Ah well. I do not know anything, but some get amusement from my questions.
Since this is slashdot and I use openbsd, it seems that this OS is a "controlled munition". Theo et al seem to feel it is useful to prohibit US citizens from working on the kernel and to put up warnings against foreign nationals from downloading from US servers. As best I can tell, if Theo was willing to jump through some US Commerce Department hoops, this situation could be avoided. Except why should he and if he did, why would put he put trust in some permission letter from the US government?
evil is always good to specifically call out. But some might think that being for something works a lot better than being against something. Let us play into that and come up with some positive to support in the US and in Iran and there is an odd chance that we might get to a thought about which is more good. I will start out.
You can still publicly politically organize in the United States. Yeah, if you are addressing fundamental issues and figure out how to be effective at it, then you are going to be hurting, but hey, as far as I can tell, doing anything interesting involves ante up of life and soul. Recall "life, liberty, and sacred honor". "The tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of " whatever. Who told you that things ever changed?
Iran is just now bringing up a nuke power plant, just like everyone else in Asia is busy doing. This means a better life for the population.
Your argument is not nutty, but here is a different thread.
Suppose the USA and friends just do not want nuclear power anywhere that they do not have a stranglehold on. Oh sure, Iran with nuclear weapons in the present circumstances would be highly undesirable. On the other hand, you have to reach quite a long way to say that building a nuke power plant is somehow against the law for a nation state. Now Iran does have *some* inspection requirements that they have signed up for. And there is a somewhat ancient treaty that binds them anyway. But not the requirements I hear slimy usa types claim. But I suppose if you want to say that whatever the security council says is the law? hmm. I do not think you want to go there!
How far does my argument go? It includes a full fuel cycle, on Iran's territory.
Asia is going nuclear. For a country like India, nuclear power is an existential issue. The US and Europe? It is not that they are "green", it is that they are "brown". No future under current policies, and real close to no future at all.
As far as your argument goes, you need to go back to the 19th century I think. Sykes? The policy for that part of asia has been external control through generating local wars. Try that for your context.
Pooh, I cannot get much traction on mystical, but it is blindingly obvious that the brain deals in sensory stuff and there are thousands of years of developments of the claim that the sensory data is not the universe. So you either do some Plato et al or you say that all you can know is your emotional state and figure reality is effectively some sort of psych thing. If you play Plato, then maybe you end up knowing something about fundamental principles of the universe by looking at the contradictions in the sensory data and associated concepts (oops, concepts, remember we are playing Plato here) So now we got a mind, not exactly a brain, that is not putting sensory data at the top of the knowabilty heap. Traditionally,the AI people get by by joining the deniers of concepts like creativity et al. In the end, they end up like dirty bertie and wanting regular plagues to reduce the population. Or maybe being reincarnated as a deadly disease virus like, hmm, Prince Albert? This sort of outlook all makes sense if we are just a more complicated rat.
Looking at the environment argument. Here is the AI that would impress me. Say it is early 20th century. The AI looks around and a bit ahead and is worried about its electrical supply. So it invents fusion power generators! And to do that, pretty much the AI has to repeatedly transform the entire world productive process to generate the tools needed to do the science. So "environmental modeling".
Mind/brain duality. Sure. I do not know what mystical gives me, but dualities exist, and some have to do with your head. Or have you never noticed some distinctions between you, your consciousness, and your unconsciousness? Or if you want to do some hard science, bose einstein condensates. As far as mystical, people can do the ambiguities that suit them, but figure if you manage some science, when you are done, you will likely generate some math. But at this point, we can figure that even your causality model is less than useful.
As it happens, few would attribute to me an ideology of environmentalism, but I do wonder about how many penis enlargement products I really need to pursue happiness. Yah, the semantics here are not quite on point, but an argument against pointless excess is sort of the "ism" some are using to be anti-advertising. As a practical matter, they probably package this rather obvious principle in some sort of nutty ism. Anyway, given the general cultural level, even principles end up indistinguishable from ideology.
Now as it happens commercial speech has significant local,legal protections. Different kinds of speech have different protection rules, but there is not a big fundamental difference between commercial speech and political speech. So one way to look at this issue is that people are complaining about a corporate "person" exercising their constitutional rights. This is a common argument form. For instance, I notice some Islamic types are exercising some constitutional rights around building a mosque in NYC and there is quite a political firestorm.
As far as commercial speech is concerned, there is actually may not be a big constitutional issue involved in effectively suppressing it, IMO.
Corporate personhood From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search
The corporate personhood debate refers to the controversy (primarily in the United States) over the question of what subset of rights afforded under the law to natural persons should also be afforded to corporations as legal persons.
In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, decided in 1819. In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.[1][2] Some critics of corporate personhood, however, most notably author Thom Hartmann in his book "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," claim that this was an intentional misinterpretation of the case inserted into the Court record by reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis.[3] Bancroft Davis had previously served as president of Newburgh and New York Railway Co.
Proponents of corporate personhood believe that corporations, as associations of shareholders, were intended by the founders and framers to enjoy many, if not all, of the same rights as would the shareholders acting individually, such as the right to lobby the government, the right to due process and compensation before being deprived of property, and the right, as legal entities, to speak freely. All of these rights have been upheld by the U.S. courts.
etc.
The way I look at it, SCOTUS gets its cover on this from not even from Congressional statutes, but from "intent".
Ah well. This sort of issue is not going to immediately generate an estchaton, so who should actually have it on the top of their priority list? It is fun, but life is short. In the meantime, having both option A and B available would look pretty good.
There is a good chance both of us are a bit stupid in that we are both relying on wikipedia,
Here is a wikipedia autarky cut and paste.
Modern examples
Mercantilism was a policy followed by empires, especially in the 17th and 18th centuries, forbidding or limiting trade outside the empire. In the 20th century, autarky as a policy goal was sought by Nazi Germany in the 1930s, by maximizing trade within its economic bloc and minimizing trade outside it, particularly with the then world powers - Britain, the USSR and France - with whom it would eventually go to war and thus must not rely upon. In 1930s Germany, this economic bloc consisted primarily of economically weak countries such as those in South America, the Balkans and eastern Europe (Yugoslavia, Romania and Hungary)'[1] who had raw materials vital to Germany's recovery. Trade with these countries, which was negotiated by then Minister of Economics Hjalmar Schacht, was based on the exchange of German manufactured produce directly for these materials rather than currency, allowing Schacht to barter without reliance on the strength of the Reichsmark[2]. However, although food imports fell significantly between 1932 and 1937, Germany's rapid rearmament policy after 1935 proved contradictory to the Nazi Party autarkic ambitions and imports of raw materials rose by 10% over the same period.
Today, complete economic autarkies are rare. A possible example of a current autarky is North Korea, based on the government ideology of Juche (self-sufficiency), which is concerned with maintaining its domestic localized economy in the face of its isolation. However, even North Korea has extensive trade with the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China, Syria, Iran, Vietnam, and many countries in Europe and Africa. Bhutan, seeking to preserve an economic and cultural system centered around the dzong, has until recently maintained an effective economic embargo against the outside world, and has been described as an autarky. With the introduction of roads and electricity, however, the kingdom has entered trade relations as its citizens seek modern manufactured goods. [edit] Historical examples
If I think of UChicago, I immediately think of Freidman et al and their nasty policies. And I wonder about the axe being ground in the cite.
I put my finger on Schacht, and figure the war which you blame for the nasties is caused by economic policies. But this assertion, while formally obvious, is not quite right here. Figure the war came from the French occupation of the Rhine area earlier, which was driven by the repartation issue set up the Versalles treaty, which was driven by the economic needs of the Brit bankers. KKK supporter Wilson was all too happy to support the arrangement.
Now as to the date of establishment of slace labor camps in Germany, here is a wikipedia cut and paste that says pre-war.
Hitler's policy of Lebensraum strongly emphasized the conquest of new lands in the East, known as Generalplan Ost, and the exploitation of these lands to provide cheap goods and labour to Germany. Even before the war, Nazi Germany maintained a supply of slave labour. This practice started from the early days of labour camps of "undesirables" (German: unzuverlässige Elemente), such as the homeless, homosexual, criminals, political dissidents, communists, Jews, and anyone whom the regime wanted out of the way. During World War II the Nazis operated several categories of Arbeitslager (labour camps) for different categories of inmates. Prisoners in Nazi labour camps were worked to death on short rations and in bad conditions, or killed if they became unable to work. Many died as a direct result of forced labour under the Nazis.[1]
However, most of the wikipedia articles related to this just talk about the war years.
Here is something I found that seems to resolve my confusion:
The solution for the Nazis was found in the pre-war system of compulsory labor. Akin to compulsory military service, but for civilian
I met a long-time Republican state legislative type. When he decided to do something else, he ran his campaign on legalization of prostitution and drugs! The result was predictable, but somehow I do not think your complaints apply to him! Anyway, saying tea party platform is ignoring reality. The rank and file are trying to deal with some critical issues, with no competent leadership. When you talk about platform, you are dealing with theater, and I figure pretty much a Republican coop attempt. Really the only thing the Republican economics policies have going for them is that Obama's economics policies make the Republican policies look good!. Just today, "respectable" people are talking about the real unemployment figures. Now you know how this works. Every since Nixon, every administration has tweaked the study protocol and it always somehow reduces the unemployment numbers. Now it turns out if you take the Reagan or even the Clinton protocol, the unemployment numbers are 22%. This is *nationally*, not Detroit! And is it not great!Timmy say we are getting a consensus to nationalize all the real estate mortgages to avoid foreclosures. Now it happens all the money would end up with the banks. We spent 2.3 trillion on bailout so far and here is another 3 trillion coming. Can you say "hyper-inflation". So tell me what the so-called "tea party platform does to employ another 20 million people? The rank and file know in their guts it does nothing.
Nazi germany pre-1939 tried it. So they used script internationally and only allowed trading with buddies. The script inflated quickly. We sort of know how that turned out. And pre-1939, the economy had an important slave labor component. Yah, a lot of people were immediately gassed, but for some reason the camps were next to big industrial plants, so if you were healthy, you got to work yourself to death. People think of it as a Jewish thing, but 1939 and after, it was pretty much anyone, and slave-labor was big time critical. The final numbers come up with more non-jews than jews dying in the camps. So none of this is very nice. And if you push self-sufficiency, then it may well be that you are pushing big time not nice. For some reason, it is not popular to talk about economic policies that kill people. But I understand NYC has a computer program to analyze how many people and where who will die from a given budget cut.
Transportation is a really big thing. Think of it as analogous to the conveyor belts in a factory, Actually part of production. Let us amuse ourselves by noting that freight is not apparently not part of the proposal. But of course that is so nutty that I must be mistaken.
China and Russia on the other hand want to do high speed freight from home to Europe right now and to the US if we suddenly decided to have a future and even to Africa. The agreements have already been signed and I imagine the money is starting to flow.
Now let us take a broad view. Realize that the Reading Railroad and Lincoln's trans-continential railroad came real close to transforming the geopolitics of the whole world. Simply put, a railroad culture may be "better" than a maritime culture. This is an aspect of why the Brits were able to rape China,. And may be in the front of some Chinese minds as they become the world leader in doing cold-weather rail. Oh, the last time Asia was doing railroads like now? After the Philadelphia exposition had been absorbed, and the effort was modeled on Lincoln's.
Of course, we have no money. But Geithner figures we have a consensus to spend 3 trillion on another bank bailout, on the top of the 2.3 trillion already spent. I guess it is to be officially for foreclosure prevention.
I am rural and still happen to have fiber to the house. The claim is 20/5. I could get higher. I only checked once. I did the check with some prominent test your speed site. I suppose it might be accurate. Got 21 up. Hah, got a static ipv4, but I run ipv6. You should have it as good. Realize this is a coop telephone system and not exactly driven by "share-holders value". Ah well. I am hardly committed to some fox tv brand of capitalism or obama brand of bail out the speculators. I figure if people are sane, about any system of economic superstructure will work. But capitalism is pretty good when you want small and nimble, pushing on the edges of the possible.. But I am not sure that a coop is really a capitalism thing.
Silly help desk people figure this must be some big name branded service. I guess everything has to be a brand name to work, It is true there is sort of a regional cooperation going on here, but the local guys have been burying fiber for a decade.
Perhaps all the slashdotters in a state should get together and start doing isp coops.
Fact worship involves a sort of an epistomological bias. Sometimes useful, like most things. But things often get to a point that claiming you need one more fact in order to act or decide or whatever is nutty. So we generate a lot of facts. But if we managed a lot of profound concepts, then things would be impressive. Hmm, think of the difference in science between adding one more digit to a constant and coming up with an Einstein trick like a fundamental principle of the universe. The digit may "prove"the principle, but will not generate the principle. And my use of the word "prove" is a silly adaption to maybe your empiricism bias.
Hah, I did some research and had a long summary, and just asI was getting ready to post it, oops, somehow lost it.
So here is one key:
a metastudy on pv eroi. n=60 std=6.5 dev=4.5, approx.
Numbers: if you have some numbers, you can hope there had been some science earlier. From the number above, I suspect there is not a lot of science on pv eroi. And the studies there are seem to be pricey to get. But lets look in my buffer.
Oh, that was some numbers on eroi on the other tech.
You claim that nuclear is complex and expensive. The small ones are very simple. The expense is cost of capital and time overruns caused by greenie driven policy. Plus accounting insanity.
On capital costs, plug in 1% capital costs, On time line, try 1-2 years to construct, as is historical true in say France. On accounting, we are still getting returns on 190 year old infrastructure investments. But for an accountant, returns a ways in the future do not really exist.
hmm, an old fashioned windmill might well have a decent payback. But your pv payback numbers are quite suspect. Here is the deal. Suppose I want a few square miles of panels for baseline. So we get a bit nasty and in passing we note we are creating a few square miles of desert. But to the point, the energy "cost" includes electonics, batteries, mechanical support, and maintenance. I figure you need to squegee them regularly. Now the numbers I have seen in the past do not include maintenance, but the payback is negative. We are dealing with batteries here.
Now, my mother would like some panels on the roof. Suppose installation was easy and inexpensive and you did not bother with batteries and interesting electronics. I guess we go to bed when it gets dark. Hardly baseline stuff. But I will entertain the idea that it has a positive energy payback. Really, because I trust your claim, once you add some reality to it.
Now the figure for a nuke are double the payback. Not batteries, and this I believe assumes a 50 year life span. Looks like we are going for 75 years, which is a stupid adaptation to.. green energy ideology effects on tech progress and capital replacement. As you say, over schedule and over budget. But historically, France shows it is a policy issue, not a tech issue. So greenies again.
Come on. I know you want to be off the grid, but would not an extra trillion watts be useful anyway? You know, I tease you about being off the grid, but I figure a lot of people, sometimes me included, would like the idea. Somehow, I figure we need to all be really "rich" in order to get away with that general approach.
Pooh, not high tech enough? Last I looked, Asia was building over a hundred nukes. US is bringing up one that was mothballed decades ago. Europe, hmm, I think Italy just did a nuke deal with Russia? Otherwise, nothing. All stupid "green energy" stuff instead. Mostly, it takes more energy to make than it will produce over its lifetime. Asia is at least trying to have a future, even if Portugal is not.
Too bad the article is not about Spain. Big investments in green. Big government subsidies. Oops, no future, so no money, so no more subsidies. And look, the green energy people all go bankrupt.
Here is the trick. You do not want to be on the grid? Green stuff looks pretty good. But if you are friendly with your neighbors, so does a small nuke to share. Ah, but if you want an end to tech advancements, you are going to have to retro, so you will not have the tech to make a small nuke. That is where green stuff shines.
I figure that people that that want green energy are accepting of a 5 billion people die off, starting already. Come on, you know you are in the acute phase of a malthusian collapse. So you need to do real systematic development, starting before I was born. Hah, in the 50's the plan was that by now the US would have over a thousand nukes. So we have a 150, old ones. Are we talking a trillion watts difference? What is the quads?
Slashdot Mirror
And he's obviously the type of people who would have supported Hitler
In the US, and in the UK, pretty much all the talking heads of the time supported Hitler. Hmm, among the Brits, a King of England. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII_of_the_United_Kingdom
In the US, Henry Ford, even post Pearl Harbor, is worth looking at. But the attempted military coup against FDR seems relevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot. So I think that complaint about Beck, if true, is pretty weak. There are just too many people who are of that type to give your complaint a real zing.
Now "Hope, Faith, and Charity" might be fun to analyze, but it is not going to be quite as immediately and obviously as nasty as "Blood and Soil". And for the last, we need to keep up our vigilance against opera fans :-)
alas, I was responding to your statement, an advocacy statement, much more than I was advocating command economies. Let us realize you had not mentioned command economies as best I recall and I figure I was noting a factual matter. I do notice a lot of "mind reading" and unsupported assumptions around me and probably in me.
Looking at the 1500's in the new world, you are not going to find any capitalists, but perhaps some successful rich nations. Hmm, Spain overall reached its goals very nicely. Being mercantile, the main goal was to get a lot of gold. They proceeded to collapse spectacularly, thus demonstrating mercantilism was yet another piece of voodoo economics. Think Bush and Obama.
Please recall that mercantilism was about as heavy a command economy as they could actually manage to get back then. Very much government controlled.
Hmm, I suspect your view of history is a bit narrow. Try considering post 1400's as current history.
Anyway, most of the people most of the time have been slaves or serfs etc, which might make you think of a command economy. And the scale of Imperial Rome, definitely a slave economy, might be big enough to suggest it as a counter example.
As far as voluntarily joining a small mission, I do not think you read the article very well. Think slave labor. Probably there might be some quibbles about voluntary.
Looking at economic ideology, I figure it is mainly just junk, dangerous junk. It is not like the economic talking heads on tv ever demonstrate any science, you know, kind of how an expert is able to make valid predictions. Frankly, if the population was sane and had an appropriate cultural level, I figure most any economic superstructure would at least sort of work. And it would be easy to work a lot better than current economic policy. Oh well.
As far as the usual Soviet Union command economy example, it is hard to ignore its great successes and its great failures. Against your complaints about command economies not working, recall it went from nothing to a super power in a few generations. Ah, but it then collapsed politically and socially, and I think the reason is easy to see. Just not what you like. Marxist Leninism economic innovation with respect to Marx was the idea that the party could keep variable capital way down indefinitely. Stalin in the thirties took it further and figured he could keep variable capital way way down. He was not quite as bad that way as the Schachtian slave labor camps in Germany, but there was more resistance from the population so the imposition of the austerity killed a lot more people.
So the semi-official unemployment figures for the US are now being quoted at 22% and from a demographic point of view, this is low ball. I see on Doonesbury yesterday that Simpson said "Social security is like a milk cow with 310 million tits." It is pretty hard to not notice that big-time austerity is high on the a lot of people's agenda in the US. Isn't it great about how capitalism, particularly financial capitalism, is our great savior in the sky. The invisible hand will reach down and make everything right. Ah my, I got polemical. I did not start out with that intention.
Have a good day.
only profitable companies are taxed....
This is sufficiently silly so I am sure you know you are wrong I know this is not quite what you mean. But I do note for your processing that Washington has a nasty revenue tax and not any income tax. Hmm, also a sales tax. Oregon has a income tax, but not a sales tax. Both have some sort of property tax and so on. Very broadly, the differences are not very important. But if we were to make a sane choices about what "wealth" we desire to produce, we might be able to push up the wealth production rather broadly and to the point that the tax component was not an issue because it was sufficiently relatively small. Now the invisible hand nuts are right to think that the feds do not produce much wealth under the present situation, but wrong to think that the random profitable private business does produce wealth. If the last was so, then I guess Goldman Sucks quants actually produce wealth :-) .So they do produce money, but people like to confuse money and wealth. As we gen up fed reserve policy requiring yet another 3 trillion in fiat money, we will get to notice the difference rather soon in a sensuous manner. Hah, you yourself could well be a trillionaire before you know it.
Practice, hmm, 1500's, renegade jesuits?, pacific coast of south america, nice little totalitarian theocracy, sort of a God says this is what you do, not really a money economy, highly communal, worked pretty good until the Pope or someone noticed. Then the Spanish put some military in and hung the priests. Interesting economic experiment though.
Did not look real hard, but this seems to provide some context. Jesuits, but not always renegade, but too successful.
http://gosouthamerica.about.com/od/history/a/JesuitMissions.htm
hmm,might be wrong now, but back in the day I paid attention to this, and as best I know, anyone can deliver mail. You just need to have a valid post office issued stamp on the mail. So if you pay the US{PS, you can play. And, for the invisible hand nuts, who are also usually some sort of strict constitutionist types, let us note post office stuff is an explicitly delegated power of the feds. But my "authority" is simply that my mom was a post mistress, as it was called then, for a long time. :-)
Googling around, the first mail thingy in the "US" was 1692, and was a government authorized operation.
Universal Service Obligation and monopoly status
Article I, section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution grants U.S. Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads. The Federal Government has interpreted this clause as granting a de facto Congressional monopoly over the delivery of mail. According to the government, no other system for delivering mail - public or private - can be established absent Congress's consent. Congress has delegated to the Postal Service the power to decide whether others may compete with it, and the Postal Service has carved out an exception to its monopoly for extremely urgent letters.
The mission of the Postal Service is to provide the American public with trusted universal postal service at affordable prices. While not explicitly defined, the Postal Service’s universal service obligation (USO) is broadly outlined in statute and includes multiple dimensions: geographic scope, range of products, access to services and facilities, delivery frequency, affordable and uniform pricing, service quality, and security of the mail. While other carriers claim to voluntarily provide delivery on a universal basis, the Postal Service is the only carrier with the obligation to provide all the various aspects of universal service at affordable rates.
Proponents of postal service monopoly claim that since any obligation must be matched by the financial capability to meet that obligation, the postal monopoly was put in place as a funding mechanism for the USO, and it has been in place for over a hundred years. It consists of two parts: the Private Express Statutes (PES) and the mailbox access rule. The PES refers to the Postal Service’s monopoly on the delivery of letters, and the mailbox rule refers to the Postal Service’s exclusive access to customer mailboxes.
Proponents of postal service monopoly further claim that eliminating or reducing the PES or mailbox rule would have an impact on the ability of the Postal Service to provide affordable universal service. If, for example, the PES and the mailbox rule were to be eliminated, and the USO maintained, then either billions of dollars in tax revenues or some other source of funding would have to be found. As the operating environment of the Postal Service continues to change, additional flexibilities will likely be necessary to fulfill the USO.
However, several professional economists advocate the privatization of the mail delivery system, or at least a relaxation of the monopoly that currently exists.[28] Rick Geddes argued in 2000:[29]
* First, basic economics implies that rural customers are unlikely to be without service under competition; they would simply have to pay the true cost of delivery to them, which may or may not be lower than under monopoly.
* Second, basic notions of fairness imply that the cross-subsidy should be eliminated. To the extent that people make choices about where they live, they should assume the costs of that decision.
* Third, there is no reason why the government monopoly is necessary to ensure service to sparsely populated areas. The government could easily award competitive contracts to private firms for that service.
* Fourth, early concerns that rural residents of the United States would someho
As I said, no legal obstacle. Really. I live in Oregon. Mostly public nudity here is used as an attention driver for some sort of political demonstration. No cop problems. Not even any public outrage problems. There are some odd circumstances where people feel obliged to criminalize public nudity in particular locations in particular cities, but really, we just do not seem to be inclined to get around to making a big thing out of this.
It happens that if you are severely depressed, for some reason, an identifying symptom is standing in your window and exposing yourself to little kids. I have read of it happening in this state and people do not like it, but it is not like it is illegal.
Hmm, I used to live in a small town in Washington. Some nude drunk was wandering up and down the middle of main street in the middle of the night. The local cops wanted to arrest him but could not. Nudity was not illegal and there was no motor vehicle involved.
I have not noticed any big collapses of the local social fabric.
A cite is sometime useful: try this
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009294723_webnudeman03m.html
Kind of an overview
The dictionary does not seem to me to be a product of divine revelation.
But suppose you get pissy about everything around you and go off and be a hermit. It seems obvious to me that you have chosen to define your existence in terms of whatever you are pissy about in your old environment. But yet all the pissy things are not around you any more.
As far as "christian nation" is concerned, there are lot of occasions where people like to think that if you name something, then the object is in fact what you have named it. Some sort of magic? I think the word "nominalism" applies. :-) This is hardly a particularly fundie problem, but perhaps there is an association with literalism. But I don't know anything.
haha, where I live (in the US), there is no legal obstacle to walking down main street nude. Now I can imagine getting off on doing that since exhibitionism is often popular, but, for me, I would have to consider my unattractive belly :-) But you know, I would think the public street is a more intrusive location for bad aesthetics than the public airways. And so I am not quite old enough to really know, but I think within the last century in the US, it was popular to put cloth covers on the legs of the dining room table to avoid the obvious? sexual connotations. Perhaps there was a fear of driving men insane? It might be fun if we could avoid some of the local to time and place rules now and again.
might be useful to know that decay rate has not been considered exactly a fixed constant for a while. When I was a kid, 50 years ago, yeah. But as I recall, a lot of pressure will slow down decay and a high electrostatic field will speed it up. But perhaps the last was a beta decay case, for all I know.
but Godel? As best I recall, A true, not A true, at the same time. Does this not allow a tautology that is not exactly certain? For the math impaired, broadly, math is not true.But a simple enough logic system would be, by which we might mean complete and consistent. So a tautology might there be certain, if we took care not to embed it in anything interesting. So at that restriction, are you interested. Maybe, maybe not.
But I like to do neoplatoism and so "true knowledge" to me probably means something a bit more limited than the reader would expect. Maybe efficient with respect to a physically existing universe? Maybe just a little more than that. Some odd relationship to conflicting concepts, each derived from their own sets of conflicting sense data. Ah well, I can at least claim that change, in each and every part of the universe, is certain. Maybe that starts to say something about how to act?
Haha, an even stronger silliness factor is that it is really not very useful to analyze current events. Pretty much the important "facts" for a correlation are simply not referred to by anyone. So a couple weeks ago the fed went into knives out mode around Bernaeke's hyperinflation policy. All the regional chairs are publicly very diplomatic so far, but I think next week you see more interesting leaks and there might be media coverage. And the policy in question is driven of course by what everyone at this point realizes is a near term big time economic collapse. Now this drives various adventures and also last week as I recall, the Israel PM got some big-time internal support for an attack on Iran. Back when the communications systems had sort of ordinary people involved in them, everyone who paid attention realized that all the big nations were careful not to surprise any other interested nation. Perhaps some sort of fateful decision has been made. So if you want to analyze this radio signal change, why bother? So it changed. It is not like it is a primary causation. If you were able to directly affect the signal, what would that do to help make the surrounding correlations less lethal? And given that you have perhaps chosen to live in a big time acute malthusian crisis, should you be concerned about lethality anyway? Ah well. I do not know anything, but some get amusement from my questions.
Since this is slashdot and I use openbsd, it seems that this OS is a "controlled munition". Theo et al seem to feel it is useful to prohibit US citizens from working on the kernel and to put up warnings against foreign nationals from downloading from US servers. As best I can tell, if Theo was willing to jump through some US Commerce Department hoops, this situation could be avoided. Except why should he and if he did, why would put he put trust in some permission letter from the US government?
evil is always good to specifically call out. But some might think that being for something works a lot better than being against something. Let us play into that and come up with some positive to support in the US and in Iran and there is an odd chance that we might get to a thought about which is more good. I will start out.
You can still publicly politically organize in the United States. Yeah, if you are addressing fundamental issues and figure out how to be effective at it, then you are going to be hurting, but hey, as far as I can tell, doing anything interesting involves ante up of life and soul. Recall "life, liberty, and sacred honor". "The tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of " whatever. Who told you that things ever changed?
Iran is just now bringing up a nuke power plant, just like everyone else in Asia is busy doing. This means a better life for the population.
Your argument is not nutty, but here is a different thread.
Suppose the USA and friends just do not want nuclear power anywhere that they do not have a stranglehold on. Oh sure, Iran with nuclear weapons in the present circumstances would be highly undesirable. On the other hand, you have to reach quite a long way to say that building a nuke power plant is somehow against the law for a nation state. Now Iran does have *some* inspection requirements that they have signed up for. And there is a somewhat ancient treaty that binds them anyway. But not the requirements I hear slimy usa types claim. But I suppose if you want to say that whatever the security council says is the law? hmm. I do not think you want to go there!
How far does my argument go? It includes a full fuel cycle, on Iran's territory.
Asia is going nuclear. For a country like India, nuclear power is an existential issue. The US and Europe? It is not that they are "green", it is that they are "brown". No future under current policies, and real close to no future at all.
As far as your argument goes, you need to go back to the 19th century I think. Sykes? The policy for that part of asia has been external control through generating local wars. Try that for your context.
Pooh, I cannot get much traction on mystical, but it is blindingly obvious that the brain deals in sensory stuff and there are thousands of years of developments of the claim that the sensory data is not the universe. So you either do some Plato et al or you say that all you can know is your emotional state and figure reality is effectively some sort of psych thing. If you play Plato, then maybe you end up knowing something about fundamental principles of the universe by looking at the contradictions in the sensory data and associated concepts (oops, concepts, remember we are playing Plato here) So now we got a mind, not exactly a brain, that is not putting sensory data at the top of the knowabilty heap. Traditionally,the AI people get by by joining the deniers of concepts like creativity et al. In the end, they end up like dirty bertie and wanting regular plagues to reduce the population. Or maybe being reincarnated as a deadly disease virus like, hmm, Prince Albert? This sort of outlook all makes sense if we are just a more complicated rat.
Looking at the environment argument. Here is the AI that would impress me. Say it is early 20th century. The AI looks around and a bit ahead and is worried about its electrical supply. So it invents fusion power generators! And to do that, pretty much the AI has to repeatedly transform the entire world productive process to generate the tools needed to do the science. So "environmental modeling".
Mind/brain duality. Sure. I do not know what mystical gives me, but dualities exist, and some have to do with your head. Or have you never noticed some distinctions between you, your consciousness, and your unconsciousness? Or if you want to do some hard science, bose einstein condensates. As far as mystical, people can do the ambiguities that suit them, but figure if you manage some science, when you are done, you will likely generate some math. But at this point, we can figure that even your causality model is less than useful.
As it happens, few would attribute to me an ideology of environmentalism, but I do wonder about how many penis enlargement products I really need to pursue happiness. Yah, the semantics here are not quite on point, but an argument against pointless excess is sort of the "ism" some are using to be anti-advertising. As a practical matter, they probably package this rather obvious principle in some sort of nutty ism. Anyway, given the general cultural level, even principles end up indistinguishable from ideology.
Now as it happens commercial speech has significant local ,legal protections. Different kinds of speech have different protection rules, but there is not a big fundamental difference between commercial speech and political speech. So one way to look at this issue is that people are complaining about a corporate "person" exercising their constitutional rights. This is a common argument form. For instance, I notice some Islamic types are exercising some constitutional rights around building a mosque in NYC and there is quite a political firestorm.
As far as commercial speech is concerned, there is actually may not be a big constitutional issue involved in effectively suppressing it, IMO.
Corporate personhood
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The corporate personhood debate refers to the controversy (primarily in the United States) over the question of what subset of rights afforded under the law to natural persons should also be afforded to corporations as legal persons.
In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, decided in 1819. In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.[1][2] Some critics of corporate personhood, however, most notably author Thom Hartmann in his book "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," claim that this was an intentional misinterpretation of the case inserted into the Court record by reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis.[3] Bancroft Davis had previously served as president of Newburgh and New York Railway Co.
Proponents of corporate personhood believe that corporations, as associations of shareholders, were intended by the founders and framers to enjoy many, if not all, of the same rights as would the shareholders acting individually, such as the right to lobby the government, the right to due process and compensation before being deprived of property, and the right, as legal entities, to speak freely. All of these rights have been upheld by the U.S. courts.
etc.
The way I look at it, SCOTUS gets its cover on this from not even from Congressional statutes, but from "intent".
Ah well. This sort of issue is not going to immediately generate an estchaton, so who should actually have it on the top of their priority list? It is fun, but life is short. In the meantime, having both option A and B available would look pretty good.
There is a good chance both of us are a bit stupid in that we are both relying on wikipedia,
Here is a wikipedia autarky cut and paste.
Modern examples
Mercantilism was a policy followed by empires, especially in the 17th and 18th centuries, forbidding or limiting trade outside the empire. In the 20th century, autarky as a policy goal was sought by Nazi Germany in the 1930s, by maximizing trade within its economic bloc and minimizing trade outside it, particularly with the then world powers - Britain, the USSR and France - with whom it would eventually go to war and thus must not rely upon. In 1930s Germany, this economic bloc consisted primarily of economically weak countries such as those in South America, the Balkans and eastern Europe (Yugoslavia, Romania and Hungary)'[1] who had raw materials vital to Germany's recovery. Trade with these countries, which was negotiated by then Minister of Economics Hjalmar Schacht, was based on the exchange of German manufactured produce directly for these materials rather than currency, allowing Schacht to barter without reliance on the strength of the Reichsmark[2]. However, although food imports fell significantly between 1932 and 1937, Germany's rapid rearmament policy after 1935 proved contradictory to the Nazi Party autarkic ambitions and imports of raw materials rose by 10% over the same period.
Today, complete economic autarkies are rare. A possible example of a current autarky is North Korea, based on the government ideology of Juche (self-sufficiency), which is concerned with maintaining its domestic localized economy in the face of its isolation. However, even North Korea has extensive trade with the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China, Syria, Iran, Vietnam, and many countries in Europe and Africa. Bhutan, seeking to preserve an economic and cultural system centered around the dzong, has until recently maintained an effective economic embargo against the outside world, and has been described as an autarky. With the introduction of roads and electricity, however, the kingdom has entered trade relations as its citizens seek modern manufactured goods.
[edit] Historical examples
If I think of UChicago, I immediately think of Freidman et al and their nasty policies. And I wonder about the axe being ground in the cite.
I put my finger on Schacht, and figure the war which you blame for the nasties is caused by economic policies. But this assertion, while formally obvious, is not quite right here. Figure the war came from the French occupation of the Rhine area earlier, which was driven by the repartation issue set up the Versalles treaty, which was driven by the economic needs of the Brit bankers. KKK supporter Wilson was all too happy to support the arrangement.
Now as to the date of establishment of slace labor camps in Germany, here is a wikipedia cut and paste that says pre-war.
Hitler's policy of Lebensraum strongly emphasized the conquest of new lands in the East, known as Generalplan Ost, and the exploitation of these lands to provide cheap goods and labour to Germany. Even before the war, Nazi Germany maintained a supply of slave labour. This practice started from the early days of labour camps of "undesirables" (German: unzuverlässige Elemente), such as the homeless, homosexual, criminals, political dissidents, communists, Jews, and anyone whom the regime wanted out of the way. During World War II the Nazis operated several categories of Arbeitslager (labour camps) for different categories of inmates. Prisoners in Nazi labour camps were worked to death on short rations and in bad conditions, or killed if they became unable to work. Many died as a direct result of forced labour under the Nazis.[1]
However, most of the wikipedia articles related to this just talk about the war years.
Here is something I found that seems to resolve my confusion:
The solution for the Nazis was found in the pre-war system of compulsory labor. Akin to compulsory military service, but for civilian
I met a long-time Republican state legislative type. When he decided to do something else, he ran his campaign on legalization of prostitution and drugs! The result was predictable, but somehow I do not think your complaints apply to him! Anyway, saying tea party platform is ignoring reality. The rank and file are trying to deal with some critical issues, with no competent leadership. When you talk about platform, you are dealing with theater, and I figure pretty much a Republican coop attempt. Really the only thing the Republican economics policies have going for them is that Obama's economics policies make the Republican policies look good!. Just today, "respectable" people are talking about the real unemployment figures. Now you know how this works. Every since Nixon, every administration has tweaked the study protocol and it always somehow reduces the unemployment numbers. Now it turns out if you take the Reagan or even the Clinton protocol, the unemployment numbers are 22%. This is *nationally*, not Detroit! And is it not great!Timmy say we are getting a consensus to nationalize all the real estate mortgages to avoid foreclosures. Now it happens all the money would end up with the banks. We spent 2.3 trillion on bailout so far and here is another 3 trillion coming. Can you say "hyper-inflation". So tell me what the so-called "tea party platform does to employ another 20 million people? The rank and file know in their guts it does nothing.
self sufficient countries
It is called autarky I think.
Nazi germany pre-1939 tried it. So they used script internationally and only allowed trading with buddies. The script inflated quickly. We sort of know how that turned out. And pre-1939, the economy had an important slave labor component. Yah, a lot of people were immediately gassed, but for some reason the camps were next to big industrial plants, so if you were healthy, you got to work yourself to death. People think of it as a Jewish thing, but 1939 and after, it was pretty much anyone, and slave-labor was big time critical. The final numbers come up with more non-jews than jews dying in the camps. So none of this is very nice. And if you push self-sufficiency, then it may well be that you are pushing big time not nice. For some reason, it is not popular to talk about economic policies that kill people. But I understand NYC has a computer program to analyze how many people and where who will die from a given budget cut.
Transportation is a really big thing. Think of it as analogous to the conveyor belts in a factory, Actually part of production. Let us amuse ourselves by noting that freight is not apparently not part of the proposal. But of course that is so nutty that I must be mistaken.
China and Russia on the other hand want to do high speed freight from home to Europe right now and to the US if we suddenly decided to have a future and even to Africa. The agreements have already been signed and I imagine the money is starting to flow.
Now let us take a broad view. Realize that the Reading Railroad and Lincoln's trans-continential railroad came real close to transforming the geopolitics of the whole world. Simply put, a railroad culture may be "better" than a maritime culture. This is an aspect of why the Brits were able to rape China,. And may be in the front of some Chinese minds as they become the world leader in doing cold-weather rail. Oh, the last time Asia was doing railroads like now? After the Philadelphia exposition had been absorbed, and the effort was modeled on Lincoln's.
Of course, we have no money. But Geithner figures we have a consensus to spend 3 trillion on another bank bailout, on the top of the 2.3 trillion already spent. I guess it is to be officially for foreclosure prevention.
I am rural and still happen to have fiber to the house. The claim is 20/5. I could get higher. I only checked once. I did the check with some prominent test your speed site. I suppose it might be accurate. Got 21 up. Hah, got a static ipv4, but I run ipv6. You should have it as good. Realize this is a coop telephone system and not exactly driven by "share-holders value". Ah well. I am hardly committed to some fox tv brand of capitalism or obama brand of bail out the speculators. I figure if people are sane, about any system of economic superstructure will work. But capitalism is pretty good when you want small and nimble, pushing on the edges of the possible.. But I am not sure that a coop is really a capitalism thing.
Silly help desk people figure this must be some big name branded service. I guess everything has to be a brand name to work, It is true there is sort of a regional cooperation going on here, but the local guys have been burying fiber for a decade.
Perhaps all the slashdotters in a state should get together and start doing isp coops.
Fact worship involves a sort of an epistomological bias. Sometimes useful, like most things. But things often get to a point that claiming you need one more fact in order to act or decide or whatever is nutty. So we generate a lot of facts. But if we managed a lot of profound concepts, then things would be impressive. Hmm, think of the difference in science between adding one more digit to a constant and coming up with an Einstein trick like a fundamental principle of the universe. The digit may "prove"the principle, but will not generate the principle. And my use of the word "prove" is a silly adaption to maybe your empiricism bias.
Hah, I did some research and had a long summary, and just asI was getting ready to post it, oops, somehow lost it.
So here is one key:
a metastudy on pv eroi. n=60 std=6.5 dev=4.5, approx.
Numbers: if you have some numbers, you can hope there had been some science earlier. From the number above, I suspect there is not a lot of science on pv eroi. And the studies there are seem to be pricey to get. But lets look in my buffer.
http://www.wikinvest.com/concept/Nuclear_Energy
Oh, that was some numbers on eroi on the other tech.
You claim that nuclear is complex and expensive. The small ones are very simple. The expense is cost of capital and time overruns caused by greenie driven policy. Plus accounting insanity.
On capital costs, plug in 1% capital costs, On time line, try 1-2 years to construct, as is historical true in say France. On accounting, we are still getting returns on 190 year old infrastructure investments. But for an accountant, returns a ways in the future do not really exist.
hmm, an old fashioned windmill might well have a decent payback. But your pv payback numbers are quite suspect. Here is the deal. Suppose I want a few square miles of panels for baseline. So we get a bit nasty and in passing we note we are creating a few square miles of desert. But to the point, the energy "cost" includes electonics, batteries, mechanical support, and maintenance. I figure you need to squegee them regularly. Now the numbers I have seen in the past do not include maintenance, but the payback is negative. We are dealing with batteries here.
Now, my mother would like some panels on the roof. Suppose installation was easy and inexpensive and you did not bother with batteries and interesting electronics. I guess we go to bed when it gets dark. Hardly baseline stuff. But I will entertain the idea that it has a positive energy payback. Really, because I trust your claim, once you add some reality to it.
Now the figure for a nuke are double the payback. Not batteries, and this I believe assumes a 50 year life span. Looks like we are going for 75 years, which is a stupid adaptation to .. green energy ideology effects on tech progress and capital replacement. As you say, over schedule and over budget. But historically, France shows it is a policy issue, not a tech issue. So greenies again.
Come on. I know you want to be off the grid, but would not an extra trillion watts be useful anyway? You know, I tease you about being off the grid, but I figure a lot of people, sometimes me included, would like the idea. Somehow, I figure we need to all be really "rich" in order to get away with that general approach.
Pooh, not high tech enough? Last I looked, Asia was building over a hundred nukes. US is bringing up one that was mothballed decades ago. Europe, hmm, I think Italy just did a nuke deal with Russia? Otherwise, nothing. All stupid "green energy" stuff instead. Mostly, it takes more energy to make than it will produce over its lifetime. Asia is at least trying to have a future, even if Portugal is not.
Too bad the article is not about Spain. Big investments in green. Big government subsidies. Oops, no future, so no money, so no more subsidies. And look, the green energy people all go bankrupt.
Here is the trick. You do not want to be on the grid? Green stuff looks pretty good. But if you are friendly with your neighbors, so does a small nuke to share. Ah, but if you want an end to tech advancements, you are going to have to retro, so you will not have the tech to make a small nuke. That is where green stuff shines.
I figure that people that that want green energy are accepting of a 5 billion people die off, starting already. Come on, you know you are in the acute phase of a malthusian collapse. So you need to do real systematic development, starting before I was born. Hah, in the 50's the plan was that by now the US would have over a thousand nukes. So we have a 150, old ones. Are we talking a trillion watts difference? What is the quads?