Actually encryption doesn't guarantee *things add up* after transfer. And ssh does not guarantee things add up any more than tcp does. It does have other advantages, like compression.
And tcp is just not a good file transfer protocol over microwave links. Sure you can fix the glaring issues, using huge windows, you can even change registry settings to improve the situation : http://support.microsoft.com/kb/224829.
Now rsync is no wonder. It is not something that is constantly trying to reconnect. You start it once... it tries once. If you want an opportunistic reliable file transfer utility... you might want to try bittorrent, it's quite good at that.
What about the influence of the other laws that created the systemic failure in the first place ?
Without the introduction of either CRA and Fannie/Freddie you can be absolutely sure that this would not have happened, and there would have been marginally less houses developed on American soil (not much less though, and they're all seriously undervalued now as a result).
Laws screwed things up... then congress enacted a new law... which screwed up... so congress increases their interference with that law...
What exactly do you think the result will be ?
You didn't answer my question : cap&trade will not lower emissions, and neither will cap&trade + tariffs. There is NO way to fix the bill that does not violate basic concepts of economy. Why do you think you can "fix it anyway" ?
I don't think this case is the beginning of any of a slippery slope, especially since all involved were private groups. Maybe it is a bit questionable that Jimbo was involved, but he's been involved in a lot worse which no one ever talks about. What unnerves me is people who think like you, making these sort of statements without seeing how they have already been abused. If there is a slippery slope, you're sliding down it.
Exactly... this isn't the beginning of any slippery slope, since wikipedia has a long history of caving to even tiny amounts of pressure...
If you think like that the article on Darwinism is exactly 1 kidnapping, anywhere in the world, away from featuring a "Completely ridiculous and obviously untrue" heading... Or anything else that any violent party wants censored, you get the point.
You can't have your cake and eat it in this case. Safety and integrity are mutually exclusive if any involved party is prepared to use violence. In this case wikipedia broke it's (already... euhm "tarnished") integrity to protect someone's safety. What if the same terrorist gang demands censorship to the Darwin and evolution sections ? Believe me, the only reason it hasn't happened yet is that they haven't had the idea yet.
Ever notice how these types of things just keep happening (and in private, don't you remember an instance or 2 of you yourself taking advantage of some govt handout ?)
That's true. And their costs are not borne by any market at the moment, so they will be produced in excess until we address that problem one way or another.
And will cap&trade change that ? No - already established in this thread
Will cap&trade + import tariffs change that ?
Why don't you simply answer it yourself. In this question form you actually put the question in the correct form, as a general. You see, the more co2 = better life is an equation that holds for 6 billion people. Over 5 billion of those currently produce less than a 100th of the average American.
Suppose your wildest dreams happen : both in the EU and the US emissions reduce by 50% in 50 years. That would be so much that you could comfortably burn Al Gore at the stake to celebrate it (in other words : never gonna happen). Meanwhile the rest of the world improves their lives to half that point... so what has happened ? Emissions increase tenfold (factor 9.82). Suppose the US did nothing ? Emissions increase tenfold (factor 10.5). How many years would emissions reduce if God used another flood to erase the US from the map tonight ? 2 years.
Are you starting to get the absurdity of claiming cap&trade will make a significant difference ? Erasing the US from the map, killing every last American would not make a dent.
Obviously a 1000000000000000000000000000000% import tax would accomplish less than that tiny little dent.
Oh, I forgot. You're one of the nutbars who can't tell the differences between, "we're paying a tax to pay for this road," and, "Up against the wall, comrade."
That's because the difference between those two is a difference of scale, not a fundamental difference.
You're one of the nutbags who believe that somehow every communist and national socialist was just an inherently evil person and that's why they started killing everybody. No matter how much historical evidence tells exactly what happened :
they were methods to lower government health care expenses, rationing living expenses, in a very direct way. You know, what the government will be forced to do if more than 50% of the population becomes dependant on it. They used central control (which is, in essence, a 100% tax rate). What you're doing is indeed bringing people closer to that situation.
You see, it is a form of "the broken windows fallacy". The private sector appeared to be failing to take care of people, so popular sentiment demanded the government to take over...
Instead you claim, "it's never been done right by righteous people", and then expect the world to believe that you're magically better than everybody else and that centralized control will work, if only your ideas are the central control. If only you get to tinker with the specific parameters. If only they would listen to you...
In reality Hitler, Lenin, Mao and Stalin weren't idiots. And they weren't malevolent either. At least they didn't start out that way. The problem is not these 4 people, the problem is centralized control, the problem is that wishing living expenses away and propagandizing their non-existence doesn't change a thing, the problem is reality forcing cutbacks (one consequence of the broken windows fallacy must be obvious even to you : if the private sector can't keep people alive, then the public sector can only kill them faster). Just like cap&trade is a form of centralized control. Just like your tariffs (the "solution" to the problems of the first tax) are increasing centralized control.
I'm not saying massacres and shortages will start because of any one thing democrats do. But anything that raises taxes brings those massacres closer.
You might want to read "atlas shrugged". Urgently.
I'm guessing you totally missed my note about tarrifs to limit the offshoring of CO2 heavy industries to prevent the CO2 from simply moving across borders.
So we solve the problem of Americans having to pay more taxes than people of other countries by...
<tadaaa>
Establishing ANOTHER set of new taxes. Because, you know, this one will work...
Seriously, you have to be a democrat to come up with that one. I refuse to dignify this latest "idea" with a reason why it won't work, because you should be able to do so yourself.
In essence you're arguing that you'll beat "the market" (which is the world itself, God, so to speak) with regulation. Well I hate to say it, but it's been tried, and a billion people died. Will you take responsability for those consequences ? Because the last ones that tried kinda... didn't. They just massacred at first, then ran.
Let me re-ask the question: If you don't ignore my suggestion about compensatory tariffs and actually make the price of imported carbon comparable to the pri
Well you got me. I DO ignore your new "solution" of solving the too many taxes problem with another set of new and higher taxes. I fail to see why it needs a rebuttal. It has to do with your inability to tax the people actually emitting co2. Your abilities are limited to further punishing the American economy. Do you seriously think there is any lack of consumers world-wide that makes the American market critical under any tax rate ?
You will simply destroy America. All the while doing nothing to "save the athmosphere". But let me guess : you've got YET ANOTHER new set of taxes that will solve every problem I've come up with yet. Or wait : the UN will do it, despite it's 50 year history of conflict-creation, and total powerlessness.
Unfortunately you will find the real world and I have something in common. In the race between you finding "good" rules "to protect" and me (and the rest of the world) finding ways to negate the effect of all your new government-bloating taxes, I'm like God : totally invincible and untouchable, for everyone, in day-to-day life is on my side. Everyone, including your precious goernment bureaucrats. And the world itself, God so to speak, is on my side. Right now, you're contending with me in a conversation, and the words "It will collapse America" are just words. Implemented in policy however, you will find once God (or the "real world") utters those words "America is collapsing" it will be over, and the consequences of losing will be painfully obvious and impossible to repair.
Can't you see that we can keep doing this ? You can keep coming up with new and inventive taxes that won't work due to the simple fact : today co2 emissions are NECESSARY TO LIVE. They are so for Americans, they are so for Chinese, and they are so for every child, yellow, black, white or blue anywhere on the planet. Making life more comfortable, for all of these means burning more co2.
You will lose the war, and the battles in that war will destroy millions of lives of good, honest people.
You will lose any war against reality. You want to solve co2 emissions' problems ? Invent a stable, reliable, zero impact and >1 EROI energy source.
You ought to give serious thought to switching sides. And listen to that great bit of advice :
"God, give me the strength to accept the things I can't change, the courage to change what I can, and the wisdom to know the difference"
You've been given the wisdom. Now find the strength.
You cannot protect the commons without privatising them, you can't partition and privatise the athmosphere. That means nothing less than protecting the athmosphere is impossible. You might as well attempt to reverse gravity. In fact, reversing gravity would be a lot easier, since gravity probably is based on physical phenomena, while the thing about commons is based on pure mathematics.
Yes, if your solution is above that critical mass, the commons will be destroyed. If you are below that critical mass, the commons will be degraded rather than destroyed. In either case, it takes longer to irreversibly damage the commons.
And, pray tell, what is the optimal resource allocation ? Right : exactly below that critical mass. What does just a tiny bit under critical mass + 1 guy misbehaving equal ?
But, I know you'll say. We're smarter than that : we'll "build in a safety margin". Doesn't that sound decisive ? Of course, once the world sees the massive advantage that one player gets due to cheating, others will follow.
I'm very interested in hearing the established economic theory that indicates that China will increase its CO2 output just to spite us and offset our reduction in CO2 rather than simply producing the amount of CO2 it was planning to produce in the first place.
Just to spite us ? What do you think reality is ? A re-run of dracula ? Good versus evil, big swords and few car chases and all will be well ? The world is a fucking huge amount of people, mostly trying to improve their lives. Some are just misguided or outright stupid. (like a certain government the democrats love above all others : Iran)
Why do you keep re-asking questions that have been answered before ? China will produce the amount that it was planning to produce... and... (since it still is communist, perhaps closer to fascism than to pure socialism, planning is actually a very central term to this discussion)
In addition, of course, China will produce all co2 that is produced by relocating American businesses. Since pollution controls will be eliminated by that move, they likely will not bother to move any co2 reducing equipment they might currently use in the US, resulting in higher co2 output, nor will they design future production facilities with pollution controls in mind, since such a thing is folly in a country where only 10 non-elected idiots control the lives of a billion others. Sure they're expensive, but they're only 10.
In addition to that, of course, Chinese companies, free to have whatever emissions they like, will outcompete American businesses that actually try to comply with this stupid law. Since the business model of these companies is, in essence, based on out-polluting the American business whereever it makes even the tinyest bit of economical sense, the resulting increase from these will be massive.
And about the "planned" part : China's population is massive, over 3 times more than the us. And over 10 times poorer. Unlike democrats' favorite governments like Iran, China actually seems to want to improve their people's lives, which will result in an output rise of... calculate for yourself... 30 times the total output of the US.
If you actually cared about the environment you'd get industries to stay in the US, where they have to behave at least a little bit, even if at the cost of lower pollution controls. Because that at least stands a chance of slowing China's co2 rise for a while, and *might* give the US enough economic clout, a negotiating position that *might* get China to accept some few pollution controls.
You could even do this *while* massively lowering American co2 output and doing it without pushing a single legislative bill : build 20 nuclear power plants all over the US. Anywhere there's a large coal-dependant electricity user base, and there's plenty of locations like that. This would enable American businesses, instead of destroying them, it would lower co2 output enormously, it would lower electricity costs a lot for the common man, and reduce mining by a factor of 30.000 (you need 30.000 tons of coal to give equivalent energy to 1 ton uranium). It would even lower health care costs.
It would also cost, even at 10 billion per plant over 8 times the worst cost overrun, a huge amount less tha
That assumes that one player (or a small number of players) are capable of doing just as much damage to the commons as the entire population is. This is simply not the case. I agree that it will be important to cut emissions in other nations. It does not follow that having some of the players reduce their emissions is of zero benefit.
Not important, it will be *critical*. The point of the tragedy of the commons is not that no-one behaves. In fact the point is that all but one single farmer behave. And it still blows the whole thing up. The whole plan has ZERO benefit unless you do this "important" thingy. And you yourself agree:
You don't have a way to force every last human on earth to comply.
That's certainly true.
So I repeat : cap&trade is obviously not going to preserve the athmosphere. You cannot seriously believe that's what it's going to do, since such a claim goes against 50 years of established economic theory.
So, I ask again, what IS the purpose of cap&trade legislation ? Or is your answer simply "it's popular, you know, like those cabins on the titanic" ?
That would obviously mean that economic theory, history and physics are simply not relevant to someone in the "reality-based" community. (with such a name, you'd think they were compensating for something)
Are you responding to my post ? You seem to have left out your answer to the essential part... Allow me to pose the question again:
Given that AGW is correct (which is a big assumption), you could economically model the athmosphere and co2 in the athmosphere as commons. It is *not* possible for the government to protect this resource, because the rewards for any individual government of violating GHG emission standards will grow, and grow and grow. Will a dictatorial state for example, or even just a poor state really be able to resist dropping emission standards when doing so means doubling the GBP ? When it means tripling ? Or a democratic state when it means 50% less people starving ? Cap & Trade will be a debilitating force on our economy, without any tangible benefit for the athmosphere. Also : once a single government publicly drops the emission standards, other governments will have to choose : either get their economy devastated, or drop emission standards too. It is quite possible, even likely that not dropping emission standards means starvation for quite a few countries, like Indonesia for example
You don't have a way to force every last human on earth to comply. And you can't ask people to starve for clean air and expect them to comply (which is exactly what you're doing btw). That's the whole problem in the "tragedy of the commons". It DOES NOT matter if "most" people behave. It does not matter if "nearly everyone" behaves. it does no good if "everyone except that one guy" behaves. All those things accomplish exactly nothing. If any of Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, or the Chinese refuse to sign, you're just destroying the American economy without ANY advantage for the athmosphere.
And of course, democrats fail to mention that they not just failed to court Chinese support, they barely have any worldwide support at all. EU and US, that's it. Less than 10% population support worldwide when 99.9% would NOT BE ENOUGH.
Allow me to explain why so many on the right think cap&trade is not about protecting the athmosphere : because that's NOT what cap&trade will do. You can't possibly (reasonably) believe that cap&trade will work. So allow me to stop trying to second-guess your intentions and just ask you directly : WHAT DOES CAP&TRADE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH ?
On the other hand, asking a democrat about the reason for implementing a policy is like asking a 16 year old girl in the car of her boyfriend what she's going to do tonight in front of her parents. Or asking the boyfriend.
And btw, if you're answer is "to protect the athmosphere", my reply would be : You might as well go protesting against a theocracy in the streets of Teheran and expect a "democratic" government of "the land of the free" to support you.
Heh, it's more than I make in a year. Much more I might add.
And they could always pay it to a charity. You know "Society for the improvement of John Q. Myself", headquartered in Bermuda, to "cheat" taxes. The whole Obama administration are tax dodgers, or at least, one could be forgiven for thinking so, meaning it can't be that wrong. If "tax-cheaters anonymous" is good enough a government for the american people, surely they can forgive an enterprising tax dodging geek, right ?
Also, your example illustrates my point. He could produce more, thereby increasing QOL for his consumers to have either more muffins at the same price, or the same muffins at a lower price. Or he can produce the same muffins at the current price, but provide it to his consumers with lower emissions, as well as work for the new equipment makers.
Excuse me, but the discussion is about introducing massive new taxes. Those muffins would not stay "at the current price", they would rise. The plan costs 10% of it's projected cost, those muffins will more than double in price. Everyone's income will drop by about 8%. That's including yours.
The economical "myth" that describes the issue of things like pollution is the "tragedy of the commons".
The point of that analog is that people readily accept enormous costs, if they're carried by the community instead of the individual. So "sharing" doesn't work. Any public resource WILL be destroyed, therefore it is best to sell everything into private hands. I do not know how this could be applied to the athmosphere. Especially given that we do not have a decent model of what affects the athmosphere how.
The broken windows fallacy is about government spending. Government spending, at best, accomplishes nothing. At worst, it destroys many things that otherwise might have been.
The problem with the broken windows fallacy is that some things cannot be done by private means. The only things that are considered to be in that case are national defense and police forces, and therefore taxes are a necessity for a modern state. Obviously every state goes beyond that, which is generally considered a bad idea by economists. It also means that it is normal that police forces and armies grow more inefficient over time, whereas companies grow more efficient.
Let's see the purely economical argument against cap&trade. It is not a global measure. The very countries that will represent the bulk of the co2 emissions are not implementing the measures. Even if the utterly impossible happens, and the US decreases emissions by some 20%, that will not change a thing.
Given that AGW is correct (which is a big assumption), you could economically model the athmosphere and co2 in the athmosphere as commons. It is *not* possible for the government to protect this resource, because the rewards for any individual government of violating GHG emission standards will grow, and grow and grow. Will a dictatorial state for example, or even just a poor state really be able to resist dropping emission standards when doing so means doubling the GBP ? When it means tripling ? Or a democratic state when it means 50% less people starving ? Cap & Trade will be a debilitating force on our economy, without any tangible benefit for the athmosphere. Also : once a single government publicly drops the emission standards, other governments will have to choose : either get their economy devastated, or drop emission standards too. It is quite possible, even likely that not dropping emission standards means starvation for quite a few countries, like Indonesia for example
So what could be done ? Simple : provide a carbon neutral alternative. Build 20 2 GW nuclear power plants all over America, put another 20 billion dollars into fusion research (and for the love of God, don't put all the eggs in one basket. Reserve 1 billion to give prizes of 20.000$ to anyone who dignifies himself to drawing a new idea on a napkin. Reserve another billion to give 10 million to anyone midly credible. Reserve another billion to give 100 million to anyone who can convince a panel of 10 physics professors to give them a chance, and tell those professors "long shots" are A-okay). Coal plants will never be able to compete, and shut down naturally. Here's one advantage : even by the worst estimates, doing so will be a lot cheaper than cap&trade.
But politics allocates by political power, not reason.
Exactly. The considering of cap&trade is therefore not rational, just a govt. PR issue.
That book is sad. If it's even half-true, it would mean further conflict, and further world-wars are inevitable. Not the sissy worldwars like WWI and WWII, but enormously protacted worldwars of a superior attacker against weaker opponents lasting hudreds of years.
Very darwinistic view of the world that man has. If he's right, the tactics in life are the same as in quake. Anything that moves and isn't obviously on your side, shoot it. Anything that doesn't move, shoot it anyway because it's probably thinking about moving and killing you as soon as you turn your back.
Turbulence sinks. You probably want a reference to this so I think it's in the FAR/AIM, or possibly in the Private Pilot's Training Manual. But it shouldn't be that hard to verify that slow moving air has a higher density than fast moving air (Bernoulli effect [wikipedia.org]) and therefore is heavier and will sink.
You know what ? We math graduates think we have it soooo good. After all every nutcase only bothers the physicists with their ideas for perpetual motion machines.
Guess I'll have to drop my illusions.
Hello ? When you take energy OUT of a system LESS remains (even less total remains, ie. putting that energy back in STILL results in less remaining energy). Not more. Not equal amounts. LESS.
Wind energy does not get magically replaced. The wind does not keep moving no matter how much energy you take out of it. It does not.
Do you seriously expect to argue on this point ? Go to the Democrat national convention, don't try to convince anyone who's ever mastered high school physics.
And yes this means that long-term there is no such thing as renewable energy.
well, i was taught that wind was caused by differences in air pressure and shaped by the rotation of the earth, the shape of the terrain, and obstacles on the ground. so perhaps you can enlighten me on how building a bunch of turbines will bring about the effects above.
Allow me just to say this. The effects you say generate an amount of energy that makes the athmosphere move. A wind turbine lowers the amount of energy available to the athmosphere. There exists such a thing as the second law of thermodynamics, ergo wind speeds WILL go down.
Tell me, how much does Al Gore pay you ? Does he satisfy you sexually too ? How ?
What?!?!? We're not destroying the air we're reducing the wind. Altitude is limited by air density not wind speed. If a migratory bird is flying high enough to take advantage of wind speeds they are probably above the height of the windmills.
So putting a drag on one part of the athmosphere will have zero effects on other parts of it ? Wind flows. Putting a drag in one location will cause eddy currents elsewhere (where that wind would normally have ended up), impeding air movement higher up.
I guess you don't believe in thermodynamics. After all taking energy away from a system in no way affects all the other things that system normally does with that energy, right ?
They also ignore the unknown effects. What's being proposed is actually "destroying" 2.5% of all global wind (or 20% if oil is to be replaced too).
And what about all the animals dependant on all sorts of wind ? All the plants ? Obviously 2.5% reduction in energy reduces wind speeds by nearly a factor 1.5. That's great but it means plant seedlings will have less range. Much less range. That will mean the death of all plant life on islands that are too far offshore, and become out of range. Birds will not be able to fly as high, or as fast. What will the impact be on those birds ? What about the impact on their prey ? (One thing that has happened in the past, for example, is that rats and other virmin tunnelled below dams when their predators disappeared, who subsequently breached).
Furthermore, the waves on the ocean will drop. Wave heights on beaches will drop along with the reduction in wind power available (unlike eb and flood, the actual waves are created mostly by winds). Wave power will lose potential.
What will all the weather phenomena that are created by winds ? What, exactly, happens if El Nino stops ? The Mistral ? All of these will be affected, and only God knows how. Those phenomena are involved in massive climatic events like the pacific oscillation. If one of those even slightly falters for merely a few months, it will make Al Gore's personal fantasies of global warming impact look utterly insignificant.
Needless to say, those are only global effects. In some locations, effects will be hugely magnified due to all sorts of unforeseen and unknown dependencies that nature will turn out to have.
I personally fear it will turn out that using a significant amount of wind power will make people compare coal mining to the manna of the old testament : a gift from God. (the same goes, obviously, for solar power : if humans are using 0.000000000001% like today, great, no impact. But will the same be true if we're using 10% ? I doubt it).
Face it people : the only thing that can make cities self-sufficient is nuclear power. And, pray tell, why exactly do you think all oil-producing nations are building nuclear power plants in the middle of sun-drowned deserts, with winds that every now and then literally blow small villages away, sometimes straight into the sea ? We don't have much time to build a number of extra nuclear power plants in the US to stave off an electricity and oil shortage.
Actually the bible contains 2 approximations for pi. Neither of them in the New Testament, though. The bible also clearly states in both cases that they're approximate, not exact.
One of them is indeed 3 (though Jesus never said that, it's in a piece about the architecture of the first temple, which, apparently had a round part). The other is a surprisingly accurate approximation for pi, and indeed a very useful one, since it is a fraction : 22/7. First 4 digits are correct (yes, I realise the fourth digit of 3.1428 is a two, not a one, however round(math.pi* 1000) = 3142, which means 4 correct digits)
The fraction is really useful because it can be used in building and quick calculations about adding a circular structure without complicating the matter to the point where you need a calculator to avoid mistakes. If you're good at calculating in your head, though, you might give 355/113 a try, which is a very, very good one. I've heard of a physics simulator that uses 22/7 and 355/113, because they allow it to avoid the need for floating point alltogether in a few special cases, which will still give a massive speedup on current processors.
It's unfair that kids have to do math. They should be able to avoid it, and only learn mathematics with proper patronage (and by extention, any science based on it, which includes at the very least all exact sciences, all the medicine subjects, psychology and a few others). Every child has the right to either avoid mathematics or receive months of instruction by a capable mathematician who enjoys himself teaching those kids.
He ignores the obvious problems : this was how it was done in the middle ages. This resulted in tiny, utterly insignificant numbers of students. A country would have 2, maybe 3 mathematicians. The largest of countries might have 10. A country the size of America didn't exist, so let's say the US would have truly large numbers of math-capable people : perhaps a 100.
You see mathematics is an art, and can only be taught, even to little children, by people who devote at the very least a large part of their life to it, and only as long as they keep doing so.
Of course, there's no mention of the obvious downside : that about 50 Americans a year could learn maths by that system. If you want any sizeable portion of the population to have the option of actually studying or understanding science, this is not the way to do it.
Yes the system sucks. The problem is that what he's suggesting, patronage, is not a solution at all. It's a much worse problem.
Look at the signal 100-150 years back. Oh no ! Massive (well... almost 1.2 degrees) warming.
Lower that amplitude another few thousand years ? Oh no ! The earth is cooling.
Lower that amplitude a few tens of thousands of years ! Oh no ! We're close to the start of a new ice age, temperature is about to drop some 5-15 degrees.
Lower that amplitude a few hundreds of thousands of years ! Hmmm, mildly warming earth... about 0.1 degree per ten millenia
Lower that amplitude a few million years ! Oh no ! The earth is cooling and has already lost several dozen degrees of heat. It does look like it will warm up a bit in the next, oh, 600000 years or so.
So please tell me, which of these should I be worried about ? To be honest I find the 3rd (about the new ice age that's obviously getting ready to start) the most convincing. But don't let me tell you what to think. Look at the data yourself. No matter which interpretation of the data you accept, on thing is absolutely certain : the IPCC is either beyond stupid, or lying.
The simple truth is the IPCC models predict a monotonically increasing temperature, which tends toward infinite. It not only tends toward infinite, it has quite a steep slope. If their models are correct, life on earth would become impossible before the year 3000 (avg. temperature above 52 degrees celcius would mean the end of life on earth). Worse, if their models are started, not at 1900 but at -10000 they predict life on earth to be impossible today (avg. temperature over 200 degrees celcius).
(note that the fluctuations in the graph are not a phenomena, but merely a result of increasing margins of error as we go further back. Data tends to get smoothed the further back in time you go)
... Which would still be of massive benefit to everyone. I mean the internet is a very good example of what you just described. I daresay nothing came of it while govt. controlled it. Only when private sector got involved did things get interesting. The same will be true of fusion power.
And... of course if the government pays everyone gets to steal. Think about it this way : what prospects do scientists who don't do this have if they stay in government service ? The very top of the reward curve is a pad on the back.
Private sector will gladly pay heaps of money for even minor advancements, and even if you're motivated by research : ever compare the pitiful university labs with a private company's equipment ? The first time I did some research for a company I asked "when do I have to return these sensors ?", thinking it'd be like university, where you can use anything costing over 10$ for perhaps a day or two unless you're a professor, and even then. They just looked and said "never, this was budgeted for you, take it home afterwards".
I should say the difference is heaven and earth. But it isn't. The difference is heaven and hell.
And the greatest thing the totalitarian, racist and violent political ideology called "islam" ever did was convince people it's a religion. Said ideology controls a few dozen states at least, and it does so through oppression, killings and war (which is why it's fundamentally incompatible with democracy).
If you blame Israel for wanting to be Jewish, which is perhaps not the nicest religion, but at least a peaceful one. Then you need to blame dozens of states for being islamic, which is a lot worse : cutting of hands, stoning women, killing, state-sponsored wars, genocides and racism... you name it.
Israel is Jewish. Whatever you criticize on Israel reflects on Judaism. Just like all muslim countries are islamic, and all criticism that rightfully falls on them reflects on islam, just as it should. And yes, this extends further, North Korea is socialist, and Venezuela is becoming that, criticism on them (like the constant stealing and killings these states engage in) reflects on socialism. Even if one act, or one party, cannot possibly be enough to judge the ideology, such acts cannot be ignored either.
Of course, this doesn't work with people having black or white opinions. Yes Israel makes mistakes. Have you visisted the place ? Israel is, without any doubt, a force for good. It is perhaps not the perfect shining star on the mountain they want it to be, but it's shining pretty bright compared to it's environment. Likewise, just about all islamic countries are oppressive theocratic dictatorships (with the exception of Iraq and Turkey), just visit any islamic country. Just sit down with a normal muslim for dinner (not a hard thing to get done), and see how they treat their women, and their children. Then you won't believe how bad it is, you "must have lucked out, after all some westerners beat their women too", so you try again. And again. And then you'll start to get it. You will clearly see how it's a force that destroys people, women and children, destroys whole countries.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually encryption doesn't guarantee *things add up* after transfer. And ssh does not guarantee things add up any more than tcp does. It does have other advantages, like compression.
And tcp is just not a good file transfer protocol over microwave links. Sure you can fix the glaring issues, using huge windows, you can even change registry settings to improve the situation : http://support.microsoft.com/kb/224829.
Making it work really well, though, you'll need
If you're worried about correctness of transfer you might want to use rsync for windows, which *does* check correctness. You might want to use an interface like http://www.aboutmyip.com/AboutMyXApp/DeltaCopy.jsp.
Now rsync is no wonder. It is not something that is constantly trying to reconnect. You start it once ... it tries once. If you want an opportunistic reliable file transfer utility ... you might want to try bittorrent, it's quite good at that.
What about the influence of the other laws that created the systemic failure in the first place ?
Without the introduction of either CRA and Fannie/Freddie you can be absolutely sure that this would not have happened, and there would have been marginally less houses developed on American soil (not much less though, and they're all seriously undervalued now as a result).
Laws screwed things up ... then congress enacted a new law ... which screwed up ... so congress increases their interference with that law ...
What exactly do you think the result will be ?
You didn't answer my question : cap&trade will not lower emissions, and neither will cap&trade + tariffs. There is NO way to fix the bill that does not violate basic concepts of economy. Why do you think you can "fix it anyway" ?
I don't think this case is the beginning of any of a slippery slope, especially since all involved were private groups. Maybe it is a bit questionable that Jimbo was involved, but he's been involved in a lot worse which no one ever talks about. What unnerves me is people who think like you, making these sort of statements without seeing how they have already been abused. If there is a slippery slope, you're sliding down it.
Exactly ... this isn't the beginning of any slippery slope, since wikipedia has a long history of caving to even tiny amounts of pressure ...
If you think like that the article on Darwinism is exactly 1 kidnapping, anywhere in the world, away from featuring a "Completely ridiculous and obviously untrue" heading ... Or anything else that any violent party wants censored, you get the point.
You can't have your cake and eat it in this case. Safety and integrity are mutually exclusive if any involved party is prepared to use violence. In this case wikipedia broke it's (already ... euhm "tarnished") integrity to protect someone's safety. What if the same terrorist gang demands censorship to the Darwin and evolution sections ? Believe me, the only reason it hasn't happened yet is that they haven't had the idea yet.
You're arguing against yourself here. You like laws, well, you hate just every specific law that was used in attempting to "fix the market".
Let me ask you : are you SURE that you could have fixed those laws (not, mind you, with the benefit of hindsight) ?
Because if not, your whole argument, it seems to me, collapses.
Just to illustrate my point : Bank bailout by US govt resulted in ...
Bailout of U.S. Banks Gives British Rum a $2.7 Billion Benefit
Ever notice how these types of things just keep happening (and in private, don't you remember an instance or 2 of you yourself taking advantage of some govt handout ?)
That's true. And their costs are not borne by any market at the moment, so they will be produced in excess until we address that problem one way or another.
And will cap&trade change that ? No - already established in this thread
Will cap&trade + import tariffs change that ?
Why don't you simply answer it yourself. In this question form you actually put the question in the correct form, as a general. You see, the more co2 = better life is an equation that holds for 6 billion people. Over 5 billion of those currently produce less than a 100th of the average American.
Suppose your wildest dreams happen : both in the EU and the US emissions reduce by 50% in 50 years. That would be so much that you could comfortably burn Al Gore at the stake to celebrate it (in other words : never gonna happen). Meanwhile the rest of the world improves their lives to half that point ... so what has happened ? Emissions increase tenfold (factor 9.82). Suppose the US did nothing ? Emissions increase tenfold (factor 10.5). How many years would emissions reduce if God used another flood to erase the US from the map tonight ? 2 years.
Are you starting to get the absurdity of claiming cap&trade will make a significant difference ? Erasing the US from the map, killing every last American would not make a dent.
Obviously a 1000000000000000000000000000000% import tax would accomplish less than that tiny little dent.
Oh, I forgot. You're one of the nutbars who can't tell the differences between, "we're paying a tax to pay for this road," and, "Up against the wall, comrade."
That's because the difference between those two is a difference of scale, not a fundamental difference.
You're one of the nutbags who believe that somehow every communist and national socialist was just an inherently evil person and that's why they started killing everybody. No matter how much historical evidence tells exactly what happened :
they were methods to lower government health care expenses, rationing living expenses, in a very direct way. You know, what the government will be forced to do if more than 50% of the population becomes dependant on it. They used central control (which is, in essence, a 100% tax rate). What you're doing is indeed bringing people closer to that situation.
You see, it is a form of "the broken windows fallacy". The private sector appeared to be failing to take care of people, so popular sentiment demanded the government to take over ...
Instead you claim, "it's never been done right by righteous people", and then expect the world to believe that you're magically better than everybody else and that centralized control will work, if only your ideas are the central control. If only you get to tinker with the specific parameters. If only they would listen to you ...
In reality Hitler, Lenin, Mao and Stalin weren't idiots. And they weren't malevolent either. At least they didn't start out that way. The problem is not these 4 people, the problem is centralized control, the problem is that wishing living expenses away and propagandizing their non-existence doesn't change a thing, the problem is reality forcing cutbacks (one consequence of the broken windows fallacy must be obvious even to you : if the private sector can't keep people alive, then the public sector can only kill them faster). Just like cap&trade is a form of centralized control. Just like your tariffs (the "solution" to the problems of the first tax) are increasing centralized control.
I'm not saying massacres and shortages will start because of any one thing democrats do. But anything that raises taxes brings those massacres closer.
You might want to read "atlas shrugged". Urgently.
I'm guessing you totally missed my note about tarrifs to limit the offshoring of CO2 heavy industries to prevent the CO2 from simply moving across borders.
So we solve the problem of Americans having to pay more taxes than people of other countries by ...
<tadaaa>
Establishing ANOTHER set of new taxes. Because, you know, this one will work ...
Seriously, you have to be a democrat to come up with that one. I refuse to dignify this latest "idea" with a reason why it won't work, because you should be able to do so yourself.
In essence you're arguing that you'll beat "the market" (which is the world itself, God, so to speak) with regulation. Well I hate to say it, but it's been tried, and a billion people died. Will you take responsability for those consequences ? Because the last ones that tried kinda ... didn't. They just massacred at first, then ran.
Let me re-ask the question: If you don't ignore my suggestion about compensatory tariffs and actually make the price of imported carbon comparable to the pri
Well you got me. I DO ignore your new "solution" of solving the too many taxes problem with another set of new and higher taxes. I fail to see why it needs a rebuttal. It has to do with your inability to tax the people actually emitting co2. Your abilities are limited to further punishing the American economy. Do you seriously think there is any lack of consumers world-wide that makes the American market critical under any tax rate ?
You will simply destroy America. All the while doing nothing to "save the athmosphere". But let me guess : you've got YET ANOTHER new set of taxes that will solve every problem I've come up with yet. Or wait : the UN will do it, despite it's 50 year history of conflict-creation, and total powerlessness.
Unfortunately you will find the real world and I have something in common. In the race between you finding "good" rules "to protect" and me (and the rest of the world) finding ways to negate the effect of all your new government-bloating taxes, I'm like God : totally invincible and untouchable, for everyone, in day-to-day life is on my side. Everyone, including your precious goernment bureaucrats. And the world itself, God so to speak, is on my side. Right now, you're contending with me in a conversation, and the words "It will collapse America" are just words. Implemented in policy however, you will find once God (or the "real world") utters those words "America is collapsing" it will be over, and the consequences of losing will be painfully obvious and impossible to repair.
Can't you see that we can keep doing this ? You can keep coming up with new and inventive taxes that won't work due to the simple fact : today co2 emissions are NECESSARY TO LIVE. They are so for Americans, they are so for Chinese, and they are so for every child, yellow, black, white or blue anywhere on the planet. Making life more comfortable, for all of these means burning more co2.
You will lose the war, and the battles in that war will destroy millions of lives of good, honest people.
You will lose any war against reality. You want to solve co2 emissions' problems ? Invent a stable, reliable, zero impact and >1 EROI energy source.
You ought to give serious thought to switching sides. And listen to that great bit of advice :
"God, give me the strength to accept the things I can't change, the courage to change what I can, and the wisdom to know the difference"
You've been given the wisdom. Now find the strength.
You cannot protect the commons without privatising them, you can't partition and privatise the athmosphere. That means nothing less than protecting the athmosphere is impossible. You might as well attempt to reverse gravity. In fact, reversing gravity would be a lot easier, since gravity probably is based on physical phenomena, while the thing about commons is based on pure mathematics.
Yes, if your solution is above that critical mass, the commons will be destroyed. If you are below that critical mass, the commons will be degraded rather than destroyed. In either case, it takes longer to irreversibly damage the commons.
And, pray tell, what is the optimal resource allocation ? Right : exactly below that critical mass. What does just a tiny bit under critical mass + 1 guy misbehaving equal ?
But, I know you'll say. We're smarter than that : we'll "build in a safety margin". Doesn't that sound decisive ? Of course, once the world sees the massive advantage that one player gets due to cheating, others will follow.
I'm very interested in hearing the established economic theory that indicates that China will increase its CO2 output just to spite us and offset our reduction in CO2 rather than simply producing the amount of CO2 it was planning to produce in the first place.
Just to spite us ? What do you think reality is ? A re-run of dracula ? Good versus evil, big swords and few car chases and all will be well ? The world is a fucking huge amount of people, mostly trying to improve their lives. Some are just misguided or outright stupid. (like a certain government the democrats love above all others : Iran)
Why do you keep re-asking questions that have been answered before ? China will produce the amount that it was planning to produce ... and ... (since it still is communist, perhaps closer to fascism than to pure socialism, planning is actually a very central term to this discussion)
In addition, of course, China will produce all co2 that is produced by relocating American businesses. Since pollution controls will be eliminated by that move, they likely will not bother to move any co2 reducing equipment they might currently use in the US, resulting in higher co2 output, nor will they design future production facilities with pollution controls in mind, since such a thing is folly in a country where only 10 non-elected idiots control the lives of a billion others. Sure they're expensive, but they're only 10.
In addition to that, of course, Chinese companies, free to have whatever emissions they like, will outcompete American businesses that actually try to comply with this stupid law. Since the business model of these companies is, in essence, based on out-polluting the American business whereever it makes even the tinyest bit of economical sense, the resulting increase from these will be massive.
And about the "planned" part : China's population is massive, over 3 times more than the us. And over 10 times poorer. Unlike democrats' favorite governments like Iran, China actually seems to want to improve their people's lives, which will result in an output rise of ... calculate for yourself ... 30 times the total output of the US.
If you actually cared about the environment you'd get industries to stay in the US, where they have to behave at least a little bit, even if at the cost of lower pollution controls. Because that at least stands a chance of slowing China's co2 rise for a while, and *might* give the US enough economic clout, a negotiating position that *might* get China to accept some few pollution controls.
You could even do this *while* massively lowering American co2 output and doing it without pushing a single legislative bill : build 20 nuclear power plants all over the US. Anywhere there's a large coal-dependant electricity user base, and there's plenty of locations like that. This would enable American businesses, instead of destroying them, it would lower co2 output enormously, it would lower electricity costs a lot for the common man, and reduce mining by a factor of 30.000 (you need 30.000 tons of coal to give equivalent energy to 1 ton uranium). It would even lower health care costs.
It would also cost, even at 10 billion per plant over 8 times the worst cost overrun, a huge amount less tha
That assumes that one player (or a small number of players) are capable of doing just as much damage to the commons as the entire population is. This is simply not the case. I agree that it will be important to cut emissions in other nations. It does not follow that having some of the players reduce their emissions is of zero benefit.
Not important, it will be *critical*. The point of the tragedy of the commons is not that no-one behaves. In fact the point is that all but one single farmer behave. And it still blows the whole thing up. The whole plan has ZERO benefit unless you do this "important" thingy. And you yourself agree :
You don't have a way to force every last human on earth to comply.
That's certainly true.
So I repeat : cap&trade is obviously not going to preserve the athmosphere. You cannot seriously believe that's what it's going to do, since such a claim goes against 50 years of established economic theory.
So, I ask again, what IS the purpose of cap&trade legislation ? Or is your answer simply "it's popular, you know, like those cabins on the titanic" ?
That would obviously mean that economic theory, history and physics are simply not relevant to someone in the "reality-based" community. (with such a name, you'd think they were compensating for something)
Are you responding to my post ? You seem to have left out your answer to the essential part ... Allow me to pose the question again :
Given that AGW is correct (which is a big assumption), you could economically model the athmosphere and co2 in the athmosphere as commons. It is *not* possible for the government to protect this resource, because the rewards for any individual government of violating GHG emission standards will grow, and grow and grow. Will a dictatorial state for example, or even just a poor state really be able to resist dropping emission standards when doing so means doubling the GBP ? When it means tripling ? Or a democratic state when it means 50% less people starving ? Cap & Trade will be a debilitating force on our economy, without any tangible benefit for the athmosphere. Also : once a single government publicly drops the emission standards, other governments will have to choose : either get their economy devastated, or drop emission standards too. It is quite possible, even likely that not dropping emission standards means starvation for quite a few countries, like Indonesia for example
You don't have a way to force every last human on earth to comply. And you can't ask people to starve for clean air and expect them to comply (which is exactly what you're doing btw). That's the whole problem in the "tragedy of the commons". It DOES NOT matter if "most" people behave. It does not matter if "nearly everyone" behaves. it does no good if "everyone except that one guy" behaves. All those things accomplish exactly nothing. If any of Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, or the Chinese refuse to sign, you're just destroying the American economy without ANY advantage for the athmosphere.
And of course, democrats fail to mention that they not just failed to court Chinese support, they barely have any worldwide support at all. EU and US, that's it. Less than 10% population support worldwide when 99.9% would NOT BE ENOUGH.
Allow me to explain why so many on the right think cap&trade is not about protecting the athmosphere : because that's NOT what cap&trade will do. You can't possibly (reasonably) believe that cap&trade will work. So allow me to stop trying to second-guess your intentions and just ask you directly : WHAT DOES CAP&TRADE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH ?
On the other hand, asking a democrat about the reason for implementing a policy is like asking a 16 year old girl in the car of her boyfriend what she's going to do tonight in front of her parents. Or asking the boyfriend.
And btw, if you're answer is "to protect the athmosphere", my reply would be : You might as well go protesting against a theocracy in the streets of Teheran and expect a "democratic" government of "the land of the free" to support you.
Heh, it's more than I make in a year. Much more I might add.
And they could always pay it to a charity. You know "Society for the improvement of John Q. Myself", headquartered in Bermuda, to "cheat" taxes. The whole Obama administration are tax dodgers, or at least, one could be forgiven for thinking so, meaning it can't be that wrong. If "tax-cheaters anonymous" is good enough a government for the american people, surely they can forgive an enterprising tax dodging geek, right ?
Also, your example illustrates my point. He could produce more, thereby increasing QOL for his consumers to have either more muffins at the same price, or the same muffins at a lower price. Or he can produce the same muffins at the current price, but provide it to his consumers with lower emissions, as well as work for the new equipment makers.
Excuse me, but the discussion is about introducing massive new taxes. Those muffins would not stay "at the current price", they would rise. The plan costs 10% of it's projected cost, those muffins will more than double in price. Everyone's income will drop by about 8%. That's including yours.
The economical "myth" that describes the issue of things like pollution is the "tragedy of the commons".
The point of that analog is that people readily accept enormous costs, if they're carried by the community instead of the individual. So "sharing" doesn't work. Any public resource WILL be destroyed, therefore it is best to sell everything into private hands. I do not know how this could be applied to the athmosphere. Especially given that we do not have a decent model of what affects the athmosphere how.
The broken windows fallacy is about government spending. Government spending, at best, accomplishes nothing. At worst, it destroys many things that otherwise might have been.
The problem with the broken windows fallacy is that some things cannot be done by private means. The only things that are considered to be in that case are national defense and police forces, and therefore taxes are a necessity for a modern state. Obviously every state goes beyond that, which is generally considered a bad idea by economists. It also means that it is normal that police forces and armies grow more inefficient over time, whereas companies grow more efficient.
Let's see the purely economical argument against cap&trade. It is not a global measure. The very countries that will represent the bulk of the co2 emissions are not implementing the measures. Even if the utterly impossible happens, and the US decreases emissions by some 20%, that will not change a thing.
Given that AGW is correct (which is a big assumption), you could economically model the athmosphere and co2 in the athmosphere as commons. It is *not* possible for the government to protect this resource, because the rewards for any individual government of violating GHG emission standards will grow, and grow and grow. Will a dictatorial state for example, or even just a poor state really be able to resist dropping emission standards when doing so means doubling the GBP ? When it means tripling ? Or a democratic state when it means 50% less people starving ? Cap & Trade will be a debilitating force on our economy, without any tangible benefit for the athmosphere. Also : once a single government publicly drops the emission standards, other governments will have to choose : either get their economy devastated, or drop emission standards too. It is quite possible, even likely that not dropping emission standards means starvation for quite a few countries, like Indonesia for example
So what could be done ? Simple : provide a carbon neutral alternative. Build 20 2 GW nuclear power plants all over America, put another 20 billion dollars into fusion research (and for the love of God, don't put all the eggs in one basket. Reserve 1 billion to give prizes of 20.000$ to anyone who dignifies himself to drawing a new idea on a napkin. Reserve another billion to give 10 million to anyone midly credible. Reserve another billion to give 100 million to anyone who can convince a panel of 10 physics professors to give them a chance, and tell those professors "long shots" are A-okay). Coal plants will never be able to compete, and shut down naturally. Here's one advantage : even by the worst estimates, doing so will be a lot cheaper than cap&trade.
But politics allocates by political power, not reason.
Exactly. The considering of cap&trade is therefore not rational, just a govt. PR issue.
That book is sad. If it's even half-true, it would mean further conflict, and further world-wars are inevitable. Not the sissy worldwars like WWI and WWII, but enormously protacted worldwars of a superior attacker against weaker opponents lasting hudreds of years.
Very darwinistic view of the world that man has. If he's right, the tactics in life are the same as in quake. Anything that moves and isn't obviously on your side, shoot it. Anything that doesn't move, shoot it anyway because it's probably thinking about moving and killing you as soon as you turn your back.
It's called "Europe".
Turbulence sinks. You probably want a reference to this so I think it's in the FAR/AIM, or possibly in the Private Pilot's Training Manual. But it shouldn't be that hard to verify that slow moving air has a higher density than fast moving air (Bernoulli effect [wikipedia.org]) and therefore is heavier and will sink.
You know what ? We math graduates think we have it soooo good. After all every nutcase only bothers the physicists with their ideas for perpetual motion machines.
Guess I'll have to drop my illusions.
Hello ? When you take energy OUT of a system LESS remains (even less total remains, ie. putting that energy back in STILL results in less remaining energy). Not more. Not equal amounts. LESS.
Wind energy does not get magically replaced. The wind does not keep moving no matter how much energy you take out of it. It does not.
Do you seriously expect to argue on this point ? Go to the Democrat national convention, don't try to convince anyone who's ever mastered high school physics.
And yes this means that long-term there is no such thing as renewable energy.
well, i was taught that wind was caused by differences in air pressure and shaped by the rotation of the earth, the shape of the terrain, and obstacles on the ground. so perhaps you can enlighten me on how building a bunch of turbines will bring about the effects above.
Allow me just to say this. The effects you say generate an amount of energy that makes the athmosphere move. A wind turbine lowers the amount of energy available to the athmosphere. There exists such a thing as the second law of thermodynamics, ergo wind speeds WILL go down.
Tell me, how much does Al Gore pay you ? Does he satisfy you sexually too ? How ?
What?!?!? We're not destroying the air we're reducing the wind. Altitude is limited by air density not wind speed. If a migratory bird is flying high enough to take advantage of wind speeds they are probably above the height of the windmills.
So putting a drag on one part of the athmosphere will have zero effects on other parts of it ? Wind flows. Putting a drag in one location will cause eddy currents elsewhere (where that wind would normally have ended up), impeding air movement higher up.
I guess you don't believe in thermodynamics. After all taking energy away from a system in no way affects all the other things that system normally does with that energy, right ?
They also ignore the unknown effects. What's being proposed is actually "destroying" 2.5% of all global wind (or 20% if oil is to be replaced too).
And what about all the animals dependant on all sorts of wind ? All the plants ? Obviously 2.5% reduction in energy reduces wind speeds by nearly a factor 1.5. That's great but it means plant seedlings will have less range. Much less range. That will mean the death of all plant life on islands that are too far offshore, and become out of range. Birds will not be able to fly as high, or as fast. What will the impact be on those birds ? What about the impact on their prey ? (One thing that has happened in the past, for example, is that rats and other virmin tunnelled below dams when their predators disappeared, who subsequently breached).
Furthermore, the waves on the ocean will drop. Wave heights on beaches will drop along with the reduction in wind power available (unlike eb and flood, the actual waves are created mostly by winds). Wave power will lose potential.
What will all the weather phenomena that are created by winds ? What, exactly, happens if El Nino stops ? The Mistral ? All of these will be affected, and only God knows how. Those phenomena are involved in massive climatic events like the pacific oscillation. If one of those even slightly falters for merely a few months, it will make Al Gore's personal fantasies of global warming impact look utterly insignificant.
Needless to say, those are only global effects. In some locations, effects will be hugely magnified due to all sorts of unforeseen and unknown dependencies that nature will turn out to have.
I personally fear it will turn out that using a significant amount of wind power will make people compare coal mining to the manna of the old testament : a gift from God. (the same goes, obviously, for solar power : if humans are using 0.000000000001% like today, great, no impact. But will the same be true if we're using 10% ? I doubt it).
Face it people : the only thing that can make cities self-sufficient is nuclear power. And, pray tell, why exactly do you think all oil-producing nations are building nuclear power plants in the middle of sun-drowned deserts, with winds that every now and then literally blow small villages away, sometimes straight into the sea ? We don't have much time to build a number of extra nuclear power plants in the US to stave off an electricity and oil shortage.
Actually the bible contains 2 approximations for pi. Neither of them in the New Testament, though. The bible also clearly states in both cases that they're approximate, not exact.
One of them is indeed 3 (though Jesus never said that, it's in a piece about the architecture of the first temple, which, apparently had a round part). The other is a surprisingly accurate approximation for pi, and indeed a very useful one, since it is a fraction : 22/7. First 4 digits are correct (yes, I realise the fourth digit of 3.1428 is a two, not a one, however round(math.pi* 1000) = 3142, which means 4 correct digits)
The fraction is really useful because it can be used in building and quick calculations about adding a circular structure without complicating the matter to the point where you need a calculator to avoid mistakes. If you're good at calculating in your head, though, you might give 355/113 a try, which is a very, very good one. I've heard of a physics simulator that uses 22/7 and 355/113, because they allow it to avoid the need for floating point alltogether in a few special cases, which will still give a massive speedup on current processors.
Why don't we just give the content quickly ?
It's unfair that kids have to do math. They should be able to avoid it, and only learn mathematics with proper patronage (and by extention, any science based on it, which includes at the very least all exact sciences, all the medicine subjects, psychology and a few others). Every child has the right to either avoid mathematics or receive months of instruction by a capable mathematician who enjoys himself teaching those kids.
He ignores the obvious problems : this was how it was done in the middle ages. This resulted in tiny, utterly insignificant numbers of students. A country would have 2, maybe 3 mathematicians. The largest of countries might have 10. A country the size of America didn't exist, so let's say the US would have truly large numbers of math-capable people : perhaps a 100.
You see mathematics is an art, and can only be taught, even to little children, by people who devote at the very least a large part of their life to it, and only as long as they keep doing so.
Of course, there's no mention of the obvious downside : that about 50 Americans a year could learn maths by that system. If you want any sizeable portion of the population to have the option of actually studying or understanding science, this is not the way to do it.
Yes the system sucks. The problem is that what he's suggesting, patronage, is not a solution at all. It's a much worse problem.
You're right. We should be worried !
Look at the signal 100-150 years back. Oh no ! Massive (well ... almost 1.2 degrees) warming.
Lower that amplitude another few thousand years ? Oh no ! The earth is cooling.
Lower that amplitude a few tens of thousands of years ! Oh no ! We're close to the start of a new ice age, temperature is about to drop some 5-15 degrees.
Lower that amplitude a few hundreds of thousands of years ! Hmmm, mildly warming earth ... about 0.1 degree per ten millenia
Lower that amplitude a few million years ! Oh no ! The earth is cooling and has already lost several dozen degrees of heat. It does look like it will warm up a bit in the next, oh, 600000 years or so.
So please tell me, which of these should I be worried about ? To be honest I find the 3rd (about the new ice age that's obviously getting ready to start) the most convincing. But don't let me tell you what to think. Look at the data yourself. No matter which interpretation of the data you accept, on thing is absolutely certain : the IPCC is either beyond stupid, or lying.
The simple truth is the IPCC models predict a monotonically increasing temperature, which tends toward infinite. It not only tends toward infinite, it has quite a steep slope. If their models are correct, life on earth would become impossible before the year 3000 (avg. temperature above 52 degrees celcius would mean the end of life on earth). Worse, if their models are started, not at 1900 but at -10000 they predict life on earth to be impossible today (avg. temperature over 200 degrees celcius).
(note that the fluctuations in the graph are not a phenomena, but merely a result of increasing margins of error as we go further back. Data tends to get smoothed the further back in time you go)
... Which would still be of massive benefit to everyone. I mean the internet is a very good example of what you just described. I daresay nothing came of it while govt. controlled it. Only when private sector got involved did things get interesting. The same will be true of fusion power.
And ... of course if the government pays everyone gets to steal. Think about it this way : what prospects do scientists who don't do this have if they stay in government service ? The very top of the reward curve is a pad on the back.
Private sector will gladly pay heaps of money for even minor advancements, and even if you're motivated by research : ever compare the pitiful university labs with a private company's equipment ? The first time I did some research for a company I asked "when do I have to return these sensors ?", thinking it'd be like university, where you can use anything costing over 10$ for perhaps a day or two unless you're a professor, and even then. They just looked and said "never, this was budgeted for you, take it home afterwards".
I should say the difference is heaven and earth. But it isn't. The difference is heaven and hell.
And the greatest thing the totalitarian, racist and violent political ideology called "islam" ever did was convince people it's a religion. Said ideology controls a few dozen states at least, and it does so through oppression, killings and war (which is why it's fundamentally incompatible with democracy).
If you blame Israel for wanting to be Jewish, which is perhaps not the nicest religion, but at least a peaceful one. Then you need to blame dozens of states for being islamic, which is a lot worse : cutting of hands, stoning women, killing, state-sponsored wars, genocides and racism ... you name it.
Israel is Jewish. Whatever you criticize on Israel reflects on Judaism. Just like all muslim countries are islamic, and all criticism that rightfully falls on them reflects on islam, just as it should. And yes, this extends further, North Korea is socialist, and Venezuela is becoming that, criticism on them (like the constant stealing and killings these states engage in) reflects on socialism. Even if one act, or one party, cannot possibly be enough to judge the ideology, such acts cannot be ignored either.
Of course, this doesn't work with people having black or white opinions. Yes Israel makes mistakes. Have you visisted the place ? Israel is, without any doubt, a force for good. It is perhaps not the perfect shining star on the mountain they want it to be, but it's shining pretty bright compared to it's environment. Likewise, just about all islamic countries are oppressive theocratic dictatorships (with the exception of Iraq and Turkey), just visit any islamic country. Just sit down with a normal muslim for dinner (not a hard thing to get done), and see how they treat their women, and their children. Then you won't believe how bad it is, you "must have lucked out, after all some westerners beat their women too", so you try again. And again. And then you'll start to get it. You will clearly see how it's a force that destroys people, women and children, destroys whole countries.