Many of the regulations are only contextually relevant. The best example would be comparing very small farms with very large farms. The health and safety requirements for a large farm are needed. However in smaller operations they don't have the same contamination issues and so they're not relevant.
You can also look at small cattle ranches and dairy operations. A small dairy farm for example can generally produce completely safe milk without pasteurization. It became a health issue when they started making much larger operations.
This lack of context is typical of the issue. You look at what is relevant in YOUR area and then you assume and project those assumptions on to everyone else.
It has more to do with the richer countries enjoying stronger lobbying positions on the system.
You see this in any large government. The powerful portions of the system subordinate and dominate the less powerful portions.
You can see other examples of this in Australia and California. In Australia farmers are literally committing suicide due to having their water stolen by cities that failed to do proper urban planning or failed to act on urban planning that required them to build water infrustructure.
They ran out of water and so stole it from the farmers... ruining the farms, destroying family businesses, and causing a few of them to literally blow their brains out on the capital steps. Similar things have been going on in california as well.
And you can see the same thing going on in the EU at large and even within the member states. Southern Italy generally suffers from indifferent policy from northern italy. Sicily isn't well served especially by Milan which cares nothing for that island or its people.
In the UK, you can see the same thing going all over it. My favorite example was when they almost gave Gibraltar to the Spanish without even informing the Gibraltars. Imagine your government almost giving away your land to another government without even involving you or any representative of your community in the discussion.
It happens all over the world.
As they say in China, "the mountains are high and the Emperor is far."
There are solutions to the problem but you first have to know it exists. Failing to know whether it exists at all furthermore is basically an admission that given power is not competent to run anything of that scale. It is fundamental.
What is that supposed to mean? The rules on dairy products are almost entirely in place to counter issues with factory scale dairy operations. Smaller operations have rarely had a problem.
that said, we need large operations.
I think you missed all the subtly in my comment. I addressed all these things.
A consentual system of standards would suit both situations.
That is... if you obey these rules you can put this symbol on your package. If you don't then you can't.
Then the consumer decides whether they care or not.
Everyone gets what they want.
Those that want those standards will look for that symbol and only buy products that meet it.
Customers that do not will choose indifferent to whether it is there or not.
And neither big companies nor small companies can complain or gain any advantage.
That is the power of the free market.
It gives everyone what they deserve and dynamically can respond to any situation because it relies on personal human judgement at every juncture.
No mechanized system can compete with it. You're pitting the minds of perhaps a few hundred specialists against BILLIONS of minds of people that will work on the issues not just once but every day and forever.
The problem with these regulations is that they are needlessly restrictive.
I believe the regulations went so far as to suggest that it would be illegal to even put the legally bought oil into a non-legal container... which would be anything besides what it was sold in. So if you wanted to put your oil in a nice looking glass beaker that would be illegal. You'd have to keep it in some sort of bottle that the company sold it in... never mind that that would be comparatively ugly.
I believe they've moderated a lot of these rules. I don't know how many of them still stand. But the point is that these regulations all come from a certain perspective.
In the case of the EU, that would be Brussels. And what makes sense in Brussels is not what is going to make sense in Greece or Denmark.
To regulate a territory of that span you need a more federated policy that grants member states the autonomy to achieve the SPIRIT of the law rather than the letter of the law.
After all, the spirit is actually what matters. The letter is relevant only so far as a court trial where one person or another tries to argue they were obeying when they quite obviously were not.
If you fill out all the paper work, go through the whole procedure and then still find a way to poison people... am I happy? Obviously not... people are poisoned. If you generally ignore the law and yet otherwise act in a completely ethical way where no one is hurt am I happy? Yep. I can't see why I'd have grounds to complain really if no one is getting hurt.
And that's how the EU should be structured. These regulations should be more guiding principles of behavior and conduct rather than very specific regulations that say things must be done in this way and no other.
What is more, such a system would be much more comprehensible since instead of ENDLESS pages of ultra specific regulations you'd have a much more summarized code that simply explains the objective, cautions against some things that have to be dealt with, an admonition that if there are problems that would be embarrassing for whomever is in charge.
This is in effect how a great deal of the EU already works. The member states are permitted to make most of their own laws and manage their own internal affairs. However, member nations are expected to hold to certain moral and ethical codes. You can't go randomly executing people for example and remain in good standing with the EU though I suspect there isn't a specific regulation that says you can't do that. And even if there were, it would be redundant since it wouldn't be tolerated.
Trying to manage so many cultures and languages as if they're all a single city being run by a city council is naive. A certain amount of flexibility must be allowed.
Now here you might say "but why must I permit someone's products into my country if they're not following procedures I feel are sufficient?" Well, do your people agree or is that just "you"? Because if your people agree then those products won't sell. And if they don't agree with you then they will. So... what exactly is
The italian olive oil situation is a good example.
There are olive groves there that have been supplying oil to local villages as well as exporting for time out of mind. And new EU regulations are requiring that the oil go through all sorts of additional regulatory steps as well as package it in specific EU approved bottles.
The people in the area would typically just come by with a jug and fill it up with fresh oil as needed. But that is being made illegal.
The result is that the small growers must sell not directly to customers but to a big business bottling plants that are ultimately going to be the only legal way to sell the oil. Importing and exporting the oil previously was also not a big deal... but again, regulations.
Can I ask what country you are based in? Because the worst effects of this stuff hit the poorer and less developed countries the hardest. The richer and more developed countries if anything benefit from it. The trade controls have consequences for segments of the economy less capable of dealing with the red tape.
What? I've never had that problem. I do shipping all over the country all the time and while I am assuming you're referring to some weird ATF thing... it has never effected me once.
Ironically, things are often easier if I cross lines with something rather than not... sales taxes for example often vanish which is convenient.
I recently bought a laptop that I bounced between three different states and the result was... no sales tax.
Really, suggesting that internal US shipping is more complicated and expensive then internal EU shipping is just absurd. Give me a better example please because I don't think that is a credible argument.
So many european special interests are invested in protectionist strategies that they're not going to let it go away. They are just going to do the same thing by different names.
And if they actually did do it, they'd open europe up to competition not just internationally but even within europe. There are a lot of countries in europe that are not able to export their gods to other countries in europe for basically no reason. And that has been getting worse with the EU... not better.
As to the difference between one product and another... not really.
I don't really care if you're talking about labor or steel or grapefruits.
They all have a local cost that is offset by the export price.
If I am running water through my crops you seem to think that this water is going into my local aquafer. Not really. Most of it evaporates. Its gone. And when I export those grapefruits, the value of them is the sum of all the resources that went into produce them. My capital, my labor, the labor I hire to help me, the water, the fertilizer, the pesticide, advertising, various logistical expenses, insurance, etc. And when all is said and done... I can make a profit at 70 cents a pound.
The labor that went into those grapefruits... Gone. The capital? Sunk into the operation and the opportunity value of it is at least gone. The land... used for that purpose and none other. The water... it ran over my fields, some of it soaked into the ground by no one is going to see that water again until it goes through the water cycle. At which point the person that does see it is as likely to be in Florida if not farther away. That water is going to get blown around, at some point get pushed up into the upper atmosphere, and then condense there into water droplets as the temperature falls... and only then come back to earth. Which could be damn anywhere.
So you want to talk about school? So now you're going to try and brow beat me? Okay.
*takes gloves off and cracks neck*
Throw the science at me. Hit me with your best shot.
Ah but your interpretation of my words is not the same thing as what I said.
You can't do that and then pretend that that was their actual argument. That is strawmanning. Again, by fucking definition.
You're clearly not going to admit that so again... we can't have a rational discussion. You can't use logical fallacies and expect to sustain a rational argument.
We're done because you won't admit the strawman. If you stop doing that, then we can try again. If you don't then logic is impossible.
As to word searches, you're right. I was convinced you brought it up... so my bad.
The point was not to specify any region but to cite that there are regions with more water than they know what to do with and other regions that could really use it.
You don't like the idea of exchanging resources?... Then why should anyone send you food? Shouldn't you grow only your own food?
We share resources all time and we mediate this exchange with money. You want my apples? They're 70 cents a pound.
Simple as that. There's nothing unreasonable about a given region importing a good or service from another region at a mutually agreed upon price.
As to pipelines getting shut down by the EPA, there's no legitimate reason for them to do that in literally every circumstance. There are circumstances where they would be obligated to shut it down. But don't tell me there is no place in the north west where there is insane amounts of fresh water or the north east where there is likewise a lot of water.
That water is there and saying none if it can be touched without damaging the local ecology begs the question of how the people living there access any of that water given that apparently it is impossible for them to drink any of it without damaging the local ecology? Ehm?
As to international bodies of water, what you're saying is that I can build a city of 10 million people on the banks of that lake and drink from it liberally. But I can't pipe the water somewhere else for 10 million other people to drink it? How does that make any sense?
As to general environmental bullshit, I come from california and believe me we have more than our fair share of that shit. My family had some land a few years back that we wanted to zone for development. It used to be farm land but cities have encroached so we wanted to turn it into warehouse space.
Anyway, we got some bullshit from the EPA about Ferry Shrimp. Basically these microscopic creatures that live in water. There were some tire ruts on the property and they were trying to say that the whole parcel of land had to be declared some sort of protected space because ferry shrimp were living in the tire rut. I shit you not.
So I have a very low opinion of the EPA unless I know otherwise because I've personally see them pull some really slimy bullshit.
This sort of behavior is also not helping anyone. If want to be a society that is able to build things including that infrastructure then people need to be reasonable. Don't just cite environmental concerns as a proxy to shut something down. Because it makes people like me not respect that defense. The boy has cried wolf too many times. And that means when a real environmental issue crops up, I won't be there for you to back you up against some evil corporation because I'll have stopped listening because I was lied to, extorted, and bullied by assholes one too many times.
Just what is... choose your battles.
As to desalination being the only thing you're in favor of... its too expensive even with the nukes. An aqueduct would deal with the problem along with restraining expansion so it is inline with existing resources. Desalination is at best a side benefit of nuclear power. But the real point is electricity. You don't really produce Los Angeles amounts of water from such operations.
Running even a few miles of cable doesn't cost more than a couple thousand dollars for the cable itself. If it is a super rural area could could dig a shallow trench next to the road and run the cable yourself for miles. The trench wouldn't need to be more then six inches deep if its a gravel road. You just kick a little gravel over the cable.
If you wanted to go to the extra expense... which would be almost nothing... you could run the cable in a thin PVC pipe. Cost of a couple miles of PVC is again almost nothing. I looked this up not long ago. The prices are hilarious. You'd want to buy it wholesale. You don't want to pay the home depot price if you're running that much.
But again, for several miles of able you're looking at a couple thousand dollars. And the labor costs would also be nothing special since no one needs special training for something like that. You could either do it yourself, have some friends help you, or hire some high school kids to do it for a couple hundred bucks.
I have an uncle that lives in a really rural area. He asked the local ISP to run cable to his house and they said it would cost 300,000 dollars. That was for 2 miles of cable along a dirt road.
My uncle was a contractor before he retired. So he just ran the cable himself. The whole road is private. He got the signed permission of the other five people that use that road and did it himself.
Total cost was a couple thousand bucks.
ISPs are frequently unreasonable when it comes to running cable to just one guy. This is nothing new.
For legal reasons, the ISP didn't connect HIM to the internet, but the person that owned the property he ran the cable to. He paid that property owner... nothing I think because they didn't care. And the internet was connected their place and then linked into his cable which then ultimately went to his home.
The whole topic is an exercise in talking to idiots. Everyone is boxed into their little robotic responses and no one opens their fucking minds to alternatives.
The cable has to get run. It is not expensive. If people need to sign some sort of agreement then you knock on some doors with fresh baked cookies. Its not rocket science.
How far away is the closest ISP switch? I doubt it is more than a few blocks away at most. Which means the cost for cable for HIM is a couple hundred dollars at most. Let the home owner hand the ISP or whomever a spool of cable and say "run that over there."
Here people are going to freak out because it is "different" but if I can get a word in edgewise you reactionary fucks... the reality is that if we had proper conduits under the roads this shouldn't matter.
I'm very happy for things to be organized and operate under some sort of regulatory frame work. But at the same time no system is going to handle everyone. And as a result there needs to be a loophole in the system that lets individuals patch the system as needed. Again, yes you can force them to use the ISP or whomever deals with the poles or street conduits to actually do the actual installation. But if the cable is run from your house to the ISP switch, then the techs can't say they can't do it. They literally can plug it into their system.
And from there nothing more needs to be said about it.
I await your spittle filled hatred. I shall bath in your frothy discontent!:-D
At no point did I say that I didn't understand psychology. You're now just lying in a pathetic attempt to sustain a strawman.
We're done. You're too dishonest and stupid to have discussions with people. I assume this is why you operate under the AC title so that people don't just say "oh that guy" whenever you join a discussion.
As to flipflopping, you can't make an arrangement like this with someone that is going to pull the rug out from under you later.
You cite Detroit which is not a place I said anything about prior to that comment and while they have water and a need for money... they have a need mostly because they've systematically driven away business. The city is know to be corrupt, crime ridden, facing massive population decline, and is known for unreasonable radical politics.
That doesn't sound like someone I want to do business with... I'd rather do business with someone more rational.
As to the great lakes seeing a drop in level, then I'm certain I don't want to spend billions to pipe that water only to be told by the EPA etc that I can't have it. Fuck that entire idea. The pipes will have to run elsewhere. Or again... nuclear reactors with desalination plants...
OR growth has to be restricted in the west until such time as they find a way to make up the shortfall.
Their current plan of "fucking the farmers" only works so long as the farmers have water. And never mind the fact that they'll have annihilated one of the most productive and profitable farming industries in the US basically just to cover up for the incompetence of the cities.
As to you being happy with things, that does not address the sales statistics that herald the irrelevance of that position.
To "you" anything could be so. My comments were not about what you or any one person finds to be true or untrue.
My point was about an entire industry which is something beyond any individual's opinion.
In regards to sweeping statement I didn't say they were evil. And as to being bad... I said their business model has to be updated. Surely you must admit that they must change.
YOU might be happy with something but you will not live forever and if they are unable to associate with younger generations they die with you.
What is more, while you like your remasters, I suspect you don't buy as much music as someone that is building their music collection from scratch. You are contented with your memories and your existing collection far too much for them to be comfortable with you as a revenue source.
What is more, even amongst your generation you are unusual. You are a subset of a subset of a subset... and you're an expiring one. No offense. It comes for us all.
Please do not react emotionally to my argument. I am not an especially emotional person. My statements are logical/rational. I am making a rational argument. I am not attempting to attack your love or any other emotional nonsense. I have no interest in wounding your ego or undermining your belief systems.
My interest is in understanding my universe and accurately describing it.
Having a group of well meaning people that talk to people about things is fine.
I have no problem with "life coaches" which are just unlicensed psychologists that can't really presume to speak with scientific authority.
My issue with psychologists is that they're not really any better than the life coaches. They can't speak with scientific authority because their field of practice is not a science.
As to buying and taking being the same thing. It is only the same thing in that something is removed... but for what it is worth something would be provided for you its place. Detroit is said to need money. Its water if economically positioned and plentiful would be a source of revenue.
However, we are getting ahead of ourselves. In all likelihood your water is not well placed and we wouldn't want it in the first place. What is more the militant politics of the region make it a poor partner for any long term relationship.
Connecting to the great lakes in general would be an interesting proposition. If we drained the lakes at the same rate they filled, then you shouldn't notice the difference. Some tributaries of the lakes might ebb but that would be the extent of it.
But again... if the politics are not stable then it would be unwise for people so far away to rely upon your region for the water they need to live. You could say yes today and then tomorrow extort a higher price when we are dependent on your water.
A poor partner.
It is further sad that so many are mindlessly turning against nuclear power. It is a reasonable solution to the problem in that one could get huge sums of carbon free electricity along with an inexpensive desalination plant all in one. Oh well. Hopefully in the generations to come that ignorance passes.
Not at all, I summarized my position quite succinctly. I made it clear in the very post you are citing why I hold the position I do and made that argument in a rational and falsifiable fashion.
That you have not realized that the post you are citing actually argues against your position and validates my own... well, it can only undermine your own credibility.
Why you failed to understand what was going on is likely due to some kind of incompetence. It is so poorly done that I couldn't call it malice or a lack of integrity. Were you a competent liar for example, you'd have chosen a better example and a better argument. You didn't though... so I must conclude that you're either not engaging enough of your mind to have a rational point or there isn't enough of a mind at your command to make one.
Either way... you debase yourself by making such arguments and you waste the time of your superiors.
... To the private space contractors. SOMEONE should get some use out of them. If NASA doesn't want to use those facilities, I'll bet Boeing and SpaceX etc can find a use for them.
They're always in need of large construction hangers near launch pads.
No one is saying anything about taking. The water would be bought.
We'd run an aqueduct from parts of the country with so much water they wouldn't even miss it to other parts that are literally desiccating the aquifers to such an extent that the land is heaving inward due to the collapse of pressure.
That is whole regions of some parts of the country are literally deflating like shriveling melons... the land is heaving inward because the well heads are sucking all the water out of the soil and it is causing the ground to settle.
That is a dryness that people in Michigan will never suffer. Everyone could drop a well in their backyards in Michigan and you wouldn't drain the soil. Not so in the American South West. The water is being exhausted because idiots have zoned too much land for development without building complimentary infrastructure.
It isn't just water.
It is power, roads, schools, hospitals, etc. The idiots are zoning growth like crazy and investing nothing in infrastructure.
And so we get brown outs, water shortages, traffic jams, failed schools, and over worked hospitals.
Pretty much everything they could have fucked up was fucked up.
The old city fathers of Los Angeles were not this foolish. They thought long term and made sure to get the resources the city needed to sustain growth. This activity was at times ruthless. Look up the Owen's valley situation if you want to see what LA was capable of back then. Also, look at the Hoover dam. Bought and paid for by the City of Los Angeles in return for a large share of the water in perpetuity.
That is how the city fathers of LA made the desert bloom. They knew they needed water and they invested big money in making it happen. They pumped rivers right through LA. Some of the most impressive water projects in US history.
And since their time there has been little interest in maintaining those stockpiles. And as a result... only one year of water is left. If the weather does not dump rain on the Los Angeles water system, the city is going to have to ration water. It is too late for them to do anything at this point. Whether rationing happens is down to chance.
I didn't say it was bullshit because I didn't understand it.
I said it was bullshit because it was not backed up with empirical evidence.
You want to learn something about anatomy? Vivisect the creature. Take it apart and study the muscle, the fat, the nerves, the veins... dissect the organs and put them under a microscope. Then conduct tests to understand what all the little bits do and what they don't do. Notice how they're all linked together. Study the various diseases and injuries and associate cause with effect.
This is the basis of medical knowledge and it is why medicine is not bullshit.
Prior to doing this sort of thing we had nonsense like the Four Humors... this notion that all human health was determined by the ratios and amount of 4 types of fluid in the body. And if these fluids were out of balance or the wrong fluid was in the wrong place, then that would result in poor health or death.
That is of course bullshit.
Psychology is currently in roughly the same place as the ancient doctors that were frankly fucking horrible at their jobs and didn't really understand what the fuck they were doing.
Psychologists don't know what the fuck they're doing. As much is obvious either by reading a psychology text book or seeing a trained psychologist.
They're often intelligent and well meaning people but most of their actual skill is due to skills learned outside of psychology. Little things like empathy and common sense tend to serve them better.
Which is sort like the ancient doctors being better served most of the time by using old remedies or just trying to stitch people back together and hoping for the best.
That's not science.
And neither is psychology.
Psychology can't be a science until it delves into the mysteries of the mind, posits falsifiable hypothesis and then tests them empirically.
No, they're not going to do it and because of that they're useless.
To the contrary, the neurologists are ultimately going to do their jobs for them. The neurologists are studying the brain directly and conducting ACTUAL science on it. It will take them awhile to associate their findings with the more practical problems of psychology... but when they do, it will be actual science... unlike what modern psychologists practice which is half baked philosophy, lots of navel gazing, and tremendous hubris.
Slashdot Mirror
Many of the regulations are only contextually relevant. The best example would be comparing very small farms with very large farms. The health and safety requirements for a large farm are needed. However in smaller operations they don't have the same contamination issues and so they're not relevant.
You can also look at small cattle ranches and dairy operations. A small dairy farm for example can generally produce completely safe milk without pasteurization. It became a health issue when they started making much larger operations.
This lack of context is typical of the issue. You look at what is relevant in YOUR area and then you assume and project those assumptions on to everyone else.
That is sometimes fine and often it is not fine.
It has more to do with the richer countries enjoying stronger lobbying positions on the system.
You see this in any large government. The powerful portions of the system subordinate and dominate the less powerful portions.
You can see other examples of this in Australia and California. In Australia farmers are literally committing suicide due to having their water stolen by cities that failed to do proper urban planning or failed to act on urban planning that required them to build water infrustructure.
They ran out of water and so stole it from the farmers... ruining the farms, destroying family businesses, and causing a few of them to literally blow their brains out on the capital steps. Similar things have been going on in california as well.
And you can see the same thing going on in the EU at large and even within the member states. Southern Italy generally suffers from indifferent policy from northern italy. Sicily isn't well served especially by Milan which cares nothing for that island or its people.
In the UK, you can see the same thing going all over it. My favorite example was when they almost gave Gibraltar to the Spanish without even informing the Gibraltars. Imagine your government almost giving away your land to another government without even involving you or any representative of your community in the discussion.
It happens all over the world.
As they say in China, "the mountains are high and the Emperor is far."
There are solutions to the problem but you first have to know it exists. Failing to know whether it exists at all furthermore is basically an admission that given power is not competent to run anything of that scale. It is fundamental.
I could go into more detail but only if desired.
What is that supposed to mean? The rules on dairy products are almost entirely in place to counter issues with factory scale dairy operations. Smaller operations have rarely had a problem.
that said, we need large operations.
I think you missed all the subtly in my comment. I addressed all these things.
They were the primary lobbyists for the legislation so... that's pretty much exactly what happened.
A consentual system of standards would suit both situations.
That is... if you obey these rules you can put this symbol on your package. If you don't then you can't.
Then the consumer decides whether they care or not.
Everyone gets what they want.
Those that want those standards will look for that symbol and only buy products that meet it.
Customers that do not will choose indifferent to whether it is there or not.
And neither big companies nor small companies can complain or gain any advantage.
That is the power of the free market.
It gives everyone what they deserve and dynamically can respond to any situation because it relies on personal human judgement at every juncture.
No mechanized system can compete with it. You're pitting the minds of perhaps a few hundred specialists against BILLIONS of minds of people that will work on the issues not just once but every day and forever.
The problem with these regulations is that they are needlessly restrictive.
I believe the regulations went so far as to suggest that it would be illegal to even put the legally bought oil into a non-legal container... which would be anything besides what it was sold in. So if you wanted to put your oil in a nice looking glass beaker that would be illegal. You'd have to keep it in some sort of bottle that the company sold it in... never mind that that would be comparatively ugly.
I believe they've moderated a lot of these rules. I don't know how many of them still stand. But the point is that these regulations all come from a certain perspective.
In the case of the EU, that would be Brussels. And what makes sense in Brussels is not what is going to make sense in Greece or Denmark.
To regulate a territory of that span you need a more federated policy that grants member states the autonomy to achieve the SPIRIT of the law rather than the letter of the law.
After all, the spirit is actually what matters. The letter is relevant only so far as a court trial where one person or another tries to argue they were obeying when they quite obviously were not.
If you fill out all the paper work, go through the whole procedure and then still find a way to poison people... am I happy? Obviously not... people are poisoned. If you generally ignore the law and yet otherwise act in a completely ethical way where no one is hurt am I happy? Yep. I can't see why I'd have grounds to complain really if no one is getting hurt.
And that's how the EU should be structured. These regulations should be more guiding principles of behavior and conduct rather than very specific regulations that say things must be done in this way and no other.
What is more, such a system would be much more comprehensible since instead of ENDLESS pages of ultra specific regulations you'd have a much more summarized code that simply explains the objective, cautions against some things that have to be dealt with, an admonition that if there are problems that would be embarrassing for whomever is in charge.
This is in effect how a great deal of the EU already works. The member states are permitted to make most of their own laws and manage their own internal affairs. However, member nations are expected to hold to certain moral and ethical codes. You can't go randomly executing people for example and remain in good standing with the EU though I suspect there isn't a specific regulation that says you can't do that. And even if there were, it would be redundant since it wouldn't be tolerated.
Trying to manage so many cultures and languages as if they're all a single city being run by a city council is naive. A certain amount of flexibility must be allowed.
Now here you might say "but why must I permit someone's products into my country if they're not following procedures I feel are sufficient?" Well, do your people agree or is that just "you"? Because if your people agree then those products won't sell. And if they don't agree with you then they will. So... what exactly is
The italian olive oil situation is a good example.
There are olive groves there that have been supplying oil to local villages as well as exporting for time out of mind. And new EU regulations are requiring that the oil go through all sorts of additional regulatory steps as well as package it in specific EU approved bottles.
The people in the area would typically just come by with a jug and fill it up with fresh oil as needed. But that is being made illegal.
The result is that the small growers must sell not directly to customers but to a big business bottling plants that are ultimately going to be the only legal way to sell the oil. Importing and exporting the oil previously was also not a big deal... but again, regulations.
Can I ask what country you are based in? Because the worst effects of this stuff hit the poorer and less developed countries the hardest. The richer and more developed countries if anything benefit from it. The trade controls have consequences for segments of the economy less capable of dealing with the red tape.
What? I've never had that problem. I do shipping all over the country all the time and while I am assuming you're referring to some weird ATF thing... it has never effected me once.
Ironically, things are often easier if I cross lines with something rather than not... sales taxes for example often vanish which is convenient.
I recently bought a laptop that I bounced between three different states and the result was... no sales tax.
Really, suggesting that internal US shipping is more complicated and expensive then internal EU shipping is just absurd. Give me a better example please because I don't think that is a credible argument.
So many european special interests are invested in protectionist strategies that they're not going to let it go away. They are just going to do the same thing by different names.
And if they actually did do it, they'd open europe up to competition not just internationally but even within europe. There are a lot of countries in europe that are not able to export their gods to other countries in europe for basically no reason. And that has been getting worse with the EU... not better.
As to the difference between one product and another... not really.
I don't really care if you're talking about labor or steel or grapefruits.
They all have a local cost that is offset by the export price.
If I am running water through my crops you seem to think that this water is going into my local aquafer. Not really. Most of it evaporates. Its gone. And when I export those grapefruits, the value of them is the sum of all the resources that went into produce them. My capital, my labor, the labor I hire to help me, the water, the fertilizer, the pesticide, advertising, various logistical expenses, insurance, etc. And when all is said and done... I can make a profit at 70 cents a pound.
The labor that went into those grapefruits... Gone. The capital? Sunk into the operation and the opportunity value of it is at least gone. The land... used for that purpose and none other. The water... it ran over my fields, some of it soaked into the ground by no one is going to see that water again until it goes through the water cycle. At which point the person that does see it is as likely to be in Florida if not farther away. That water is going to get blown around, at some point get pushed up into the upper atmosphere, and then condense there into water droplets as the temperature falls... and only then come back to earth. Which could be damn anywhere.
So you want to talk about school? So now you're going to try and brow beat me? Okay.
*takes gloves off and cracks neck*
Throw the science at me. Hit me with your best shot.
Ah but your interpretation of my words is not the same thing as what I said.
You can't do that and then pretend that that was their actual argument. That is strawmanning. Again, by fucking definition.
You're clearly not going to admit that so again... we can't have a rational discussion. You can't use logical fallacies and expect to sustain a rational argument.
We're done because you won't admit the strawman. If you stop doing that, then we can try again. If you don't then logic is impossible.
As to word searches, you're right. I was convinced you brought it up... so my bad.
The point was not to specify any region but to cite that there are regions with more water than they know what to do with and other regions that could really use it.
You don't like the idea of exchanging resources?... Then why should anyone send you food? Shouldn't you grow only your own food?
We share resources all time and we mediate this exchange with money. You want my apples? They're 70 cents a pound.
Simple as that. There's nothing unreasonable about a given region importing a good or service from another region at a mutually agreed upon price.
As to pipelines getting shut down by the EPA, there's no legitimate reason for them to do that in literally every circumstance. There are circumstances where they would be obligated to shut it down. But don't tell me there is no place in the north west where there is insane amounts of fresh water or the north east where there is likewise a lot of water.
That water is there and saying none if it can be touched without damaging the local ecology begs the question of how the people living there access any of that water given that apparently it is impossible for them to drink any of it without damaging the local ecology? Ehm?
As to international bodies of water, what you're saying is that I can build a city of 10 million people on the banks of that lake and drink from it liberally. But I can't pipe the water somewhere else for 10 million other people to drink it? How does that make any sense?
As to general environmental bullshit, I come from california and believe me we have more than our fair share of that shit. My family had some land a few years back that we wanted to zone for development. It used to be farm land but cities have encroached so we wanted to turn it into warehouse space.
Anyway, we got some bullshit from the EPA about Ferry Shrimp. Basically these microscopic creatures that live in water. There were some tire ruts on the property and they were trying to say that the whole parcel of land had to be declared some sort of protected space because ferry shrimp were living in the tire rut. I shit you not.
So I have a very low opinion of the EPA unless I know otherwise because I've personally see them pull some really slimy bullshit.
This sort of behavior is also not helping anyone. If want to be a society that is able to build things including that infrastructure then people need to be reasonable. Don't just cite environmental concerns as a proxy to shut something down. Because it makes people like me not respect that defense. The boy has cried wolf too many times. And that means when a real environmental issue crops up, I won't be there for you to back you up against some evil corporation because I'll have stopped listening because I was lied to, extorted, and bullied by assholes one too many times.
Just what is... choose your battles.
As to desalination being the only thing you're in favor of... its too expensive even with the nukes. An aqueduct would deal with the problem along with restraining expansion so it is inline with existing resources. Desalination is at best a side benefit of nuclear power. But the real point is electricity. You don't really produce Los Angeles amounts of water from such operations.
Running even a few miles of cable doesn't cost more than a couple thousand dollars for the cable itself. If it is a super rural area could could dig a shallow trench next to the road and run the cable yourself for miles. The trench wouldn't need to be more then six inches deep if its a gravel road. You just kick a little gravel over the cable.
If you wanted to go to the extra expense... which would be almost nothing... you could run the cable in a thin PVC pipe. Cost of a couple miles of PVC is again almost nothing. I looked this up not long ago. The prices are hilarious. You'd want to buy it wholesale. You don't want to pay the home depot price if you're running that much.
But again, for several miles of able you're looking at a couple thousand dollars. And the labor costs would also be nothing special since no one needs special training for something like that. You could either do it yourself, have some friends help you, or hire some high school kids to do it for a couple hundred bucks.
I have an uncle that lives in a really rural area. He asked the local ISP to run cable to his house and they said it would cost 300,000 dollars. That was for 2 miles of cable along a dirt road.
My uncle was a contractor before he retired. So he just ran the cable himself. The whole road is private. He got the signed permission of the other five people that use that road and did it himself.
Total cost was a couple thousand bucks.
ISPs are frequently unreasonable when it comes to running cable to just one guy. This is nothing new.
For legal reasons, the ISP didn't connect HIM to the internet, but the person that owned the property he ran the cable to. He paid that property owner... nothing I think because they didn't care. And the internet was connected their place and then linked into his cable which then ultimately went to his home.
The whole topic is an exercise in talking to idiots. Everyone is boxed into their little robotic responses and no one opens their fucking minds to alternatives.
The cable has to get run. It is not expensive. If people need to sign some sort of agreement then you knock on some doors with fresh baked cookies. Its not rocket science.
How far away is the closest ISP switch? I doubt it is more than a few blocks away at most. Which means the cost for cable for HIM is a couple hundred dollars at most. Let the home owner hand the ISP or whomever a spool of cable and say "run that over there."
Here people are going to freak out because it is "different" but if I can get a word in edgewise you reactionary fucks... the reality is that if we had proper conduits under the roads this shouldn't matter.
I'm very happy for things to be organized and operate under some sort of regulatory frame work. But at the same time no system is going to handle everyone. And as a result there needs to be a loophole in the system that lets individuals patch the system as needed. Again, yes you can force them to use the ISP or whomever deals with the poles or street conduits to actually do the actual installation. But if the cable is run from your house to the ISP switch, then the techs can't say they can't do it. They literally can plug it into their system.
And from there nothing more needs to be said about it.
I await your spittle filled hatred. I shall bath in your frothy discontent! :-D
At no point did I say that I didn't understand psychology. You're now just lying in a pathetic attempt to sustain a strawman.
We're done. You're too dishonest and stupid to have discussions with people. I assume this is why you operate under the AC title so that people don't just say "oh that guy" whenever you join a discussion.
What ignorance are you referring to?
You said that I wasn't summerizing my positions and used as evidence a post where I summerized my position.
And then when I point that out you call me ignorant?
You're an idiot. *rolls eyes*
As to flipflopping, you can't make an arrangement like this with someone that is going to pull the rug out from under you later.
You cite Detroit which is not a place I said anything about prior to that comment and while they have water and a need for money... they have a need mostly because they've systematically driven away business. The city is know to be corrupt, crime ridden, facing massive population decline, and is known for unreasonable radical politics.
That doesn't sound like someone I want to do business with... I'd rather do business with someone more rational.
As to the great lakes seeing a drop in level, then I'm certain I don't want to spend billions to pipe that water only to be told by the EPA etc that I can't have it. Fuck that entire idea. The pipes will have to run elsewhere. Or again... nuclear reactors with desalination plants...
OR growth has to be restricted in the west until such time as they find a way to make up the shortfall.
Their current plan of "fucking the farmers" only works so long as the farmers have water. And never mind the fact that they'll have annihilated one of the most productive and profitable farming industries in the US basically just to cover up for the incompetence of the cities.
As to you being happy with things, that does not address the sales statistics that herald the irrelevance of that position.
To "you" anything could be so. My comments were not about what you or any one person finds to be true or untrue.
My point was about an entire industry which is something beyond any individual's opinion.
In regards to sweeping statement I didn't say they were evil. And as to being bad... I said their business model has to be updated. Surely you must admit that they must change.
YOU might be happy with something but you will not live forever and if they are unable to associate with younger generations they die with you.
What is more, while you like your remasters, I suspect you don't buy as much music as someone that is building their music collection from scratch. You are contented with your memories and your existing collection far too much for them to be comfortable with you as a revenue source.
What is more, even amongst your generation you are unusual. You are a subset of a subset of a subset... and you're an expiring one. No offense. It comes for us all.
Please do not react emotionally to my argument. I am not an especially emotional person. My statements are logical/rational. I am making a rational argument. I am not attempting to attack your love or any other emotional nonsense. I have no interest in wounding your ego or undermining your belief systems.
My interest is in understanding my universe and accurately describing it.
Your incompetence is obvious. I frankly pity your ignorance and lack of character.
I wish you enlightenment and peace.
Having a group of well meaning people that talk to people about things is fine.
I have no problem with "life coaches" which are just unlicensed psychologists that can't really presume to speak with scientific authority.
My issue with psychologists is that they're not really any better than the life coaches. They can't speak with scientific authority because their field of practice is not a science.
As to buying and taking being the same thing. It is only the same thing in that something is removed... but for what it is worth something would be provided for you its place. Detroit is said to need money. Its water if economically positioned and plentiful would be a source of revenue.
However, we are getting ahead of ourselves. In all likelihood your water is not well placed and we wouldn't want it in the first place. What is more the militant politics of the region make it a poor partner for any long term relationship.
Connecting to the great lakes in general would be an interesting proposition. If we drained the lakes at the same rate they filled, then you shouldn't notice the difference. Some tributaries of the lakes might ebb but that would be the extent of it.
But again... if the politics are not stable then it would be unwise for people so far away to rely upon your region for the water they need to live. You could say yes today and then tomorrow extort a higher price when we are dependent on your water.
A poor partner.
It is further sad that so many are mindlessly turning against nuclear power. It is a reasonable solution to the problem in that one could get huge sums of carbon free electricity along with an inexpensive desalination plant all in one. Oh well. Hopefully in the generations to come that ignorance passes.
Not at all, I summarized my position quite succinctly. I made it clear in the very post you are citing why I hold the position I do and made that argument in a rational and falsifiable fashion.
That you have not realized that the post you are citing actually argues against your position and validates my own... well, it can only undermine your own credibility.
Why you failed to understand what was going on is likely due to some kind of incompetence. It is so poorly done that I couldn't call it malice or a lack of integrity. Were you a competent liar for example, you'd have chosen a better example and a better argument. You didn't though... so I must conclude that you're either not engaging enough of your mind to have a rational point or there isn't enough of a mind at your command to make one.
Either way... you debase yourself by making such arguments and you waste the time of your superiors.
You don't get to define my argument. That is a strawman by definition. You can argue against my position but you can't define it for me.
This is a two way street. I can't define your argument either.
Unless you grasp this simple concept, it is not possible to have a rational discussion with you.
Grasp it or you forfeit any right to even presume to discuss this with me.
... To the private space contractors. SOMEONE should get some use out of them. If NASA doesn't want to use those facilities, I'll bet Boeing and SpaceX etc can find a use for them.
They're always in need of large construction hangers near launch pads.
No one is saying anything about taking. The water would be bought.
We'd run an aqueduct from parts of the country with so much water they wouldn't even miss it to other parts that are literally desiccating the aquifers to such an extent that the land is heaving inward due to the collapse of pressure.
That is whole regions of some parts of the country are literally deflating like shriveling melons... the land is heaving inward because the well heads are sucking all the water out of the soil and it is causing the ground to settle.
That is a dryness that people in Michigan will never suffer. Everyone could drop a well in their backyards in Michigan and you wouldn't drain the soil. Not so in the American South West. The water is being exhausted because idiots have zoned too much land for development without building complimentary infrastructure.
It isn't just water.
It is power, roads, schools, hospitals, etc. The idiots are zoning growth like crazy and investing nothing in infrastructure.
And so we get brown outs, water shortages, traffic jams, failed schools, and over worked hospitals.
Pretty much everything they could have fucked up was fucked up.
The old city fathers of Los Angeles were not this foolish. They thought long term and made sure to get the resources the city needed to sustain growth. This activity was at times ruthless. Look up the Owen's valley situation if you want to see what LA was capable of back then. Also, look at the Hoover dam. Bought and paid for by the City of Los Angeles in return for a large share of the water in perpetuity.
That is how the city fathers of LA made the desert bloom. They knew they needed water and they invested big money in making it happen. They pumped rivers right through LA. Some of the most impressive water projects in US history.
And since their time there has been little interest in maintaining those stockpiles. And as a result... only one year of water is left. If the weather does not dump rain on the Los Angeles water system, the city is going to have to ration water. It is too late for them to do anything at this point. Whether rationing happens is down to chance.
I didn't say it was bullshit because I didn't understand it.
I said it was bullshit because it was not backed up with empirical evidence.
You want to learn something about anatomy? Vivisect the creature. Take it apart and study the muscle, the fat, the nerves, the veins... dissect the organs and put them under a microscope. Then conduct tests to understand what all the little bits do and what they don't do. Notice how they're all linked together. Study the various diseases and injuries and associate cause with effect.
This is the basis of medical knowledge and it is why medicine is not bullshit.
Prior to doing this sort of thing we had nonsense like the Four Humors... this notion that all human health was determined by the ratios and amount of 4 types of fluid in the body. And if these fluids were out of balance or the wrong fluid was in the wrong place, then that would result in poor health or death.
That is of course bullshit.
Psychology is currently in roughly the same place as the ancient doctors that were frankly fucking horrible at their jobs and didn't really understand what the fuck they were doing.
Psychologists don't know what the fuck they're doing. As much is obvious either by reading a psychology text book or seeing a trained psychologist.
They're often intelligent and well meaning people but most of their actual skill is due to skills learned outside of psychology. Little things like empathy and common sense tend to serve them better.
Which is sort like the ancient doctors being better served most of the time by using old remedies or just trying to stitch people back together and hoping for the best.
That's not science.
And neither is psychology.
Psychology can't be a science until it delves into the mysteries of the mind, posits falsifiable hypothesis and then tests them empirically.
No, they're not going to do it and because of that they're useless.
To the contrary, the neurologists are ultimately going to do their jobs for them. The neurologists are studying the brain directly and conducting ACTUAL science on it. It will take them awhile to associate their findings with the more practical problems of psychology... but when they do, it will be actual science... unlike what modern psychologists practice which is half baked philosophy, lots of navel gazing, and tremendous hubris.