Should we remove radios and radar and GPS from the planes too?
Some planes in the US don't fly with any of that stuff. But in cases where those items are mandatory (which I gather is the case for commercial flight), then you don't fly when that equipment is broken.
I'm sure you can come up with a thousand free market answers
So why did you post? There are tens of thousands of free market answers - businesses of all sorts to provide the parts or the repair service.
This isn't the first time that someone has defended a rent-seeking activity on the shady grounds that a widely available service market might not exist otherwise. I suspect most of these laws date from the last time this was tried wholesale in the US, during the Great Depression. I believe such things were a large part of why the Great Depression was so severe and long.
Eventually either you stop getting parts and service for cars after 5 years or your start getting gouged in ways you can only imagine.
You don't have to imagine the gouging. Just get work done at a dealership.
It's also another thing to break which will keep the plane from flying. Also, what happens if the network goes down? Do we keep planes from flying until it comes back up?
The Fukushima accident was caused by incompetence and could have been avoided, as it was at other nuclear plants.
I glanced through your posts to get an idea of what you thought "incompetence" was. It appears that you think not building the seawall higher at Fukushima was an example and that you agree with the blithe and wrong assumption that it was "corporate culture" which was at fault - even though the same TEPCO corporate culture also existed at the Onagawa plant.
Focusing on deaths is arbitrary
Death is a very concrete measure of harm.
underplay the devastating effects of the nuclear disaster on the people forced to evacuate and on Japan's economy
Keep in mind that a lot of the harm comes from hysteria not nuclear accidents. For example, why are no Japanese nuclear plants on line? There's no safety issue for most of the nuclear plants which weren't effected by the earthquakes.
It reminds me of the few trillion dollars squandered by the US in the wake of 911 (for example, two wars, pumping up the global real estate market, and the intrusive security apparatus).
their was a coup/revolution as such all such treaties are null and void
No, that need not be the case, especially if most of the signatories to the treaty weren't involved in the revolution such as is the case with the so-called "Budapest Memorandum".
Why is the revolution is recognised in Kiev but one in Crimea isn't?
For me, because the first one isn't being controlled by a former KGB officer. Russia can elect whoever they want to higher office. But I still think they're a bit crazy to have elected Putin. And his fingerprints (as well as his motley army of henchmen) are all over the second "revolution".
That would be a problem if they are invading, however they are operating in a country where they were invited.
The Russians weren't invited by the Ukraine. I know the Crimea Republic is autonomous, but they aren't considered sovereign and hence, can't just invite Russian military troops in. The Ukraine can however, but they didn't.
Also, the Night Wolves are apparently engaging in a bit of "supplies" smuggling through the Ukraine from the previous link I posted.
Contrary to your propaganda I think there is actually significant doubt as to whether he has violated international laws.
Well, soldiers operating without proper identification is a war crime under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and its subsequent modifications(the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977."). For example, from Article 37:
1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
[...]
(c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status;
3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.
You're saying that society is better off if we let all the sick and injured suffer and die.
Nobody said that. Also keep in mind that supposedly half of all health care costs in the US are in the last year of a person's life. That's more like health theater than health care at that point.
I hope that health insurance covers treatment for your sociopathy. We'd all benefit if you could be cured. Who knows, you might some day even contribute enough to society to repay the cost of all that treatment. I'd be willing to take a chance on you.
So who is the sociopath here? The person making a legitimate complaint about US health care or the person completely taking their words out of context and using it as an excuse to railroad a strawman?
Nuclear power plants have no right to cause cancer for anybody, anywhere, and especially not for people who don't work at the plant.
And Japanese society's need for power outweighs a few hypothetical cases of cancer. If we applied your standard to driving, we wouldn't be - since any cars on the road increases the risk of death for everyone in cars or near them.
in practice human nature doesn't cope well with this kind of crisis.
What "nature" does cope well with flying blind? Before we blame this on the yoomans, perhaps we ought to consider whether an optimally rational actor would have done any better?
I'm perfectly capable of exercising my rights on behalf of the corporation I work for if I choose to without the corporation having any rights on its own.
It turns out that sure, you could - if there was some legal equivalent to corporate personhood to protect your rights in this situation. Otherwise you wouldn't be correct in that assertion.
And it's worth noting that while the US is relatively aggressive with respect to corporate personhood, it's not a thing unique to the US legal system.
I'm saying to master the components you need before planning the project. Simply saying "human ingenuity will solve that" is like saying "we'll make the software secure when we're ready to publish".
The thing is, you don't need to master the "components" first. You're attaching a precondition that is rather arbitrary.
As to your example, you can plan this stuff even if you don't have an exact idea of what the functionality or security needs are of your software project. And sometimes it really is "we'll figure that out when we get to it".
Yes. The human body is not a closed system. There's plenty of energy available from the Sun for paying the "energy cost" you referred to.
especially since scar tissue accumulates and regrowth of neural tissue has never been mastered.
Neither which is a permanent problem.
Given the lack of progress for both issues, there's little concrete reason to assume they are _not_ permanent issues.
Because these things are somehow independent of technological development? If so, then how come we're better off dealing with these issues than our cavemen ancestors were?
Fantastic research, noble cause, but perhaps pointless and likely dangerous until we solve a shitload of other issues, or get the hell off this rock.
Well, given that the "shitload" of problems aren't any harder than the original longevity research, what's the cause for concern? Are we going to exceed our allowed quota of problems solved?
And if we stopped entropy, cell detioration would not occur.
The stars will die out long before entropy becomes relevant here. One doesn't need to stop cell deterioration, instead one merely needs to replace cells and such when they do deteriorate.
especially since scar tissue accumulates and regrowth of neural tissue has never been mastered.
Claiming that there's powerful monetary interest in proving AGW true is paranoid delusions.
Abengoa SA is a powerful counterexample. Their business model is based on providing various sorts of renewable energy solutions on the public dime. It doesn't matter which public those dimes come from as they have a number of pricy projects on several different continents. Without the threat of "climate change", they'd be out of luck.
There's also the carbon emission markets traders. That's at least two counters to your argument that it is "delusional".
Now, I imagine some people might be offended, including the person I'm replying to, but I think the label is well-justified here. If someone were on trial for the deaths of these people, I would consider these eye witness accounts as evidence for two reasons. First, that they support that the attacks actually happened and would demonstrate some of the destructive power of atomic bombs. Second, that they'd give an personal viewpoint and emotional depth to the would-be crime and would help bring the reality of the event to judges, jurors, etc.
But if these were meant to support a particular number of deaths, then they'd be dismantled instantly by a competent defense attorney - particularly if the eyewitness were suffering from injury, exhaustion, or deep hunger.
I basically said all that a couple of posts back. So when someone asks a question like the one I quoted - when I had already solidly and explicitly answered in the negative, what are they expecting as an answer? Repeating the question without even acknowledging my answer is IMHO idiotic.
This is why the vast majority of anti-AGW positions are considered so ridiculous:
What bugs me about this particular debate is that it focuses on the narrow question of whether there is any AGW effect rather than the more relevant questions of whether the effect is bad enough that we should do something expensive about it. Too often I see arguments and rhetoric where the person advocates AGW mitigation as if the whole argument up to rationalizations for CO2 emission reduction were as strong as the relatively strong evidence and models for some degree of AGW (such as the one dimensional radiative model which is fairly well founded and modeled) and assumes the only opposition to the full chain of their reasoning comes from people who don't agree that there is AGW in the first place.
The fact of the matter is that AGW models while not perfectly matching up, all generally agree on certain trends, so this idea that you have all these models with wildly contradictory and incompatible predictions is wrong, and is exactly the kind of hyper/pseudo-skepticism which isn't deserved.
The problem is not that they don't agree with each other, but that they have trouble agreeing with what we actually observe.
and is exactly the kind of hyper/pseudo-skepticism which isn't deserved.
You ignore here that the stakes are about as big as they can get for a scientific debate. Nobody's multibillion dollar business model is based on string theory being an accurate description or not of some part of reality. But AGW is, both for its supporters and detractors. Either side can buy a lot of science and scientists, including all of climatology. As a result, the AGW theory really does need to be able to pass inspection by this degree of skepticism.
He's speaking just of federal income tax rates (which is only one of several income taxes). But if you include the other income-based taxes (such as the ones on Social Security and Medicare) it would be a somewhat smaller fraction increase.
Suposedly, judges are wise beyond normal intelligence levels and must be able to interpret the spirit of the law living throughout a law's text.
As long as the tax loopholes of the 50s are there. Else, you're just creating yet another job-destroying dynamic. But we could get the same effect of that 50s tax rate by merely doing nothing. Actual taxes paid haven't changed that much - the silly higher rates went down and the loopholes got closed.
What has changed since the 50s is that the developed world worker is not the only game in town. There are billions of people willing to do a developed world worker's job for much less. So there are other advantages that keep those jobs than merely an overpriced worker. One of those advantages is not making it ridiculously hard to employ people or become wealthy.
Now, maybe you're one of those people who can't or won't work with rich people. No problem! There are a billion people throughout the developed world who are willing and competently able to work with rich people. Just let them make the sacrifices that keep developed world societies, developed.
Slashdot Mirror
Should we remove radios and radar and GPS from the planes too?
Some planes in the US don't fly with any of that stuff. But in cases where those items are mandatory (which I gather is the case for commercial flight), then you don't fly when that equipment is broken.
I'm sure you can come up with a thousand free market answers
So why did you post? There are tens of thousands of free market answers - businesses of all sorts to provide the parts or the repair service.
This isn't the first time that someone has defended a rent-seeking activity on the shady grounds that a widely available service market might not exist otherwise. I suspect most of these laws date from the last time this was tried wholesale in the US, during the Great Depression. I believe such things were a large part of why the Great Depression was so severe and long.
Eventually either you stop getting parts and service for cars after 5 years or your start getting gouged in ways you can only imagine.
You don't have to imagine the gouging. Just get work done at a dealership.
It's also another thing to break which will keep the plane from flying. Also, what happens if the network goes down? Do we keep planes from flying until it comes back up?
The Fukushima accident was caused by incompetence and could have been avoided, as it was at other nuclear plants.
I glanced through your posts to get an idea of what you thought "incompetence" was. It appears that you think not building the seawall higher at Fukushima was an example and that you agree with the blithe and wrong assumption that it was "corporate culture" which was at fault - even though the same TEPCO corporate culture also existed at the Onagawa plant.
Focusing on deaths is arbitrary
Death is a very concrete measure of harm.
underplay the devastating effects of the nuclear disaster on the people forced to evacuate and on Japan's economy
Keep in mind that a lot of the harm comes from hysteria not nuclear accidents. For example, why are no Japanese nuclear plants on line? There's no safety issue for most of the nuclear plants which weren't effected by the earthquakes.
It reminds me of the few trillion dollars squandered by the US in the wake of 911 (for example, two wars, pumping up the global real estate market, and the intrusive security apparatus).
One must not generalize.
Yea, that's a group activity.
their was a coup/revolution as such all such treaties are null and void
No, that need not be the case, especially if most of the signatories to the treaty weren't involved in the revolution such as is the case with the so-called "Budapest Memorandum".
Why is the revolution is recognised in Kiev but one in Crimea isn't?
For me, because the first one isn't being controlled by a former KGB officer. Russia can elect whoever they want to higher office. But I still think they're a bit crazy to have elected Putin. And his fingerprints (as well as his motley army of henchmen) are all over the second "revolution".
That would be a problem if they are invading, however they are operating in a country where they were invited.
The Russians weren't invited by the Ukraine. I know the Crimea Republic is autonomous, but they aren't considered sovereign and hence, can't just invite Russian military troops in. The Ukraine can however, but they didn't.
Also, the Night Wolves are apparently engaging in a bit of "supplies" smuggling through the Ukraine from the previous link I posted.
Contrary to your propaganda I think there is actually significant doubt as to whether he has violated international laws.
Well, soldiers operating without proper identification is a war crime under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and its subsequent modifications(the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977."). For example, from Article 37:
1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
[...]
(c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status;
Also the use of the Night Wolves violates article 43:
3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.
So what was the outcome of the "coin flip" and how would they know?
You're saying that society is better off if we let all the sick and injured suffer and die.
Nobody said that. Also keep in mind that supposedly half of all health care costs in the US are in the last year of a person's life. That's more like health theater than health care at that point.
I hope that health insurance covers treatment for your sociopathy. We'd all benefit if you could be cured. Who knows, you might some day even contribute enough to society to repay the cost of all that treatment. I'd be willing to take a chance on you.
So who is the sociopath here? The person making a legitimate complaint about US health care or the person completely taking their words out of context and using it as an excuse to railroad a strawman?
Nuclear power plants have no right to cause cancer for anybody, anywhere, and especially not for people who don't work at the plant.
And Japanese society's need for power outweighs a few hypothetical cases of cancer. If we applied your standard to driving, we wouldn't be - since any cars on the road increases the risk of death for everyone in cars or near them.
in practice human nature doesn't cope well with this kind of crisis.
What "nature" does cope well with flying blind? Before we blame this on the yoomans, perhaps we ought to consider whether an optimally rational actor would have done any better?
I'm perfectly capable of exercising my rights on behalf of the corporation I work for if I choose to without the corporation having any rights on its own.
It turns out that sure, you could - if there was some legal equivalent to corporate personhood to protect your rights in this situation. Otherwise you wouldn't be correct in that assertion.
And it's worth noting that while the US is relatively aggressive with respect to corporate personhood, it's not a thing unique to the US legal system.
I'm saying to master the components you need before planning the project. Simply saying "human ingenuity will solve that" is like saying "we'll make the software secure when we're ready to publish".
The thing is, you don't need to master the "components" first. You're attaching a precondition that is rather arbitrary.
As to your example, you can plan this stuff even if you don't have an exact idea of what the functionality or security needs are of your software project. And sometimes it really is "we'll figure that out when we get to it".
Do you understand what "entropy" is?
Yes. The human body is not a closed system. There's plenty of energy available from the Sun for paying the "energy cost" you referred to.
especially since scar tissue accumulates and regrowth of neural tissue has never been mastered.
Neither which is a permanent problem.
Given the lack of progress for both issues, there's little concrete reason to assume they are _not_ permanent issues.
Because these things are somehow independent of technological development? If so, then how come we're better off dealing with these issues than our cavemen ancestors were?
And you sound like you're in denial. You WILL die. Soon. Relatively speaking.
Unless of course, the previous poster doesn't die soon.
So don't be a coward who's waiting for some scientific breakthrough to "save" them. You can't escape the grave.
Plenty of people already have. Sure, they're still dying "soon", but they have a better and longer life for it.
Fantastic research, noble cause, but perhaps pointless and likely dangerous until we solve a shitload of other issues, or get the hell off this rock.
Well, given that the "shitload" of problems aren't any harder than the original longevity research, what's the cause for concern? Are we going to exceed our allowed quota of problems solved?
And if we stopped entropy, cell detioration would not occur.
The stars will die out long before entropy becomes relevant here. One doesn't need to stop cell deterioration, instead one merely needs to replace cells and such when they do deteriorate.
especially since scar tissue accumulates and regrowth of neural tissue has never been mastered.
Neither which is a permanent problem.
Claiming that there's powerful monetary interest in proving AGW true is paranoid delusions.
Abengoa SA is a powerful counterexample. Their business model is based on providing various sorts of renewable energy solutions on the public dime. It doesn't matter which public those dimes come from as they have a number of pricy projects on several different continents. Without the threat of "climate change", they'd be out of luck.
There's also the carbon emission markets traders. That's at least two counters to your argument that it is "delusional".
Now, I imagine some people might be offended, including the person I'm replying to, but I think the label is well-justified here. If someone were on trial for the deaths of these people, I would consider these eye witness accounts as evidence for two reasons. First, that they support that the attacks actually happened and would demonstrate some of the destructive power of atomic bombs. Second, that they'd give an personal viewpoint and emotional depth to the would-be crime and would help bring the reality of the event to judges, jurors, etc.
But if these were meant to support a particular number of deaths, then they'd be dismantled instantly by a competent defense attorney - particularly if the eyewitness were suffering from injury, exhaustion, or deep hunger.
I basically said all that a couple of posts back. So when someone asks a question like the one I quoted - when I had already solidly and explicitly answered in the negative, what are they expecting as an answer? Repeating the question without even acknowledging my answer is IMHO idiotic.
This is why the vast majority of anti-AGW positions are considered so ridiculous:
What bugs me about this particular debate is that it focuses on the narrow question of whether there is any AGW effect rather than the more relevant questions of whether the effect is bad enough that we should do something expensive about it. Too often I see arguments and rhetoric where the person advocates AGW mitigation as if the whole argument up to rationalizations for CO2 emission reduction were as strong as the relatively strong evidence and models for some degree of AGW (such as the one dimensional radiative model which is fairly well founded and modeled) and assumes the only opposition to the full chain of their reasoning comes from people who don't agree that there is AGW in the first place.
The fact of the matter is that AGW models while not perfectly matching up, all generally agree on certain trends, so this idea that you have all these models with wildly contradictory and incompatible predictions is wrong, and is exactly the kind of hyper/pseudo-skepticism which isn't deserved.
The problem is not that they don't agree with each other, but that they have trouble agreeing with what we actually observe.
and is exactly the kind of hyper/pseudo-skepticism which isn't deserved.
You ignore here that the stakes are about as big as they can get for a scientific debate. Nobody's multibillion dollar business model is based on string theory being an accurate description or not of some part of reality. But AGW is, both for its supporters and detractors. Either side can buy a lot of science and scientists, including all of climatology. As a result, the AGW theory really does need to be able to pass inspection by this degree of skepticism.
My marginal tax rate is around 40%.
He's speaking just of federal income tax rates (which is only one of several income taxes). But if you include the other income-based taxes (such as the ones on Social Security and Medicare) it would be a somewhat smaller fraction increase.
Suposedly, judges are wise beyond normal intelligence levels and must be able to interpret the spirit of the law living throughout a law's text.
As long as the tax loopholes of the 50s are there. Else, you're just creating yet another job-destroying dynamic. But we could get the same effect of that 50s tax rate by merely doing nothing. Actual taxes paid haven't changed that much - the silly higher rates went down and the loopholes got closed.
What has changed since the 50s is that the developed world worker is not the only game in town. There are billions of people willing to do a developed world worker's job for much less. So there are other advantages that keep those jobs than merely an overpriced worker. One of those advantages is not making it ridiculously hard to employ people or become wealthy.
Now, maybe you're one of those people who can't or won't work with rich people. No problem! There are a billion people throughout the developed world who are willing and competently able to work with rich people. Just let them make the sacrifices that keep developed world societies, developed.
Suposedly, judges are wise beyond normal intelligence levels and must be able to interpret the spirit of the law living throughout a law's text.
They aren't. Come up with a new rationalization.