I'm sure outside forces installing things are disruptive. But then are they the primary forces doing installations in general? And if that's the case, then it would be more appropriate to call them simply installation related issues... and that's both common and to be expected.
Install anything new and teething issues tend to crop up.
When they submit legislation they should stand on hot coals... or be doing something else extremely unpleasant simply so they don't waste our time with stupid laws.
We already have too many laws. The problem with the united states is not a lack of laws. Politicians are apparently bored and need something to occupy their time.
Possibly wild bears could be randomly released into the capital building? That would thin out the really old ones that probably should have retired 20 years ago and the stupid ones probably won't last very long either.
In addition we can have lots of non-lethal pranks just to keep them on their toes. Possibly set up some trip wires... just to trip them. And then we can hire some ninjas to randomly switch their office furniture. Ideally the internal layout of the building should be completely changed at least once a year though probably not all at once. All maps of the structure should become obsolete at least once a month.
And while we're at completely remove the climate control system so it's hot in the summer and freezing in the winter.
All told congress should only convene and issue legislation when ACTUALLY required as opposed to "nothings on tv tonight so I'm passing a bill on rear view cameras for cars".
And be honest, if politicians had to operate in this environment you'd respect them a whole lot more then you do now. And think of all the complete wastes of oxygen that simply wouldn't make it through the first year.
Too bad it will never happen. it would be beautiful.
A lot of people don't have respect for old rules. They think the world is new and they don't apply... failing to grasp that the old rules are the ones that have survived repeated challenges. They're the old gladiators still walking around after 100,000 battles in the arena. Could they be wrong now?... Sure... who wants to get into the arena and be the 100,001 test case that changes everything?
Exactly... the old rules tend to be ones that not only are valid today but will be valid in 10,000 years. They're elemental.
Just sign away all right to use any product of the mining industries and you can start your new new stone age lifestyle.
if you understand that the safety issues are not practical then you have to make a choice.
Do you want to live in the stone age or our post industrial society?
If it makes you feel any better, we're starting to replace miners with robots. We send the machine down on a teather. A control and power cable follows the machine down. A mining expert runs a bank of computers not unlike a video game sometimes hundreds of miles from the mine itself.
In this way mining conditions will be very healthy because human beings will be no where near the machines actually doing the mining. minerals will be placed in an elevator and brought to the surface for processing.
Horrible cave in?... you lose a few million dollars worth of machinery... bad... but no media circus or lawsuit.
The mining industry is doing this on its own. Give it time. These new control systems are only being tested right now and the machines are expensive. They need to capitalize the purchase and no one likes being an early adopter.
That's why software piracy is so easy... the pirate has the software... and while the agency or company might "trust" some third party there's nothing like having it on site.
I know exactly how this went down... the idea was pitched to the agencies and companies... company IT said "kiss security good bye"... and all the companies and agencies got cold feet.
Block the portions of the internet you don't like. Forbid them access to your country.
really... you might as well just disable internet altogether.
Happy now? People have a right to express themselves. If people want to show horrible images of your beach and give it poor reviews that is their right. You don't counter that by suing them. You counter it by flooding the search engine with a different set of links. Talk to an SEO company and just pay them. Or hand out a set of instructions and have everyone in the town click on different links or submit different information. I should think even a small town should be able to collectively force an algorithm to show different content.
How many school children wear masks as part of their school day, signed up for the job, and have made a career out of it?
How many artists inhale fumes from paint?
I'll tell you what, if the mining union wants to complain about it... then we can take it seriously. And then the question will be if the mine can operate under the new rules. Some of the mines will close and everyone that worked there will be out of work.
So... Mission accomplished? Happy now?
We need options that don't shut the mine down and put people out of work. Haven't enough people lost their jobs already because of this sort of thing?
Do you want to live in a cancer free cave with a cancer free hand made fur loin cloth?... Or do you want to accept that there are some dangers in living in the modern world.
The first thing the man that discovered fire said was "ouch"... You apparently found that an unacceptable danger and refused to use fire.
There is such a thing as acceptable risk. If you try to bring the risk to zero you render the whole system dysfunctional.
The hacking concern is real but we've had abort codes built into our cruise missiles for years and no enemy has ever triggered one to defend themselves. Obviously they'll try to get control of these platforms but that just means we have to take computer security seriously.
Drones are the future. We are doing this. It's just a question of how best to do it.
The virtue of a pilot optional program is that it makes everyone happy.
The airforce can't argue that pilots will do a better job because you can put a pilot in the seat if you want. And the various people pushing the drone programs can't complain much because the system doesn't need a pilot. Everyone gets what they wanted.
As to nuclear bombs on planes... we're unlikely to ever load nuclear bombs on a strategic bomber again. It just doesn't make sense. Any target so hairy that we'd want to nuke it is likely a better target for ICBMs. Of course, like the cruise missiles they've abort codes on them and can even be re-targeted a bit en-route. So... kind of a moot point.
The only real danger I see is that you're unlikely to recover a crashed ICBM intact. But recovering a crashed AI bomber is possible. So the enemy might get a full working model of the plane's control system. That could make hacking it easier since they'd know what they were dealing with...
As to the industry's claims... you seem to dismiss them without questioning whether they're right?
Shouldn't you at least hear them out and see what they're trying to say rather then just dismissing it out of hand? Because if that's where you are how can you blame your opposition for doing the same thing to you in return?
We can both stick our fingers in our ears and ignore each other. If you wish to be listened to then you should listen in return.
Industries survive on the bottom line. If they're not in the black they're dying. They're a man having a heart attack. So not taking the bottom line seriously shows an indifference to their situation. If your policies push them below the line... they die.
The argument they might be making is that they're close to the line already and they worry that any pervasive change in how they do business will push them over it.
How about this for a compromise... Have the mining company hand out material to the miners and other people exposed. Something that makes the risks clear. And then have the miners choose if they want to work under those conditions?
My guess is that the easiest way to fix this problem is to just give the miners simplified gas masks. Many miners have been wearing gas masks for generations. Especially coal miners and salt miners.
In any case, if your plan effectively shuts down all mining in the US it's a bad plan.
And if you push a bad plan... I'll have to ask in the sweetest voice possible... why you want to give cancer to school children? It's just politics. But if that's how the issue is deflected then so be it. We need mining. The miners know the health risks. We cannot afford anything that makes our industry any less competitive.
They're mostly old diesel buses that have been running continuously since the 1960s.
So if the environmentalists want to make this argument then clearly the municipalities would be liable. Of course, buses that use natural gas would be able to avoid this issue but most buses haven't switched.
I'm tired of every industry in america getting shut down for bogus reasons.
What we need from science is CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. If there's a problem, please offer a solution.
Look, for your comment to ANY sense, the amount of money/wealth would have to be static in time. So there would have to be as much of it 50,000 years ago as today.
Does that make sense? No it doesn't.
So money can clearly be created and value can clearly be created. And if it can be created then it can both be destroyed or simply never created in the first place.
In the case of Kyoto it both cost money and caused large sums of money to not be made. Net result is a MUCH poorer society. If we actually implimented it the US would become a third world country and so would any other first world country that followed suit.
Point blank. You're a fool if you want kyoto. It would accomplish nothing but the destruction of our civilization. it wouldn't even save the environment since the first thing that happens when a country becomes poor is that environmental policy goes RIGHT OUT the window. Look at poor countries... always bad environmental policy.
If you want the world to have good environmental policy then you need to find a way to allow us to remain rich or better yet become richer. The richer we become the more we can afford luxury expenses like environmental policy.
I know I know... you don't think environmental policy is a luxury expense. It is. Poor countries can't afford it. They focus on Security, Water, Food. That's about it. And while you'd think that environmental policy falls under food and water it only becomes relevant when it is actually threatened. Long term threats are not something third world countries or poor countries deal with. They deal with immediate short term problems.
As we become richer we can focus on additional things and focus on problems that are in the future. But if the first thing your policies do is make us poor... then you've destroyed yourself because the first thing that will happen then is no one will care about any of your ideas. Your whole movement will die like a rose in a blast furnace.
Be mature enough to see the big picture here. You're fighting human nature here. You can't win by arguing this anymore then you can argue young men out of wanting to have sex with young women. Human nature. What you need to do is adjust your policies so they work within what is possible.. otherwise known as the material universe.
So 50,000 years ago the world economy was equal to the world economy today?
If I sing a song that makes lots money... where did the money come from? Pretty much thin air in that case.
If you want to argue that the money is all in natural resources and the only thing that can be called a real source of value is those resources then why is a marble statue that weighs 1 ton worth less then a block marble that weighs 10 tons? Obviously something happened to increase the value of that marble that has nothing to do with the raw materials. Rather, it is the skill and scarcity of the labor involved in finishing that material. And where does that come from? Can you say that labor can be expressed by the cost of maintaining the person that produced it? If that were true all labor would be equally valuable since all people generally have the same basic needs.
As to replacing the coal industry benefiting others, there is a NET higher cost for using other energy sources. Which means if when you turn on the lights you're paying MORE. That doesn't benefit you and the money that comes from you isn't going to new technologies.
As to the NIMBY complaints... well, I live in California and we can't build anything. We can't build solar. We can't build wind. We can't build geothermal. We can't build nuclear. We can't build anything. And it's the environmental groups doing it.
We couldn't build the golden gate bridge today if we wanted to... they'd do some environmental study for ten years before letting anyone even clear the site. And then they'd probably ban the project because it endangers seagulls or something.
I'm sorry, but the movement is a rabid foaming dog. It needs to be take out back... and put out of feared misery. Then we can have a little cry over it and move forward.
I'm not saying environmental concerns should be disregarded. I'm saying that the current environmental movement is no longer rational. We need a reboot on the whole movement. Start over. Many of the people involved have become corrupt or too radical to be a constructive force. Just start over with a fresh batch and lets go through these problems one at a time.
Short of that, we have to match fire with fire. Their screaming foaming fanatics versus any other group of fanatics we can herd into combat with them... ideally mutually wiping both out as politically relevant.
The modern environmental movement is killing my society. We are being strangled to death. Their hands are on our throats and they're squeezing. It can't be tolerated.
That's not how kyoto works. It doesn't work by funding better technology. It works by restraining existing economic activity and disallowing certain technologies.
As a result, nearly all the money would be spent on LOST productivity.
For example, lets say I have a field that I want to plant. That field will bring in 1000 dollars on harvest... just for sake of argument simple numbers. Okay lets say someone says I hurt the environment by planting that whole field. So what I have to do is plant half of it. Fine. Now I'm only growing half as much and I can sell that for 500 dollars. Where did the other 500 dollars go? Did it go into new technologies? No... I can't spend it because I never made it.
So yes, the money is destroyed because it was never created. What your policies do is depress our economic activity thus resulting in a lower economic output. That means instead of making 1000 dollars like now we only make 500 dollars. There is no extra money somewhere that goes into special technology. The only spending on technology would be if you said "you can plant the other half of the field if you use new technology"... then we'd have an incentive to develop that technology but that money would be NO WHERE NEAR the losses of the 500 dollars and I would have less to spend on such things because the money to spend on new technology would have to come out of the REMAINING 500 dollars.
Your policies cause money to not be made. So sure... it's not destroyed really... but the net effect is the same... it never exists at all.
Furthermore, we've seen that even green projects get shut down by environmental groups all the time. So it's a lie to say they'd be fine with it if we only used better technology. Wind farms get closed down for killing birds. Solar power plants get shut down for infringing on desert habitats. Wave farms get shut down for impairing coastal wild life. Geo-thermal plants get shut down for the baseless claim that they cause earthquakes.
There is no way to make the environmentalists happy besides getting a razor blade out and slitting our own throats.
If you care about the environment then stop attacking people that are trying to comply in good faith. It sends the message that you're not interested in the environment so much as power. And that's a very very old game. Humans have been playing power games with each other for hundreds of thousands of years.
If that's your game... then we can play it right back at you. So far the environmental movement has chosen to put personal power over the common good or even the cause of environmentalism. So we no longer regard them as negotiating or arguing in good faith.
The housing bubble was a multi trillion dollar issue. Small it was not.
In any case, I think we've both expressed our opinions on the matter.
You think we should do business as usual with more government regulation.
I think we should have both more regulation on wallstreet AND stop carelessly pumping money into markets without taking into consideration long term consequences.
On the regulation, we agree. That wallstreet needs to be kept under control. We agree.
Where we disagree is that you don't seem to think profligate subsidies to everything anything are a problem and I see them as one of the most consistent causes of economic collapse over the last 150 years.
You can ask segments of the industry that weren't even involved.
What you're basically doing now is asking people that don't even know in an effort to find people that aren't biased.
That's like a murder happening in one city and you trust no one there so you ask people in a totally different city what happened.
They might not be biased but they also have no clue what you're talking about.
There are plenty of institutions in the finance sector that were not involved in this crisis that also have enough knowledge and experience to ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY"RE TALKING ABOUT. Talk to them.
Same thing with job creation. If you want jobs... talk to the people that HIRE people. Ask them point blank "what do you need to hire people?" And work within that context.
Don't just talk to one company. Talk to them all.
Some will say the ever unhelpful "oh we just need more customers"... Sure, but government can't really do anything about that. So anything they say besides increasing the number of customers might be something to consider. Not to do blindly without consideration... simply to consider.
The only argument I need to fight is that your solution to the problem is a bad one.
What is actually happening is something I care about mostly because I do care about science. I am actually curious.
If all I wanted to do was stop you from enacting a policy then I could stop it at the touchdown line. Kyoto's trillion dollar expenses are very easy to defeat indefinitely. No one is signing it.
The chinese and indians will never agree to cut back their economy. Even the Canadians have pulled out of the agreement.
And while many european countries signed it the US reduced it's carbon footprint more then them even though it didn't sign it.
There is smart environmental policy and there is stupid environmental policy. Kyoto is stupid. We all breath the same air and live on the same planet. No one wants to hurt the earth. But we're going to have to be rational about this stuff. Trillion dollar programs are not going to be acceptable especially when they don't actually fix the problem. By kyoto's own estimation even if we enacted kyoto it would not stop global warming. So we'd be pissing away trillions a year for nothing.
Apparently paul was saying that evolution isn't validation of atheism. Which is a policy I think most believers in evolution would agree. Many christians that believe in evolution think the process was set in motion by god such as god put the planets in orbit... it's just a system for managing life as there is a system for managing planetary bodies.
I'm not a theist... I'm agnostic... so I don't particularly care either way.
I find theistic discussions in general to be a distraction. I don't enjoy them because I don't care. You can worship green fairies or nothing and it's the same to me.
I judge people by what they do not by what they say. If you're a good man and worship satan... then I'm going to think you're weird but I won't burn your house down. If you're a christian or a muslim or a jew I won't assume you're any less likely to rape a child or slit a throat.
Religion for me is a distraction... it's a waste of time. If it gets people to be better people then it's great. But that's a personal matter between those people and their beliefs. It has nothing to do with me.
As it regards public institutions, obviously their religion cannot be binding upon civic institutions. However, I think some institutions involve themselves in what can be a personal matter.
For example, I see no reason why public schools, marriages, or hospitals must be controlled to this extent by the government.
Each of these institutions should be individually allowed to manage their own affairs.
In regards to schools, I think we should privatize the whole system. Still give everyone a free education but make the actual schools themselves private entities. Ideally non-profit, designed for mass acceptance, and meeting all federal minimum standards. I think they'd do a better job given the same resources we spend on education in the US. Some of the schools will be more theistic then others. That's freedom. Let people have what they want. No one should be forced to go to a school that doesn't represent their beliefs. That goes in both directions. So if you're an atheist and want no theism in any of your classes then you should not be forced to suffer it. I believe in giving everyone what they want.
As to marriages, I think everyone should get civil unions and the whole practice of state marriage should be abolished. Marriage is traditionally a religious concept. It's ancient. And I see no reason to involve the government in it at all. If people in addition to getting married want to give each other power of attorney over each other, share assets, etc.... then I'm fine with that. But you don't need to get married to make those relationships. Furthermore, you can pretty much set up such a contract with anything. I mean, you can civil union yourself to a company or entirely theoretical entities that might not even have existence off paper. Then there's no issue about there being gay marriage or not. Call me Solomon... I'm very happy to split the baby in half if it will just get these two crazy women out of my throne room.
And then hospitals, neither the feds nor the state governments should tell a hospital what procedures it preforms. If the hospital administrators or doctors don't want to do something then they have a right not to do it. Understand this goes in both direction. I'm against banning abortion and I'm against forcing people to offer it as a service. I'm against putting a gun against a doctor's head and saying "do this or I'll destroy your practice/hospital."
Anyway, those are my views on the matter. I believe in freedom. I think everyone should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. You could argue the doctors hurt people if htey don't do a procedure but the doctors are free too. They're not slaves. If they don't want to do something you can't make them without violating their rights.
if you ask the banks and the finance sector in Wall Street they'll tell you it was the housing market.
I don't know why some people never go to the source for information.
People talk about creating jobs but no one asks companies what they need to create jobs.
People talk about problems in the finance sector but does anyone ever ask the banks?
It's like having a problem with a 747 and not asking Boeing or Airbus or General Electric why the plane fell out of the sky. If anyone knows they do... oh you could argue a conflict of interest that could compel them to shave the truth but that doesn't mean you start asking people that simply CANNOT KNOW because they're not competent to know the answer. Rather you have to try and get the real story from the people that actually know the answer.
And invariably you don't seem to care what those sources say about anything.
The housing bubble had TRILLIONS in it. And once wallstreet figured out their magic system for making risk vanish... we exported the idea to other countries which is part of the reason it went global. But the idea was pinoeered in the US and it was the result of Freddie and Fannie assuming responsibility for a market they weren't large enough to backstop.
No one trusts freddie and fannie anymore. That is why the economic picture is recovering. You can't flip houses anymore. The banks now know that the promises to buy all home loans good or bad is a lie... or simply not true. So the market is returning to rationality.
On the horizon we have a possible burst in the university bubble... again caused by poorly managed government subsidization... and a bubble in medicine caused by the exact same thing.
Ideally the subsidization should be balanced with demand side subsidization at the very least. If you're going to give everyone the money to buy a house then you should probably BUILD a lot of houses otherwise you're obviously going to cause a rise in housing prices. Same thing with everything else. If you want to bring 30 percent more people into the US medical system building a few more hospitals and doctors would be a REALLY good idea unless you want a huge rise in medical costs.
What makes the whole feedback system worse is that the government keeps increasing the size of the subsidy every time the price goes up and never seems to grasp that it would save more money if it just increased supply a little.
wait, you left the US and you're saying you want to leave the US?
I'm just picking out the most obvious of your many self contradictions.
What is it like being you? Are there elves and dragons where you live because you seem to exist in some strange fantasy land that isn't actually present anywhere on earth.
Do you know what a white list and a black list is?
Okay... The constitution contains portions that are both white list and black list.
The white list is filled with all the powers the government is supposed to have. Things like national defense, ability to negotiate diplomacy, collect taxes, etc.
The bill of rights is all blacklist. Its not talking to the people and saying "you have these rights" it's talking to the government and saying "you can't do these things".
Read the bill of rights. Rights are the American government's power blacklist. Things it cannot do... None of it enables people to do anything they couldn't do anyway.
Take freedom of speech. I don't need your help to have that. I have that innately. I can just sit here an talk unless someone else stops me. Well, that right is mostly concerned with stopping the government from shutting people up or controlling what they think or believe.
So getting back on topic, how does Obama's internet bill of rights actually qualify? It doesn't sound like a blacklist to me on government power. And as such, it cannot be considered a right within the american political and legislative construct where all such rights are a blacklist on governmental and especially federal power.
Obama doesn't strike me as the sort that will ever restrain the government... my personal bias... So I doubt he's giving anyone any rights.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure outside forces installing things are disruptive. But then are they the primary forces doing installations in general? And if that's the case, then it would be more appropriate to call them simply installation related issues... and that's both common and to be expected.
Install anything new and teething issues tend to crop up.
When they submit legislation they should stand on hot coals... or be doing something else extremely unpleasant simply so they don't waste our time with stupid laws.
We already have too many laws. The problem with the united states is not a lack of laws. Politicians are apparently bored and need something to occupy their time.
Possibly wild bears could be randomly released into the capital building? That would thin out the really old ones that probably should have retired 20 years ago and the stupid ones probably won't last very long either.
In addition we can have lots of non-lethal pranks just to keep them on their toes. Possibly set up some trip wires... just to trip them. And then we can hire some ninjas to randomly switch their office furniture. Ideally the internal layout of the building should be completely changed at least once a year though probably not all at once. All maps of the structure should become obsolete at least once a month.
And while we're at completely remove the climate control system so it's hot in the summer and freezing in the winter.
All told congress should only convene and issue legislation when ACTUALLY required as opposed to "nothings on tv tonight so I'm passing a bill on rear view cameras for cars".
And be honest, if politicians had to operate in this environment you'd respect them a whole lot more then you do now. And think of all the complete wastes of oxygen that simply wouldn't make it through the first year.
Too bad it will never happen. it would be beautiful.
A lot of people don't have respect for old rules. They think the world is new and they don't apply... failing to grasp that the old rules are the ones that have survived repeated challenges. They're the old gladiators still walking around after 100,000 battles in the arena. Could they be wrong now?... Sure... who wants to get into the arena and be the 100,001 test case that changes everything?
Exactly... the old rules tend to be ones that not only are valid today but will be valid in 10,000 years. They're elemental.
Just sign away all right to use any product of the mining industries and you can start your new new stone age lifestyle.
if you understand that the safety issues are not practical then you have to make a choice.
Do you want to live in the stone age or our post industrial society?
If it makes you feel any better, we're starting to replace miners with robots. We send the machine down on a teather. A control and power cable follows the machine down. A mining expert runs a bank of computers not unlike a video game sometimes hundreds of miles from the mine itself.
In this way mining conditions will be very healthy because human beings will be no where near the machines actually doing the mining. minerals will be placed in an elevator and brought to the surface for processing.
Horrible cave in?... you lose a few million dollars worth of machinery... bad... but no media circus or lawsuit.
The mining industry is doing this on its own. Give it time. These new control systems are only being tested right now and the machines are expensive. They need to capitalize the purchase and no one likes being an early adopter.
Physical security.
That's why software piracy is so easy... the pirate has the software... and while the agency or company might "trust" some third party there's nothing like having it on site.
I know exactly how this went down... the idea was pitched to the agencies and companies... company IT said "kiss security good bye"... and all the companies and agencies got cold feet.
I looked for an intelligible argument and didn't find one.
Please rephrase your comment in the form of something rational.
Block the portions of the internet you don't like. Forbid them access to your country.
really... you might as well just disable internet altogether.
Happy now? People have a right to express themselves. If people want to show horrible images of your beach and give it poor reviews that is their right. You don't counter that by suing them. You counter it by flooding the search engine with a different set of links. Talk to an SEO company and just pay them. Or hand out a set of instructions and have everyone in the town click on different links or submit different information. I should think even a small town should be able to collectively force an algorithm to show different content.
Man up and join the 21st century.
How many school children wear masks as part of their school day, signed up for the job, and have made a career out of it?
How many artists inhale fumes from paint?
I'll tell you what, if the mining union wants to complain about it... then we can take it seriously. And then the question will be if the mine can operate under the new rules. Some of the mines will close and everyone that worked there will be out of work.
So... Mission accomplished? Happy now?
We need options that don't shut the mine down and put people out of work. Haven't enough people lost their jobs already because of this sort of thing?
Do you want to live in a cancer free cave with a cancer free hand made fur loin cloth?... Or do you want to accept that there are some dangers in living in the modern world.
The first thing the man that discovered fire said was "ouch"... You apparently found that an unacceptable danger and refused to use fire.
There is such a thing as acceptable risk. If you try to bring the risk to zero you render the whole system dysfunctional.
The hacking concern is real but we've had abort codes built into our cruise missiles for years and no enemy has ever triggered one to defend themselves. Obviously they'll try to get control of these platforms but that just means we have to take computer security seriously.
Drones are the future. We are doing this. It's just a question of how best to do it.
The virtue of a pilot optional program is that it makes everyone happy.
The airforce can't argue that pilots will do a better job because you can put a pilot in the seat if you want. And the various people pushing the drone programs can't complain much because the system doesn't need a pilot. Everyone gets what they wanted.
As to nuclear bombs on planes... we're unlikely to ever load nuclear bombs on a strategic bomber again. It just doesn't make sense. Any target so hairy that we'd want to nuke it is likely a better target for ICBMs. Of course, like the cruise missiles they've abort codes on them and can even be re-targeted a bit en-route. So... kind of a moot point.
The only real danger I see is that you're unlikely to recover a crashed ICBM intact. But recovering a crashed AI bomber is possible. So the enemy might get a full working model of the plane's control system. That could make hacking it easier since they'd know what they were dealing with...
As to the industry's claims... you seem to dismiss them without questioning whether they're right?
Shouldn't you at least hear them out and see what they're trying to say rather then just dismissing it out of hand? Because if that's where you are how can you blame your opposition for doing the same thing to you in return?
We can both stick our fingers in our ears and ignore each other. If you wish to be listened to then you should listen in return.
Industries survive on the bottom line. If they're not in the black they're dying. They're a man having a heart attack. So not taking the bottom line seriously shows an indifference to their situation. If your policies push them below the line... they die.
The argument they might be making is that they're close to the line already and they worry that any pervasive change in how they do business will push them over it.
How about this for a compromise... Have the mining company hand out material to the miners and other people exposed. Something that makes the risks clear. And then have the miners choose if they want to work under those conditions?
My guess is that the easiest way to fix this problem is to just give the miners simplified gas masks. Many miners have been wearing gas masks for generations. Especially coal miners and salt miners.
In any case, if your plan effectively shuts down all mining in the US it's a bad plan.
And if you push a bad plan... I'll have to ask in the sweetest voice possible... why you want to give cancer to school children? It's just politics. But if that's how the issue is deflected then so be it. We need mining. The miners know the health risks. We cannot afford anything that makes our industry any less competitive.
They're mostly old diesel buses that have been running continuously since the 1960s.
So if the environmentalists want to make this argument then clearly the municipalities would be liable. Of course, buses that use natural gas would be able to avoid this issue but most buses haven't switched.
I'm tired of every industry in america getting shut down for bogus reasons.
What we need from science is CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. If there's a problem, please offer a solution.
Okay, you don't understand any of the fundamental concepts. I'm apparently trying to explain color to a blind man.
I've tried in post after post after post... unsuccessful... I'm sorry... I just can't be bothered to waste any more time on this...
And where did they get it from?
Look, for your comment to ANY sense, the amount of money/wealth would have to be static in time. So there would have to be as much of it 50,000 years ago as today.
Does that make sense? No it doesn't.
So money can clearly be created and value can clearly be created. And if it can be created then it can both be destroyed or simply never created in the first place.
In the case of Kyoto it both cost money and caused large sums of money to not be made. Net result is a MUCH poorer society. If we actually implimented it the US would become a third world country and so would any other first world country that followed suit.
Point blank. You're a fool if you want kyoto. It would accomplish nothing but the destruction of our civilization. it wouldn't even save the environment since the first thing that happens when a country becomes poor is that environmental policy goes RIGHT OUT the window. Look at poor countries... always bad environmental policy.
If you want the world to have good environmental policy then you need to find a way to allow us to remain rich or better yet become richer. The richer we become the more we can afford luxury expenses like environmental policy.
I know I know... you don't think environmental policy is a luxury expense. It is. Poor countries can't afford it. They focus on Security, Water, Food. That's about it. And while you'd think that environmental policy falls under food and water it only becomes relevant when it is actually threatened. Long term threats are not something third world countries or poor countries deal with. They deal with immediate short term problems.
As we become richer we can focus on additional things and focus on problems that are in the future. But if the first thing your policies do is make us poor... then you've destroyed yourself because the first thing that will happen then is no one will care about any of your ideas. Your whole movement will die like a rose in a blast furnace.
Be mature enough to see the big picture here. You're fighting human nature here. You can't win by arguing this anymore then you can argue young men out of wanting to have sex with young women. Human nature. What you need to do is adjust your policies so they work within what is possible.. otherwise known as the material universe.
Really?
So 50,000 years ago the world economy was equal to the world economy today?
If I sing a song that makes lots money... where did the money come from? Pretty much thin air in that case.
If you want to argue that the money is all in natural resources and the only thing that can be called a real source of value is those resources then why is a marble statue that weighs 1 ton worth less then a block marble that weighs 10 tons? Obviously something happened to increase the value of that marble that has nothing to do with the raw materials. Rather, it is the skill and scarcity of the labor involved in finishing that material. And where does that come from? Can you say that labor can be expressed by the cost of maintaining the person that produced it? If that were true all labor would be equally valuable since all people generally have the same basic needs.
As to replacing the coal industry benefiting others, there is a NET higher cost for using other energy sources. Which means if when you turn on the lights you're paying MORE. That doesn't benefit you and the money that comes from you isn't going to new technologies.
As to the NIMBY complaints... well, I live in California and we can't build anything. We can't build solar. We can't build wind. We can't build geothermal. We can't build nuclear. We can't build anything. And it's the environmental groups doing it.
We couldn't build the golden gate bridge today if we wanted to... they'd do some environmental study for ten years before letting anyone even clear the site. And then they'd probably ban the project because it endangers seagulls or something.
I'm sorry, but the movement is a rabid foaming dog. It needs to be take out back... and put out of feared misery. Then we can have a little cry over it and move forward.
I'm not saying environmental concerns should be disregarded. I'm saying that the current environmental movement is no longer rational. We need a reboot on the whole movement. Start over. Many of the people involved have become corrupt or too radical to be a constructive force. Just start over with a fresh batch and lets go through these problems one at a time.
Short of that, we have to match fire with fire. Their screaming foaming fanatics versus any other group of fanatics we can herd into combat with them... ideally mutually wiping both out as politically relevant.
The modern environmental movement is killing my society. We are being strangled to death. Their hands are on our throats and they're squeezing. It can't be tolerated.
That's not how kyoto works. It doesn't work by funding better technology. It works by restraining existing economic activity and disallowing certain technologies.
As a result, nearly all the money would be spent on LOST productivity.
For example, lets say I have a field that I want to plant. That field will bring in 1000 dollars on harvest... just for sake of argument simple numbers. Okay lets say someone says I hurt the environment by planting that whole field. So what I have to do is plant half of it. Fine. Now I'm only growing half as much and I can sell that for 500 dollars. Where did the other 500 dollars go? Did it go into new technologies? No... I can't spend it because I never made it.
So yes, the money is destroyed because it was never created. What your policies do is depress our economic activity thus resulting in a lower economic output. That means instead of making 1000 dollars like now we only make 500 dollars. There is no extra money somewhere that goes into special technology. The only spending on technology would be if you said "you can plant the other half of the field if you use new technology"... then we'd have an incentive to develop that technology but that money would be NO WHERE NEAR the losses of the 500 dollars and I would have less to spend on such things because the money to spend on new technology would have to come out of the REMAINING 500 dollars.
Your policies cause money to not be made. So sure... it's not destroyed really... but the net effect is the same... it never exists at all.
Furthermore, we've seen that even green projects get shut down by environmental groups all the time. So it's a lie to say they'd be fine with it if we only used better technology. Wind farms get closed down for killing birds. Solar power plants get shut down for infringing on desert habitats. Wave farms get shut down for impairing coastal wild life. Geo-thermal plants get shut down for the baseless claim that they cause earthquakes.
There is no way to make the environmentalists happy besides getting a razor blade out and slitting our own throats.
If you care about the environment then stop attacking people that are trying to comply in good faith. It sends the message that you're not interested in the environment so much as power. And that's a very very old game. Humans have been playing power games with each other for hundreds of thousands of years.
If that's your game... then we can play it right back at you. So far the environmental movement has chosen to put personal power over the common good or even the cause of environmentalism. So we no longer regard them as negotiating or arguing in good faith.
The housing bubble was a multi trillion dollar issue. Small it was not.
In any case, I think we've both expressed our opinions on the matter.
You think we should do business as usual with more government regulation.
I think we should have both more regulation on wallstreet AND stop carelessly pumping money into markets without taking into consideration long term consequences.
On the regulation, we agree. That wallstreet needs to be kept under control. We agree.
Where we disagree is that you don't seem to think profligate subsidies to everything anything are a problem and I see them as one of the most consistent causes of economic collapse over the last 150 years.
You can ask segments of the industry that weren't even involved.
What you're basically doing now is asking people that don't even know in an effort to find people that aren't biased.
That's like a murder happening in one city and you trust no one there so you ask people in a totally different city what happened.
They might not be biased but they also have no clue what you're talking about.
There are plenty of institutions in the finance sector that were not involved in this crisis that also have enough knowledge and experience to ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY"RE TALKING ABOUT. Talk to them.
Same thing with job creation. If you want jobs... talk to the people that HIRE people. Ask them point blank "what do you need to hire people?" And work within that context.
Don't just talk to one company. Talk to them all.
Some will say the ever unhelpful "oh we just need more customers"... Sure, but government can't really do anything about that. So anything they say besides increasing the number of customers might be something to consider. Not to do blindly without consideration... simply to consider.
The only argument I need to fight is that your solution to the problem is a bad one.
What is actually happening is something I care about mostly because I do care about science. I am actually curious.
If all I wanted to do was stop you from enacting a policy then I could stop it at the touchdown line. Kyoto's trillion dollar expenses are very easy to defeat indefinitely. No one is signing it.
The chinese and indians will never agree to cut back their economy. Even the Canadians have pulled out of the agreement.
And while many european countries signed it the US reduced it's carbon footprint more then them even though it didn't sign it.
There is smart environmental policy and there is stupid environmental policy. Kyoto is stupid. We all breath the same air and live on the same planet. No one wants to hurt the earth. But we're going to have to be rational about this stuff. Trillion dollar programs are not going to be acceptable especially when they don't actually fix the problem. By kyoto's own estimation even if we enacted kyoto it would not stop global warming. So we'd be pissing away trillions a year for nothing.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/08/29/ron-paul-doesnt-accept-evolution-as-a-theory/
Apparently paul was saying that evolution isn't validation of atheism. Which is a policy I think most believers in evolution would agree. Many christians that believe in evolution think the process was set in motion by god such as god put the planets in orbit... it's just a system for managing life as there is a system for managing planetary bodies.
I'm not a theist... I'm agnostic... so I don't particularly care either way.
I find theistic discussions in general to be a distraction. I don't enjoy them because I don't care. You can worship green fairies or nothing and it's the same to me.
I judge people by what they do not by what they say. If you're a good man and worship satan... then I'm going to think you're weird but I won't burn your house down. If you're a christian or a muslim or a jew I won't assume you're any less likely to rape a child or slit a throat.
Religion for me is a distraction... it's a waste of time. If it gets people to be better people then it's great. But that's a personal matter between those people and their beliefs. It has nothing to do with me.
As it regards public institutions, obviously their religion cannot be binding upon civic institutions. However, I think some institutions involve themselves in what can be a personal matter.
For example, I see no reason why public schools, marriages, or hospitals must be controlled to this extent by the government.
Each of these institutions should be individually allowed to manage their own affairs.
In regards to schools, I think we should privatize the whole system. Still give everyone a free education but make the actual schools themselves private entities. Ideally non-profit, designed for mass acceptance, and meeting all federal minimum standards. I think they'd do a better job given the same resources we spend on education in the US. Some of the schools will be more theistic then others. That's freedom. Let people have what they want. No one should be forced to go to a school that doesn't represent their beliefs. That goes in both directions. So if you're an atheist and want no theism in any of your classes then you should not be forced to suffer it. I believe in giving everyone what they want.
As to marriages, I think everyone should get civil unions and the whole practice of state marriage should be abolished. Marriage is traditionally a religious concept. It's ancient. And I see no reason to involve the government in it at all. If people in addition to getting married want to give each other power of attorney over each other, share assets, etc.... then I'm fine with that. But you don't need to get married to make those relationships. Furthermore, you can pretty much set up such a contract with anything. I mean, you can civil union yourself to a company or entirely theoretical entities that might not even have existence off paper. Then there's no issue about there being gay marriage or not. Call me Solomon... I'm very happy to split the baby in half if it will just get these two crazy women out of my throne room.
And then hospitals, neither the feds nor the state governments should tell a hospital what procedures it preforms. If the hospital administrators or doctors don't want to do something then they have a right not to do it. Understand this goes in both direction. I'm against banning abortion and I'm against forcing people to offer it as a service. I'm against putting a gun against a doctor's head and saying "do this or I'll destroy your practice/hospital."
Anyway, those are my views on the matter. I believe in freedom. I think everyone should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. You could argue the doctors hurt people if htey don't do a procedure but the doctors are free too. They're not slaves. If they don't want to do something you can't make them without violating their rights.
I'm afraid it wasn't.
if you ask the banks and the finance sector in Wall Street they'll tell you it was the housing market.
I don't know why some people never go to the source for information.
People talk about creating jobs but no one asks companies what they need to create jobs.
People talk about problems in the finance sector but does anyone ever ask the banks?
It's like having a problem with a 747 and not asking Boeing or Airbus or General Electric why the plane fell out of the sky. If anyone knows they do... oh you could argue a conflict of interest that could compel them to shave the truth but that doesn't mean you start asking people that simply CANNOT KNOW because they're not competent to know the answer. Rather you have to try and get the real story from the people that actually know the answer.
And invariably you don't seem to care what those sources say about anything.
The housing bubble had TRILLIONS in it. And once wallstreet figured out their magic system for making risk vanish... we exported the idea to other countries which is part of the reason it went global. But the idea was pinoeered in the US and it was the result of Freddie and Fannie assuming responsibility for a market they weren't large enough to backstop.
No one trusts freddie and fannie anymore. That is why the economic picture is recovering. You can't flip houses anymore. The banks now know that the promises to buy all home loans good or bad is a lie... or simply not true. So the market is returning to rationality.
On the horizon we have a possible burst in the university bubble... again caused by poorly managed government subsidization... and a bubble in medicine caused by the exact same thing.
Ideally the subsidization should be balanced with demand side subsidization at the very least. If you're going to give everyone the money to buy a house then you should probably BUILD a lot of houses otherwise you're obviously going to cause a rise in housing prices. Same thing with everything else. If you want to bring 30 percent more people into the US medical system building a few more hospitals and doctors would be a REALLY good idea unless you want a huge rise in medical costs.
What makes the whole feedback system worse is that the government keeps increasing the size of the subsidy every time the price goes up and never seems to grasp that it would save more money if it just increased supply a little.
I'm pretty sure if we asked the American founding father they'd probably back my version.
But have it your own way.
I don't understand why you're disagreeing then... If you understood then why don't you agree?
wait, you left the US and you're saying you want to leave the US?
I'm just picking out the most obvious of your many self contradictions.
What is it like being you? Are there elves and dragons where you live because you seem to exist in some strange fantasy land that isn't actually present anywhere on earth.
Maybe this will help you.
Do you know what a white list and a black list is?
Okay... The constitution contains portions that are both white list and black list.
The white list is filled with all the powers the government is supposed to have. Things like national defense, ability to negotiate diplomacy, collect taxes, etc.
The bill of rights is all blacklist. Its not talking to the people and saying "you have these rights" it's talking to the government and saying "you can't do these things".
Read the bill of rights. Rights are the American government's power blacklist. Things it cannot do... None of it enables people to do anything they couldn't do anyway.
Take freedom of speech. I don't need your help to have that. I have that innately. I can just sit here an talk unless someone else stops me. Well, that right is mostly concerned with stopping the government from shutting people up or controlling what they think or believe.
So getting back on topic, how does Obama's internet bill of rights actually qualify? It doesn't sound like a blacklist to me on government power. And as such, it cannot be considered a right within the american political and legislative construct where all such rights are a blacklist on governmental and especially federal power.
Obama doesn't strike me as the sort that will ever restrain the government... my personal bias... So I doubt he's giving anyone any rights.