At stewarding its own resources, preferring instead to buy resources from other countries that do not have the level of regulation we have. We have plenty of oil, gas, rate earth metals etc... we just don't go after it.
That sounds like stewarding them well to me. What would be so great about digging up today resources that can be left for tomorrow, given that they can be cost effectively obtained elsewhere for now?
Bingo! Leaving it in the ground (or, better, undiscovered) until later represents future income. Dollar saved, dollar earned, and all that.
Thinking up the Drake equation, if Mars is remotely habitable - this might double the number of expected alien life forms. (I think Drake assumed 1 habitable planet per some number of stars. This all asumes our system is 'average' - while I don't think we know much about extra-solar planetary systems.)
What do you interwebies think?
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
One fundamental problem people make is applying what works for them, as individuals, to the government. Government policy should not be based on any individual or group of individuals' policies. For a government to govern well it must think more broadly and as the total populace.
In my experience, engineers are problem solves. They have a number of tools (from physical tools of the trade to more mathematical/analytical tools). Any given problem may have a number of solutions, but as an engineer your job is to find one that matches a number of criteria and use your 'tools' to achieve that solution, right? Well, here's a rough list of criteria a government should concern itself with:
-The general (medical) health of the people. (Everything from food and drug safety to national defense.) -The short and long term financial standing of the people (see: Solow's growth model and it's optimum solution). -what ever else I'm missing
Notice, at a government level, there should be no mentioning of political parties (which are, more or less, reflective of only a minority view). Jean Jacques Rousseau said "As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State "What does it matter to me?" the State may be given up for lost." What makes sense at an individual level often proves disaster for a government.
The "invisible hand of the market" always finds a way. I'm of the opinion that there will always be things that only humans can do for other humans/themselves.
I think of pure mathematics as one example. Yes, there are computer algebra systems and even attempts at using computers to work out mathematical proofs. But, I doubt the 'art', the creativity, and the curiosity of pure mathematics can ever be written down in a finite program. (I'm also not entirely impressed with the computer software written for mathematics.)
The same goes with philosophy, but philosophy defies automation - by nature.
I had this idea like 5 years ago. But, being a mathematician, I merely discovered the existence of the idea. These engineers have only supplied an example implementation of the idea.
The problem there is biological organisms are very efficient. Off the top of my head, 500 calories will get a biker 5+ miles down the road, whereas 500 calories might get a car ~300 feet down the road. (Obviously wrong statistic, but you get the idea.)
Stock it with things enterprising students could teach themselves with like musical instruments, trade stuff (i.e. wood working tools, plumbing tools, etc), computer parts, computers with a bunch of productive software (web dev stuff, programming stuff, statistical tools, math tools, cad, etc), AND hire some some specialists (or get them to donate their time) to teach kids about things. I have to believe 5B toward that would have gotten Bill farther.
I hear that so loud and clear. Journal articles make up a huge portion of the disciplines I've been a part of (economics, mathematics). Sure, reading articles all day wont teach you all you need to know, but it will teach you something*. At a time where science and mathematics aren't properly valued by public policy (NASA and looming STEM budget cuts come to mind), society needs a strong discussion between the lay audience and specialists.
*That something' will be more valuable than non-academic, not-peer reviewed internet-sources.
There will always be a segment using desktops for, you know, work. Those professional machines might look a little different than now, but they wont be situated in front of a 50" LCD and couch or in a lap (usually).
I've found linux and freebsd more than competent for work, and I'm not alone.
Come to think, I wonder if a DC is classified as commercial or industrial? I'm guessing it'd be industrial because of the size, but a DC could be commercial because of the locality restrictions (you want them sparsely covering everywhere - I think). I've got data on the one but not the other.
Right, so place a marginal tax on gas that goes directly to an EPA funded environmental rehabilitation (cleaning) program. (Good luck passing that with who we've got in the Congress.)
PS Last time I heard what that marginal tax *should* be, just to properly cover the external costs of burning a gallon of gas, $12 would need to be added to every barrel of gas sold. Can YOU imagine paying $15 for a gallon of gas?
huh? I see your line of reasoning, but it's more likely the very isolated nature of YMP hurt it. See, the hardest to kill government project is the one that 'resides' in as many representatives districts as possible.
Having said that, storing and managing nuclear waste is the very thing I want my government worrying/managing. Do you really think Walmart, GE, or BP has any incentive to properly manage nuclear waste? You've got to be kidding me!
If it's not subsidized, then it's only a matter of time before cost of storing (un-reprocessed) waste meets the raw cost of fuel.
My understanding is that reprocessing generates plutonium, and that probably had/has something to do with a lack of reprocessing.
Get the cost of fossil fuels to be more efficient (i.e. incorporate negative externalities into the price of oil), and all this immediately becomes more interesting for everyone.
But that's exactly why the anti-nuclear nutters oppose it; they love nuclear accidents because it helps them campaign to end nuclear power... the last things they want are safe reactors and safe waste disposal.
Good point! Protestors lack the proper incentives or, at least, impetus to inform their own opinions.
I'm saddened by the lack of interest this generated. I hope this is more a reflection of/. readers being too busy working to read and comment...
Why? Because nuclear waste and nuclear power are entirely under appreciated by the lay public. -Nuclear power is one of the few, mature alternatives to fossil fuels. -It's also pretty clean. (It'd be even more clean if the YMP was in full-swing). -Somehow any nuclear accident gets blown completely out of proportion by the media (and therefore the public) while any oil related incident gets sweeped aside. Just how many opinions have changed after the Gulf oil drill incident? Not enough, I fear.
Slashdot Mirror
At stewarding its own resources, preferring instead to buy resources from other countries that do not have the level of regulation we have. We have plenty of oil, gas, rate earth metals etc... we just don't go after it.
That sounds like stewarding them well to me. What would be so great about digging up today resources that can be left for tomorrow, given that they can be cost effectively obtained elsewhere for now?
Bingo! Leaving it in the ground (or, better, undiscovered) until later represents future income. Dollar saved, dollar earned, and all that.
They'd better be triple breasted or I'm out of here.
Thinking up the Drake equation, if Mars is remotely habitable - this might double the number of expected alien life forms. (I think Drake assumed 1 habitable planet per some number of stars. This all asumes our system is 'average' - while I don't think we know much about extra-solar planetary systems.)
What do you interwebies think?
One fundamental problem people make is applying what works for them, as individuals, to the government. Government policy should not be based on any individual or group of individuals' policies. For a government to govern well it must think more broadly and as the total populace.
In my experience, engineers are problem solves. They have a number of tools (from physical tools of the trade to more mathematical/analytical tools). Any given problem may have a number of solutions, but as an engineer your job is to find one that matches a number of criteria and use your 'tools' to achieve that solution, right? Well, here's a rough list of criteria a government should concern itself with:
-The general (medical) health of the people. (Everything from food and drug safety to national defense.)
-The short and long term financial standing of the people (see: Solow's growth model and it's optimum solution).
-what ever else I'm missing
Notice, at a government level, there should be no mentioning of political parties (which are, more or less, reflective of only a minority view). Jean Jacques Rousseau said "As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State "What does it matter to me?" the State may be given up for lost." What makes sense at an individual level often proves disaster for a government.
For that matter, Windows support isn't actually available - yet. Windows support is, merely, "coming soon".
If you want to use Ubuntu One, you have to either install Ubuntu or install it on one of your mobile devices. I have to wonder at it's usefullness...
The "invisible hand of the market" always finds a way. I'm of the opinion that there will always be things that only humans can do for other humans/themselves.
I think of pure mathematics as one example. Yes, there are computer algebra systems and even attempts at using computers to work out mathematical proofs. But, I doubt the 'art', the creativity, and the curiosity of pure mathematics can ever be written down in a finite program. (I'm also not entirely impressed with the computer software written for mathematics.)
The same goes with philosophy, but philosophy defies automation - by nature.
The Spacers would be proud.
I had this idea like 5 years ago. But, being a mathematician, I merely discovered the existence of the idea. These engineers have only supplied an example implementation of the idea.
Trivial, trivial.
(sarcasm)
The problem there is biological organisms are very efficient. Off the top of my head, 500 calories will get a biker 5+ miles down the road, whereas 500 calories might get a car ~300 feet down the road. (Obviously wrong statistic, but you get the idea.)
Get all pissed off like that... ...Or...
Don't use Google+
Sounds like a good reason to not use google+...
I'll avoid any name conventions by sticking with gmail, thx
Stock it with things enterprising students could teach themselves with like musical instruments, trade stuff (i.e. wood working tools, plumbing tools, etc), computer parts, computers with a bunch of productive software (web dev stuff, programming stuff, statistical tools, math tools, cad, etc), AND hire some some specialists (or get them to donate their time) to teach kids about things. I have to believe 5B toward that would have gotten Bill farther.
I hear that so loud and clear. Journal articles make up a huge portion of the disciplines I've been a part of (economics, mathematics). Sure, reading articles all day wont teach you all you need to know, but it will teach you something*. At a time where science and mathematics aren't properly valued by public policy (NASA and looming STEM budget cuts come to mind), society needs a strong discussion between the lay audience and specialists.
*That something' will be more valuable than non-academic, not-peer reviewed internet-sources.
I hear you, I just can't imagine ever actually being one of those homes ;)
There will always be a segment using desktops for, you know, work. Those professional machines might look a little different than now, but they wont be situated in front of a 50" LCD and couch or in a lap (usually).
I've found linux and freebsd more than competent for work, and I'm not alone.
I want to agree with you, but Mac OS X is still unix-based and plays better with my FreeBSD server than windows would, so I can't...
Come to think, I wonder if a DC is classified as commercial or industrial? I'm guessing it'd be industrial because of the size, but a DC could be commercial because of the locality restrictions (you want them sparsely covering everywhere - I think). I've got data on the one but not the other.
It takes less energy to cool a hot place than to warm a cold place. (It's thermodynamics, I think.)
Vegas is also very pro-business and densely populated.
The energy sector suffers from drastically undervalued oil.
How sad it is that so many of the programs and acts passed precisely because of 1929 are no longer around?
Right, so place a marginal tax on gas that goes directly to an EPA funded environmental rehabilitation (cleaning) program. (Good luck passing that with who we've got in the Congress.)
PS Last time I heard what that marginal tax *should* be, just to properly cover the external costs of burning a gallon of gas, $12 would need to be added to every barrel of gas sold. Can YOU imagine paying $15 for a gallon of gas?
huh? I see your line of reasoning, but it's more likely the very isolated nature of YMP hurt it. See, the hardest to kill government project is the one that 'resides' in as many representatives districts as possible.
Having said that, storing and managing nuclear waste is the very thing I want my government worrying/managing. Do you really think Walmart, GE, or BP has any incentive to properly manage nuclear waste? You've got to be kidding me!
If it's not subsidized, then it's only a matter of time before cost of storing (un-reprocessed) waste meets the raw cost of fuel.
My understanding is that reprocessing generates plutonium, and that probably had/has something to do with a lack of reprocessing.
Get the cost of fossil fuels to be more efficient (i.e. incorporate negative externalities into the price of oil), and all this immediately becomes more interesting for everyone.
But that's exactly why the anti-nuclear nutters oppose it; they love nuclear accidents because it helps them campaign to end nuclear power... the last things they want are safe reactors and safe waste disposal.
Good point! Protestors lack the proper incentives or, at least, impetus to inform their own opinions.
I'm saddened by the lack of interest this generated. I hope this is more a reflection of /. readers being too busy working to read and comment...
Why? Because nuclear waste and nuclear power are entirely under appreciated by the lay public.
-Nuclear power is one of the few, mature alternatives to fossil fuels.
-It's also pretty clean. (It'd be even more clean if the YMP was in full-swing).
-Somehow any nuclear accident gets blown completely out of proportion by the media (and therefore the public) while any oil related incident gets sweeped aside. Just how many opinions have changed after the Gulf oil drill incident? Not enough, I fear.