Have fun trying that while the terrorists try the same on you.
The very definition of war. However, we would win, because terrorist rely on their allies (the communities they operate from) to be passive, and wars polarize communities. In fact, this polarization has greatly decreased the effectiveness of terrorism since 9/11.
Actually, going simply by logic (and ignoring any emotional baggage) we should send (by Fed Ex) a small package to all the cities in Iran, North Korea, and any other places we don't like. The package looks like a large format printer - but is really a nuclear weapon. Send it to a location very near the target countries nuclear research facilities. When it goes off, there is no way to prove the US had anything to do with it - and suddenly very few countries want to develop nuclear weapons...
Of course, you would have to be insane (as in, purely logical and not emotional) to choose this course of action. If Bush was truely "evil" or "insane", there would be no Iran or North Korea.
Maybe he isn't insane? Maybe, just maybe, the person that told you he was insane just had something to profit by you believing them?
I totally agree that we need to agressively pursue those that mucked up foriegn governments and caused so much damage - but I still think we need to fix it. I can't change the past, I can only change the future.
I don't care who started it - I'm going to finish it...
When an "American fundamentalists" goes on a rampage and kills people (it happens, carzy people are everywhere), they are found and given the death penalty (not killed, mind you - the death penalty just means that they will not be allowed to harm others again for a very long time). There is a cultural problem in the Middle East that leads to the same not happening. They do not turn in terrorists in the middle east - instead they glorify them, and take up collections to support their families.
That is why Iran is a target - because the PEOPLE of Iran tolerate terrorsits on their soil, and they know it.
I really think the key difference is that we do not dance in the streets when our enemy is killed. If we could find a way to peacefully coexist in freedom, we would.
They wouldn't. If we left them alone (whatever that means - the world is to interelated for this to even be possible), they would still want to kill us. They spontaneously throw parties when we die! What more do you want?
I would venture to say that before 9/11, most muslims shared a significant level of responsibility for terrorism. They were not terrorists, but neither were they fighting against it. In the US, if you kill muslims you are caught, because no one thinks you are justified. In the muslim world prior to 9/11, if you kill non-muslims you were not caught because your fellow muslims cheered you on. Much of the muslim world has started vocally discouraging terror since 9/11 - to great effect.
Iran hasn't. Iran still supports terrorists that want to kill non-muslims, or even muslims that disagree with them.
Propperly applied violence is extremely effective - the Japanese went from being one of the most warlike cultures to being one of the most peaceful. The roman method worked - if there is a war you need to end, pick a side at random and exterminate the other side. The key is that extermination is necessary - otherwise the circle is not broken.
Or, you could do what Bush did and try to create a Democracy - because people in a democracy have a tendancy towards peace and stability.
I'm not really interested in why they want to kill me. If they want to kill me, I want them dead first. Want to know the difference between Americans and Islam? When 1000 Islamic worshippers died because of a terrorist action, Americans were mortified and tried to help. When 3000 Americans died because of a terrorist action, the Islamic community cheered and threw a street party.
Kill all the terrorists, and kill all the people that support those terrorists (even if only through silence).
(This is why I will never run for a public office - I don't think I could have responded to 9/11 by creating a democracy in Iraq, and honestly that may work with fewer deaths)
The primary reason the law of thermodynamics is not a limitting factor is technology. Current (production) heat engine designs do not get anywhere near carnot efficiencies, and are not even in the same universe as the best efficiency possible. Hydrogen, for example, burns at about 4000 C. Using a perfect heat engine, you could get a little over 90% of the energy out as useful work - except that at 4000 C your heat engine is a vapor. There are fuel cells that approach this level of efficiency. Most rocket engines are in this range of efficiency. But there are technological problems with each - but these problems will be solved!
Really, thermodynamics is not the problem - technology can go much futher than we are now.
There is a reason that the IP owners make more than you - they are getting paid for risk. If you look at business, upside is almost always given to the party with the highest risk. As a salaried employee, you are guaranteed a paycheck whether your project succeeds or fails, no matter what the market does, etc. For that lower risk, you give up all (or at least most) future monies made from your work. If you don't like that, build a company yourself (investing your own money, and therefore taking on the risk) - and you get all the upside. (By the way, this is precisely what I did, and I strongly recommend it - at the very least your salary will double after your business fails and you return to a "normal" job).
You seem to be saying that you want capital to be given to you so that you can work risk-free, and then you don't want to pay for the capital from your proceeds - I don't think you will find many takers.
I think you kind of answer your own question - for the most part, stability is very bad for economies, because economies get better (on average) with every change, so you want as many changes as possible. Think about it - how many people do you know personally that got a better paying job when forced to leave? That finally decided (with you secretly agreeing) that they should leave IT and do what they are good at instead? Change is good - keeping people employed is bad if it limits their potential.
Honestly, I think the same would be true of governments with propper controls to limit the piles of dead bodies. I think that is one of the USA's strengths, that any government only lasts 8 years tops (although I think term limits on Congress would also be a good idea). People get too attached to their bad ideas, so it is best to let someone new in so they can say "this worked, keep it - that didn't, drop it."
If you think about it, most of the work in a Democracy is to avoid really having a democracy (as in, mob rule). If the US was a real democracy, we would all be poor white heterosexuals - because we would have killed/deported all the ethnics/homosexuals/non-christians/rich guys (or at least prevented them from being happy). So in the US, we elect leaders - who then go against public opinion in order to do what is right and necessary. (Unfortunately, that leads to only people that can lie really well getting reelected...)
BTW, in a rapidly growing sector of the economy (like high tech), the discount rate is typically 20%. That means that if you could make $100 today by blowing off an oportunity to make $119 next year, you should do it. (These numbers come from the cost of capital, which in turn is driven by your competition's growth rate.) That is why companies seem to be short sighted - money made this quarter is worth 5% more than next quarter.
This changes in slower growth sectors (for example, saving a few percent over a few years could be a big deal in electric power generation). So if you don't like the fast paced, only do the single project with the highest return type of life, join a slower growth company. (Normal Banks, Normal electric companies, etc.) Also, note that for the most part Europe has lower growth markets - hence they can afford to spend more money on R&D, because the competition is different.
If you operate a public company, you are competing for funds - and the way you compete is with rate of return. If your rate of return is lower than your competitor, you will not be funded. And to be honest, this is really a good thing - it forces long term breakthroughs to the small companies (angel investors) that have a much higher success rate at that type of thing anyway. (Although there are still companies that can justify it, like Intel, it has to be done just right)
What you describe is precisiely why small companies are always the ones that bring change, fix problems, etc. If the big companies are smart, they buy the little companies and everyone goes home happy (Intel, Google, Microsoft for the most part). If they are dumb, they fight against the little companies and are eventually replaced (old IBM vs Microsoft, current Microsoft vs Google, etc.)
Hmmm... I think people may be overreacting here. Bush is essentially the leader of the Republican party. If he wanted to become Hitler, all he had to do was not reliquish the emergency powers he was given.
The loophole the bad guys use is that during an emergency, it is essential that all power be given to a single person so that decisions will be quick (not right, just quick - it is better to make a bad decision than no decision). New Orleans is the perfect example of this - the President had no business doing anything there, the state and FEMA were supposed to take charge. But because there was not a single person in charge (I believe that what we will discover after the rear-view analysis is a command chain failure), things did not happen quickly enough - and poeple died.
The problem with this is that once the powers are taken up, there is no good way to demand that they are given back. Bush, Hitle, and Julius Ceasar all took up emergency powers in order to defend their countries. In each case, the average citizen of the country would have agreed that there was an immenent threat. The only difference is that Bush gave power back to congress, instead of escalating the conflict (like the other two did).
I wish the Libertarians controlled the senate. That would provide an excellent safeguard. But, in the current state of affairs, I think what we have is the best we can hope for.
I do wish that there were better checks and balances in place (different parties controlling different branches, per normal), but the democrats seem to have gone way off the deep end recently. Normally, I would like to split my vote just to create the conflict that is so effective at making our government work - but I really can't vote for the things the Democrats are for, it's just too far out there.
Of course, I'm from Illinios - and Obama is way out there... (Of course, so was the competition - talk about lesser of two evils!)
I believe 360 ppm is by volume, not mass - I hit the same snag in my research. About double sounds right - I just am not convinced that it will make a significant difference. (Not convinced it won't, either, mind you)
I'd like to know what it is that you feel you can predict better now than you could back when you were an athiest.
That is very personal to me and I would prefer not to talk about it in a public forum. If you would like to talk offline, I would be happy to share some of my experiences with you. Generally, I have been given information that I needed, but had no access to - things that have helped with sicknesses and finances. I also have been given help in situations where I had to act on things where I "knew" what was right, but not how to do it (or lacked the requisite skills). To be honest, some of it is embarrassing (as in shows my weakness), some of it is cool (as in how did that happen), and some of it just useful.
In general, I believe that everyone is given this type of help (though I am not sure), though not every one listens...
The mass of the atmosphere (per wiki): 5.1e18 kg Percent CO2: 0.001267% Mass of current CO2 in atmosphere: 6.4e13 kg Total oil extracted prior to 2001: 9e11 barrels (assumed to be 1/3 of total world supply, if you have better data please provide) Total oil remaining: 1.8e12 barrels Carbon Dioxide Mass in Oil: about 125 kg (almost a guess, please give better data ifyou have it)
So, if we burn all the available oil on Earth, we will a little more than triple the CO2 in the atmosphere (assuming that nature doesn't adjust and fix things) - in other words go from a neglible 0.001267% to a negligible 0.004%.
I'm not saying that it won't have an effect, just that it may be self limitting, and not the end-of-the-world scenario we see bandied about so often...
(Someone else want to check what happens when we burn all the coal?)
Cue the posts about how oil will never "run out" but just become so expensive that suddenly $150K for a fuel cell car will seem reasonable
Yes this will almost certainly happen (looks like sooner rather than later), and so the only reasonable course of action is to grow the economy to where the average person can aford a $150K car...
BTW, if you really did any research on this, you would find that the majority of "useful scientists" believe, using almost any definition of "useful scientist". Look up Nobel winners, for example, and research their belief systems.
As for it being non-provable bs, lets just say that we disagree. At the very least I find that I am better able to predict future events with my belief than I am without my belief (having experienced both).
It works terribly if you have 1 lifeguard, since.8 lifeguards would mean no lifeguard on duty
And that is precisely why you should use the metric I gave - this does not make sense if your pool has only 1 life guard, for example, because needing only 0.8 lifeguards does not make sense. It really only makes sense for larger pools. (Most of the cost of such a system is in the installation, because you have to mess with the pool and lining. Upkeep costs would be negligable, and since they were not given I estimated them as zero. Not precise, no. More precise than assuming that you will pay the original installation price every 5 years, yes.)
I hope he doesn't do it, because he is not doing a good job of making an alternative analysis!
Fortunately, in our society (except in government, unfortunately) we have an excellent method of removing money from those that do not know hwo to use it effectively - it's called competition!
Slashdot Mirror
Have fun trying that while the terrorists try the same on you.
The very definition of war. However, we would win, because terrorist rely on their allies (the communities they operate from) to be passive, and wars polarize communities. In fact, this polarization has greatly decreased the effectiveness of terrorism since 9/11.
Actually, going simply by logic (and ignoring any emotional baggage) we should send (by Fed Ex) a small package to all the cities in Iran, North Korea, and any other places we don't like. The package looks like a large format printer - but is really a nuclear weapon. Send it to a location very near the target countries nuclear research facilities. When it goes off, there is no way to prove the US had anything to do with it - and suddenly very few countries want to develop nuclear weapons...
Of course, you would have to be insane (as in, purely logical and not emotional) to choose this course of action. If Bush was truely "evil" or "insane", there would be no Iran or North Korea.
Maybe he isn't insane? Maybe, just maybe, the person that told you he was insane just had something to profit by you believing them?
I totally agree that we need to agressively pursue those that mucked up foriegn governments and caused so much damage - but I still think we need to fix it. I can't change the past, I can only change the future.
I don't care who started it - I'm going to finish it...
When an "American fundamentalists" goes on a rampage and kills people (it happens, carzy people are everywhere), they are found and given the death penalty (not killed, mind you - the death penalty just means that they will not be allowed to harm others again for a very long time). There is a cultural problem in the Middle East that leads to the same not happening. They do not turn in terrorists in the middle east - instead they glorify them, and take up collections to support their families.
That is why Iran is a target - because the PEOPLE of Iran tolerate terrorsits on their soil, and they know it.
I really think the key difference is that we do not dance in the streets when our enemy is killed. If we could find a way to peacefully coexist in freedom, we would.
They wouldn't. If we left them alone (whatever that means - the world is to interelated for this to even be possible), they would still want to kill us. They spontaneously throw parties when we die! What more do you want?
I would venture to say that before 9/11, most muslims shared a significant level of responsibility for terrorism. They were not terrorists, but neither were they fighting against it. In the US, if you kill muslims you are caught, because no one thinks you are justified. In the muslim world prior to 9/11, if you kill non-muslims you were not caught because your fellow muslims cheered you on. Much of the muslim world has started vocally discouraging terror since 9/11 - to great effect.
Iran hasn't. Iran still supports terrorists that want to kill non-muslims, or even muslims that disagree with them.
If I lived in Iran, I would move.
Propperly applied violence is extremely effective - the Japanese went from being one of the most warlike cultures to being one of the most peaceful. The roman method worked - if there is a war you need to end, pick a side at random and exterminate the other side. The key is that extermination is necessary - otherwise the circle is not broken.
Or, you could do what Bush did and try to create a Democracy - because people in a democracy have a tendancy towards peace and stability.
I'm not really interested in why they want to kill me. If they want to kill me, I want them dead first. Want to know the difference between Americans and Islam? When 1000 Islamic worshippers died because of a terrorist action, Americans were mortified and tried to help. When 3000 Americans died because of a terrorist action, the Islamic community cheered and threw a street party.
Kill all the terrorists, and kill all the people that support those terrorists (even if only through silence).
(This is why I will never run for a public office - I don't think I could have responded to 9/11 by creating a democracy in Iraq, and honestly that may work with fewer deaths)
The primary reason the law of thermodynamics is not a limitting factor is technology. Current (production) heat engine designs do not get anywhere near carnot efficiencies, and are not even in the same universe as the best efficiency possible. Hydrogen, for example, burns at about 4000 C. Using a perfect heat engine, you could get a little over 90% of the energy out as useful work - except that at 4000 C your heat engine is a vapor. There are fuel cells that approach this level of efficiency. Most rocket engines are in this range of efficiency. But there are technological problems with each - but these problems will be solved!
Really, thermodynamics is not the problem - technology can go much futher than we are now.
There is a reason that the IP owners make more than you - they are getting paid for risk. If you look at business, upside is almost always given to the party with the highest risk. As a salaried employee, you are guaranteed a paycheck whether your project succeeds or fails, no matter what the market does, etc. For that lower risk, you give up all (or at least most) future monies made from your work. If you don't like that, build a company yourself (investing your own money, and therefore taking on the risk) - and you get all the upside. (By the way, this is precisely what I did, and I strongly recommend it - at the very least your salary will double after your business fails and you return to a "normal" job).
You seem to be saying that you want capital to be given to you so that you can work risk-free, and then you don't want to pay for the capital from your proceeds - I don't think you will find many takers.
I think you kind of answer your own question - for the most part, stability is very bad for economies, because economies get better (on average) with every change, so you want as many changes as possible. Think about it - how many people do you know personally that got a better paying job when forced to leave? That finally decided (with you secretly agreeing) that they should leave IT and do what they are good at instead? Change is good - keeping people employed is bad if it limits their potential.
Honestly, I think the same would be true of governments with propper controls to limit the piles of dead bodies. I think that is one of the USA's strengths, that any government only lasts 8 years tops (although I think term limits on Congress would also be a good idea). People get too attached to their bad ideas, so it is best to let someone new in so they can say "this worked, keep it - that didn't, drop it."
If you think about it, most of the work in a Democracy is to avoid really having a democracy (as in, mob rule). If the US was a real democracy, we would all be poor white heterosexuals - because we would have killed/deported all the ethnics/homosexuals/non-christians/rich guys (or at least prevented them from being happy). So in the US, we elect leaders - who then go against public opinion in order to do what is right and necessary. (Unfortunately, that leads to only people that can lie really well getting reelected...)
BTW, in a rapidly growing sector of the economy (like high tech), the discount rate is typically 20%. That means that if you could make $100 today by blowing off an oportunity to make $119 next year, you should do it. (These numbers come from the cost of capital, which in turn is driven by your competition's growth rate.) That is why companies seem to be short sighted - money made this quarter is worth 5% more than next quarter.
This changes in slower growth sectors (for example, saving a few percent over a few years could be a big deal in electric power generation). So if you don't like the fast paced, only do the single project with the highest return type of life, join a slower growth company. (Normal Banks, Normal electric companies, etc.) Also, note that for the most part Europe has lower growth markets - hence they can afford to spend more money on R&D, because the competition is different.
If you operate a public company, you are competing for funds - and the way you compete is with rate of return. If your rate of return is lower than your competitor, you will not be funded. And to be honest, this is really a good thing - it forces long term breakthroughs to the small companies (angel investors) that have a much higher success rate at that type of thing anyway. (Although there are still companies that can justify it, like Intel, it has to be done just right)
What you describe is precisiely why small companies are always the ones that bring change, fix problems, etc. If the big companies are smart, they buy the little companies and everyone goes home happy (Intel, Google, Microsoft for the most part). If they are dumb, they fight against the little companies and are eventually replaced (old IBM vs Microsoft, current Microsoft vs Google, etc.)
Hmmm... I think people may be overreacting here. Bush is essentially the leader of the Republican party. If he wanted to become Hitler, all he had to do was not reliquish the emergency powers he was given.
The loophole the bad guys use is that during an emergency, it is essential that all power be given to a single person so that decisions will be quick (not right, just quick - it is better to make a bad decision than no decision). New Orleans is the perfect example of this - the President had no business doing anything there, the state and FEMA were supposed to take charge. But because there was not a single person in charge (I believe that what we will discover after the rear-view analysis is a command chain failure), things did not happen quickly enough - and poeple died.
The problem with this is that once the powers are taken up, there is no good way to demand that they are given back. Bush, Hitle, and Julius Ceasar all took up emergency powers in order to defend their countries. In each case, the average citizen of the country would have agreed that there was an immenent threat. The only difference is that Bush gave power back to congress, instead of escalating the conflict (like the other two did).
I wish the Libertarians controlled the senate. That would provide an excellent safeguard. But, in the current state of affairs, I think what we have is the best we can hope for.
I do wish that there were better checks and balances in place (different parties controlling different branches, per normal), but the democrats seem to have gone way off the deep end recently. Normally, I would like to split my vote just to create the conflict that is so effective at making our government work - but I really can't vote for the things the Democrats are for, it's just too far out there.
Of course, I'm from Illinios - and Obama is way out there... (Of course, so was the competition - talk about lesser of two evils!)
I believe 360 ppm is by volume, not mass - I hit the same snag in my research. About double sounds right - I just am not convinced that it will make a significant difference. (Not convinced it won't, either, mind you)
I'd like to know what it is that you feel you can predict better now than you could back when you were an athiest.
That is very personal to me and I would prefer not to talk about it in a public forum. If you would like to talk offline, I would be happy to share some of my experiences with you. Generally, I have been given information that I needed, but had no access to - things that have helped with sicknesses and finances. I also have been given help in situations where I had to act on things where I "knew" what was right, but not how to do it (or lacked the requisite skills). To be honest, some of it is embarrassing (as in shows my weakness), some of it is cool (as in how did that happen), and some of it just useful.
In general, I believe that everyone is given this type of help (though I am not sure), though not every one listens...
It is an interesting topic, to be sure.
A few points:
The mass of the atmosphere (per wiki): 5.1e18 kg
Percent CO2: 0.001267%
Mass of current CO2 in atmosphere: 6.4e13 kg
Total oil extracted prior to 2001: 9e11 barrels (assumed to be 1/3 of total world supply, if you have better data please provide)
Total oil remaining: 1.8e12 barrels
Carbon Dioxide Mass in Oil: about 125 kg (almost a guess, please give better data ifyou have it)
So, if we burn all the available oil on Earth, we will a little more than triple the CO2 in the atmosphere (assuming that nature doesn't adjust and fix things) - in other words go from a neglible 0.001267% to a negligible 0.004%.
I'm not saying that it won't have an effect, just that it may be self limitting, and not the end-of-the-world scenario we see bandied about so often...
(Someone else want to check what happens when we burn all the coal?)
Cue the posts about how oil will never "run out" but just become so expensive that suddenly $150K for a fuel cell car will seem reasonable
Yes this will almost certainly happen (looks like sooner rather than later), and so the only reasonable course of action is to grow the economy to where the average person can aford a $150K car...
BTW, if you really did any research on this, you would find that the majority of "useful scientists" believe, using almost any definition of "useful scientist". Look up Nobel winners, for example, and research their belief systems.
As for it being non-provable bs, lets just say that we disagree. At the very least I find that I am better able to predict future events with my belief than I am without my belief (having experienced both).
Fair enough. But in that case let's not use scientific consensus as a method of deciding policy, OK?
Personally, I love how anti-creationists ignore the scientific consensus of a belief in God.
(Hey you brought consensus up, not me!)
It works terribly if you have 1 lifeguard, since .8 lifeguards would mean no lifeguard on duty
And that is precisely why you should use the metric I gave - this does not make sense if your pool has only 1 life guard, for example, because needing only 0.8 lifeguards does not make sense. It really only makes sense for larger pools. (Most of the cost of such a system is in the installation, because you have to mess with the pool and lining. Upkeep costs would be negligable, and since they were not given I estimated them as zero. Not precise, no. More precise than assuming that you will pay the original installation price every 5 years, yes.)
I hope he doesn't do it, because he is not doing a good job of making an alternative analysis!
Fortunately, in our society (except in government, unfortunately) we have an excellent method of removing money from those that do not know hwo to use it effectively - it's called competition!
The complex answer has already been given, so here is the short one:
Don't install this in all pools, only in the large public ones!
Duh!
Especially since I value my life at $5.999 B - that doesn't leave a whole lot for the rest of you!