What happens if man's efforts consuming 10% of the productive output of the nations of the world produce no effective change?
So you wouldn't have gone to the moon?
What happens if the national effort causes the US to go into a depression that causes a population die off & collapse of average incomes?
Wars do far more damage. This is called investment and is the single best way to stimulate an economy. All that gov't spending? pays people who then buy things thus increasing demand. Is gov't spending the solution to everthing? of course not. But when big big things need to be done, the private sector simply isn't going to do them.
How long will it take to make significant change?
Sometimes you don't know the answers before you start. And waiting makes it worse. Did JFK know we could get to the moon in under a decade? Of course not, he just picked a date based on some basic assumptions and we went to work.
Can the developed nations change and overcome the effect of underdeveloped nations?
If we can invent more efficient and less harmful technologies...we can sell them that stuff
What happens when the United Nations tries to tell every country what to do? Does everyone lose their national sovereignty?
If you can come up with a better plan than the UN for dealing with international issues, by all means. Lots of people have tried.
Uh, the Oil companies? Apple doesn't make the most money, they are the most 'valuable' company based on stock price. Fairly significant difference.
But to that point, yes, if you're wildly successful is it really that hard to part with a slightly higher percentage of your income so that everybody else is a little better off and can...wait for it...buy more of your product?
Top tax rates after WWII (when US grew like gangbusters) was something like 50 percent. Seemed ok then, it'll be ok now.
The stimulus was 700ish billion wasn't it? Given that almost a third of it went to tax cuts that didn't stimulate and that it wasn't big enough, it did fairly well...
Sources for your claims of public union crony gifting?
The US exports the most refined fuel because we have the most refining capacity. It isn't 'produced' here. We're just the pass through from ground to pump.
It doesn't mean anything particularly useful; except of course that global warming will knock that refining capacity out more often in the future...
The point being that if we'd spent 1.4 trillion on our infrastructure here at home, perhaps, just perhaps, hurricane Sandy wouldn't have done quite so much damage to our electrical grid.
He was correct in his usage. He was saying the 'damn rivers' meaning we can't build DAMS because of the DAMNED rivers; i.e. DAMS hurt the ecosystem of the DAMN rivers;-)
Hydro works just fine, some mitigation needs to be done but otherwise they work.
- the problem is that there simply aren't enough suitable locations to make it grid scale nationwide.
Nuclear
- No argument, but for the next 100 years or so it will be necessary.
Windmills don't kill birds hardly at all. The newer models are geared to be much slower and still provide the same power. Bats however are still at risk due to the pressure changes at the edges.
Solar - uh, who said we can't mine stuff? China just shut down it's production so US production can at least for a bit start back up (obviously not immediately)
And of course, coal has it's own numerous problems, not the least of which is global warming. Nothing's perfect but we should try to find things that don't have the long term side effects that fossil fuels do.
They could have moved cars around after the fire, or even pulled cars that weren't submerged into the area. The picture doesn't tell us the difference between the 'good' cars and the movie quality special effects paper weights.
I grew up in the Buffalo/Rochester NY area, trust me, we had plenty of snow plows running and the lines stay pretty well. The OP worried about stuff getting scraped off 'pretty quickly'. Current lines do no such thing, they last for years as you note.
The OP is one of many on this thread screaming 'change is bad!' and being refuted as such.
Hell, the 'step down' is happening among monitors as well. I have 1920x1200 on my monitors and everything I see in a reasonable consumer space has gone 'down' to just HD pixels of 1920x1080.
And my 24/28" monitors weren't anything special, under $500 a few years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
How are they doing that? That's the entire problem. They're saying 'how' is proprietary and they won't tell you.
Well they have a QA system, but they forgot the password, and right now the password reset functionality is disabled.
I'm sure they'll get back to it soon though!
What happens if man's efforts consuming 10% of the productive output of the nations of the world produce no effective change?
So you wouldn't have gone to the moon?
What happens if the national effort causes the US to go into a depression that causes a population die off & collapse of average incomes?
Wars do far more damage. This is called investment and is the single best way to stimulate an economy. All that gov't spending? pays people who then buy things thus increasing demand. Is gov't spending the solution to everthing? of course not. But when big big things need to be done, the private sector simply isn't going to do them.
How long will it take to make significant change?
Sometimes you don't know the answers before you start. And waiting makes it worse. Did JFK know we could get to the moon in under a decade? Of course not, he just picked a date based on some basic assumptions and we went to work.
Can the developed nations change and overcome the effect of underdeveloped nations?
If we can invent more efficient and less harmful technologies...we can sell them that stuff
What happens when the United Nations tries to tell every country what to do? Does everyone lose their national sovereignty?
If you can come up with a better plan than the UN for dealing with international issues, by all means. Lots of people have tried.
Uh, the Oil companies? Apple doesn't make the most money, they are the most 'valuable' company based on stock price. Fairly significant difference.
But to that point, yes, if you're wildly successful is it really that hard to part with a slightly higher percentage of your income so that everybody else is a little better off and can...wait for it...buy more of your product?
Top tax rates after WWII (when US grew like gangbusters) was something like 50 percent. Seemed ok then, it'll be ok now.
The stimulus was 700ish billion wasn't it? Given that almost a third of it went to tax cuts that didn't stimulate and that it wasn't big enough, it did fairly well...
Sources for your claims of public union crony gifting?
When the companies in question are making RECORD profits, whether you call it a subsidy or not, they don't need it.
The US exports the most refined fuel because we have the most refining capacity. It isn't 'produced' here. We're just the pass through from ground to pump.
It doesn't mean anything particularly useful; except of course that global warming will knock that refining capacity out more often in the future...
The point being that if we'd spent 1.4 trillion on our infrastructure here at home, perhaps, just perhaps, hurricane Sandy wouldn't have done quite so much damage to our electrical grid.
Another serious question :)
;-)
Here in the US, Credit Card payments siphon off a percentage to the CC company. Is that different in Sweden and other 'advanced' places?
As a serious question, what if someone doesn't have a phone?
Who says he still 'has' the physical expired license?
He was correct in his usage. He was saying the 'damn rivers' meaning we can't build DAMS because of the DAMNED rivers; i.e. DAMS hurt the ecosystem of the DAMN rivers ;-)
Hydro works just fine, some mitigation needs to be done but otherwise they work.
- the problem is that there simply aren't enough suitable locations to make it grid scale nationwide.
Nuclear
- No argument, but for the next 100 years or so it will be necessary.
Windmills don't kill birds hardly at all. The newer models are geared to be much slower and still provide the same power. Bats however are still at risk due to the pressure changes at the edges.
Solar - uh, who said we can't mine stuff? China just shut down it's production so US production can at least for a bit start back up (obviously not immediately)
And of course, coal has it's own numerous problems, not the least of which is global warming. Nothing's perfect but we should try to find things that don't have the long term side effects that fossil fuels do.
EV's aren't meant to be used by themselves. It's part of a larger goal to get us off coal and other fossil fuels.
Apparently I wasn't clear. I meant how do you hide the damage sustained by the Karma's
I meant how do you hide the 'damage' sustained to the Fisker Karma's, which mostly were melted blobs of metal...
If it's up to your hood, it's at least multiple FEET deep.
As I said there would be instances where it's unavoidable but the VAST VAST majority are.
Generally speaking if you're driving through FEET of water, perhaps you shouldn't do that?
Yes I know flash floods happen, but the vast bulk of cars submerged aren't being driven at the time.
They could have moved cars around after the fire, or even pulled cars that weren't submerged into the area. The picture doesn't tell us the difference between the 'good' cars and the movie quality special effects paper weights.
The point being, you can't look at a car and tell with confidence it's been in a flood. You can hide the damage and commit fraud by selling one.
;-)
How do you 'hide' the damage these cars have?
On the upside, switching to EV's will seriously reduce the frequency of flood damaged cars being sold as 'working perfectly'
I grew up in the Buffalo/Rochester NY area, trust me, we had plenty of snow plows running and the lines stay pretty well. The OP worried about stuff getting scraped off 'pretty quickly'. Current lines do no such thing, they last for years as you note.
The OP is one of many on this thread screaming 'change is bad!' and being refuted as such.
Nothing 'weird' about it, but when my current monitors have 1920x1200, going 'down' to 1920x1080 just seems, ahem, stupid.
I grant you that the standard HDMI sizing and plugs make it 'stupid easy' to do, but 'stupid easy' isn't usually also 'best quality'
Hell, the 'step down' is happening among monitors as well. I have 1920x1200 on my monitors and everything I see in a reasonable consumer space has gone 'down' to just HD pixels of 1920x1080.
And my 24/28" monitors weren't anything special, under $500 a few years ago.
Gah, bad eyes and sarcasm filter was a wee bit off, sorry 'bout that :)
The judge is a democrat.
Proof? He was confirmed unanimously, but I see no reference to his political affiliations. He was appointed by Bush however...