So, tomorrow, if everybody was issued bills with an extra zero on each one of them, you would say the pie has magically become 10 times bigger?
No, exactly the opposite.
The pie in your example is the same size, we are just using a ruler that is 1/10th the size and issuing pieces that are 10x the measurement we used before. My point is that you cannot use dollars (or any single currency) as a measurement of wealth because the value of dollars changes over time. So in your example overall wealth hasn't changed (the pie stayed the same size).
However, the size of the whole wealth pie DOES change over time. It can and does get bigger and smaller in real value. Many people mistakenly believe that the wealth pie is a fixed size, a misconception I'm trying to address here.
No.. Price is a function of supply and demand. Adding dollars to the system doesn't mean you increases wealth, it just inflates cost. So while money may be an indicator of who has more wealth (You have more than me because your bank account has a higher number in it) it is not a valid measure of wealth in total. Consider the following:
Let's say you run a country that has a GDP growth of 3%/Year and you have inflation running at 3%/year. You get a raise every year of 3%. Are you getting wealthier? Nope, your standard of living will not change (assuming your country doesn't have a progressive tax rate like most..) Not only are you not getting wealthier, the country is not creating wealth either. GDP is basically flat because while the value of the GDP is going up by 3%, but it is being measured by a shrinking ruler.
You are still claiming a fixed sized pie of wealth. I claim that idea is false, in all it's forms.
Slavery was a very important issue to the US and it's founding and is often ignored. This issue is why we have two houses in congress with members elected in totally different ways. The reason why slavery lasted so long in the US was because of the grand compromise. It was trying to maintain that compromise that lead to the tearing apart of the very fabric of this country and the Civil war.
It is interesting to wonder what might have happened had things been handled in different ways. I often wonder what might have happened had the constitution not been ratified. Most folks don't know how divided the public was on ditching the articles of confederation for the "More perfect union" under the constitution and had the opposition been a bit more organized they could have prevailed. What would have happened had the south not tried to secede and the civil war never happened or if the grand compromise hadn't been struck.
Not to discount any other country's history or value, one has to acknowledge that the US was uniquely formed in a time in history which uniquely allowed it. There has been nothing like it before or since and there will never be another time when it could happen again.
You labor under the delusion that wealth is a fixed sized pie we all must share. I understand why folks think that way, but it really is short sighted. We can all have an improved standard of living if we realize that the wealth pie can get bigger, and while I may have less of a share of the total pie, my piece is actually bigger than it was before.
This really isn't about "what you can prove" because that can be argued effectively in court, which is really the issue.
But no DA is going to charge anybody with this, unless it's a convenient add on charge. This "crime" just adds complex jurisdiction issues to the investigation effort, and would be difficult to try. The DA might charge this to get some plea bargain, but most won't waste time and money on this. About the only time you will see this prosecuted will be if the "victim" is able to generate enough press coverage to make some kind of impact on the next election. DA's just don't have the money or time.
Intent? You mean that posting it to a "revenge" site with some caption that indicates she's your X and you are getting back wouldn't be enough?
Source? You do know that most cameras these days record the time of the photo was taken along with information about the device taking the photo. If you used a phone, the location of the photo could be included too. There is all sorts of meta data that could id the source. Not to mention the most obvious one that is the subject of the photo is your Ex.
I think you under estimate the number of ways this can be tracked back and hung on somebody...
What you should have said, is that given the complicated jurisdiction problems and lack of resources to pursue such "crimes" it is unlikely that anybody will ever get prosecuted under this law. The DA won't be wasting his/her time on this stuff, unless some girl has enough media coverage close enough to the next election to matter.
...Ensuring a clean shutdown from a known-good state, rather than expecting they'll need to spend more time troubleshooting everything when they get back.
You've never run a webcam site, have you? I have. If it fails, it fails. There is no "clean shutdown" necessary. You still fix the same thing when it breaks.
More likely, they just turned off a whole set of systems for safe keeping while the administrative staff responsible for them are sitting at home. It just so happened that the web cam feed was disrupted when everything got shut down.
You obviously don't understand what "I'm in the Army" actually means... They own you, lock stock and barrel. Paid or not, you are in the Army. Your commitment to the services does not allow you to quit before your term is over. Further, if they don't want you to go and can invent a national security reason for you to stay, you get to stay.
Now it might be hard to get folks to sign up if they are not getting paychecks, but those who where unlucky enough to already be in the service have no choice.
It's fun to project what would have happened had the French not decided to poke a stick into the king of England's eye. Somehow, I don't think we'd still be colonies of Britain, but exactly *what* we would be had the likes of Franklin and Washington had been killed for treason and not been available to craft our constitution is hard to imagine.
It's not surprising to see a spurt of purchases at the end of the budget year.
You are correct in all that you say. I just wanted to make sure this one part was clear.
In the government being run on Continuing Resolutions like we've been on since this president took office, much of the budgeted money expires when the CR expires and this is usually written to be the end of the fiscal year. If you don't use the money in your budget, it goes away (expires) when the CR lapses.
I don't know what you think "Free Markets" are then. By your definition there are exactly ZERO free markets because there is always a cost or risk to starting a new business. Energy production is obviously somewhat high in startup costs, but you don't have to be the size of Exxon on the first day either. So if it was sufficiently profitable, it would be possible to start a business no matter what the "startup costs" are.
But all that aside, we already have multiple players in this business who are independent so supply and demand should apply.
Ok.. Ok.. Yea windmills are causing nuclear power to become unprofitable. But did you read that document?
That document clearly states starting at page 33 that Natural Gas prices at historic lows and that lowers the viability of nuclear. I grant that wind power has contributed to nuclear power's decline by supplying base load (nuclear power's bread and butter) but the consideration of natural gas prices remaining low for the next 20 years or so is not insignificant. The main fact is that wholesale electric prices are down, and that contributes to putting the older and less efficient nuclear power plants out of business.
I suppose you can debate which is the most significant, but based on what I've seen and *real* (not projected) data natural gas has been mostly responsible for this decline in prices.. That an a stagnate economic environment that refuses to drive demand, but that's a totally different story..
And you get the same power I get from natural gas, you just pay more for it. If it makes you feel better, go ahead, just don't fool yourself. You get the same power as the guy next door paying less. The power company doesn't do anything different for you but bill you more.
We are all connected to the same grid, the same three wires are connected to every house, factory, business and power station in North America. So if you turn on the hair dryer and start drawing 1500 Watts, it's going to have to come from someplace and all other things being the same that will cause 1500 Watts to be drawn from all the power plants attached to the grid. All over the grid, power plants of all types are making up that 1500 Watts. At peak, most of that 1500W will be coming from fossil fuels, in the middle of the night it comes from less fossil fuels and more nuclear, but that's about the generation mix at different times of day. Your use still will cause the burning of Natural Gas (and other fuels) to increase, despite where you think it comes from or decide to pay for it.
Congratulations on being "off grid" for 7 days, but the fact that you admit to having a hugely polluting gasoline powered generator makes it clear that you are pretty dependent on electricity and are not willing to turn it off. So we are stuck with having to supply your home off the grid and that includes fossil fueled capacity and all the emissions that come with it.
If you live in North America, you get power from the same places I get it. Unless something is wrong, we are all connected to exactly the same three wires and your power comes from the same place as mine. When you flip on your light, that 100W comes from the grid which is driven by all the power plants pushing power into it. So, where your local power generation may be supplied by hydro at peak and base power supplied by nuke, you are still on the grid with all the windmills, solar panels, and fossil fueled steam turbines as everybody else. So when you lower your consumption, somebody can throttle down their fossil fueled plant.
Unless you have your own grid, you are still part of the problem. Turn off your lights and save electricity for others in areas not so blessed with hydro resources like your area does. We can then not burn as much fossil fuels you so dislike and we can export the hydro power from your area to places where we don't have such resources.
So, I don't think you are serious about not using fossil fuels if you are not willing to pull your electric meter. In fact, I'd be willing to bet you would gladly crack up a fossil fueled generator in your back yard if you faced a long term outage of the grid in your area. Pull the meter, or realize we are all responsible.
Wind is certainly NOT why other nuclear plants have closed. Natural Gas prices have been going down for nearly a decade which is driving the cost of electricity down, way down. Wind power is BARELY able to show a profit even after significant subsidies from the government. In fact, I challenge you to find a commercial wind power facility built in the last 10 years that has returned it's construction and maintenance costs and turned even a dime of profit over what the subsidies provided. They simply cannot compete on a level playing field with cheap natural gas. Just like old nuclear plants, wind and solar simply cannot produce cheaply enough to keep up.
So go pull your electric meter and go off grid then because this is about C02 in your mind then.
Electric power is here to stay and burning fossil fuels (and releasing C02) continues to be necessary to produce it. You can complain about the side effects of producing it, but I'll bet you would not like the side effects of not having electricity even more. Renewable sources are not yet able to sustain our electric use and do not seem financially viable for development, despite significant subsidies from government. Industry has clearly decided that Natural Gas is the most cost effective option for peak generation demand and given fuel prices are SO low that it makes nuclear power start to look expensive It's not hard to see the logic in their choice.
You have a problem with burning Natural Gas? I'm thinking you don't like electricity at your house or where you work, so go have it turned off... Show us you are serious about this...
One more time and I'll give up... Follow the political power and the real money. Oil companies may have money, but that's peanuts compared to other places money hangs out and changes hands. Go a little deeper...
Remember, if it was cost effective, industry would be falling all over themselves to adopt the technology. Lots of stuff is technically possible, but not economically workable. You can reform C02 and water back into hydrocarbons, which would be GREAT for the environment in theory, it's just not cost effective because of how much energy it takes to un-burn fuel. Fr now, Natural Gas is the electric producers fuel of choice which leads to the building boom we are now seeing in NG burning plants and production infrastructure. Not so for Solar or Wind power projects without government funding to prop them up.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm shocked SHOCKED that there is gun violence in a gun free zone!!
Your side arm sir!
Thank you..
So, tomorrow, if everybody was issued bills with an extra zero on each one of them, you would say the pie has magically become 10 times bigger?
No, exactly the opposite.
The pie in your example is the same size, we are just using a ruler that is 1/10th the size and issuing pieces that are 10x the measurement we used before. My point is that you cannot use dollars (or any single currency) as a measurement of wealth because the value of dollars changes over time. So in your example overall wealth hasn't changed (the pie stayed the same size).
However, the size of the whole wealth pie DOES change over time. It can and does get bigger and smaller in real value. Many people mistakenly believe that the wealth pie is a fixed size, a misconception I'm trying to address here.
No.. Price is a function of supply and demand. Adding dollars to the system doesn't mean you increases wealth, it just inflates cost. So while money may be an indicator of who has more wealth (You have more than me because your bank account has a higher number in it) it is not a valid measure of wealth in total. Consider the following:
Let's say you run a country that has a GDP growth of 3%/Year and you have inflation running at 3%/year. You get a raise every year of 3%. Are you getting wealthier? Nope, your standard of living will not change (assuming your country doesn't have a progressive tax rate like most..) Not only are you not getting wealthier, the country is not creating wealth either. GDP is basically flat because while the value of the GDP is going up by 3%, but it is being measured by a shrinking ruler.
You are still claiming a fixed sized pie of wealth. I claim that idea is false, in all it's forms.
So does that make his piggy bank a bit bucket?
Inconceivable!
Slavery was a very important issue to the US and it's founding and is often ignored. This issue is why we have two houses in congress with members elected in totally different ways. The reason why slavery lasted so long in the US was because of the grand compromise. It was trying to maintain that compromise that lead to the tearing apart of the very fabric of this country and the Civil war.
It is interesting to wonder what might have happened had things been handled in different ways. I often wonder what might have happened had the constitution not been ratified. Most folks don't know how divided the public was on ditching the articles of confederation for the "More perfect union" under the constitution and had the opposition been a bit more organized they could have prevailed. What would have happened had the south not tried to secede and the civil war never happened or if the grand compromise hadn't been struck.
Not to discount any other country's history or value, one has to acknowledge that the US was uniquely formed in a time in history which uniquely allowed it. There has been nothing like it before or since and there will never be another time when it could happen again.
You labor under the delusion that wealth is a fixed sized pie we all must share. I understand why folks think that way, but it really is short sighted. We can all have an improved standard of living if we realize that the wealth pie can get bigger, and while I may have less of a share of the total pie, my piece is actually bigger than it was before.
This really isn't about "what you can prove" because that can be argued effectively in court, which is really the issue.
But no DA is going to charge anybody with this, unless it's a convenient add on charge. This "crime" just adds complex jurisdiction issues to the investigation effort, and would be difficult to try. The DA might charge this to get some plea bargain, but most won't waste time and money on this. About the only time you will see this prosecuted will be if the "victim" is able to generate enough press coverage to make some kind of impact on the next election. DA's just don't have the money or time.
Intent? You mean that posting it to a "revenge" site with some caption that indicates she's your X and you are getting back wouldn't be enough?
Source? You do know that most cameras these days record the time of the photo was taken along with information about the device taking the photo. If you used a phone, the location of the photo could be included too. There is all sorts of meta data that could id the source. Not to mention the most obvious one that is the subject of the photo is your Ex.
I think you under estimate the number of ways this can be tracked back and hung on somebody...
What you should have said, is that given the complicated jurisdiction problems and lack of resources to pursue such "crimes" it is unlikely that anybody will ever get prosecuted under this law. The DA won't be wasting his/her time on this stuff, unless some girl has enough media coverage close enough to the next election to matter.
Are you certain that will fix it?
...Ensuring a clean shutdown from a known-good state, rather than expecting they'll need to spend more time troubleshooting everything when they get back.
You've never run a webcam site, have you? I have. If it fails, it fails. There is no "clean shutdown" necessary. You still fix the same thing when it breaks.
More likely, they just turned off a whole set of systems for safe keeping while the administrative staff responsible for them are sitting at home. It just so happened that the web cam feed was disrupted when everything got shut down.
You've worked for the government.. Haven't you.. ;)
You obviously don't understand what "I'm in the Army" actually means... They own you, lock stock and barrel. Paid or not, you are in the Army. Your commitment to the services does not allow you to quit before your term is over. Further, if they don't want you to go and can invent a national security reason for you to stay, you get to stay.
Now it might be hard to get folks to sign up if they are not getting paychecks, but those who where unlucky enough to already be in the service have no choice.
It's fun to project what would have happened had the French not decided to poke a stick into the king of England's eye. Somehow, I don't think we'd still be colonies of Britain, but exactly *what* we would be had the likes of Franklin and Washington had been killed for treason and not been available to craft our constitution is hard to imagine.
It's not surprising to see a spurt of purchases at the end of the budget year.
You are correct in all that you say. I just wanted to make sure this one part was clear.
In the government being run on Continuing Resolutions like we've been on since this president took office, much of the budgeted money expires when the CR expires and this is usually written to be the end of the fiscal year. If you don't use the money in your budget, it goes away (expires) when the CR lapses.
Inconceivable! Retired 15 years?!!
Inconceivable!
Well played sir... LOL
I don't know what you think "Free Markets" are then. By your definition there are exactly ZERO free markets because there is always a cost or risk to starting a new business. Energy production is obviously somewhat high in startup costs, but you don't have to be the size of Exxon on the first day either. So if it was sufficiently profitable, it would be possible to start a business no matter what the "startup costs" are.
But all that aside, we already have multiple players in this business who are independent so supply and demand should apply.
Ok.. Ok.. Yea windmills are causing nuclear power to become unprofitable. But did you read that document?
That document clearly states starting at page 33 that Natural Gas prices at historic lows and that lowers the viability of nuclear. I grant that wind power has contributed to nuclear power's decline by supplying base load (nuclear power's bread and butter) but the consideration of natural gas prices remaining low for the next 20 years or so is not insignificant. The main fact is that wholesale electric prices are down, and that contributes to putting the older and less efficient nuclear power plants out of business.
I suppose you can debate which is the most significant, but based on what I've seen and *real* (not projected) data natural gas has been mostly responsible for this decline in prices.. That an a stagnate economic environment that refuses to drive demand, but that's a totally different story..
I pay extra for hydro power.
And you get the same power I get from natural gas, you just pay more for it. If it makes you feel better, go ahead, just don't fool yourself. You get the same power as the guy next door paying less. The power company doesn't do anything different for you but bill you more.
We are all connected to the same grid, the same three wires are connected to every house, factory, business and power station in North America. So if you turn on the hair dryer and start drawing 1500 Watts, it's going to have to come from someplace and all other things being the same that will cause 1500 Watts to be drawn from all the power plants attached to the grid. All over the grid, power plants of all types are making up that 1500 Watts. At peak, most of that 1500W will be coming from fossil fuels, in the middle of the night it comes from less fossil fuels and more nuclear, but that's about the generation mix at different times of day. Your use still will cause the burning of Natural Gas (and other fuels) to increase, despite where you think it comes from or decide to pay for it.
Congratulations on being "off grid" for 7 days, but the fact that you admit to having a hugely polluting gasoline powered generator makes it clear that you are pretty dependent on electricity and are not willing to turn it off. So we are stuck with having to supply your home off the grid and that includes fossil fueled capacity and all the emissions that come with it.
If you live in North America, you get power from the same places I get it. Unless something is wrong, we are all connected to exactly the same three wires and your power comes from the same place as mine. When you flip on your light, that 100W comes from the grid which is driven by all the power plants pushing power into it. So, where your local power generation may be supplied by hydro at peak and base power supplied by nuke, you are still on the grid with all the windmills, solar panels, and fossil fueled steam turbines as everybody else. So when you lower your consumption, somebody can throttle down their fossil fueled plant.
Unless you have your own grid, you are still part of the problem. Turn off your lights and save electricity for others in areas not so blessed with hydro resources like your area does. We can then not burn as much fossil fuels you so dislike and we can export the hydro power from your area to places where we don't have such resources.
So, I don't think you are serious about not using fossil fuels if you are not willing to pull your electric meter. In fact, I'd be willing to bet you would gladly crack up a fossil fueled generator in your back yard if you faced a long term outage of the grid in your area. Pull the meter, or realize we are all responsible.
Wind is certainly NOT why other nuclear plants have closed. Natural Gas prices have been going down for nearly a decade which is driving the cost of electricity down, way down. Wind power is BARELY able to show a profit even after significant subsidies from the government. In fact, I challenge you to find a commercial wind power facility built in the last 10 years that has returned it's construction and maintenance costs and turned even a dime of profit over what the subsidies provided. They simply cannot compete on a level playing field with cheap natural gas. Just like old nuclear plants, wind and solar simply cannot produce cheaply enough to keep up.
So go pull your electric meter and go off grid then because this is about C02 in your mind then.
Electric power is here to stay and burning fossil fuels (and releasing C02) continues to be necessary to produce it. You can complain about the side effects of producing it, but I'll bet you would not like the side effects of not having electricity even more. Renewable sources are not yet able to sustain our electric use and do not seem financially viable for development, despite significant subsidies from government. Industry has clearly decided that Natural Gas is the most cost effective option for peak generation demand and given fuel prices are SO low that it makes nuclear power start to look expensive It's not hard to see the logic in their choice.
You have a problem with burning Natural Gas? I'm thinking you don't like electricity at your house or where you work, so go have it turned off... Show us you are serious about this...
One more time and I'll give up... Follow the political power and the real money. Oil companies may have money, but that's peanuts compared to other places money hangs out and changes hands. Go a little deeper...
Remember, if it was cost effective, industry would be falling all over themselves to adopt the technology. Lots of stuff is technically possible, but not economically workable. You can reform C02 and water back into hydrocarbons, which would be GREAT for the environment in theory, it's just not cost effective because of how much energy it takes to un-burn fuel. Fr now, Natural Gas is the electric producers fuel of choice which leads to the building boom we are now seeing in NG burning plants and production infrastructure. Not so for Solar or Wind power projects without government funding to prop them up.