I never said fire your gun. To a device, I don't think it matters if it is shot or bashed with a bat. It may make a difference if we were talking about a person though. I wouldn't bash a human trespasser with a bat either. I kind of differentiate between humans and devices when it comes to what crosses the line.
No, because I missed part of the article that says there was a danger presented by damaging the flying object while flying to people and property below. My error.
Ahh, I see you avoid responding to the unnecessary car riding. Do you never take an unnecessary car ride?
You say you are risk averse...I wonder how often and how evenly you apply that. I also suspect that just like everyone else, you take "unnecessary' risks on a daily basis that are much greater than eating food that has been screened to ensure levels are below threshold. So, no, you don't know what those levels are, but you do know they are below the threshold, which is a known level, and far below level show to have any negative health correlation.
We are all skewed by risk perception. Its OK. I am too.
You state eating the food is a stupid risk, but you don't seem to really know what that risk is. The fact that you use things like bungee jumping as a comparable risk tells me your risk perception is way out of whack with reality, which was my point. The fact that you subjectively qualify it as a 'stupid risk' is meaningless in this discussion, as you have no measure for that. The fact that you qualify it as 'unnecessary' and therefore just avoid it is your convenient method to ignore the actual risk and risk perception elements. It does not mean your advice to avoid is based on any practical measure. You would simply recommend wasting that food, or a person not eating what they want when they want it. And to not do so is stupid? I could counter, but that would be subjective and unproductive
I have also clearly pointed out that many car rides you take are likely unnecessary, yet much more risky, and you still take them. As I stated, and your responses are confirming, it is all about risk perception which in the case of the food in question is not in line with reality for many people.
If the unlock switch had some god-awful name describing exactly what it did, then maybe the pilot wouldn't have thought "let's unlock this now so we'll be ready".
It sure seems like they would at least have had a Ready indicator for unlocking. You want the pilot making as few decisions as possible, particularly during those critical moments of the flight.
A more honest comparison would be a risky activity like bungee jumping, an unnecessary risk that you choose as compared to driving car which is a necessary risk you control.
Eating is a necessary thing. We do it all the time. We don't bungee jump every day as a normal activity. We ride in cars unnecessarily quite often. At least your analogies are heading in the right direction compared to your starting point.
And, we do have data that shows low level radioactive exposure risk. Levels are a key component and are easy to measure and monitor. To insinuate that levels do not matter is really something that has no real world practical basis. You would not get in a car as often if the risk were higher, that is the level of exposure, or accident rate, were high enough. Levels do matter.
You want to apply this 'if it exists at all' avoidance philosophy in this case, my guess is you do not apply it similarly in areas of similar or even much greater risk where your perception is different. If you've eaten any food unnecessarily that might have been exposed to a pesticide, for example. Have you gotten any unnecessary exposure to sunlight? Have you walked on a slippery sidewalk unnecessarily? The list is likely quite long of the things that qualify.
If you notice, I did not argue at all for them to keep subsidies. I just laid out some things to consider. Your reaction tells me you would rather dismiss those entirely. That is fine. Sometimes the details do make things more difficult. Generalizing subsidies and incentives and assuming they serve no purpose makes it easier.
If they're making billions in profits then why are they getting tax breaks? Besides, who's to say that renewables won't make billions in due course?.
There are different ways to look at it. While O&G may get big 'tax breaks' and other incentives, they may pale in comparison to the tax revenue they generate for the country. If you look at the net tax picture, O&G probably shows as a big tax positive, while renewables are more likely tax neutral to negative at this point.
So, the high profit companies are generating more tax money for us, the question remains "how much more should they pay?", and the answer is quite subjective. I am OK with them paying more taxes, but honestly I'd like to see just what that net tax revenue is before I'd say how much more really makes sense. Some tax incentives help tilt the scale from keeping parts of a company in the US vs moving it oversees. Plenty of games being played in this area, but it is also another element that must be considered.
Mostly they are from Asia, and so a big chunk of our incentive $$ is going to Asia, rather than staying in country. Windmills have a much higher average US content, and therefore more of that money stays in the US. It is something that should be considered when looking at the true cost and payback. More $$ spent on US content means more US businesses/workers supported and more tax revenue returned through the supply chain.
$60 Billion for 500 million panels = $120 per panel. Of course, panel size is not specified (not a needed detail when hawking votes), but the present incentives are more than that per panel if you are talking $1kw panels or larger. Is she proposing a reduction in incentives?
Cutting tax breaks sounds like a viable funding scheme on its face, but in the modern accounting regime that'll simply drive fossil fuel profits to offshore subsidiaries, with no substantial funding increase.
Cutting existing subsidies, conversely, offers real money to finance programs like this.
Its not a funding scheme. Its a get elected scheme. Net cost and cost benefit considerations are not even a part of it. The formula is "punish big evil companies, give away stuff to the masses". It works.
What you fail to include in your discussion of risk is probability. You only discuss potential consequence, but that is not enough to evaluate a risk. And in absence of knowing probability, risk perception is skewed, a central element to my point. The data for exposure risk is known, it generally shows extremely low probability of negative health impacts. But most folks don't realize just how low that is compared to many of the things they do daily.
By not eating Fukushima food you are not exposing yourself to a risk of ingesting radioisotopes.
By not riding in a car, you are not exposing yourself to the risk of death or injury by car accident. But you do it anyhow. By not eating food from anywhere but an organic garden in your yard, you are exposing yourself to the risk of any harmful chemical (natural or man-made) that could have found it way to the food..... I could go on and on but it is as meaningless as your quote without amounts and probabilities.
I notice that in all of your descriptions of risks above, you miss the key ingredient of risk analysis which is probability. That is required in order to have perspective.
And there is not a clear economic benefit to lie about health risks. Rather, there is great political risk, particularly in the aftermath of Fukushima, to be caught in a lie that far outweighs, IMHO, any monetary benefit from selling this relatively small amount of food. In addition, there is ongoing testing and trends, so purposeful manipulation becomes hard to cover up from that standpoint as well. Not to mention the number of eyeballs that are focused on everything that is happening.
AmiMoJo doesn't say the tests are bullshit - simply that they might be. You, on the other-hand say the test results are accurate.
No, I am not saying they are accurate. I am saying that the insinuation that these tests are not accurate is baseless. Its quite easy to throw out those questions in order to instill doubt, then convenient to hide behind the "might".
Your remaining points are valid, and tests should be done and done right in order to make sure we are all safe.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said fire your gun. To a device, I don't think it matters if it is shot or bashed with a bat. It may make a difference if we were talking about a person though. I wouldn't bash a human trespasser with a bat either. I kind of differentiate between humans and devices when it comes to what crosses the line.
No, because I missed part of the article that says there was a danger presented by damaging the flying object while flying to people and property below. My error.
In other words, if a stranger wanders onto your property, you shoot them and ask questions later.
The next time you find a hidden camera in your bedroom, be sure to keep from harming the poor thing.
Upon re-reading, there is a statement regarding the drone becoming a danger after being shot.
Was he arrested, it appears simply for firing the gun. It isn't clear that the fact a drone was the target was a consideration.
We'll see what he is eventually convicted of.
Ahh, I see you avoid responding to the unnecessary car riding. Do you never take an unnecessary car ride?
You say you are risk averse...I wonder how often and how evenly you apply that. I also suspect that just like everyone else, you take "unnecessary' risks on a daily basis that are much greater than eating food that has been screened to ensure levels are below threshold. So, no, you don't know what those levels are, but you do know they are below the threshold, which is a known level, and far below level show to have any negative health correlation.
We are all skewed by risk perception. Its OK. I am too.
You state eating the food is a stupid risk, but you don't seem to really know what that risk is. The fact that you use things like bungee jumping as a comparable risk tells me your risk perception is way out of whack with reality, which was my point. The fact that you subjectively qualify it as a 'stupid risk' is meaningless in this discussion, as you have no measure for that. The fact that you qualify it as 'unnecessary' and therefore just avoid it is your convenient method to ignore the actual risk and risk perception elements. It does not mean your advice to avoid is based on any practical measure. You would simply recommend wasting that food, or a person not eating what they want when they want it. And to not do so is stupid? I could counter, but that would be subjective and unproductive
I have also clearly pointed out that many car rides you take are likely unnecessary, yet much more risky, and you still take them. As I stated, and your responses are confirming, it is all about risk perception which in the case of the food in question is not in line with reality for many people.
If the unlock switch had some god-awful name describing exactly what it did, then maybe the pilot wouldn't have thought "let's unlock this now so we'll be ready".
You mean like "self destruct button"?
It sure seems like they would at least have had a Ready indicator for unlocking. You want the pilot making as few decisions as possible, particularly during those critical moments of the flight.
A more honest comparison would be a risky activity like bungee jumping, an unnecessary risk that you choose as compared to driving car which is a necessary risk you control.
Eating is a necessary thing. We do it all the time. We don't bungee jump every day as a normal activity. We ride in cars unnecessarily quite often. At least your analogies are heading in the right direction compared to your starting point.
And, we do have data that shows low level radioactive exposure risk. Levels are a key component and are easy to measure and monitor. To insinuate that levels do not matter is really something that has no real world practical basis. You would not get in a car as often if the risk were higher, that is the level of exposure, or accident rate, were high enough. Levels do matter.
You want to apply this 'if it exists at all' avoidance philosophy in this case, my guess is you do not apply it similarly in areas of similar or even much greater risk where your perception is different. If you've eaten any food unnecessarily that might have been exposed to a pesticide, for example. Have you gotten any unnecessary exposure to sunlight? Have you walked on a slippery sidewalk unnecessarily? The list is likely quite long of the things that qualify.
We stuck a wireless charger on a monitor stand. And the world will never be the same.
Next up, first toilet tank with wireless charger.... now THAT would be a real advancement.
True, but they are more practical due to smaller size.
More practical? You are reaching.
Which cost more per KW overall. What a senseless waste if that is the case.
If you notice, I did not argue at all for them to keep subsidies. I just laid out some things to consider. Your reaction tells me you would rather dismiss those entirely. That is fine. Sometimes the details do make things more difficult. Generalizing subsidies and incentives and assuming they serve no purpose makes it easier.
Hey, its amazing how fast people will work for an extra $120 per panel.
I hate that saying though... what did those poor little birds do to you?!
And if you do want to kill birds, invest in wind, not solar!
If they're making billions in profits then why are they getting tax breaks? Besides, who's to say that renewables won't make billions in due course? .
There are different ways to look at it. While O&G may get big 'tax breaks' and other incentives, they may pale in comparison to the tax revenue they generate for the country. If you look at the net tax picture, O&G probably shows as a big tax positive, while renewables are more likely tax neutral to negative at this point.
So, the high profit companies are generating more tax money for us, the question remains "how much more should they pay?", and the answer is quite subjective. I am OK with them paying more taxes, but honestly I'd like to see just what that net tax revenue is before I'd say how much more really makes sense. Some tax incentives help tilt the scale from keeping parts of a company in the US vs moving it oversees. Plenty of games being played in this area, but it is also another element that must be considered.
Probably "Made in China".
Mostly they are from Asia, and so a big chunk of our incentive $$ is going to Asia, rather than staying in country. Windmills have a much higher average US content, and therefore more of that money stays in the US. It is something that should be considered when looking at the true cost and payback. More $$ spent on US content means more US businesses/workers supported and more tax revenue returned through the supply chain.
$60 Billion for 500 million panels = $120 per panel. Of course, panel size is not specified (not a needed detail when hawking votes), but the present incentives are more than that per panel if you are talking $1kw panels or larger. Is she proposing a reduction in incentives?
Cutting tax breaks sounds like a viable funding scheme on its face, but in the modern accounting regime that'll simply drive fossil fuel profits to offshore subsidiaries, with no substantial funding increase.
Cutting existing subsidies, conversely, offers real money to finance programs like this.
Its not a funding scheme. Its a get elected scheme. Net cost and cost benefit considerations are not even a part of it. The formula is "punish big evil companies, give away stuff to the masses". It works.
By not eating Fukushima food you are not exposing yourself to a risk of ingesting radioisotopes.
By not riding in a car, you are not exposing yourself to the risk of death or injury by car accident. But you do it anyhow. By not eating food from anywhere but an organic garden in your yard, you are exposing yourself to the risk of any harmful chemical (natural or man-made) that could have found it way to the food..... I could go on and on but it is as meaningless as your quote without amounts and probabilities.
Well, you get off to a bad start because there is much data available about exposure risks.
We can't modernize the copyright office, because the modern office is copyrighted.
I notice that in all of your descriptions of risks above, you miss the key ingredient of risk analysis which is probability. That is required in order to have perspective.
And there is not a clear economic benefit to lie about health risks. Rather, there is great political risk, particularly in the aftermath of Fukushima, to be caught in a lie that far outweighs, IMHO, any monetary benefit from selling this relatively small amount of food. In addition, there is ongoing testing and trends, so purposeful manipulation becomes hard to cover up from that standpoint as well. Not to mention the number of eyeballs that are focused on everything that is happening.
AmiMoJo doesn't say the tests are bullshit - simply that they might be. You, on the other-hand say the test results are accurate.
No, I am not saying they are accurate. I am saying that the insinuation that these tests are not accurate is baseless. Its quite easy to throw out those questions in order to instill doubt, then convenient to hide behind the "might".
Your remaining points are valid, and tests should be done and done right in order to make sure we are all safe.