punishment as a deterrent does work. the problem is when people are poor enough or desperate enough that it becomes worth the risk. you cannot simply ignore the basic risk v reward calculation that eveyrone does, all the time, and declare "punishment doesn't work". its always been about tradeoffs. right now, the rewards still far outweigh the risks for many of the ppor and desperate around the world and in our own country. that doesnt mean it "doesnt work" is a hard and fast rule.
addendum: i also think the idea of privatizing prisons and letting for-profit companies run them is a tremendously bad idea.
for some odd reason those sort of companies like to write things like the original arizona immigration law proposal, with its mandatory 6 month sentences for anyone (who happens to be brown) that cant provide proof of citizenship....
in our country...maybe. but our prisons are also fairly permissive compared to others around the world. we allow free association of inmates in large groups. we have drug and gang kingpins stil running their collectives from within the prisons, etc. and we decided that we like the idea of giving them a chance to rehabilititate, so we allow inmate populations several concessions that a society focused strictly on punishment would never allow.
now personally, i think if someone has committed an offense worthy of jail time the battle is already half lost (education/prevention/rootcause-elimination being the ideal way to reduce crime). but that said, i also think our prison system is schizophrenic. we lock people away from society for a set time, make some half-arsed attempts to change them, and then when the magic number is up, let em loose again.
it's as if we're attempting to implment a two-pronged strategy within a single system. i think it should be split into a two-tiered system, one focused on rehabilitation, and one focused on simple incarceration/locking away incurables away from general society. (possibly permanently. say on an island somewhere. though if one of the prisoner's looks like ray liotta, i recommend not sending him there.)
The problem with that is there's already at least 2 other brands of multimeter that actually are yellow on black similar to fluke's (likely specifically so they do look like flukes). not just kinda yellow like those in the summary. Sperry is one, sold at home depot alongside fluke's basic meters.
Also from the FAA's own page (http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240) there's a few concrete and relevent statements that cannot be ignored:
-The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up.
-Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft—manned or unmanned—in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval.
-Flying model aircraft solely for hobby or recreational reasons doesn’t require FAA approval, but hobbyists must operate according to the agency's model aircraft guidance, which prohibits operations in populated areas
-You may not fly a UAS for commercial purposes by claiming that you’re operating according to the Model Aircraft guidelines (below 400 feet, 3 miles from an airport, away from populated areas.)
-The agency is still developing regulations, policies and standards that will cover a wide variety of UAS users, and expects to publish a proposed rule for small UAS – under about 55 pounds – later this year. That proposed rule will likely include provisions for commercial operations.
Who do you think created those rules? The FAA. The FAA is not ignoring those rules. Previously, those rules involved "direct control of the aircraft" and it must be within visual range of the operator, and not in crowded areas. So no autonomous vehicles, and no using a camera feed to pilot it.
But now technology is gotten to the point where its actually viable and attractive (for various reasons, such as commercially and educationally) to want to do those things with small scale aircraft. It's leading to an explosion in their use. But there is a potential hazard in allowing them to be used without regulation. And the existing rules are not sufficient to govern them.
And it's not just some club of R/C guys in a field in the middle of nowhere. It's happening in crowded areas. So they are adapting to the present reality. And that present reality is that technology is now allowing model aircraft to perform tasks never really viable before. Both autonomously and iunder direct control via camera feed.
So no. Your comments dont have a leg to stand on. The FAA is right about this, even if they are lagging behind. But eventually the regulations will catch up to what people are capable of. I suspect we'll eventually see rules based on different classes of drone, based around weight, payload, size, usage, etc.
Kind of like the kite example earlier. They really dont care care too much about a foam gliders, even big ones, in a field. But start flying somethings recklessly around people, where negligence can lead to "BAD THINGS", and they start to care. And they should.
Yes. And the FAA has cited kites that fly too high, or are too large, or carry rather large payload. Or some combination thereof.
No, the FAA generally doesn't care about your little backyard peice of paper on a string. Just dont fly it near and airport and intentionally try to get it sucked into a jet engine.
However people have made kites a few hundred feet across, weighing a few hundred pounds, and capable flying thousands of feet in the air. The FAA starts to care about that. Particularly if it could interfer with aircraft.
Yes, they absolutely need to be involved. It's specifically and exactly the sort of thing the FAA was created for and falls exactly within the FFA's jurisdiction. Those laws you cite? They came from the FAA.
It went to trial because HE sued the FAA. The FAA's rules are very clear. And he clearly violated them. And if he's a regular R/C plane user, he should be fairly familiar with those rules.
And really I think the judge erred in not siding with the FAA, if you assume he had to pick sides.
HOWEVER...I think the best solution would be the creation of distinct classes of drones in order to seperate out the small relatively harmless things (like this guy's foam glider), from large commercial autonomous drones that actually could pose a danger to bystanders.
I hav eno idea what this boom and zoom is. i have never heard of it.
for the F4F, what leveled the playing field was the concept of a wingman (it's where it came from), and staying together in pairs. this marked the end of the days of the lone flying ace, and pilots fighting essentially duels. really in a way, the japanese doomed themselves in air superiority. japanese fighter culture still revered the samurai concept of the lone warrior, and was too slow to adapt to the concept of working in teams.
for the F4F specifically, this was the use of the defensive break, which is basically a modification of the scissors tactic, but where the two allied planes begin scissoring each other, rather than aggressor/defender scissoring. First you always launch more than enough fighters, such that it would be 2 F4Fs against each Zero. so now when the Zero engaged one of the F4Fs, and pursues it, the other plane is naturally in an opposite arc and gets easy shots. though it could be rather hairraising for the guy being chased... But overnight after the adoption of the tactic the Zeros went from dominating the F4F, to the reverse.
its also not a fighter. at all. this submission/summary is horrible. this plane was a RACER. not a fighter. it would make a VERY BAD fighter, and be meaningless at the battle of britian. also wasnt Bugatti a French company??
Even as a racer this plane is fairly poorly designed, even if it is pretty cool looking. and as a fighter? uh uh. no way. even if it flew (which it never did!), pilots and mechanics alike would hate this thing. maintenance nightmare.
-too small, no reasonable armament payload or range, or both. -midplaced engines are notorious for overheating. the space is also extremely constrained, and it's very difficult to upgrade later on: they couldnt add super charging to the P39, limiting it to low altitudes. and to keep it cool they had to add enormous air scoops, which is rather counterproductive for a streamlined design, and offsets the aerodynamic gains from mid mounting. -this thing has at least 3 and probably 4 gearboxes between the engines and the props. both engines are at an angle. the rear engine output has to be turned twice before its inline with the prop. and both outputs but we combined for the contrarotating props, even if its just two shafts, one inside the other. -all this complexity is rather wasted effort if it's simply so it can drive contrarotating props with 2 blades. too much compelxity for too little gain. better to have a single powerful engine, and either drive a single large prop, or have it drive a gear box that then drives contrarotating props...and one that gets a better bite of air that this tiny things blades. using two engines to drive cotnrarotationg props has been done before, and the results were nearly always subpar. overheating and fires, complexity, underpowered, excessively heavy. if they must have two engines, go for a push pull design, ala the DO335 and a few others. it's quite effective, and much less mechanically complex (and lighter and more reliable).
it's easy to claim 500mph and "turn the tide of battle" for a plane the never flew. overall, this is interesting, but way overhyped.
behold, the rhetorical skills of an ignorant nutcase. and it's funny you should mention education...since mine is an engineering degree that involved various geotechnical, geological, and environmental courses, and I'm currently working on expanding my education specifically into petroleum/energy engineering.
When you have information produced by someone with more than a 6th grade education, let me know.
why you looking for a tutor? because apparently you somehow think faultlines just stop at subsequent rock layers, rather than transcending layers (which they do). here, this wikipedia entry should be helpful. It has pictures, so even you can understand it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
And I didnt even mention flowback, the injection water that returns to the surface and has to be treated and released....except they dont always treat or capture it, and is another major source of contamination as a result of fracking.
ya, all those woman who developed cancer, or had their implants burst inside their bodies, sending silicon into various random places or simply making their chests look like golf balls.....they were all faking it.
thought experiment: lets pump water and chemicals into the ground at high pressure specifically for the purpose of fracturing the rock to release entrapped natural gas. the water slurry even helps push it out by displacing it (ie: flowing into the cracks). the entire process rests on the principle of cracking rocks and having water (with chemicals) flow into said cracks.
so just where in hell do you think that water goes?
there's 2 possible answers, both of which are unsatisfactory: 1) into groundwater tables and acquifers (water bearing layers of rock) 2) who knows because at the depths and scales we're talking about, no one really knows with certainity how far the newly created fractures lead*, and whether it connects with a acquifer.
*we do know (regardless of industry claims otherwise) that the fractures are sufficient in size and depth to relieve stresses in the crust triggering earthquakes, so the idea they connect to acquifers is hardly far fetched.
short version: the only wacky person here is you. and don't make fun of Meryl Streep, she's probably the world's greatest living actress.
Well your supposition ("what seems to" you) is wrong. So shutup.
You think you know more, an armchair quarterback with zero scientific knowledge, than the actual climate scientists who actually DO know how the system works, just because you know words like "falsifiable" and "empirical" ??
Here's a clue, just saying those words doesnt make you knowledgeable. It IS falsifiable. It IS testable. These scientists DO KNOW the properties of atmospheric gases and how they affect the rate of energy gain/loss in the atmosphere. They've known for more than 100 years, nearly 200 even!, the first theory of global warming from incerased emissions being created in 1826 by a scientist who pondered what effect all this industrialization and its pumping of pollutants into the air would cause.
You're just another uneducated arm chair denialist who thinks he knows mopre than scientists who actually know what they're talking about. What's next on your agenda? Arguing with Stephen Hawking over black holes?
Was just an article yesterday, warming is accelerating because the arctic is melting: smaller ice sheet, less energy reflected by to space, more absorbed directly into the ocean, warming the arctic ocean. the additional energy absorbed is calculated (according to the article) to be equivalent to 25% of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere. That's pretty damn significant.
California (supplier is half of the countrys fruits/veggies and nuts) is in the greatest drought it's ever known, and there's a possibilty that it's not really a drought, but a return to its natural state and the past hundred years were simply an unusually wet period. California provided the right soil and climatic conditions for that kind of productivity (combined with a little help from lots of irrigation). Not that easy to replace good soil and climate. Or missing water, as some 100 towns/cities are finding out as they expect to be totally without water in just 3 months. Totally. Without. Water.
Irrigation is getting harder to replace as water tables nationwide are dropping. As a kid my grandfather lived around Tuscon. Arid, desert kind of place, but their farm (subsistince, not really for market) did ok, and he only had to dig a well 10-15 feet to hit water. During the depression industry lettuce farming companies moved into the valley. Within 4 years they depressed the water table in the valley more than 80 feet. And then left. And he and his brother had to leave too to find work, cause the farm could no longer support the family or its livestock/wildlife, as did many of the other families.
Cascade failure is the problem. You say that maybe we can deal with the problems, and maybe we can for a little bit. It's not that we can't deal with it, its that the whole system can't deal with. And we are dependent on the system. Our food is dependent on the system. Our water supply is dependent on the system. And if the system goes, we go too eventually.
Honestly, I'd say the existence of Fox News proves just how free our press really is. Seriously. Look at them. How many other countries would tolerate such blatant lying, fear mongering, or asshattery?
Just yesterday they were talking to a writer from some tabloid about his pet theory (on obama coruption of course), in in the space of 30 seconds the talking head interviewing him went from treating the guy's pet theory as "unsubstantiated allegations" to "accepted as obvious fact".
And that's amazing in itself, because usually they skip the whole "allegation" part and jump right to "this is gospel truth".
you should probably pick a new name then, because you're outnumbered by tea partiers such as Ted Cruz and his supporters, or the myriad folks running for LG in Texas, all trying to out-tea party the others.
(or even better, we move to a garunteed basic income system, which accomplishes many of the same goals as a minimum wage+social welfare system, but with more efficiencies and less gears in the machine to make it work)
Jon Stewart said it best: if the total sum of maximum assistance (TANF, SNAP, etc, combined) equates to 12$/hr, because that is the minimum to get by and survive.......THEN THE MINIMUM WAGE NEEDS TO BE 12$/HR !!
we can adjust this to account whatever hrs/wk equivalence we want (due to many at the low level being treated as part time, and unpredictable hours)...but the goal is that by default anyone who is working is automatically making enough to survive and get by without assistance. it would also mean that minimum wage or low wage jobs would need to provide some level of quality of life, work environment, or other benefits, sufficient that working in that job is more attractive than just taking assistance. this concept is very much like the public insurance option: if you want to make money providing insurance, you need to go above and beyond the minimum.
you would think conservative would support such a notion...BUT NO...they are totally against ANY minimum wage at all. yet they refuse to acknolwedge that lowering or eliminating the Mw would increase the assistance rolls, leading them to yell more about THAT and demonize those folks.
you argument is essentially "wants are infiinte because eventually we can want for a star, or eleventy billionty soliarns", even though that is completely impractical. and that's why no one cares about you nuttsthere are realistic wants, and unrealistic. maybe we can say that unrealistic wants are infinite...but who cares about those? crumple them up and throw them away. wants are not inifinite because you have all you could want for, beyond the ridiculous.
there is your fundament flaw: you believe that resources are scarce. they are not. we do not have a resource problem. we have a logistics problem. we have a distribution problem.
we have public health problems, not frm lack of resources, but lack of will to take care of our sick and mentally ill.
we have financial problems, not from a lack of resources, but a lack of regulation control predatory behaviour and abuses that leads to megabanks creating and then profiting from recessions.
there are plenty of resources. what we lack is the willingness to develope the capability to distribute them, and lack of will to stop those who would abuse this state affairs to their own ends.
are wants really infinite? to say wants are infinite is far too simplistic. the ultiamte cost of everything is time, and time is for the time being finite for us: we die.
look at the value of money. every additional dollar you get is worth less than the last one. monetarily, it's still a dollar. but you eventually reach a point where you can literally buy everything, and money ceases all value. most importantly, long before that point, you reach a point where you already have everything you actually need or can use/enjoy before dying, long before you even have enough money to buy "everything".
also dont forget that the sT society is a fundamental paradigm shift from our current one. no one in ST works out of a need to do so, out of a need to work or die/starve. they work for the betterment of themselves or mankind, or both. they literally live for each other. so applying (flawed) high school econ to that society is cmpletely out of place.
Addendum: one thing you are forgetting jonboy, and most of these kill the government types forget, as that WE are the government. it is us. it not some seperate entity. or at least it should be (that's a discussion for another day...)
Government BY the People, FOR the People, and OF the People. The formation of a More Perfect Union. that's our creedo. that's our belief and our goal.
So to dismiss the government at all is to in reality reject the notion of people governing themselves together, getting along in relative peace and coexistence, and acting upon the collective will to achieve otherwise unachievable goals.
to dismiss the role of government is really to advocate for a world of anarchy, where the strong are free to prey on the weak, where title, power, privelidge, and strength give dictate ones station in life and give him the ability to dictate to his lessers, a world without freedoms, without liberty, without equality.
essentially, its advocating the undoing of the past 1000 year of civilization and progress.
Slashdot Mirror
punishment as a deterrent does work.
the problem is when people are poor enough or desperate enough that it becomes worth the risk.
you cannot simply ignore the basic risk v reward calculation that eveyrone does, all the time, and declare "punishment doesn't work".
its always been about tradeoffs. right now, the rewards still far outweigh the risks for many of the ppor and desperate around the world and in our own country. that doesnt mean it "doesnt work" is a hard and fast rule.
addendum: i also think the idea of privatizing prisons and letting for-profit companies run them is a tremendously bad idea.
for some odd reason those sort of companies like to write things like the original arizona immigration law proposal, with its mandatory 6 month sentences for anyone (who happens to be brown) that cant provide proof of citizenship....
in our country...maybe. but our prisons are also fairly permissive compared to others around the world. we allow free association of inmates in large groups. we have drug and gang kingpins stil running their collectives from within the prisons, etc. and we decided that we like the idea of giving them a chance to rehabilititate, so we allow inmate populations several concessions that a society focused strictly on punishment would never allow.
now personally, i think if someone has committed an offense worthy of jail time the battle is already half lost (education/prevention/rootcause-elimination being the ideal way to reduce crime). but that said, i also think our prison system is schizophrenic. we lock people away from society for a set time, make some half-arsed attempts to change them, and then when the magic number is up, let em loose again.
it's as if we're attempting to implment a two-pronged strategy within a single system.
i think it should be split into a two-tiered system, one focused on rehabilitation, and one focused on simple incarceration/locking away incurables away from general society. (possibly permanently. say on an island somewhere. though if one of the prisoner's looks like ray liotta, i recommend not sending him there.)
The problem with that is there's already at least 2 other brands of multimeter that actually are yellow on black similar to fluke's (likely specifically so they do look like flukes). not just kinda yellow like those in the summary. Sperry is one, sold at home depot alongside fluke's basic meters.
Also from the FAA's own page (http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240) there's a few concrete and relevent statements that cannot be ignored:
-The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up.
-Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft—manned or unmanned—in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval.
-Flying model aircraft solely for hobby or recreational reasons doesn’t require FAA approval, but hobbyists must operate according to the agency's model aircraft guidance, which prohibits operations in populated areas
-You may not fly a UAS for commercial purposes by claiming that you’re operating according to the Model Aircraft guidelines (below 400 feet, 3 miles from an airport, away from populated areas.)
-The agency is still developing regulations, policies and standards that will cover a wide variety of UAS users, and expects to publish a proposed rule for small UAS – under about 55 pounds – later this year. That proposed rule will likely include provisions for commercial operations.
Who do you think created those rules?
The FAA.
The FAA is not ignoring those rules.
Previously, those rules involved "direct control of the aircraft" and it must be within visual range of the operator, and not in crowded areas.
So no autonomous vehicles, and no using a camera feed to pilot it.
But now technology is gotten to the point where its actually viable and attractive (for various reasons, such as commercially and educationally) to want to do those things with small scale aircraft. It's leading to an explosion in their use. But there is a potential hazard in allowing them to be used without regulation. And the existing rules are not sufficient to govern them.
And it's not just some club of R/C guys in a field in the middle of nowhere. It's happening in crowded areas.
So they are adapting to the present reality.
And that present reality is that technology is now allowing model aircraft to perform tasks never really viable before.
Both autonomously and iunder direct control via camera feed.
So no. Your comments dont have a leg to stand on.
The FAA is right about this, even if they are lagging behind.
But eventually the regulations will catch up to what people are capable of.
I suspect we'll eventually see rules based on different classes of drone, based around weight, payload, size, usage, etc.
Kind of like the kite example earlier.
They really dont care care too much about a foam gliders, even big ones, in a field.
But start flying somethings recklessly around people, where negligence can lead to "BAD THINGS", and they start to care.
And they should.
Yes. And the FAA has cited kites that fly too high, or are too large, or carry rather large payload. Or some combination thereof.
No, the FAA generally doesn't care about your little backyard peice of paper on a string. Just dont fly it near and airport and intentionally try to get it sucked into a jet engine.
However people have made kites a few hundred feet across, weighing a few hundred pounds, and capable flying thousands of feet in the air. The FAA starts to care about that. Particularly if it could interfer with aircraft.
Federal.
Aviation.
Admistration.
Yes, they absolutely need to be involved. It's specifically and exactly the sort of thing the FAA was created for and falls exactly within the FFA's jurisdiction. Those laws you cite? They came from the FAA.
It went to trial because HE sued the FAA.
The FAA's rules are very clear. And he clearly violated them.
And if he's a regular R/C plane user, he should be fairly familiar with those rules.
And really I think the judge erred in not siding with the FAA, if you assume he had to pick sides.
HOWEVER...I think the best solution would be the creation of distinct classes of drones in order to seperate out the small relatively harmless things (like this guy's foam glider), from large commercial autonomous drones that actually could pose a danger to bystanders.
I hav eno idea what this boom and zoom is. i have never heard of it.
for the F4F, what leveled the playing field was the concept of a wingman (it's where it came from), and staying together in pairs. this marked the end of the days of the lone flying ace, and pilots fighting essentially duels. really in a way, the japanese doomed themselves in air superiority. japanese fighter culture still revered the samurai concept of the lone warrior, and was too slow to adapt to the concept of working in teams.
for the F4F specifically, this was the use of the defensive break, which is basically a modification of the scissors tactic, but where the two allied planes begin scissoring each other, rather than aggressor/defender scissoring. First you always launch more than enough fighters, such that it would be 2 F4Fs against each Zero. so now when the Zero engaged one of the F4Fs, and pursues it, the other plane is naturally in an opposite arc and gets easy shots. though it could be rather hairraising for the guy being chased... But overnight after the adoption of the tactic the Zeros went from dominating the F4F, to the reverse.
its also not a fighter. at all.
this submission/summary is horrible.
this plane was a RACER. not a fighter. it would make a VERY BAD fighter, and be meaningless at the battle of britian.
also wasnt Bugatti a French company??
Even as a racer this plane is fairly poorly designed, even if it is pretty cool looking. and as a fighter? uh uh. no way. even if it flew (which it never did!), pilots and mechanics alike would hate this thing. maintenance nightmare.
-too small, no reasonable armament payload or range, or both.
-midplaced engines are notorious for overheating. the space is also extremely constrained, and it's very difficult to upgrade later on: they couldnt add super charging to the P39, limiting it to low altitudes. and to keep it cool they had to add enormous air scoops, which is rather counterproductive for a streamlined design, and offsets the aerodynamic gains from mid mounting.
-this thing has at least 3 and probably 4 gearboxes between the engines and the props. both engines are at an angle. the rear engine output has to be turned twice before its inline with the prop. and both outputs but we combined for the contrarotating props, even if its just two shafts, one inside the other.
-all this complexity is rather wasted effort if it's simply so it can drive contrarotating props with 2 blades. too much compelxity for too little gain. better to have a single powerful engine, and either drive a single large prop, or have it drive a gear box that then drives contrarotating props...and one that gets a better bite of air that this tiny things blades. using two engines to drive cotnrarotationg props has been done before, and the results were nearly always subpar. overheating and fires, complexity, underpowered, excessively heavy. if they must have two engines, go for a push pull design, ala the DO335 and a few others. it's quite effective, and much less mechanically complex (and lighter and more reliable).
it's easy to claim 500mph and "turn the tide of battle" for a plane the never flew. overall, this is interesting, but way overhyped.
the Do335 was a fantastic plane. i can only assume you are underinformed.
behold, the rhetorical skills of an ignorant nutcase. and it's funny you should mention education...since mine is an engineering degree that involved various geotechnical, geological, and environmental courses, and I'm currently working on expanding my education specifically into petroleum/energy engineering.
When you have information produced by someone with more than a 6th grade education, let me know.
why you looking for a tutor? because apparently you somehow think faultlines just stop at subsequent rock layers, rather than transcending layers (which they do). here, this wikipedia entry should be helpful. It has pictures, so even you can understand it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
And I didnt even mention flowback, the injection water that returns to the surface and has to be treated and released....except they dont always treat or capture it, and is another major source of contamination as a result of fracking.
And then there's these...
4 states confirm water pollution from drilling:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
Fracking Wastewater Radioactive and Contaminated, Study Finds:
http://www.livescience.com/401...
Fracking Investigation Finds Evidence of Water Contamination:
http://mashable.com/2014/01/06...
EPA's Study of Hydraulic Fracturing and Its Potential Impact on Drinking Water Resources:
http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy/hy...
Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
meh, just open a wormhole to the moon and run an extension cord.
it worked for Pandora's Star.
ya, all those woman who developed cancer, or had their implants burst inside their bodies, sending silicon into various random places or simply making their chests look like golf balls.....they were all faking it.
thought experiment: lets pump water and chemicals into the ground at high pressure specifically for the purpose of fracturing the rock to release entrapped natural gas. the water slurry even helps push it out by displacing it (ie: flowing into the cracks). the entire process rests on the principle of cracking rocks and having water (with chemicals) flow into said cracks.
so just where in hell do you think that water goes?
there's 2 possible answers, both of which are unsatisfactory:
1) into groundwater tables and acquifers (water bearing layers of rock)
2) who knows because at the depths and scales we're talking about, no one really knows with certainity how far the newly created fractures lead*, and whether it connects with a acquifer.
*we do know (regardless of industry claims otherwise) that the fractures are sufficient in size and depth to relieve stresses in the crust triggering earthquakes, so the idea they connect to acquifers is hardly far fetched.
short version: the only wacky person here is you.
and don't make fun of Meryl Streep, she's probably the world's greatest living actress.
Well your supposition ("what seems to" you) is wrong. So shutup.
You think you know more, an armchair quarterback with zero scientific knowledge, than the actual climate scientists who actually DO know how the system works, just because you know words like "falsifiable" and "empirical" ??
Here's a clue, just saying those words doesnt make you knowledgeable. It IS falsifiable. It IS testable. These scientists DO KNOW the properties of atmospheric gases and how they affect the rate of energy gain/loss in the atmosphere. They've known for more than 100 years, nearly 200 even!, the first theory of global warming from incerased emissions being created in 1826 by a scientist who pondered what effect all this industrialization and its pumping of pollutants into the air would cause.
You're just another uneducated arm chair denialist who thinks he knows mopre than scientists who actually know what they're talking about. What's next on your agenda? Arguing with Stephen Hawking over black holes?
Cascade failure.
Was just an article yesterday, warming is accelerating because the arctic is melting: smaller ice sheet, less energy reflected by to space, more absorbed directly into the ocean, warming the arctic ocean. the additional energy absorbed is calculated (according to the article) to be equivalent to 25% of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere. That's pretty damn significant.
California (supplier is half of the countrys fruits/veggies and nuts) is in the greatest drought it's ever known, and there's a possibilty that it's not really a drought, but a return to its natural state and the past hundred years were simply an unusually wet period. California provided the right soil and climatic conditions for that kind of productivity (combined with a little help from lots of irrigation). Not that easy to replace good soil and climate. Or missing water, as some 100 towns/cities are finding out as they expect to be totally without water in just 3 months. Totally. Without. Water.
Irrigation is getting harder to replace as water tables nationwide are dropping. As a kid my grandfather lived around Tuscon. Arid, desert kind of place, but their farm (subsistince, not really for market) did ok, and he only had to dig a well 10-15 feet to hit water. During the depression industry lettuce farming companies moved into the valley. Within 4 years they depressed the water table in the valley more than 80 feet. And then left. And he and his brother had to leave too to find work, cause the farm could no longer support the family or its livestock/wildlife, as did many of the other families.
Cascade failure is the problem. You say that maybe we can deal with the problems, and maybe we can for a little bit. It's not that we can't deal with it, its that the whole system can't deal with. And we are dependent on the system. Our food is dependent on the system. Our water supply is dependent on the system. And if the system goes, we go too eventually.
Honestly, I'd say the existence of Fox News proves just how free our press really is.
Seriously.
Look at them.
How many other countries would tolerate such blatant lying, fear mongering, or asshattery?
Just yesterday they were talking to a writer from some tabloid about his pet theory (on obama coruption of course), in in the space of 30 seconds the talking head interviewing him went from treating the guy's pet theory as "unsubstantiated allegations" to "accepted as obvious fact".
And that's amazing in itself, because usually they skip the whole "allegation" part and jump right to "this is gospel truth".
you should probably pick a new name then, because you're outnumbered by tea partiers such as Ted Cruz and his supporters, or the myriad folks running for LG in Texas, all trying to out-tea party the others.
(or even better, we move to a garunteed basic income system, which accomplishes many of the same goals as a minimum wage+social welfare system, but with more efficiencies and less gears in the machine to make it work)
Jon Stewart said it best: if the total sum of maximum assistance (TANF, SNAP, etc, combined) equates to 12$/hr, because that is the minimum to get by and survive.......THEN THE MINIMUM WAGE NEEDS TO BE 12$/HR !!
we can adjust this to account whatever hrs/wk equivalence we want (due to many at the low level being treated as part time, and unpredictable hours)...but the goal is that by default anyone who is working is automatically making enough to survive and get by without assistance. it would also mean that minimum wage or low wage jobs would need to provide some level of quality of life, work environment, or other benefits, sufficient that working in that job is more attractive than just taking assistance. this concept is very much like the public insurance option: if you want to make money providing insurance, you need to go above and beyond the minimum.
you would think conservative would support such a notion...BUT NO...they are totally against ANY minimum wage at all. yet they refuse to acknolwedge that lowering or eliminating the Mw would increase the assistance rolls, leading them to yell more about THAT and demonize those folks.
you argument is essentially "wants are infiinte because eventually we can want for a star, or eleventy billionty soliarns", even though that is completely impractical. and that's why no one cares about you nuttsthere are realistic wants, and unrealistic. maybe we can say that unrealistic wants are infinite...but who cares about those? crumple them up and throw them away. wants are not inifinite because you have all you could want for, beyond the ridiculous.
short version: you're a psuedo intellectual troll
there is your fundament flaw: you believe that resources are scarce.
they are not.
we do not have a resource problem.
we have a logistics problem.
we have a distribution problem.
we have public health problems, not frm lack of resources, but lack of will to take care of our sick and mentally ill.
we have financial problems, not from a lack of resources, but a lack of regulation control predatory behaviour and abuses that leads to megabanks creating and then profiting from recessions.
there are plenty of resources. what we lack is the willingness to develope the capability to distribute them, and lack of will to stop those who would abuse this state affairs to their own ends.
are wants really infinite? to say wants are infinite is far too simplistic.
the ultiamte cost of everything is time, and time is for the time being finite for us: we die.
look at the value of money. every additional dollar you get is worth less than the last one. monetarily, it's still a dollar. but you eventually reach a point where you can literally buy everything, and money ceases all value. most importantly, long before that point, you reach a point where you already have everything you actually need or can use/enjoy before dying, long before you even have enough money to buy "everything".
also dont forget that the sT society is a fundamental paradigm shift from our current one. no one in ST works out of a need to do so, out of a need to work or die/starve. they work for the betterment of themselves or mankind, or both. they literally live for each other. so applying (flawed) high school econ to that society is cmpletely out of place.
Addendum: one thing you are forgetting jonboy, and most of these kill the government types forget, as that WE are the government. it is us. it not some seperate entity. or at least it should be (that's a discussion for another day...)
Government BY the People, FOR the People, and OF the People.
The formation of a More Perfect Union.
that's our creedo.
that's our belief and our goal.
So to dismiss the government at all is to in reality reject the notion of people governing themselves together, getting along in relative peace and coexistence, and acting upon the collective will to achieve otherwise unachievable goals.
to dismiss the role of government is really to advocate for a world of anarchy, where the strong are free to prey on the weak, where title, power, privelidge, and strength give dictate ones station in life and give him the ability to dictate to his lessers, a world without freedoms, without liberty, without equality.
essentially, its advocating the undoing of the past 1000 year of civilization and progress.