I have to agree. Although none of the parties involved are fully responsible, this combination of factors produces a very nasty situation. At the very least an attempt to delete files of this sort should generate a warning and confirmation dialog or require a special switch of some kind.
If there was profit or necessity the alterations would be made already. One thing you cannot really do is accuse a greedy business of not seeking profits.
Actually there are a variety of projects that are net positive to society but net negative for the builder, light houses being a classic example. These kinds of projects are called "social goods" and government is the right choice to build them since it socializes both the costs and benefits. A national grid would increase competition which is good for the country as a whole but actually bad for the local operators so they'd never build it on their own.
Software is an extremely poor analogy in this case.
My argument is that a national grid will improve competition among power produces and allow for more efficient production & utilization of electricity. That's exactly the kind of infrastructure we would want. Since it's a social good where the benefits would be felt by many but the costs would be borne by few, the government is the most logical entity to do the project.
That's certainly a big issue, though in this case I was actually thinking more about the planned tax cuts that likely wouldn't be matched by appropriate spending cuts.
In principle I agree, however that's not true for all cases. There are a variety of public goods that are indeed best paid for collectively via government. The ideal tax rate is not zero.
Building a national grid would actually improve free market function, I consider that a net win regardless of which power sources it may or may not favor.
The farmers market around here is nearly identical in price as the supermarket plus I can haggle. "$1.00 each for these red bell peppers? I'll give you $2.50 for three of them.... DEAL!"
If you're $0.83 per bell pepper then the prices are most certainly not "nearly identical". I pay $0.58 a piece at Winco, no haggling required.
You're missing a third solution. Massive investment in creating a police state so that rioting proles can be kept out of the walled gardens of the rich.
The reason has more to do with the willingness to realize that the long term maintenance costs are a lot lower with buried lines.
The fact that they got to rebuild after having most of their infrastructure bombed to rubble was much more influential. Europeans don't have any better long term focus than the US, a common failing of representative governments.
Why is it a matter of assigning risk? Why isn't it just part of "Best Practices"?
Because if it's a low risk low impact item then spending money on it is poor prioritization. There are always more needs for resources than there are resources available.
Slashdot Mirror
Completely automated, probably, but partially automated in a way that drastically reduces the number of people required, likely the other way around.
As long as we fix the social system then that's something to celebrate.
I have to agree. Although none of the parties involved are fully responsible, this combination of factors produces a very nasty situation. At the very least an attempt to delete files of this sort should generate a warning and confirmation dialog or require a special switch of some kind.
I'm ok with that if they move to a picture heavy format.
Your advice sucks and won't work for wide swaths of the population.
You MUST:
1) Control your calories
2) Eat sufficient protein and fats
3) Lift weights
Other things may help but are optional.
If there was profit or necessity the alterations would be made already. One thing you cannot really do is accuse a greedy business of not seeking profits.
Actually there are a variety of projects that are net positive to society but net negative for the builder, light houses being a classic example. These kinds of projects are called "social goods" and government is the right choice to build them since it socializes both the costs and benefits. A national grid would increase competition which is good for the country as a whole but actually bad for the local operators so they'd never build it on their own.
And won't any time soon. The basic design is flawed.
Software is an extremely poor analogy in this case. My argument is that a national grid will improve competition among power produces and allow for more efficient production & utilization of electricity. That's exactly the kind of infrastructure we would want. Since it's a social good where the benefits would be felt by many but the costs would be borne by few, the government is the most logical entity to do the project.
None of them add up, that's why it's called politics.
That's certainly a big issue, though in this case I was actually thinking more about the planned tax cuts that likely wouldn't be matched by appropriate spending cuts.
In principle I agree, however that's not true for all cases. There are a variety of public goods that are indeed best paid for collectively via government. The ideal tax rate is not zero.
Building a national grid would actually improve free market function, I consider that a net win regardless of which power sources it may or may not favor.
Among many ignored assumptions, did this post take into account the carbon emissions of building such a grid?
One time cost vs. ongoing benefits, I'd be pretty surprised if it wasn't a net positive.
Average citizens can't sue to have the law enforced per se,
Perhaps that's the problem we should be fixing.
Of course you didn't mention the spending plans that go with those tax programs, which have a profound impact on whether the tax plan is reasonable.
an HR Vice President has the legal and fiduciary responsibility to tell his boss he is committing a crime and to cut it out - not facilitate it.
I applaud your optimism and naivete.
The farmers market around here is nearly identical in price as the supermarket plus I can haggle. "$1.00 each for these red bell peppers? I'll give you $2.50 for three of them.... DEAL!"
If you're $0.83 per bell pepper then the prices are most certainly not "nearly identical". I pay $0.58 a piece at Winco, no haggling required.
You're missing a third solution. Massive investment in creating a police state so that rioting proles can be kept out of the walled gardens of the rich.
they run with finger on trigger, sweep friendlies with aim,etc.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
The reason has more to do with the willingness to realize that the long term maintenance costs are a lot lower with buried lines.
The fact that they got to rebuild after having most of their infrastructure bombed to rubble was much more influential. Europeans don't have any better long term focus than the US, a common failing of representative governments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Exactly. When it's reliable enough for the Marines then I'm interested. As a former Marine I can attest that those guys can break anything.
We built ours first, there are downsides to being an early adopter.
A couple of high altitude fairly large nukes would do the job just fine.
Why is it a matter of assigning risk? Why isn't it just part of "Best Practices"?
Because if it's a low risk low impact item then spending money on it is poor prioritization. There are always more needs for resources than there are resources available.