Getting the people of BC to agree to pipelines and oil tankers navigating some of the more treacherous waters of N. America for little benefit to them besides the most expensive gas in N. America
I got this one too. We'll just build it and regulate it to mitigate the above problems. One wonders why we should care about opinions from people who don't have anything at stake.
These two are nothing alike, unless you think the whole of the developed world can be judged solely by the condition of the central governments. Besides, California's debt-to-GDP ratio is only about 20% - Greece's is 175%.
Sure, there are some differences between the two. The big one is that California hasn't yet destroyed its big sectors, high tech and agriculture. I give the state ten years to do both of those in. Maybe they'll whack Hollywood while they're at it, but I think that's a bit more resistant to bad governance.
Government's money is our money. We get to vote on how it's used. If I believe that subsidizing an activity undertaken by someone else is to my benefit, I will vote to do so. This is me choosing how to use my own money.
Then why does "our money" get used for so much corruption, graft, and outright illegal activity like governments spying on their citizens? I don't care that you're an idiot, I just care that you allow "our money" to get used on such stupid bullshit.
Oh, wait: you must be a Libertarian, and therefore think that you as an individual have a personal veto over everything the government might decide to do. Never mind.
You know, we would have a healthier society, if I actually did have veto power over what my money got used for.
As for power wholesale versus retail, they should calculate your bill by net power units. If you provide 1000kWh and consume 1000kWh, they shouldn't charge you 1000x 12c and pay you 1000x 8c. You already pay about $60/mo for infrastructure ($30 of customer fees, plus infrastructure usage fees).
Ok, what's wrong with that? 50% markup doesn't sound unreasonable.
I don't see a new issue here. Caretaker robots have more potential for risk and harm than a ladder does, but that's it. It's a matter of making sure liability law is up to snuff.
For me the real problem is the liability generated by acting unsolicited on a patient's behalf. If a robot starts discerning what is good for a patient and acting on that basis, then the provider, the manufacturer, and perhaps the robot itself will become liable for the choices of the robot that turned out to be bad. If the liability already exists by law, then that's fine. If it doesn't, then you've just created a large cost that wasn't there before. So it is better for these affected parties in the latter case to just not make that decision even if it happens to cause harm for the patient. If you don't like that outcome, then figure out how to tool liability law to give the results you desire.
Do you mean states that provide the highest percentage of a country's food and send more money to the federal government than they receive? Or states that run a deficit...which is about half of them, red and blue alike?
Sorry, I believe you are mistaken about the US versus UK difference in linel laws.
Then educate yourself on these laws. I told you why they're different. It's not my responsibility to change your mind for you.
Not sure about the crews, I would not call them crew, but settlers. If they are selected today and start in 10 years, what is the problem?
15 years at the bare minimum. I think that will result in at least a two thirds attrition rate over the time period. Circumstances change and 15 years is a long time to volunteer for something even if you really want it.
And my view is that the lack of serious bending of metal now will mean that they aren't going to achieve their aggressive schedule.
The CoR books/reports are not about overpopulation per se but about scarseness of resources, polution etc.
So the main problematic zones are not random nations with a high population growth but a few specific nations that consume most resources of the planet, notable the USA.
'
This is exactly why these reports are complete bullshit. It's not about inequality of resource consumption. It's about the raw amount of people. If Africa were to continue on its current exponential rate of population growth, it would grow inside of a few centuries to the point where it's using more resources than the rest of the world.
It doesn't matter that certain parts of the world use more resources per capita. Even if you equalize resource consumption, you still end up with die-offs from overpopulation due to this exponential growth.
In other words, it's not the "random" countries with high per capita resource consumption, but negative population growth among natives (even the US would have negative population growth, if immigration were halted for a generation), but the many "specific" countries with high population growth rates.
I don't see your point either. So what if some programs were cut?
Creating an enforced oligopoly is not just a "program". It's not just spending money. It's creation of a very considerable economic inefficiency combined with a substantial imposition on human freedom.
It's a whole other matter for governments. Government sends other people to fight, using other people's money. A government that is good at fighting has less disincentives to fighting as individuals, while more to gain from fighting. As a result, governments are much more eager to get into scraps. In other words, the US getting into so many scraps is a symptom, not the problem.
OTOH, we have plenty of examples of what happens when a country that is bad at fighting runs into a country that is good at fighting.
For example, we're nearing the 800th anniversary of Genghis Khan's invasion of Khwarezmia. The heartland of Khwarezmia is now Afghanistan which has never come close to restoring that ancient glory. That's what being bad at fighting can do for you. It can create military disasters which are still readily apparent after 800 years.
I'll also point out that merely spending money on war/defense doesn't make you good at fighting. Here, I'm in agreement that the US simply spends too much on military spending.
The point is that they (the oil companies, the Government of Alberta and the Federal Government) want to move as much product as possible as the Federal Government (ran by a failed economist) knows oil will never drop in price and we should be a one trick pony with oil being the one trick.
So they should instead wait till oil is no longer in demand and then build all this expensive infrastructure? Sounds like I'll have to go with the failed economist on this one.
They have to survive to make it to Europe. The other replier was trying to be sarcastic, but Europe has in the past repeatedly demonstrated that killing a few million people is not a hard problem. In a total collapse scenario where "us versus them" genocide gets started, Africa will run out of people long before Europe runs out of bullets and nukes. The same goes for the US which has pretty defensible borders.
Even if they have, so what? There's two things to note. They've been wrong before.
And second, total collapse isn't going to impact the developed world like it will the worst off parts of the world. Places like Africa or Asia would be hit far harder than places like North America or Europe. This is quite relevant because those are also the places causing most of the overpopulation problem in the first place.
This is one of the ugly facts about overpopulation that groups like the Club of Rome tend to gloss over. Population growth is only happening in certain locations. And since the consequences of population growth also will happen in those same locations, it gives a strong disincentive to care if the shit hits the fan. We aren't all in this together.
My point behind this is to point out what should be obvious. The developing world has the overpopulation problem and has the extreme vulnerability to global trade collapse. Meanwhile the developed world has fixed its shit more or less. Sure there's a few Californias and Greeces out there, but for the most part, the developed world is going to weather any "total collapse".
The Club of Rome is all set to blame the people who aren't causing the problems. Why? Because that's where the money is.
How long does it take in your mind to prove that something does not harm you?
Less than four years obviously. And let us keep in mind that pipelines have been known about for decades. Implying as you do here that we'll need decades more to figure out the impact of Keystone XL is just like you claiming we'll need decades more to figure out the consequences of your current smoking habit.
American refineries don't pay as good as China so the whole idea is to build the 3 pipelines to ports where it can be shipped to China and refined there.
I agree with the grandparent. It doesn't make sense to build to Gulf coast, if you're just shipping to China. Better to make a second pipeline to Canada's west coast, which is easily the closest shipping to China.
OTOH, if you're shipping to US refineries, then it makes a lot of sense.
The Canadian government has repeated this over and over, we need to sell it as quick as possible and it is stupid to create jobs in N. America when China will pay more.
I doubt they've said that. And so what if they did. Canada isn't building the Keystone XL pipeline.
Actually as a non native english speaker, and a layman, I don't see a difference between the two.
You should. The US side one says intent matters. You can say things that happened to be defamatory in UK law, but aren't in US law because you don't intend to be defamatory nor exhibit willful neglect.
Sorry, the stuff we sent to moon was not tested on the moon, but in vacuum chambers. That should be enough for Mars stuff, too.
Actually a lot of it was. For example, NASA had prior to landing people on the Moon already tested in space the Apollo systems, including atmospheric reentry of the crew module and operation of the lunar module in space, the launch abort system, and landing objects on the Moon.
So they have not started yet. What about tomorrow?
Because about two years ago was a much better time to start than tomorrow. And once again, why does crew selection precede the actual mission by so many years?
What advantage do they get from having a lot of untraceable guns lying around? They never killed that many people at a time. It just seems a liability.
You got to love the shitty quality of argument on here. Because AK Marc went to a few teabagger meeting, extended his sensory tendrils, and discerned racism, then the Tea Party is forever thoughtcrime. Because as we all know, racists are by the laws of physics incapable of ever having a good idea.
The actual tenets of the Tea Party have been expressed numerous times, including the reply you shitted on. It's not about gay marriage or jailing the hippies.
The theory here is that the giant gerbils were the reservoir of the plague microorganisms that sparked the numerous plagues of Europe rather than local disease reservoirs via the Norway rat. The Norway rat and humans remain the primary plague vectors in the theory however.
The theory is that certain changes in regional climate brought the giant gerbils in contact with the trade on the Silk Road on average about 15 or so years before a major plague epidemic and bad things happened.
Slashdot Mirror
Getting the people of BC to agree to pipelines and oil tankers navigating some of the more treacherous waters of N. America for little benefit to them besides the most expensive gas in N. America
I got this one too. We'll just build it and regulate it to mitigate the above problems. One wonders why we should care about opinions from people who don't have anything at stake.
These two are nothing alike, unless you think the whole of the developed world can be judged solely by the condition of the central governments. Besides, California's debt-to-GDP ratio is only about 20% - Greece's is 175%.
Sure, there are some differences between the two. The big one is that California hasn't yet destroyed its big sectors, high tech and agriculture. I give the state ten years to do both of those in. Maybe they'll whack Hollywood while they're at it, but I think that's a bit more resistant to bad governance.
I just happen to not believe you.
Government's money is our money. We get to vote on how it's used. If I believe that subsidizing an activity undertaken by someone else is to my benefit, I will vote to do so. This is me choosing how to use my own money.
Then why does "our money" get used for so much corruption, graft, and outright illegal activity like governments spying on their citizens? I don't care that you're an idiot, I just care that you allow "our money" to get used on such stupid bullshit.
Oh, wait: you must be a Libertarian, and therefore think that you as an individual have a personal veto over everything the government might decide to do. Never mind.
You know, we would have a healthier society, if I actually did have veto power over what my money got used for.
Price is not the only consideration. You may not care about your own health, but lots of people care about theirs.
So what? They don't care enough to use their own money.
As for power wholesale versus retail, they should calculate your bill by net power units. If you provide 1000kWh and consume 1000kWh, they shouldn't charge you 1000x 12c and pay you 1000x 8c. You already pay about $60/mo for infrastructure ($30 of customer fees, plus infrastructure usage fees).
Ok, what's wrong with that? 50% markup doesn't sound unreasonable.
Because there is a consensus that widespread adoption of solar power is a net good for the society as a whole.
And they're unwilling to pay for it with their own money.
I don't see a new issue here. Caretaker robots have more potential for risk and harm than a ladder does, but that's it. It's a matter of making sure liability law is up to snuff.
For me the real problem is the liability generated by acting unsolicited on a patient's behalf. If a robot starts discerning what is good for a patient and acting on that basis, then the provider, the manufacturer, and perhaps the robot itself will become liable for the choices of the robot that turned out to be bad. If the liability already exists by law, then that's fine. If it doesn't, then you've just created a large cost that wasn't there before. So it is better for these affected parties in the latter case to just not make that decision even if it happens to cause harm for the patient. If you don't like that outcome, then figure out how to tool liability law to give the results you desire.
Do you mean states that provide the highest percentage of a country's food and send more money to the federal government than they receive? Or states that run a deficit...which is about half of them, red and blue alike?
Yes, I mean that state.
Sorry, I believe you are mistaken about the US versus UK difference in linel laws.
Then educate yourself on these laws. I told you why they're different. It's not my responsibility to change your mind for you.
Not sure about the crews, I would not call them crew, but settlers. If they are selected today and start in 10 years, what is the problem?
15 years at the bare minimum. I think that will result in at least a two thirds attrition rate over the time period. Circumstances change and 15 years is a long time to volunteer for something even if you really want it.
And my view is that the lack of serious bending of metal now will mean that they aren't going to achieve their aggressive schedule.
The CoR books/reports are not about overpopulation per se but about scarseness of resources, polution etc.
So the main problematic zones are not random nations with a high population growth but a few specific nations that consume most resources of the planet, notable the USA.
' This is exactly why these reports are complete bullshit. It's not about inequality of resource consumption. It's about the raw amount of people. If Africa were to continue on its current exponential rate of population growth, it would grow inside of a few centuries to the point where it's using more resources than the rest of the world.
It doesn't matter that certain parts of the world use more resources per capita. Even if you equalize resource consumption, you still end up with die-offs from overpopulation due to this exponential growth.
In other words, it's not the "random" countries with high per capita resource consumption, but negative population growth among natives (even the US would have negative population growth, if immigration were halted for a generation), but the many "specific" countries with high population growth rates.
I don't see your point either. So what if some programs were cut?
Creating an enforced oligopoly is not just a "program". It's not just spending money. It's creation of a very considerable economic inefficiency combined with a substantial imposition on human freedom.
It's a whole other matter for governments. Government sends other people to fight, using other people's money. A government that is good at fighting has less disincentives to fighting as individuals, while more to gain from fighting. As a result, governments are much more eager to get into scraps. In other words, the US getting into so many scraps is a symptom, not the problem.
OTOH, we have plenty of examples of what happens when a country that is bad at fighting runs into a country that is good at fighting.
For example, we're nearing the 800th anniversary of Genghis Khan's invasion of Khwarezmia. The heartland of Khwarezmia is now Afghanistan which has never come close to restoring that ancient glory. That's what being bad at fighting can do for you. It can create military disasters which are still readily apparent after 800 years.
I'll also point out that merely spending money on war/defense doesn't make you good at fighting. Here, I'm in agreement that the US simply spends too much on military spending.
I'll be concerned by your concern when the level of "swathes of nonsense" rise to the level of the two major parties.
The point is that they (the oil companies, the Government of Alberta and the Federal Government) want to move as much product as possible as the Federal Government (ran by a failed economist) knows oil will never drop in price and we should be a one trick pony with oil being the one trick.
So they should instead wait till oil is no longer in demand and then build all this expensive infrastructure? Sounds like I'll have to go with the failed economist on this one.
Apparently, they're already allowing a pipeline to be built.
Which is easily solvable by building deep water ports. What problems of the world can Slashdot solve next?
They have to survive to make it to Europe. The other replier was trying to be sarcastic, but Europe has in the past repeatedly demonstrated that killing a few million people is not a hard problem. In a total collapse scenario where "us versus them" genocide gets started, Africa will run out of people long before Europe runs out of bullets and nukes. The same goes for the US which has pretty defensible borders.
The Club of Rome said total collapse 2040-ish.
Even if they have, so what? There's two things to note. They've been wrong before.
And second, total collapse isn't going to impact the developed world like it will the worst off parts of the world. Places like Africa or Asia would be hit far harder than places like North America or Europe. This is quite relevant because those are also the places causing most of the overpopulation problem in the first place.
This is one of the ugly facts about overpopulation that groups like the Club of Rome tend to gloss over. Population growth is only happening in certain locations. And since the consequences of population growth also will happen in those same locations, it gives a strong disincentive to care if the shit hits the fan. We aren't all in this together.
My point behind this is to point out what should be obvious. The developing world has the overpopulation problem and has the extreme vulnerability to global trade collapse. Meanwhile the developed world has fixed its shit more or less. Sure there's a few Californias and Greeces out there, but for the most part, the developed world is going to weather any "total collapse".
The Club of Rome is all set to blame the people who aren't causing the problems. Why? Because that's where the money is.
How long does it take in your mind to prove that something does not harm you?
Less than four years obviously. And let us keep in mind that pipelines have been known about for decades. Implying as you do here that we'll need decades more to figure out the impact of Keystone XL is just like you claiming we'll need decades more to figure out the consequences of your current smoking habit.
American refineries don't pay as good as China so the whole idea is to build the 3 pipelines to ports where it can be shipped to China and refined there.
I agree with the grandparent. It doesn't make sense to build to Gulf coast, if you're just shipping to China. Better to make a second pipeline to Canada's west coast, which is easily the closest shipping to China.
OTOH, if you're shipping to US refineries, then it makes a lot of sense.
The Canadian government has repeated this over and over, we need to sell it as quick as possible and it is stupid to create jobs in N. America when China will pay more.
I doubt they've said that. And so what if they did. Canada isn't building the Keystone XL pipeline.
Actually as a non native english speaker, and a layman, I don't see a difference between the two.
You should. The US side one says intent matters. You can say things that happened to be defamatory in UK law, but aren't in US law because you don't intend to be defamatory nor exhibit willful neglect.
Sorry, the stuff we sent to moon was not tested on the moon, but in vacuum chambers. That should be enough for Mars stuff, too.
Actually a lot of it was. For example, NASA had prior to landing people on the Moon already tested in space the Apollo systems, including atmospheric reentry of the crew module and operation of the lunar module in space, the launch abort system, and landing objects on the Moon.
So they have not started yet. What about tomorrow?
Because about two years ago was a much better time to start than tomorrow. And once again, why does crew selection precede the actual mission by so many years?
"Drug lord toilet paper" has an interesting ring to it.
What advantage do they get from having a lot of untraceable guns lying around? They never killed that many people at a time. It just seems a liability.
You got to love the shitty quality of argument on here. Because AK Marc went to a few teabagger meeting, extended his sensory tendrils, and discerned racism, then the Tea Party is forever thoughtcrime. Because as we all know, racists are by the laws of physics incapable of ever having a good idea.
The actual tenets of the Tea Party have been expressed numerous times, including the reply you shitted on. It's not about gay marriage or jailing the hippies.
The theory here is that the giant gerbils were the reservoir of the plague microorganisms that sparked the numerous plagues of Europe rather than local disease reservoirs via the Norway rat. The Norway rat and humans remain the primary plague vectors in the theory however.
The theory is that certain changes in regional climate brought the giant gerbils in contact with the trade on the Silk Road on average about 15 or so years before a major plague epidemic and bad things happened.