That said if you own property and have not sold or leased any of those rights then you certainly do have grounds to hold someone else liable for damaging your property, and a well can be part of that property.
(1) That is why I said numerous natural contaminants, water rights, mineral rights, utility regulations, etc. can all restrict that anyway.
(2) In this case, the presence of miniscule amounts of a substance that is harmless in much higher concentrations cannot be construed as "damage", in particular since its origin can't even be tied to the fracking.
(3) Many of the people who scream bloody murder over this kind of contamination have absolutely no problem "destroying" my well by mandating that I buy water from the city, so there is a great deal of hypocrisy in all of this.
25g is the WHO's recommendation, which they recently changed from 50g. Why? Science, of course! (that was sarcasm)
But who knows where obesity comes from? It's magic!
Government has a lousy history setting nutritional standards. High sugar consumption is due in large part due to government subsidies and government promotion of low fat diets.
There seems to be very little that's toxic in fracking fluid, in particular compared to what it is being pumped into. It's highly dilute too. A bigger concern should be drinking well contamination from hydrocarbons.
You don't have an automatic right to have a functioning drinking water well on your property; numerous natural contaminants, water rights, mineral rights, utility regulations, etc. can all restrict that anyway.
But you'd have to apply the same rule to the European rate to get something comparable, wouldn't you?
Europeans generally haven't had any comparable large minorities within any nation state, due to centuries of ethnic cleansing and genocide. If we had adopted the European approach, the US would simply have divided itself into a few separate nations, one for each large race and ethnic group. You'd be no more concerned about the high murder rate in some of those independent states than Europeans consider the high murder rates in Albania or Russia a problem of "race relations".
However in Europe, in order to avoid crime-race dangerous and abusive aggregation, the rates published do not show associations between crime and skin color.
Yes, Europeans prefer to close their eyes to their social problems and pretend they aren't there. That works for a while, until they blow up in their face, which they do again and again.
Of course, there is nothing biological or inevitable about the relationship between race and crime in the US; after all, recent African immigrants do very well compared to African Americans. Race in the US is a social construct, but as such, it is real. You only think of looking at the data as "abusive" because your own thinking is imbued with racism.
Your point being what? The fact remains that there are several plausible proposals for reactionless propulsion. And, yes, devices that do not generate thrust are still a reactionless drive: they are reactionless and they move.
Or by one company correcting itself while two, three more go down the same bad path despite the obvious, in-your-face, cautionary example?
Cautionary example of what? Many companies do very well with hiring a marketing guy as their CEO. Many companies also understand perfectly well that their stock price prices include all properly discounted expected future earnings, not just the next quarter, so they do engage in long term strategy to the degree that it is rational.
If it were obvious what Carly was doing wrong, she would have been fired much earlier. You're sitting here with 20/20 hindsight making pronouncements about stuff nobody actually really understands. And, in fact, Carly got so much money (as do many CEOs of failing companies) because even if you want to hire and keep merely a mediocre CEO, it's going to cost you lots of money if your company is not doing well; a really good CEO won't even be talking to your company if there's a problem with it, good CEOs pick winners from the start.
When the phenomenon keeps occurring to the detriment of the entire national economy
Of course, the "entire national economy" would be doing better if every CEO ran their company perfectly; however, trying to achieve that through regulation was the core strategy of fascist economics, and it has failed spectacularly every time it was tried. The fact is that CEO skill is a highly skewed distribution and skills in any other area, with a few stellar performers and a lot of mediocrity and losers.
That's why we don't put government in charge of running the economy, but instead accept that this "phenomenon keeps occurring" and are satisfied with the fact that the market weeds out the losers, patiently and again and again.
Oh, and given your superior insights into how companies should be run, I assume you must be filthy rich, right? I mean, if you know ahead of time which CEOs are winners and which are losers, you can buy stock and sell stock accordingly.
Compared to mid-20th century. Today, buyers have a lot more information about products, can communicate easier with sellers, have a much larger number of sellers to choose from, and the act of buying, selling, and delivery has become cheaper and easier, all compared to 60 years ago.
That is not self-correction. It is paying the price. Self-correction in a market, with respect to erroneous decisions, is when the rate of occurrence of that type of errors either diminish over time or the rate remains constant with the negative impact diminishing over time. Neither is the case.
Ah, I see your problem: you fail to understand elementary economics and think that markets should ennoble the human race!
I'm sorry to disappoint you: markets don't make people or companies better over time on average; all they do is weed out companies that make bad decisions or that have become obsolete. But they get replaced with the same mix of good and bad companies we already have.
It's due to increasing supply, yes. That's an "oversupply" only if you think for some reason that corporate profits going down is intrinsically bad. But it isn't intrinsically bad at all.
It ensures a certain minimum of safety. When you release the floor, everyone will devolve into total crap.
And where is the evidence for that? We have private limousine service, private bus companies, and Uber itself, and they all work a lot better than taxis and public buses.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove with that list of numbers; if you break down the US at the county level (and that's about the size of many of those European "nations") the vast majority also have very low homicide rates.
More generally, though, low homicide rates are not necessarily an indication of a healthy society; a society can achieve low homicide rates through a combination of ethnic cleansing, erosion of privacy rights, limiting freedom of movement, and governmental indoctrination. That's how my birth country achieved a very low homicide rate.
One thing, however, that clearly doesn't achieve a low homicide rate is gun control, because neither in Europe nor among US states is there any connection between gun control/gun ownership and homicide rates. Germany, for example, had a much lower homicide rate than the US even when it had effectively no gun control at all.
So, HP lost 65% of its market value and $100 million dollars, because they made stupid hiring decisions for their CEO. That is the self-correction. Whether Carly gets rich is irrelevant.
And she is right. People like you simply accelerate the job loss overseas, because companies don't have to have a large presence in the US anymore in order to succeed here.
and the Snowden disclosures have really just highlighted the overreach available LEGALLY to the administration.
So you are saying that if the administration can hurt and kill people without breaking any laws, than that's OK? I don't think so.
and the case can certainly be made that the US did not need to intervene on the ground in Iran, Libya or Syria in spite of whatever amount of sabre-rattling conservatives have wanted to do to the contrary.
Actually, what many conservatives and independents wanted was less mindless intervention and less war mongering.
The problem with Hilary and the Democrats is that they are war mongers and crony capitalists of the worst kind, arguably even worse than the militaristic wing of the Republican party. And that's why hell will freeze over before I vote for another Democrat.
When MBA professors mentions *this* as the biggest problem in American corporate culture (can your sense of irony for a second), then this is not idle shit talking.
And when individual companies do this, like, oh, HP, they pay the price. So, it may be a widespread problem, but it is self-correcting.
Why is slapping someone a crime, but telling an angry mob that the resident of a certain house is a pedophile, leading to them burning the house down and killing him, fine because it's just speech.
I know this is hard to grasp for people like you, but there more choices than "make it criminal" and "completely ignore it" or even "celebrate it". For example, you can be subject to civil liability as part of your actions, even if the action wasn't criminal. If you don't understand the difference between civil liability and criminal liability, you should look it up; it's huge. Furthermore, there don't need to be laws proscribing your conduct in order for you to face civil liability.
How many people do you think Stalin or Hitler killed with their own hands? Other than thought crimes, hate crimes, or word crimes exactly what crimes did they commit?
Stalin and Hitler were guilty by our standards not because of their speech, but because of their official directives to subordinates in government, directives that were backed up by force. That is, they were guilty of giving orders, not merely of speaking.
When the IRA used to phone bomb warnings through to the British police, if the British police had used your idiotic logic and asked for proof before acting instead of evacuating the area then hundreds of people would have died.
In fact, the British police routinely asked for proof and established code words for that purpose. Perhaps you are too young or too ignorant to remember.
it is evident to anyone with enough brain cells that they might occasionally message each other that criminalizing, for example, making claims that you have planted a bomb in a school isn't asking people to turn their life upside down.
And how does "criminalizing" this help? Do you seriously think people who phone in anonymous bomb threats give a f*ck whether it's criminal or not? Furthermore, the problem with criminalization is not the effect it has on people who make bomb threats (who mostly don't care), but with the risk of arbitrary enforcement against innocent people, people who made a joke that was misunderstood, people who mistyped something, or sent it to the wrong recipient, or whatever.
Way to entirely miss the point, and go off on a retarded straw-man tangent.
And by that you're talking about yourself, of course.
If the statistics are so favorable for the gun proponents, why not sponsor independent research to show (or of course refute) what a wonderful idea universal gun ownership is.
Nowhere did I advocate "universal gun ownership" (which would entail forcing people to buy guns, as stupid as restricting gun ownership). What I said is that gun control and reductions in legal gun ownership have no significant or consistent effect on violence or homicide rates. That's not news and there is no research to be sponsored. Numerous studies have come to that conclusion. The data is widely available, so you can check for yourself (I did).
What gun control achieves is a reduction in the number suicides by gun, but that's unrelated to homicide rates, and it's a poor justification for gun control.
Slashdot Mirror
(1) That is why I said numerous natural contaminants, water rights, mineral rights, utility regulations, etc. can all restrict that anyway.
(2) In this case, the presence of miniscule amounts of a substance that is harmless in much higher concentrations cannot be construed as "damage", in particular since its origin can't even be tied to the fracking.
(3) Many of the people who scream bloody murder over this kind of contamination have absolutely no problem "destroying" my well by mandating that I buy water from the city, so there is a great deal of hypocrisy in all of this.
25g is the WHO's recommendation, which they recently changed from 50g. Why? Science, of course! (that was sarcasm)
Government has a lousy history setting nutritional standards. High sugar consumption is due in large part due to government subsidies and government promotion of low fat diets.
For the same reason they use it in cosmetics and food: it's cheap, it's safe, and it gets the job done.
The composition of fracking fluids is well documented; go look it up on the web.
The problem with it is not the composition, it's hysteria.
http://sharonspringsspa.com/fr...
2BE is considered quite safe, otherwise it wouldn't be used in cosmetics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...
There seems to be very little that's toxic in fracking fluid, in particular compared to what it is being pumped into. It's highly dilute too. A bigger concern should be drinking well contamination from hydrocarbons.
You don't have an automatic right to have a functioning drinking water well on your property; numerous natural contaminants, water rights, mineral rights, utility regulations, etc. can all restrict that anyway.
Europeans generally haven't had any comparable large minorities within any nation state, due to centuries of ethnic cleansing and genocide. If we had adopted the European approach, the US would simply have divided itself into a few separate nations, one for each large race and ethnic group. You'd be no more concerned about the high murder rate in some of those independent states than Europeans consider the high murder rates in Albania or Russia a problem of "race relations".
Yes, Europeans prefer to close their eyes to their social problems and pretend they aren't there. That works for a while, until they blow up in their face, which they do again and again.
Of course, there is nothing biological or inevitable about the relationship between race and crime in the US; after all, recent African immigrants do very well compared to African Americans. Race in the US is a social construct, but as such, it is real. You only think of looking at the data as "abusive" because your own thinking is imbued with racism.
Your point being what? The fact remains that there are several plausible proposals for reactionless propulsion. And, yes, devices that do not generate thrust are still a reactionless drive: they are reactionless and they move.
Cautionary example of what? Many companies do very well with hiring a marketing guy as their CEO. Many companies also understand perfectly well that their stock price prices include all properly discounted expected future earnings, not just the next quarter, so they do engage in long term strategy to the degree that it is rational.
If it were obvious what Carly was doing wrong, she would have been fired much earlier. You're sitting here with 20/20 hindsight making pronouncements about stuff nobody actually really understands. And, in fact, Carly got so much money (as do many CEOs of failing companies) because even if you want to hire and keep merely a mediocre CEO, it's going to cost you lots of money if your company is not doing well; a really good CEO won't even be talking to your company if there's a problem with it, good CEOs pick winners from the start.
Of course, the "entire national economy" would be doing better if every CEO ran their company perfectly; however, trying to achieve that through regulation was the core strategy of fascist economics, and it has failed spectacularly every time it was tried. The fact is that CEO skill is a highly skewed distribution and skills in any other area, with a few stellar performers and a lot of mediocrity and losers.
That's why we don't put government in charge of running the economy, but instead accept that this "phenomenon keeps occurring" and are satisfied with the fact that the market weeds out the losers, patiently and again and again.
Oh, and given your superior insights into how companies should be run, I assume you must be filthy rich, right? I mean, if you know ahead of time which CEOs are winners and which are losers, you can buy stock and sell stock accordingly.
Compared to mid-20th century. Today, buyers have a lot more information about products, can communicate easier with sellers, have a much larger number of sellers to choose from, and the act of buying, selling, and delivery has become cheaper and easier, all compared to 60 years ago.
Ah, I see your problem: you fail to understand elementary economics and think that markets should ennoble the human race!
I'm sorry to disappoint you: markets don't make people or companies better over time on average; all they do is weed out companies that make bad decisions or that have become obsolete. But they get replaced with the same mix of good and bad companies we already have.
It's due to increasing supply, yes. That's an "oversupply" only if you think for some reason that corporate profits going down is intrinsically bad. But it isn't intrinsically bad at all.
The decline in the average rate of profit since mid century is explained easily through more efficient markets.
And where is the evidence for that? We have private limousine service, private bus companies, and Uber itself, and they all work a lot better than taxis and public buses.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove with that list of numbers; if you break down the US at the county level (and that's about the size of many of those European "nations") the vast majority also have very low homicide rates.
More generally, though, low homicide rates are not necessarily an indication of a healthy society; a society can achieve low homicide rates through a combination of ethnic cleansing, erosion of privacy rights, limiting freedom of movement, and governmental indoctrination. That's how my birth country achieved a very low homicide rate.
One thing, however, that clearly doesn't achieve a low homicide rate is gun control, because neither in Europe nor among US states is there any connection between gun control/gun ownership and homicide rates. Germany, for example, had a much lower homicide rate than the US even when it had effectively no gun control at all.
So, HP lost 65% of its market value and $100 million dollars, because they made stupid hiring decisions for their CEO. That is the self-correction. Whether Carly gets rich is irrelevant.
And she is right. People like you simply accelerate the job loss overseas, because companies don't have to have a large presence in the US anymore in order to succeed here.
So you are saying that if the administration can hurt and kill people without breaking any laws, than that's OK? I don't think so.
Actually, what many conservatives and independents wanted was less mindless intervention and less war mongering.
The problem with Hilary and the Democrats is that they are war mongers and crony capitalists of the worst kind, arguably even worse than the militaristic wing of the Republican party. And that's why hell will freeze over before I vote for another Democrat.
Yes, mine too. They are such jokes that they are sure to lose.
"Vote for Hilary! She has not been the worst Secretary of State in US History!"
Yes, Hilary is extremely adept at manipulating the political process to her advantage and to the advantage of her buddies.
Thanks, but I'd rather have an incompetent do-nothing president than a president who is extremely skilled... at wrecking the country.
And when individual companies do this, like, oh, HP, they pay the price. So, it may be a widespread problem, but it is self-correcting.
One should add that the other part of Siri, the dialog AI, also didn't come from Apple, it came from SRI (probably related to the overall name).
I know this is hard to grasp for people like you, but there more choices than "make it criminal" and "completely ignore it" or even "celebrate it". For example, you can be subject to civil liability as part of your actions, even if the action wasn't criminal. If you don't understand the difference between civil liability and criminal liability, you should look it up; it's huge. Furthermore, there don't need to be laws proscribing your conduct in order for you to face civil liability.
Stalin and Hitler were guilty by our standards not because of their speech, but because of their official directives to subordinates in government, directives that were backed up by force. That is, they were guilty of giving orders, not merely of speaking.
In fact, the British police routinely asked for proof and established code words for that purpose. Perhaps you are too young or too ignorant to remember.
And how does "criminalizing" this help? Do you seriously think people who phone in anonymous bomb threats give a f*ck whether it's criminal or not? Furthermore, the problem with criminalization is not the effect it has on people who make bomb threats (who mostly don't care), but with the risk of arbitrary enforcement against innocent people, people who made a joke that was misunderstood, people who mistyped something, or sent it to the wrong recipient, or whatever.
And by that you're talking about yourself, of course.
Just remember that iPhone's voice recognition comes from Nuance, not Apple, and it's been developed over several decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
Nowhere did I advocate "universal gun ownership" (which would entail forcing people to buy guns, as stupid as restricting gun ownership). What I said is that gun control and reductions in legal gun ownership have no significant or consistent effect on violence or homicide rates. That's not news and there is no research to be sponsored. Numerous studies have come to that conclusion. The data is widely available, so you can check for yourself (I did).
What gun control achieves is a reduction in the number suicides by gun, but that's unrelated to homicide rates, and it's a poor justification for gun control.