That happens when their senses and mental ability start to deteriorate significantly. I gather it's well after age 60 in the developed world. Keep in mind also that currently a bunch of those people don't really know how to drive that well. Someone else did the driving for them.
If routine commuting is "fun," then you're doing it wrong. Driving safely and efficiently is, and should be, boring as hell
When driving, fun can be very dangerous, but not necessarily so. You are always engaged in a fun activity and that makes you a safer driver (though other factors can more than counter that). Boring always is dangerous since you are thus subject to complacency and drifting of attention.
What people hate is how high-frequency trading is used to underhandedly find a buyer's maximum buy price and the seller's minimum sell price so that the traders can keep the difference in addition to charging their commission fees.
And who on Slashdot trades in such a way that this would matter? You're basically speaking of HFT gaming of computer traders. And there are ways to keep that from being an issue (such as slowing down your rate and volume of purchase at those less favorable prices). If those people don't like giving free money to HFT, then debug their damn trading programs.
I see no reason to fix yet another non-problem in the trading of securities.
What I am saying is that the current method of choosing which get executed, and which get delayed is stupid and non deterministic. It's first come, first served
"First come, first served"? That's quite deterministic.
Well, what does this slide refer to? It's titled "Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Outline of water processing facilities" and dates from June 4, 2011.
Thyroid cancer has some hard to ignore symptoms and eventually spreads and kills you if untreated.
No, advanced cases of it do. Small growths on your thyroid do not.
I suppose if there were zero more detections for the next couple of decades we could write it off to early detection
No, because they're going to be early detecting for probably the entire lives of these children.
People don't get how observation bias works. If one took a control population and examined that group just as aggressively, one would see more cases of thyroid cancer as well.
It doesn't matter if wealth is created by happy free market capitalism, or if Jesus returned and just willed a billion loaves of bread out of thin air.
Well, I have a no doubt unsurprising opinion on which is more likely to occur.
The problem is still getting all that bread to to people and uplifting them.
Ok, I guess we just disagree on which problem is harder. Wealth naturally diffuses though maybe not as fast as we'd like. But wealth isn't so easily created.
You can create all the wealth you want but it doesn't lift "billions" of people if that wealth is only spread around millions. The US did create a lot of value, but they kept it to themselves.
At no time during the history of the US, has this occurred. The US has always been a nation of trade. That alone keeps wealth from staying solely in the US (plus the US has supported various activities have opened global trade, such as anti-piracy and more recently open trade). Further, the US has been a nation of considerable charity for a long time.
The US used to prefer isolationism, non-interventionism, and the libertarian non-aggression principle. That was great for the millions uplifted in the US and it exploded into an economic powerhouse, but those outside the US were SOL if they can't get into the US.
I'm puzzled. Why do you think those sorts of policies are worse than powers that interfere, intervene, and otherwise make a bother of themselves?
Uplifting billions only happened when US (and many other nations) moved from Imperialist attitudes to Socialist, and started spreading its wealth around, even to people who really don't/can't produce something of value in return. World population didn't jump from 2 billion to 7 billion today until after WW2, when socialism and government expansion came into full swing.
Correlation doesn't mean causation. Global trade is the obvious explanation. Uplifting billions happened after global trade became fast enough that most products could be made almost anywhere on the Earth and arrive at another market almost anywhere on Earth in a timely manner. While certain ideologies allow for more open trade, global trade would occur even in the presence of imperialist or socialist ideologies.
I cannot imagine circumstances in which a clone can have a healthy upbringing with no abnormal expectations.
You'd probably have similar troubles with any human child, but those expectations tend to get more abnormal than usual when the parents think they're bring the band together again.
I suppose it wouldn't at all be possible to come up with some threshold between every scary bit of radiation is bad and naked reactors cooling in the Pacific.
In 1959, researchers at Bell Laboratories discovered vanadium dioxideâ(TM)s ability to rearrange electrons and shift from an insulator to a conductor, called a metal-insulator transition. Twenty years later it was discovered that there are two slightly different insulating phases.
The new research shows that those two insulating phases and the conducting phase in solid vanadium dioxide can coexist stably at 65 degrees Celsius, give or take a tenth of a degree (65 degrees C is equal to 149 degrees Fahrenheit).
So three phases and two parameters which vary are temperature and stress on a wire of the material.
Billions were uplifted over the years, but they were not uplifted by a "consume" strategy.
Ok, why do you think that?
In other words, it's income distribution. People in the first world, who aren't in poverty, are having their jobs (source of income) redistributed to the second and third world, so the billions in poverty in those places are uplifted.
Where did those first world incomes come from? This reminds me of Intelligent Design where one punts a hard problem to another layer without actually explaining why the hard problem is there in the first place. Wealth has never been a fixed thing that just gets spread around. It is created when someone creates things or performs services that other people value.
People in the US will just have to accept that this is for "The Greater Good" (US population is in the millions, but we're talking about saving billions in China/India!). They'll just have to settle for becoming dependent on government welfare. You won't become rich, you won't be free, but hey - you won't end up in poverty like people in China/India.
That's completely misguided. The reason people have all this wealth in the US is because of widespread creation of value, not just among inventors and business leaders, but almost everyone who works. A big part of the reason that the US is declining in wealth is because people are moved from productive work to government welfare.
For example, consider the ISO 14000 series of standards. If you want to do business with the governments of the EU or businesses that follow ISO 14000 standards, you have to follow those standards to some degree. It makes it easy to create trade barriers since local European businesses are immersed in a standards-compliant business ecosystem while Chinese businesses aren't even close.
But no, you didn't distance yourself from Reagan's words, you embraced them as a valid argument.
Yes. That's what rational people do. They consider an argument on its merits not a misguided prejudice based on who came up with the argument.
Therefore, you lost your chance to distinguish yourself.
And why should I care? You brought up Reagan and I merely pointed out my perspective on his statements. Looks to me like you have a 25 year old ax to grind with a dead man. I personally have better things to waste my time on.
Well, another poster noted that CO2 emissions are double what they are in Europe as a mean. I don't consider that significant pollution because I don't consider CO2 to be a significant pollutant or a factor of two to be particularly signficant either, to be honest. That deals with the usual ton per capita pollution comparisons between US and Europe.
As to other pollutants, the US is somewhat heavier in per capita pollution which is balanced by both moderately greater economic activity and significantly lower population densities. But Europe has ridiculously low thresholds for its pollutants. Even being an order of magnitude higher (as is the case for the US with respect to some airborne pollutants and the countries with ample hydroelectric power) is just not that significant when the threshold is so low. I speculate at the end why I think that's the case.
You buy a new TV, car or whatever = You pollute.
I see this as a protectionist gimmick and not a valid observation. The obvious rebuttal is that the pollution you are referring to comes from the manufacturer of the device not the purchaser and user of the device and most of that pollution is local. Europe has been remarkably adept at protecting its native industries from competition by using metrics like this to inhibit competition from regions (such as the developing world) which happen to have lower standards of living and higher pollution.
I view Europe's environmental standards more as a relatively successful protectionist racket than something that serves a vital environmental or public health need.
That's the bad stuff we're trying to avoid, so the sacrifice of some land, to spare the risk of flooding?
But the sacrifice of a lot of land so that some low value land doesn't get inundated occasionally?
I haven't even touched on the perversity of flood control in the US, where flooding has been made worse by flood control. You don't get the low grade flooding any more, but huge floods do more damage than they used to, because flood water has less places to go than it used to.
Nor have I touched on the perversity of subsidized flood insurance which encourages people to build expensive stuff in flood zones.
Reagan made a misrepresentation under which he premised his argument against the TVA. You can argue against hydroelectric projects for a lot of reasons, but when you choose an argument which is so blatantly fallacious as Reagan's, you discredit yourself.
Now, Reagan may have discredited himself in such a way, but I think it's a logical fallacy to claim my argument is the same as his, merely because we're both discussing land usage and some AC was "reminded" of Reagan's words by mine.
I tell you what. Show me evidence for your claim. I'll just note that the subsidies, I'm aware of in the US and Europe are massive subsidies which include direct payments and tax write offs on solar power. Neither of those would result in high costs for people consuming solar power.
The State of California caused the station to discharge radioactive waste into the environment and the steam tubes to corrode out prematurely?
Well, actually yes. Regulation often has unintended consequences like this. If the thresholds were higher, for example, then the so-called "radioactive waste" probably wouldn't be. After all, for sufficiently sensitive measurements, even discarded banana peels would be radioactive waste due to the presence of trace amounts of potassium 40.
Or it could plunge them into utter misery, with famine, no affordable transportation at all, complete breakdown of the economic system etc.
Well, I'll just note that the opposite of that has happened so far. The "utter misery" is hypothetical. The lifting of billions of people out of poverty and that misery can be observed over the past 60 years (and continues a trend that has been evident since 1300).
The problem is just that what the US has doesn't look like a "strategy" at all, but more like "head in sand", which just doesn't look convincing to me.
Here's the problem I have with all this talk. "Head in the sand" is often better than trying to do the proposed conservation strategies. There is something deeply wrong with the choice of problems that people choose to "look" at. When doing nothing is better than doing something, such as the case here, then you need to revisit not only your strategies, but how you look at things.
Running out of oil is less of a problem than poverty or overpopulation is. The alleged effects of human-influenced global warming are less. Sure, in a vacuum it would be better for our actual problems to have oil or reduced costs and damage from climate change, but these things aren't in a vacuum. Depletion of oil and the moderate reported climate change are results of vast economic activity that betters the lives of all mankind.
There are big problems for humanity, but running out of oil isn't one of them.
And thus my point. I don't consider a factor of two, especially of CO2 and especially in conjunction with somewhat greater economic activity, to be a significant difference. I know other people do, so I probably should have argued the point in a somewhat less rhetorically aggressive manner.
As to fracking, it has two features which make it different than normal oil well drilling. First, it is a lot faster - a smaller number of wells for a much shorter duration are necessary to drain an oil field. There are some well holes in the US which are kept open (if not active) for half a century or longer (oil gets pumped when the price of oil meets an appropriate level).
And the extensive production of cheap natural gas has actually led to a temporary decline in US carbon emissions (and modest decline in sulfur/nitrogen oxides emissions). It has replaced some amount of coal burning.
Slashdot Mirror
Let us remember that radical Islam was a big contributor to the body count in "Bush's wars".
That happens when their senses and mental ability start to deteriorate significantly. I gather it's well after age 60 in the developed world. Keep in mind also that currently a bunch of those people don't really know how to drive that well. Someone else did the driving for them.
If routine commuting is "fun," then you're doing it wrong. Driving safely and efficiently is, and should be, boring as hell
When driving, fun can be very dangerous, but not necessarily so. You are always engaged in a fun activity and that makes you a safer driver (though other factors can more than counter that). Boring always is dangerous since you are thus subject to complacency and drifting of attention.
What people hate is how high-frequency trading is used to underhandedly find a buyer's maximum buy price and the seller's minimum sell price so that the traders can keep the difference in addition to charging their commission fees.
And who on Slashdot trades in such a way that this would matter? You're basically speaking of HFT gaming of computer traders. And there are ways to keep that from being an issue (such as slowing down your rate and volume of purchase at those less favorable prices). If those people don't like giving free money to HFT, then debug their damn trading programs.
I see no reason to fix yet another non-problem in the trading of securities.
What I am saying is that the current method of choosing which get executed, and which get delayed is stupid and non deterministic. It's first come, first served
"First come, first served"? That's quite deterministic.
Well, what does this slide refer to? It's titled "Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Outline of water processing facilities" and dates from June 4, 2011.
Well, I suggest you don't eat his strontium 90 batteries then, if that's how you feel about it.
Thyroid cancer has some hard to ignore symptoms and eventually spreads and kills you if untreated.
No, advanced cases of it do. Small growths on your thyroid do not.
I suppose if there were zero more detections for the next couple of decades we could write it off to early detection
No, because they're going to be early detecting for probably the entire lives of these children.
People don't get how observation bias works. If one took a control population and examined that group just as aggressively, one would see more cases of thyroid cancer as well.
It doesn't matter if wealth is created by happy free market capitalism, or if Jesus returned and just willed a billion loaves of bread out of thin air.
Well, I have a no doubt unsurprising opinion on which is more likely to occur.
The problem is still getting all that bread to to people and uplifting them.
Ok, I guess we just disagree on which problem is harder. Wealth naturally diffuses though maybe not as fast as we'd like. But wealth isn't so easily created.
You can create all the wealth you want but it doesn't lift "billions" of people if that wealth is only spread around millions. The US did create a lot of value, but they kept it to themselves.
At no time during the history of the US, has this occurred. The US has always been a nation of trade. That alone keeps wealth from staying solely in the US (plus the US has supported various activities have opened global trade, such as anti-piracy and more recently open trade). Further, the US has been a nation of considerable charity for a long time.
The US used to prefer isolationism, non-interventionism, and the libertarian non-aggression principle. That was great for the millions uplifted in the US and it exploded into an economic powerhouse, but those outside the US were SOL if they can't get into the US.
I'm puzzled. Why do you think those sorts of policies are worse than powers that interfere, intervene, and otherwise make a bother of themselves?
Uplifting billions only happened when US (and many other nations) moved from Imperialist attitudes to Socialist, and started spreading its wealth around, even to people who really don't/can't produce something of value in return. World population didn't jump from 2 billion to 7 billion today until after WW2, when socialism and government expansion came into full swing.
Correlation doesn't mean causation. Global trade is the obvious explanation. Uplifting billions happened after global trade became fast enough that most products could be made almost anywhere on the Earth and arrive at another market almost anywhere on Earth in a timely manner. While certain ideologies allow for more open trade, global trade would occur even in the presence of imperialist or socialist ideologies.
What study was that based on?
Here's a link to the study in question.
I cannot imagine circumstances in which a clone can have a healthy upbringing with no abnormal expectations.
You'd probably have similar troubles with any human child, but those expectations tend to get more abnormal than usual when the parents think they're bring the band together again.
Pretty soon, it'll only be "strongly ill-advised" and we can have that come back tour!
I suppose it wouldn't at all be possible to come up with some threshold between every scary bit of radiation is bad and naked reactors cooling in the Pacific.
In 1959, researchers at Bell Laboratories discovered vanadium dioxideâ(TM)s ability to rearrange electrons and shift from an insulator to a conductor, called a metal-insulator transition. Twenty years later it was discovered that there are two slightly different insulating phases.
The new research shows that those two insulating phases and the conducting phase in solid vanadium dioxide can coexist stably at 65 degrees Celsius, give or take a tenth of a degree (65 degrees C is equal to 149 degrees Fahrenheit).
So three phases and two parameters which vary are temperature and stress on a wire of the material.
People just like blaming Obama for apparatus that was setup under Bush's watch.
Well, if Obama ever wants to change that impression, he can start by firing people involved in unconstitutional activities.
Ok, you showed me. I wager there are hidden subsidies, but 5.4 cts per kWh would be at least a sizable portion.
Billions were uplifted over the years, but they were not uplifted by a "consume" strategy.
Ok, why do you think that?
In other words, it's income distribution. People in the first world, who aren't in poverty, are having their jobs (source of income) redistributed to the second and third world, so the billions in poverty in those places are uplifted.
Where did those first world incomes come from? This reminds me of Intelligent Design where one punts a hard problem to another layer without actually explaining why the hard problem is there in the first place. Wealth has never been a fixed thing that just gets spread around. It is created when someone creates things or performs services that other people value.
People in the US will just have to accept that this is for "The Greater Good" (US population is in the millions, but we're talking about saving billions in China/India!). They'll just have to settle for becoming dependent on government welfare. You won't become rich, you won't be free, but hey - you won't end up in poverty like people in China/India.
That's completely misguided. The reason people have all this wealth in the US is because of widespread creation of value, not just among inventors and business leaders, but almost everyone who works. A big part of the reason that the US is declining in wealth is because people are moved from productive work to government welfare.
It had nothing with protectionism to do.
For example, consider the ISO 14000 series of standards. If you want to do business with the governments of the EU or businesses that follow ISO 14000 standards, you have to follow those standards to some degree. It makes it easy to create trade barriers since local European businesses are immersed in a standards-compliant business ecosystem while Chinese businesses aren't even close.
But no, you didn't distance yourself from Reagan's words, you embraced them as a valid argument.
Yes. That's what rational people do. They consider an argument on its merits not a misguided prejudice based on who came up with the argument.
Therefore, you lost your chance to distinguish yourself.
And why should I care? You brought up Reagan and I merely pointed out my perspective on his statements. Looks to me like you have a 25 year old ax to grind with a dead man. I personally have better things to waste my time on.
As to other pollutants, the US is somewhat heavier in per capita pollution which is balanced by both moderately greater economic activity and significantly lower population densities. But Europe has ridiculously low thresholds for its pollutants. Even being an order of magnitude higher (as is the case for the US with respect to some airborne pollutants and the countries with ample hydroelectric power) is just not that significant when the threshold is so low. I speculate at the end why I think that's the case.
You buy a new TV, car or whatever = You pollute.
I see this as a protectionist gimmick and not a valid observation. The obvious rebuttal is that the pollution you are referring to comes from the manufacturer of the device not the purchaser and user of the device and most of that pollution is local. Europe has been remarkably adept at protecting its native industries from competition by using metrics like this to inhibit competition from regions (such as the developing world) which happen to have lower standards of living and higher pollution.
I view Europe's environmental standards more as a relatively successful protectionist racket than something that serves a vital environmental or public health need.
That's the bad stuff we're trying to avoid, so the sacrifice of some land, to spare the risk of flooding?
But the sacrifice of a lot of land so that some low value land doesn't get inundated occasionally?
I haven't even touched on the perversity of flood control in the US, where flooding has been made worse by flood control. You don't get the low grade flooding any more, but huge floods do more damage than they used to, because flood water has less places to go than it used to.
Nor have I touched on the perversity of subsidized flood insurance which encourages people to build expensive stuff in flood zones.
Reagan made a misrepresentation under which he premised his argument against the TVA. You can argue against hydroelectric projects for a lot of reasons, but when you choose an argument which is so blatantly fallacious as Reagan's, you discredit yourself.
Now, Reagan may have discredited himself in such a way, but I think it's a logical fallacy to claim my argument is the same as his, merely because we're both discussing land usage and some AC was "reminded" of Reagan's words by mine.
The price per kWh includes solar subsidies
I tell you what. Show me evidence for your claim. I'll just note that the subsidies, I'm aware of in the US and Europe are massive subsidies which include direct payments and tax write offs on solar power. Neither of those would result in high costs for people consuming solar power.
The State of California caused the station to discharge radioactive waste into the environment and the steam tubes to corrode out prematurely?
Well, actually yes. Regulation often has unintended consequences like this. If the thresholds were higher, for example, then the so-called "radioactive waste" probably wouldn't be. After all, for sufficiently sensitive measurements, even discarded banana peels would be radioactive waste due to the presence of trace amounts of potassium 40.
Or it could plunge them into utter misery, with famine, no affordable transportation at all, complete breakdown of the economic system etc.
Well, I'll just note that the opposite of that has happened so far. The "utter misery" is hypothetical. The lifting of billions of people out of poverty and that misery can be observed over the past 60 years (and continues a trend that has been evident since 1300).
The problem is just that what the US has doesn't look like a "strategy" at all, but more like "head in sand", which just doesn't look convincing to me.
Here's the problem I have with all this talk. "Head in the sand" is often better than trying to do the proposed conservation strategies. There is something deeply wrong with the choice of problems that people choose to "look" at. When doing nothing is better than doing something, such as the case here, then you need to revisit not only your strategies, but how you look at things.
Running out of oil is less of a problem than poverty or overpopulation is. The alleged effects of human-influenced global warming are less. Sure, in a vacuum it would be better for our actual problems to have oil or reduced costs and damage from climate change, but these things aren't in a vacuum. Depletion of oil and the moderate reported climate change are results of vast economic activity that betters the lives of all mankind.
There are big problems for humanity, but running out of oil isn't one of them.
And thus my point. I don't consider a factor of two, especially of CO2 and especially in conjunction with somewhat greater economic activity, to be a significant difference. I know other people do, so I probably should have argued the point in a somewhat less rhetorically aggressive manner.
As to fracking, it has two features which make it different than normal oil well drilling. First, it is a lot faster - a smaller number of wells for a much shorter duration are necessary to drain an oil field. There are some well holes in the US which are kept open (if not active) for half a century or longer (oil gets pumped when the price of oil meets an appropriate level).
And the extensive production of cheap natural gas has actually led to a temporary decline in US carbon emissions (and modest decline in sulfur/nitrogen oxides emissions). It has replaced some amount of coal burning.