Not at all, there are lots of small construction companies around town that have the skills and equipment to fill in a pot hole. Flag potholes on a map on a website and then offer licensed and bonded contractors the ability to do the job for a standard rate.
Those same licensed and bonded contractors will then arrive on site to fix the potholes and when they collect their fee from the city they will be on record as the company responsible for that fix.
Should a given company be shown to have poor quality or use substandard materials then they would be fined for the incident... since they're insured collecting the money should be no problem.
There is nothing cookoo about it beyond the fact that people like yourself are so narrow minded that it will never seriously be considered. That however is not my fault. That is a limitation of the culture and times in which I live. I hope future generations can enjoy a more mentally flexible society.
You've convinced me... we should ban all cars, trucks, and replace all roads with trains...
I'll be over here laughing as you starve to death.
The cars are required. They're not debatable. You don't have cars and trucks and modern transport simply doesn't work.
Mass transit is itself only needed in very dense areas where cars become impractical due to simply packing too many people into too tight a space... and then subsidizing the error by providing free housing, free food, free medical care, etc to make an otherwise inefficient system affordable on a personal level.
Don't get me wrong. There are pros to packing people in that tightly and they did at one point outweigh the cons. However, I dont' think you can make that argument any longer. I can be anywhere in the world in a day or telecommute anywhere in about 5 seconds. Why do we need to pack people in that tightly when we have that capability? What pros outweigh these cons?
you can't claim its money... the cities are more expensive... so what is the reason?
Even the people that use a lot of mass transit also use taxi cabs. This is especially true in towns where people don't own cars. They literally hire people to drive them around when the mass transit fails to deliver.
Precisely what is the difference between a taxi cab driving me around and me just driving myself around?
Want to claim the taxi is more environmentally friendly? It isn't.
Mass transit only works when people live and work in very predictable concentrations. As we move away from the factory model where thousands of people live in area 1A and commute to factory 2B the whole model of transport becomes less efficient because people are coming from more diverse locations and going to more diverse locations.
The cost of transport is rarely calculated on a personal level but is instead calculated at the train or bus. This ignores that a price is paid before you get to the bus and AFTER you leave it because the bus did not pick you up at your front door or drop you off at your destination.
One must walk often for blocks to make up the difference in very dense cities and in less dense cities you might have to walk miles.
Furthermore, its less useful because you can't carry cargo... I gave the example of going to a family party and bringing food. Try to do that on a bus. It doesn't work. You might be able to bring a little but I filled my trunk with stuff.
Cars are great. Mass transit only makes sense when the logistics of a given area become so impractical that even bad ideas start to become viable so long as they work at all.
Depends on what you mean by trust... if you mean you think you should encrypt sensitive information and observe security precautions when dealing with money, personal information, etc... then that's just prudent.
However, there are some that don't trust the internet as a medium in and of itself. And I would argue that that is a problem.
Obviously. I'm just saying that each of those things probably shouldn't be done by the same person.
Break up the responsibilities such that each is carried out by someone that is only judged by the quality of that task.
So the person that collects data will only be judged by the quality and amount of their data.
The person analyzing the data should only be judged on their analysis of the data.
The person that stores, sorts, and retrieves data should only be judged on that task.
Break it up at least into three groups.
That way the data collectors are not biased by the thesis of the analysts and the archivists are not biased by the needs of the analysts.
In both cases the corruption seems to spring from the analysts so they should have as little control over the information as possible. They should be able to request information be collected and to retrieve that information from stores at will.
however, they should not be able to bias the information collectors with their thesis or cause the information archivists to hide, destroy, or otherwise obscure information.
We've seen this lately with some frequency.
Favorable data is invented rather then recorded and unfavorable data is destroyed or lost.
It should not be possible for the analysts to create favorable data and it should not be possible for them to destroy unfavorable data.
Its a partisan news source... from wikipedia: ""Democracy Now! is a United States daily progressive, nonprofit, independently syndicated program of news, analysis, and opinion,[2] aired by more than 1000 radio, television, satellite and cable TV networks in North America.[3""
Progressive... its a political affiliation. That makes it more political then FOX which at least claims to be non-partisan. Democracy Now doesn't even try to make that claim.
As to the rest of your babbling insults... you've been unable to back any of that up and until you do you're just making animal noises.
You're just beating your chest, hooting, and trying to throw your own poop at me... and from this I am to respect you? You're a degenerate.
Either back up your position or your statements are null.
Those who collect data should not be the same as those that analyze it. And neither of those groups should store the data.
Data should be collected by professional data collectors that don't care about the meaning of their data and have nothing to prove by collecting it. They should merely be judged on the quality and quantity of their data. Nothing else.
That data should be submitted to an archiving department... call them librarians or archivists or whatever.
Then analysts can pull from that data and base their studies on it.
In the case that an analyst does not have the information he needs in the archive, he submits a request for the data to the archive which then posts the data request publicly as a job order to collect that data.
The data collectors get the information, submit it to the archive, and EVERYONE can see the data.
Doubtless someone has a problem with this... I don't claim to have a perfect system here. I just think too often the sources for things and the information is not readily available.
If they must cite information in the archive then they can't make it up without outright lying about what they saw in the archive.
And even then we could establish some automatic data cross referencing protocols that allow us to instantly link and cross reference claims with their data sources and instantly highlight any discrepancies. This requires that the "papers" be coded to facilitate this process but that just requires a program to stamp the correct code in the correct syntax into the document. The researchers don't need to know how to do that. They just need to run the program, key in the source of the data in the field, and then the linking code should be automatically generated.
Make as a part of every submission a computer check of the files. Anything cited that doesn't exist in the archive gets flagged... and thing cited from the archive that doesn't match the archive gets flagged.
The actual validity of the claims cannot be checked by computer. But we should be able to ensure data integrity.
Riiiiight, and the endless parade of people pushing either side of this issue represent people that only read scientific journals... obviously the mass media, politics, and various other issues have nothing to do with the international global warming push.
*yawn* Its the double standards I find so interesting.
Only scientific journals are acceptable sources of information? You do realize that almost no one with an opinion on AGW actually reads those. I question whether you've read anything beyond an abstract.
I'm from California, and we've been building wind power facilities since the 70s.
Most of them are abandoned and rust in the sun... our deserts are littered with them.
Failed project after failed project after failed project.
Every time they tell us about how great it will be and how it will be self sustaining. All they need is a little start up money.
So we give them the start up money and tax credits and tax breaks and all sorts of other subsidies.
And everything is fine for 5 years. After about 5 years our subsidies go away. Because they said they would be self sufficient by then.
Well... they've never been self sufficient. Every time... 5 years rolls on... and then the subsidies run out... and then they declare bankrupcy....
There is so little money left over when all is said and done that they can't even afford to demolish the defunct wind turbines. And so another field of wreckage is added to our deserts...
So here I am on slashdot and some wind study is saying "oh we'll break even in 8 months"...
I just typed abandoned wind farm into google... I didn't bother reading any of the links because I live here and I've seen this happen with my own eyes over and over again.
Here is my answer to the whole thing... if its such a great thing and will pay itself back so fast... then you don't need government money.
A coal power plant won't pay off its construction debt in 8 months. It will at least take four or five years and in some cases those things take 10 to 20 years to pay off.
So the wind guys are saying they can break even in 8 months? Then they have a power plant with a faster turn around time then anything else on the market... ever.
Sure... and too bad you couldn't have been around to tell everyone about how global cooling was the next big thing in the 70s... the blade cuts both ways. A bit of humility would be wise.
Especially since my point was that the farmers are do have the most comprehensive and accurate climate statistics and models that go back over literally thousands of years of use.
The accuracy or validity of the methods are debatable in some cases but a lot of our science as regards astronomy and climate science was gifted to us by farmers studying the skies to predict weather patterns so they could know when to plant and when to harvest.
Those are simply facts. And it should be no surprise to anyone that isn't a complete asshat that that deep history and experience has value in a science like climate science.
Just what is... now don't let me be disturb you in your attempt to dismiss arguments with straw men and other assorted logical fallacies while presuming unproven superiority... please... show me how above the internet you are by in every way resembling the stereotypical internet troll.
The saddest thing is that you're so unaware and thoughtless that you've not realized the irony of your stupid post in the first place.
Kindly unplug your internet... you have nothing to contribute.
oh yeah? Enlighten me as to how I would do that because every time I've looked at it, I have been unable to find the setting.
Some other person linked me to settings but I can't for the life of me find out how to get to that window on my own. Do you have to/save a list of URLs to modify your account or am I missing some links or buttons around here?
farmers the world over have been amongst the most skeptical of the whole thing because they have weather and climate records that go back hundreds of years.
People seem to forget that farmers were the first climatologists. And to this day, the most accurate predictions about the weather and climate changes actually come from the agro sector.
Silly publications like the Old Farmer's Almanac consistently out predict the pHDs and super computers of climate academia.
Now, does that mean global warming isn't real? No... but it does mean that farmers especially feel they understand the climate at least as well as anyone else... and they're therefore less inclined to accept the opinion of experts without more information. And that information has to be in line with their existing information... which as cited... remains at least as accurate in its ability to predict the future as anyone else... if not a great deal more accurate.
Most DLC is in the game already... its just hidden... right or wrong you can unlock it really easily either by modifying some of the files yourself or downloading a hack.
And then you have all sorts of game mods that change the game works indifferent to content. Maybe you don't like a boss at the end of the game... you freeze his AI so he just stands there if you want... or whatever.
These things would be great adhoc lie detectors... or stress monitors or void comp machines or whatever.
If you're measuring everything then you can probably use it for more then health statistics. And if they're wireless... that means you might be able to hack them... or listen in on them or something... which means if people run around wearing these things you might be able to get a feed into your google glass or whatever to stare at their vitals while you ask if they've been screwing the maid.
Look, I don't mind getting significant updates on the apple world. But getting told that apple is dumping its current camera app for a similar camera app is not something I care about. Just me... I'm sure someone else does care. But I'd like to filter out these sort of minor updates about an operating system I don't care a great deal about.
Still irrelevant since we haven't really fought any wars to do that.
Are you one of those people that thinks the only reason we care about the middle east is the oil?
We care about that area mostly because they stand in the middle of asia and are frequently batshit insane.
People often point out that we ignore wars etc in Africa... we can afford to do that because Africa isn't in the middle and as crazy as they might get, they rarely involve the rest of the planet in their nonsense.
Seriously... I don't know where to go with this because I'm pretty sure you're going to try and make some sort of argument to claim a significant amount of the conflict we've had in the last 50 years is about oil when it wasn't. It has more to do with unstable post colonial powers falling apart after the military dictatorships lose their funding from various foreign patrons.
Regardless, a central point that you're really not dealing with is this... you can't get rid of the cars.
What is the alternative? Horses? You think you can have trains going everywhere? Or do you think we can do electric cars?
And regardless, the US has been able all along to self produce all the oil it needs. So if you're really so upset about international oil market mattering to US geo politics, then kindly make a point of not interfering with domestic exploitation of oil resources. I rather suspect you're not a fan of that industry and that's unfortunate because interfering with it disrupts supply which forces people to buy the oil where ever it can be found... including unsavory places with bad people.
The oil will flow.
And really, if you're going to start blaming the automobile for every bad thing that's happened in the 20th and early 21st century, then you're going to have to give it credit for the good things as well... at which point you'll be in the uncomfortable position of thanking the automobile for making the world a better place.
Slashdot Mirror
Not at all, there are lots of small construction companies around town that have the skills and equipment to fill in a pot hole. Flag potholes on a map on a website and then offer licensed and bonded contractors the ability to do the job for a standard rate.
Those same licensed and bonded contractors will then arrive on site to fix the potholes and when they collect their fee from the city they will be on record as the company responsible for that fix.
Should a given company be shown to have poor quality or use substandard materials then they would be fined for the incident... since they're insured collecting the money should be no problem.
There is nothing cookoo about it beyond the fact that people like yourself are so narrow minded that it will never seriously be considered. That however is not my fault. That is a limitation of the culture and times in which I live. I hope future generations can enjoy a more mentally flexible society.
You've convinced me... we should ban all cars, trucks, and replace all roads with trains...
I'll be over here laughing as you starve to death.
The cars are required. They're not debatable. You don't have cars and trucks and modern transport simply doesn't work.
Mass transit is itself only needed in very dense areas where cars become impractical due to simply packing too many people into too tight a space... and then subsidizing the error by providing free housing, free food, free medical care, etc to make an otherwise inefficient system affordable on a personal level.
Don't get me wrong. There are pros to packing people in that tightly and they did at one point outweigh the cons. However, I dont' think you can make that argument any longer. I can be anywhere in the world in a day or telecommute anywhere in about 5 seconds. Why do we need to pack people in that tightly when we have that capability? What pros outweigh these cons?
you can't claim its money... the cities are more expensive... so what is the reason?
Wrong. If we got rid of our cars you'd be fucked.
Even the people that use a lot of mass transit also use taxi cabs. This is especially true in towns where people don't own cars. They literally hire people to drive them around when the mass transit fails to deliver.
Precisely what is the difference between a taxi cab driving me around and me just driving myself around?
Want to claim the taxi is more environmentally friendly? It isn't.
Mass transit only works when people live and work in very predictable concentrations. As we move away from the factory model where thousands of people live in area 1A and commute to factory 2B the whole model of transport becomes less efficient because people are coming from more diverse locations and going to more diverse locations.
The cost of transport is rarely calculated on a personal level but is instead calculated at the train or bus. This ignores that a price is paid before you get to the bus and AFTER you leave it because the bus did not pick you up at your front door or drop you off at your destination.
One must walk often for blocks to make up the difference in very dense cities and in less dense cities you might have to walk miles.
Furthermore, its less useful because you can't carry cargo... I gave the example of going to a family party and bringing food. Try to do that on a bus. It doesn't work. You might be able to bring a little but I filled my trunk with stuff.
Cars are great. Mass transit only makes sense when the logistics of a given area become so impractical that even bad ideas start to become viable so long as they work at all.
I love how people that want other people's money seem to think they can call people selfish for protesting the action.
Why aren't YOU selfish for taking my money? Why am I selfish for wanting to keep it?
You have a logical problem here... what is your definition of selfish? How do you determine if one person or the other is selfish?
they 3d printed bits of it and then assembled them...
which is probably fine just a distinction.
failing to embrace new technologies tends to mean businesses suffer... I've seen it first hand enough times... its a mistake.
Depends on what you mean by trust... if you mean you think you should encrypt sensitive information and observe security precautions when dealing with money, personal information, etc... then that's just prudent.
However, there are some that don't trust the internet as a medium in and of itself. And I would argue that that is a problem.
Watching you sputter is amusing... the claim that a clearly partisan source isn't partisan is further amusing.
What is it like to be so deluded?
Obviously. I'm just saying that each of those things probably shouldn't be done by the same person.
Break up the responsibilities such that each is carried out by someone that is only judged by the quality of that task.
So the person that collects data will only be judged by the quality and amount of their data.
The person analyzing the data should only be judged on their analysis of the data.
The person that stores, sorts, and retrieves data should only be judged on that task.
Break it up at least into three groups.
That way the data collectors are not biased by the thesis of the analysts and the archivists are not biased by the needs of the analysts.
In both cases the corruption seems to spring from the analysts so they should have as little control over the information as possible. They should be able to request information be collected and to retrieve that information from stores at will.
however, they should not be able to bias the information collectors with their thesis or cause the information archivists to hide, destroy, or otherwise obscure information.
We've seen this lately with some frequency.
Favorable data is invented rather then recorded and unfavorable data is destroyed or lost.
It should not be possible for the analysts to create favorable data and it should not be possible for them to destroy unfavorable data.
They shouldn't control the information at all.
Its a partisan news source... from wikipedia:
""Democracy Now! is a United States daily progressive, nonprofit, independently syndicated program of news, analysis, and opinion,[2] aired by more than 1000 radio, television, satellite and cable TV networks in North America.[3""
Progressive... its a political affiliation. That makes it more political then FOX which at least claims to be non-partisan. Democracy Now doesn't even try to make that claim.
As to the rest of your babbling insults... you've been unable to back any of that up and until you do you're just making animal noises.
You're just beating your chest, hooting, and trying to throw your own poop at me... and from this I am to respect you? You're a degenerate.
Either back up your position or your statements are null.
What we need is an academic separation of powers.
Those who collect data should not be the same as those that analyze it. And neither of those groups should store the data.
Data should be collected by professional data collectors that don't care about the meaning of their data and have nothing to prove by collecting it. They should merely be judged on the quality and quantity of their data. Nothing else.
That data should be submitted to an archiving department... call them librarians or archivists or whatever.
Then analysts can pull from that data and base their studies on it.
In the case that an analyst does not have the information he needs in the archive, he submits a request for the data to the archive which then posts the data request publicly as a job order to collect that data.
The data collectors get the information, submit it to the archive, and EVERYONE can see the data.
Doubtless someone has a problem with this... I don't claim to have a perfect system here. I just think too often the sources for things and the information is not readily available.
If they must cite information in the archive then they can't make it up without outright lying about what they saw in the archive.
And even then we could establish some automatic data cross referencing protocols that allow us to instantly link and cross reference claims with their data sources and instantly highlight any discrepancies. This requires that the "papers" be coded to facilitate this process but that just requires a program to stamp the correct code in the correct syntax into the document. The researchers don't need to know how to do that. They just need to run the program, key in the source of the data in the field, and then the linking code should be automatically generated.
Make as a part of every submission a computer check of the files. Anything cited that doesn't exist in the archive gets flagged... and thing cited from the archive that doesn't match the archive gets flagged.
The actual validity of the claims cannot be checked by computer. But we should be able to ensure data integrity.
baseless insults are baseless.
And its amusing that you've got radical political links on every post you make yet claim other people are brainwashed.
*yawn*... so many damaged people.
MS will probably do something stupid... windows 11 though will be decent.
Don't touch 12 though... 13 will ironically be great though.
And so on... why are they so stupid! At the very least, after coming out with a popular OS try to learn from that and build on that success.
Riiiiight, and the endless parade of people pushing either side of this issue represent people that only read scientific journals... obviously the mass media, politics, and various other issues have nothing to do with the international global warming push.
*yawn* Its the double standards I find so interesting.
Only scientific journals are acceptable sources of information? You do realize that almost no one with an opinion on AGW actually reads those. I question whether you've read anything beyond an abstract.
Call me a liar... what AGW paper did you read?
*gets popcorn*
I'm from California, and we've been building wind power facilities since the 70s.
Most of them are abandoned and rust in the sun... our deserts are littered with them.
Failed project after failed project after failed project.
Every time they tell us about how great it will be and how it will be self sustaining. All they need is a little start up money.
So we give them the start up money and tax credits and tax breaks and all sorts of other subsidies.
And everything is fine for 5 years. After about 5 years our subsidies go away. Because they said they would be self sufficient by then.
Well... they've never been self sufficient. Every time... 5 years rolls on... and then the subsidies run out... and then they declare bankrupcy....
There is so little money left over when all is said and done that they can't even afford to demolish the defunct wind turbines. And so another field of wreckage is added to our deserts...
So here I am on slashdot and some wind study is saying "oh we'll break even in 8 months"...
Yeah sure...
Since many of you probably are totally clueless about this... here are some links:
http://toryaardvark.com/2011/1...
http://epaabuse.com/3124/edito...
http://www.naturalnews.com/034...
I just typed abandoned wind farm into google... I didn't bother reading any of the links because I live here and I've seen this happen with my own eyes over and over again.
Here is my answer to the whole thing... if its such a great thing and will pay itself back so fast... then you don't need government money.
A coal power plant won't pay off its construction debt in 8 months. It will at least take four or five years and in some cases those things take 10 to 20 years to pay off.
So the wind guys are saying they can break even in 8 months? Then they have a power plant with a faster turn around time then anything else on the market... ever.
Color me skeptical.
I can get to it through options but as you said that bugs out and I can't actually do anything in there. Nothing to click on or enter.
Under account I don't see anything about exclusions.
Sure... and too bad you couldn't have been around to tell everyone about how global cooling was the next big thing in the 70s... the blade cuts both ways. A bit of humility would be wise.
Especially since my point was that the farmers are do have the most comprehensive and accurate climate statistics and models that go back over literally thousands of years of use.
The accuracy or validity of the methods are debatable in some cases but a lot of our science as regards astronomy and climate science was gifted to us by farmers studying the skies to predict weather patterns so they could know when to plant and when to harvest.
Those are simply facts. And it should be no surprise to anyone that isn't a complete asshat that that deep history and experience has value in a science like climate science.
Just what is... now don't let me be disturb you in your attempt to dismiss arguments with straw men and other assorted logical fallacies while presuming unproven superiority... please... show me how above the internet you are by in every way resembling the stereotypical internet troll.
The saddest thing is that you're so unaware and thoughtless that you've not realized the irony of your stupid post in the first place.
Kindly unplug your internet... you have nothing to contribute.
That's mean... :(
Your link helped but how do I get there without using that link? How do you navigate to that position without using the link to jump to that spot?
As to foeing me... you don't know me and likely never will... and I don't know you and likely never will... so that really accomplishes nothing.
oh yeah? Enlighten me as to how I would do that because every time I've looked at it, I have been unable to find the setting.
Some other person linked me to settings but I can't for the life of me find out how to get to that window on my own. Do you have to /save a list of URLs to modify your account or am I missing some links or buttons around here?
farmers the world over have been amongst the most skeptical of the whole thing because they have weather and climate records that go back hundreds of years.
People seem to forget that farmers were the first climatologists. And to this day, the most accurate predictions about the weather and climate changes actually come from the agro sector.
Silly publications like the Old Farmer's Almanac consistently out predict the pHDs and super computers of climate academia.
example:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-...
Now, does that mean global warming isn't real? No... but it does mean that farmers especially feel they understand the climate at least as well as anyone else... and they're therefore less inclined to accept the opinion of experts without more information. And that information has to be in line with their existing information... which as cited... remains at least as accurate in its ability to predict the future as anyone else... if not a great deal more accurate.
Most DLC is in the game already... its just hidden... right or wrong you can unlock it really easily either by modifying some of the files yourself or downloading a hack.
And then you have all sorts of game mods that change the game works indifferent to content. Maybe you don't like a boss at the end of the game... you freeze his AI so he just stands there if you want... or whatever.
That is the new cheat code.
Not DLC.
thanks... how do I get to that page... besides your link of course. I can't seem to find it otherwise.
These things would be great adhoc lie detectors... or stress monitors or void comp machines or whatever.
If you're measuring everything then you can probably use it for more then health statistics. And if they're wireless... that means you might be able to hack them... or listen in on them or something... which means if people run around wearing these things you might be able to get a feed into your google glass or whatever to stare at their vitals while you ask if they've been screwing the maid.
Look, I don't mind getting significant updates on the apple world. But getting told that apple is dumping its current camera app for a similar camera app is not something I care about. Just me... I'm sure someone else does care. But I'd like to filter out these sort of minor updates about an operating system I don't care a great deal about.
Still irrelevant since we haven't really fought any wars to do that.
Are you one of those people that thinks the only reason we care about the middle east is the oil?
We care about that area mostly because they stand in the middle of asia and are frequently batshit insane.
People often point out that we ignore wars etc in Africa... we can afford to do that because Africa isn't in the middle and as crazy as they might get, they rarely involve the rest of the planet in their nonsense.
Seriously... I don't know where to go with this because I'm pretty sure you're going to try and make some sort of argument to claim a significant amount of the conflict we've had in the last 50 years is about oil when it wasn't. It has more to do with unstable post colonial powers falling apart after the military dictatorships lose their funding from various foreign patrons.
Regardless, a central point that you're really not dealing with is this... you can't get rid of the cars.
What is the alternative? Horses? You think you can have trains going everywhere? Or do you think we can do electric cars?
And regardless, the US has been able all along to self produce all the oil it needs. So if you're really so upset about international oil market mattering to US geo politics, then kindly make a point of not interfering with domestic exploitation of oil resources. I rather suspect you're not a fan of that industry and that's unfortunate because interfering with it disrupts supply which forces people to buy the oil where ever it can be found... including unsavory places with bad people.
The oil will flow.
And really, if you're going to start blaming the automobile for every bad thing that's happened in the 20th and early 21st century, then you're going to have to give it credit for the good things as well... at which point you'll be in the uncomfortable position of thanking the automobile for making the world a better place.