Since they just list the 'bad things' that these mbeads can do, but don't list the extent to which they are actually impacting things, we don't know how bad the problem is. If just.001% of a species of fish is having indigestion, then it might not be worth getting alarmed over. If is it a lot more species and much higher percentages of them caught in the wild show significant ill effects, then its a problem that needs to be dealt with.
From my experience, when those details are left out its often due to the fact that the real world numbers are small. It would be nice if the author of the article gave us that critical information so we weren't left to assumptions.
(smarts ass reply pre-emption: Yeah, I can go googling around and try to find out....but maybe I got other things to google tonight.)
I skimmed TFA, and it seems a lot of it talks about why I shouldn't be afraid of dying to an asteroid strike.
I'm NOT. Never have been.
The article generalizes that we are all as stupid and the general population, which has a tremendously skewed risk perception, in part due to media that also doesn't understand risk and/or intentionally ignores it. Unfortunately that ignorance drives our policy makers as well.
It seems that an advantage of hydrogen fuel is the rapid recharge time. A smaller copter with a shorter flight time but the ability to 'refuel' in a matter of minutes might fill a bigger need.
I do find it interesting that some (not all) who willingly take huge EV tax credits to help buy their care also vehemently oppose paying a mileage tax.
Are they going to charge trucks 6000-9000 times what they charge cars? Because that's the difference in wear and tear on roads between the two.
Not if you include local neighborhood roads where those trucks don't typically drive. And why are you assuming all the money is for repair from vehicle damage? What about new roads, lane additions, re-routes, etc? What about simple weather related degradation ( such as wash-outs or freeze-thaw potholes)?
Because roads still need to be maintained no matter what's driving on them............ Maybe a per-mile charge is better.
The biggest problem I see is getting out of state vehicles to pay their fair share as they drive through. If all states did per mile tax, it might even out, but it gets complicated any way you try to reconcile.
In addition, you would get a lot of border residing out-of-staters coming over to fill up. I bet the owners of gas stations on the first exit inside Oregon are cheering this on.
Doesn't the gas tax create a conflict of interest for states who might also want more efficient vehicles? With a gas tax they benefit from greater gas consumption.
Why do you think they would charge cars and trucks the same? It would be very easy to charge trucks more per mile.
I don't know about hyrbids, but EVs are a bit heavier on average that similar ICE cars, so the EV folks would theoretically be getting a better deal if the per mile charges were the same.
And its not all about road repair and maintenance, but also new roads and widening, something everyone uses.
That is a good summary of how I look at it as well. If they want to share rides for free it may be different, but charging money means you are a business and must operate within the regulated business environment. That also means drivers paying taxes on income, and possibly registering their car as a business asset.
OTOH, it seems to make a lot of sense to have a way to share rides and cost.
Exactly. They are just saying what they are investigating based on claims from Roberts himself. Roberts meanwhile has been anything but clear on what he's done.
Slashdot Mirror
And to think I was worried about the possible loss of irreplaceable ecological assets...
Why worry? Its a perfectly natural occurrence, completely out of our control, & nobody is in harm's way.
As long as science is mostly male, it will be seen as a mostly male profession.
Since they just list the 'bad things' that these mbeads can do, but don't list the extent to which they are actually impacting things, we don't know how bad the problem is. If just .001% of a species of fish is having indigestion, then it might not be worth getting alarmed over. If is it a lot more species and much higher percentages of them caught in the wild show significant ill effects, then its a problem that needs to be dealt with.
From my experience, when those details are left out its often due to the fact that the real world numbers are small. It would be nice if the author of the article gave us that critical information so we weren't left to assumptions.
(smarts ass reply pre-emption: Yeah, I can go googling around and try to find out....but maybe I got other things to google tonight.)
Please, present them in the context of the parent post.
I skimmed TFA, and it seems a lot of it talks about why I shouldn't be afraid of dying to an asteroid strike.
I'm NOT. Never have been.
The article generalizes that we are all as stupid and the general population, which has a tremendously skewed risk perception, in part due to media that also doesn't understand risk and/or intentionally ignores it. Unfortunately that ignorance drives our policy makers as well.
Every rider thinks like you until they have their first real wreck.
Every planetary population says asteroids are low risk until they get hit by the big one.
Every swimmer thinks shark attacks are unlikely until they get bit by one.
good point. you are correct.
It seems that an advantage of hydrogen fuel is the rapid recharge time. A smaller copter with a shorter flight time but the ability to 'refuel' in a matter of minutes might fill a bigger need.
Actually, I should have read your post again... sorry.
"CAR" not "CARE"
I do find it interesting that some (not all) who willingly take huge EV tax credits to help buy their care also vehemently oppose paying a mileage tax.
Are they going to charge trucks 6000-9000 times what they charge cars? Because that's the difference in wear and tear on roads between the two.
Not if you include local neighborhood roads where those trucks don't typically drive. And why are you assuming all the money is for repair from vehicle damage? What about new roads, lane additions, re-routes, etc? What about simple weather related degradation ( such as wash-outs or freeze-thaw potholes)?
add the tax when it's an out of state license plate. Easy Peasy.
How is that easy? Are you going to have a guy check everyone? You obviously are not a gas station owner.
Read my post again. I said it would be very easy to charge different rates.
Because roads still need to be maintained no matter what's driving on them. ........... Maybe a per-mile charge is better.
The biggest problem I see is getting out of state vehicles to pay their fair share as they drive through. If all states did per mile tax, it might even out, but it gets complicated any way you try to reconcile.
In addition, you would get a lot of border residing out-of-staters coming over to fill up. I bet the owners of gas stations on the first exit inside Oregon are cheering this on.
Doesn't the gas tax create a conflict of interest for states who might also want more efficient vehicles? With a gas tax they benefit from greater gas consumption.
The other advantage of tolls roads: Keeps those poor people out of our way.
Why do you think they would charge cars and trucks the same? It would be very easy to charge trucks more per mile.
I don't know about hyrbids, but EVs are a bit heavier on average that similar ICE cars, so the EV folks would theoretically be getting a better deal if the per mile charges were the same.
And its not all about road repair and maintenance, but also new roads and widening, something everyone uses.
That is a good summary of how I look at it as well. If they want to share rides for free it may be different, but charging money means you are a business and must operate within the regulated business environment. That also means drivers paying taxes on income, and possibly registering their car as a business asset.
OTOH, it seems to make a lot of sense to have a way to share rides and cost.
The FBI isn't claiming anything.
Exactly. They are just saying what they are investigating based on claims from Roberts himself. Roberts meanwhile has been anything but clear on what he's done.
Charges are different than prosecution and putting people in jail.
The first one rarely. The second one much more often.
I did not say it was not a crime.
Users only are generally not prosecuted.
Now everyone's going to know that I by "loose capacitors", ahem!
that is potentially dangerous.
Selling heroin, not using it, is what gets prosecuted in the US.
It is not a crime to be addicted.
How about we work on prevention as well.