Again, I don't know how you think a reduction in the extent and power of the government is going to lead to less corruption. Your proposition is "limit the ability of the government to enforce the law".
The first way is via a reduction in complexity. The less government there is, the less there is for the citizens of that country to keep track of and the harder it is for parts of the government or private world to break the law without being noticed.
It's also getting to be impossible to keep track of the law. In the US at the federal level alone, there's 200k pages of legislative law (published in 2006). In addition, the regulatory agencies have put out a similar amount of material, almost 200k pages by my reckoning.
Second, if the government obeyed the laws as well as enforced them, then we wouldn't have to take the more abusable powers away from them in order to preserve our freedoms.
There is the recognition that while some tasks are better suited to government due to its relative neutrality (such as national defense or law enforcement), many other tasks are ill-suited to government especial a constitutionally limited central government of the sort that the US has. Many people fail to understand that the federal government has enumerated powers for a reason, because the people who created and endorsed the Constitution wanted in large part strict limits on what the central government could do, no matter how compelling a need might appear.
Finally, there are a number of natural processes that lead to bulky, overly powerful government, such as mission creep, bureaucratic growth, and the peculiar dynamics of creating public goods.
In the last case, it's very significant that any creation of a public good, for example, the entitlements such as Social Security or Medicare leads to several government expanding issues. First, the government needs the resources and authority to grant the public good. Second, when tragedy of the commons inevitably comes, the government needs the power and authority to police distribution of the public good. Often in addition, distribution of these public goods requires yet more information to be obtained about the citizens. This leads to yet another problem, that of the government simply knowing too much about you.
It's finally worth noting the unusually strong role that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or "Obamacare" has played in inspiring the tea party movement. For example, there have been estimates that Obamacare has for regulations of its Medicare insurance exchanges added about 13,000 pages of new regulation. That's in addition to the unconstitutional overreach of power, the innumerable cases of pork and political favoritism, and the built in inflation of health insurance (from higher, subsidized demand) spread through this huge law.
As a result, I see the tea party as a natural reaction to a pretty serious threat, namely, a government too complex to ever be understood or supervised, a government so powerful that it can and does turn arbitrary peoples' lives into hell for no reason at all, and a body of law and regulation so vast that no one understands it and therefore, can't obey it.
Propellant renders a finite lifetime to the device, which might not be ideal.
Or one can ship propellant to the device as needed. If you can get the vehicle to L2, you certainly can get a refill mission to L2. It complicates the design somewhat, but we'll need to figure out how to tend structures in space anyway.
Gyroscopes need to be de-saturated from time to time to get rid of excess energy (spin, if you will) and that requires a propellant burst to compensate...
Or you can brake them in combination so there is no net torque and just a release of heat. But I can't trash a system that works and which, due to the instability of the L2 point would be needed in some form anyway. I will observe however that the previous A.C. was claiming that one needed "use of attitude thrusters and propellant" because mechanical movement would impart a "moment". I see no need for that extensive a use of propellant.
Advocating for no government as a solution for a corrupt government makes about as much sense as proposing decapitation to cure a headache.
Well, it's good then that the tea party movement isn't advocating for no government. The basic planks of the platform are in no particular order, reduction in government extent and power, a return to law which respects the US Constitution, and at least reducing government spending to match income (often extended to reducing taxes as well).
Sure they can! Why that's why we have higher student defaults than ever before in history, because of all those non existent jobs they can use to pay off the crushing debt they find themselves in!
The student loan thing is insane. This is just an indication that a significant portion of current US college students shouldn't be in college. And that the US shouldn't be subsidizing the impoverishment of a generation.
I find it funny how the corps can just file bankruptcy and start again tomorrow under a new name but they will never allow anyone to escape the student loans, no matter how obvious that they'll never be able to pay them off with the ever dwindling number of jobs we have.
You have the federal government corp of the US to thank for that, both the onerous regulations on student loans and the dwindling of jobs.
The use of metal radiators with lots of surface area, combined with the extreme cold, will make cooling the chips much easier on the Moon than on the earth.
Not at all. Thermal conduction and convection are a lot more efficient than radiation. Having said that, the Moon itself would make a decent heat sink.
The Earth-Moon L2 would be the only Lagrange point with the necessary criteria, the Moon blocking Earth. Seems like an awfully big thing to miss. Almost like the criteria was find some excuse to build stuff on the Moon.
Still, should someone does build an extensive radio telescope network on the far side of the Moon, using that network for DSN-type stuff would be a bit of value-add.
Really? That is all you have? Experts saying that the mining can cause health risks and ground water contamination, news articles stating that the water didn't start to burn till the fracking started, and a clear video of water on fire. People have been living in Dimock since the 1800s. Don't you think that, if they could light ground water on fire, they'd move? Jesus. Correlation does not equal causation does not mean that they are necessarily unrelated.
Again. Where's the evidence? The burden is on you not me.
Correlation does not equal causation does not mean that they are necessarily unrelated.
But there is a well known and well funded environmentalism hysteria associated with this. And that is more than enough to fake all the evidence you claim to have.
Here's an idea, how about reducing the costs of going to college to zero for the students?
No offense, but no one has made a good case for free education. College students can readily pay for an education, especially a cheaper public one. So have them do that. Consider it for most of them their first real lesson in life.
It costs money to purify helium to greater degree and it costs money to store and transport such helium. Thus, it is possible to run out of medical grade helium without actually running out of helium.
I have to pay taxes that I wouldn't have to pay if I had a mortgage.
Are you forced by law to have a mortgage? Do you have to pay a punitive tax, if you don't have a mortgage?
Now being detained without trial, search and seizure of property without a warrant those seem more of a threat to freedom in my opinion.
Well, these things come in packs, as I see it. I'm not going to ignore a serious threat to my freedom just because the same instigators have come with other threats to my freedom.
Well, if the money isn't used to improve the schools or offset tuition, then it probably won't benefit students. Misuse of public funds seems a different issue to me since it would apply to any revenue from this school system or its resources.
Fracking is breaking rock, to leak gas. The gas carries a bunch of toxins. The toxins dissolve in ground water, and leach out into the air. They cause cancers and are toxic.
They've broken rock before to leak oil (or just because some idiots overpumped a field). So it's not different from what's happened before. And you still have to have a mechanism for how those toxins get into ground water.
As to causing cancer and being toxic, a lot of things at a college do so. Perhaps we should get rid of agriculture, physics, and chemistry programs, for example. Or we could just insure that like the other stuff that's moderately risky, the operators of the well take the appropriate precautions.
He has to pass through the troposphere/stratosphere boundary. That's both colder and somewhat denser air than he's in at 120k feet so more heat loss. I don't what he'll face, but I recall -70F around 70-80k feet was possible.
Why don't they use Hydrogen for things like this (one-time use balloon) and preserve more Helium for scientific and medical use (and for safe party balloons)?
What's wrong with this usage of helium? And if helium were truly scarce, those scientific and medical uses would be recycling their helium.
Every time we acquiesce to something like this (notice they would never allow this in a wealthy neighborhood) we take one step backwards.
A step backwards to a better life? Better schools? Better society? It's almost like you're facing the wrong direction, isn't it?
All they have to do is keep reducing their contribution to society and instead wave the "your tax dollars" or "jobs!" flag to an increasingly squeezed society that they produced in the first place. "They" being the economic elite that are continually building walls, literally and economically, around themselves.
Believe it or not, there's probably a lot of people who don't want to have anything to do with you. My take on this is "Good fences makes good neighbors."
This will never be an issue at wealthy private universities, the ones the people deciding in favor of this send their kids. They can just say it is private property and avoid the whole issue.
And they'd be exactly right. If you make something public, you have to expect sacrifices, such as those things being subordinate to the needs and wants of society and opposed to the various dysfunctions of that society.
They rest of us can't afford that luxury and instead have to struggle for access to an increasingly abandoned and demeaned public school system.
Golly, getting money for resources that your school system happens to own is demeaning? Who knew? So what's better, funding a school system with resources that people want and need? Or abandoning that school system by "stepping forward"?
Who here buys into what you just said? The so-called "conservative picture" does have one feature your argument doesn't have. Namely, that's where the people are. As to people who are actually working out in the field, I doubt they'll be exposed to any more risk than they already get from their education itself.
Why? I'm correcting your error here. Surely, you'd like to be less in error, wouldn't you? You know what your linked youtube video doesn't do? It doesn't establish that the water source depicted would be less flammable in the absence of any sort of fracking. Correlation isn't causation especially in areas where natural gas already appears in ground water.
No, it's fracking and it's a problem because it includes fracturing the rock which is inevitably not a neat thing.
That has been done before. Which was my point.
I don't think going into denial about it fixes anything.
Then stop doing that.
He should not be taking donations from the fracking companies to get elected, then giving them permission to frack on college campuses when this is the known problem with fracking.
As I was saying, it's a fixed problem. Just inspect the wells in question to make sure they're doing anything dangerous.
On business a few years ago, a nice young man who was shuttling me into downtown Copenhagen in a company car described to me his intense interest in buying his own car, despite the tax disincentives to do so. And China is abandoning their bike culture, making single occupancy vehicle trips a sign of progress. And as an American I've found myself thinking: "It's not obligatory to copy every mistake we've made, feel free to learn from our bad examples."
Slashdot Mirror
Again, I don't know how you think a reduction in the extent and power of the government is going to lead to less corruption. Your proposition is "limit the ability of the government to enforce the law".
The first way is via a reduction in complexity. The less government there is, the less there is for the citizens of that country to keep track of and the harder it is for parts of the government or private world to break the law without being noticed.
It's also getting to be impossible to keep track of the law. In the US at the federal level alone, there's 200k pages of legislative law (published in 2006). In addition, the regulatory agencies have put out a similar amount of material, almost 200k pages by my reckoning.
Second, if the government obeyed the laws as well as enforced them, then we wouldn't have to take the more abusable powers away from them in order to preserve our freedoms.
There is the recognition that while some tasks are better suited to government due to its relative neutrality (such as national defense or law enforcement), many other tasks are ill-suited to government especial a constitutionally limited central government of the sort that the US has. Many people fail to understand that the federal government has enumerated powers for a reason, because the people who created and endorsed the Constitution wanted in large part strict limits on what the central government could do, no matter how compelling a need might appear.
Finally, there are a number of natural processes that lead to bulky, overly powerful government, such as mission creep, bureaucratic growth, and the peculiar dynamics of creating public goods.
In the last case, it's very significant that any creation of a public good, for example, the entitlements such as Social Security or Medicare leads to several government expanding issues. First, the government needs the resources and authority to grant the public good. Second, when tragedy of the commons inevitably comes, the government needs the power and authority to police distribution of the public good. Often in addition, distribution of these public goods requires yet more information to be obtained about the citizens. This leads to yet another problem, that of the government simply knowing too much about you.
It's finally worth noting the unusually strong role that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or "Obamacare" has played in inspiring the tea party movement. For example, there have been estimates that Obamacare has for regulations of its Medicare insurance exchanges added about 13,000 pages of new regulation. That's in addition to the unconstitutional overreach of power, the innumerable cases of pork and political favoritism, and the built in inflation of health insurance (from higher, subsidized demand) spread through this huge law.
As a result, I see the tea party as a natural reaction to a pretty serious threat, namely, a government too complex to ever be understood or supervised, a government so powerful that it can and does turn arbitrary peoples' lives into hell for no reason at all, and a body of law and regulation so vast that no one understands it and therefore, can't obey it.
Propellant renders a finite lifetime to the device, which might not be ideal.
Or one can ship propellant to the device as needed. If you can get the vehicle to L2, you certainly can get a refill mission to L2. It complicates the design somewhat, but we'll need to figure out how to tend structures in space anyway.
Gyroscopes need to be de-saturated from time to time to get rid of excess energy (spin, if you will) and that requires a propellant burst to compensate...
Or you can brake them in combination so there is no net torque and just a release of heat. But I can't trash a system that works and which, due to the instability of the L2 point would be needed in some form anyway. I will observe however that the previous A.C. was claiming that one needed "use of attitude thrusters and propellant" because mechanical movement would impart a "moment". I see no need for that extensive a use of propellant.
Advocating for no government as a solution for a corrupt government makes about as much sense as proposing decapitation to cure a headache.
Well, it's good then that the tea party movement isn't advocating for no government. The basic planks of the platform are in no particular order, reduction in government extent and power, a return to law which respects the US Constitution, and at least reducing government spending to match income (often extended to reducing taxes as well).
Sure they can! Why that's why we have higher student defaults than ever before in history, because of all those non existent jobs they can use to pay off the crushing debt they find themselves in!
The student loan thing is insane. This is just an indication that a significant portion of current US college students shouldn't be in college. And that the US shouldn't be subsidizing the impoverishment of a generation.
I find it funny how the corps can just file bankruptcy and start again tomorrow under a new name but they will never allow anyone to escape the student loans, no matter how obvious that they'll never be able to pay them off with the ever dwindling number of jobs we have.
You have the federal government corp of the US to thank for that, both the onerous regulations on student loans and the dwindling of jobs.
One doesn't need propellant to rotate a spacecraft. You can also apply torque via gyroscopes, for example.
The use of metal radiators with lots of surface area, combined with the extreme cold, will make cooling the chips much easier on the Moon than on the earth.
Not at all. Thermal conduction and convection are a lot more efficient than radiation. Having said that, the Moon itself would make a decent heat sink.
The Earth-Moon L2 would be the only Lagrange point with the necessary criteria, the Moon blocking Earth. Seems like an awfully big thing to miss. Almost like the criteria was find some excuse to build stuff on the Moon.
Still, should someone does build an extensive radio telescope network on the far side of the Moon, using that network for DSN-type stuff would be a bit of value-add.
Really? That is all you have? Experts saying that the mining can cause health risks and ground water contamination, news articles stating that the water didn't start to burn till the fracking started, and a clear video of water on fire. People have been living in Dimock since the 1800s. Don't you think that, if they could light ground water on fire, they'd move? Jesus. Correlation does not equal causation does not mean that they are necessarily unrelated.
Again. Where's the evidence? The burden is on you not me.
Correlation does not equal causation does not mean that they are necessarily unrelated.
But there is a well known and well funded environmentalism hysteria associated with this. And that is more than enough to fake all the evidence you claim to have.
Here's an idea, how about reducing the costs of going to college to zero for the students?
No offense, but no one has made a good case for free education. College students can readily pay for an education, especially a cheaper public one. So have them do that. Consider it for most of them their first real lesson in life.
It costs money to purify helium to greater degree and it costs money to store and transport such helium. Thus, it is possible to run out of medical grade helium without actually running out of helium.
I have to pay taxes that I wouldn't have to pay if I had a mortgage.
Are you forced by law to have a mortgage? Do you have to pay a punitive tax, if you don't have a mortgage?
Now being detained without trial, search and seizure of property without a warrant those seem more of a threat to freedom in my opinion.
Well, these things come in packs, as I see it. I'm not going to ignore a serious threat to my freedom just because the same instigators have come with other threats to my freedom.
Well, if the money isn't used to improve the schools or offset tuition, then it probably won't benefit students. Misuse of public funds seems a different issue to me since it would apply to any revenue from this school system or its resources.
Fracking is breaking rock, to leak gas. The gas carries a bunch of toxins. The toxins dissolve in ground water, and leach out into the air. They cause cancers and are toxic.
They've broken rock before to leak oil (or just because some idiots overpumped a field). So it's not different from what's happened before. And you still have to have a mechanism for how those toxins get into ground water.
As to causing cancer and being toxic, a lot of things at a college do so. Perhaps we should get rid of agriculture, physics, and chemistry programs, for example. Or we could just insure that like the other stuff that's moderately risky, the operators of the well take the appropriate precautions.
He has to pass through the troposphere/stratosphere boundary. That's both colder and somewhat denser air than he's in at 120k feet so more heat loss. I don't what he'll face, but I recall -70F around 70-80k feet was possible.
Some helium is pure enough to put in medical equipment and some is pure enough to put in party balloons. Make a guess what's in the balloon?
Why don't they use Hydrogen for things like this (one-time use balloon) and preserve more Helium for scientific and medical use (and for safe party balloons)?
What's wrong with this usage of helium? And if helium were truly scarce, those scientific and medical uses would be recycling their helium.
Every time we acquiesce to something like this (notice they would never allow this in a wealthy neighborhood) we take one step backwards.
A step backwards to a better life? Better schools? Better society? It's almost like you're facing the wrong direction, isn't it?
All they have to do is keep reducing their contribution to society and instead wave the "your tax dollars" or "jobs!" flag to an increasingly squeezed society that they produced in the first place. "They" being the economic elite that are continually building walls, literally and economically, around themselves.
Believe it or not, there's probably a lot of people who don't want to have anything to do with you. My take on this is "Good fences makes good neighbors."
This will never be an issue at wealthy private universities, the ones the people deciding in favor of this send their kids. They can just say it is private property and avoid the whole issue.
And they'd be exactly right. If you make something public, you have to expect sacrifices, such as those things being subordinate to the needs and wants of society and opposed to the various dysfunctions of that society.
They rest of us can't afford that luxury and instead have to struggle for access to an increasingly abandoned and demeaned public school system.
Golly, getting money for resources that your school system happens to own is demeaning? Who knew? So what's better, funding a school system with resources that people want and need? Or abandoning that school system by "stepping forward"?
Who here buys into what you just said? The so-called "conservative picture" does have one feature your argument doesn't have. Namely, that's where the people are. As to people who are actually working out in the field, I doubt they'll be exposed to any more risk than they already get from their education itself.
But lying within the species is not a benefit to the species as a whole
And what makes you think that? Or that vague "benefit to the species" is any sort of relevant characteristic?
Why? I'm correcting your error here. Surely, you'd like to be less in error, wouldn't you? You know what your linked youtube video doesn't do? It doesn't establish that the water source depicted would be less flammable in the absence of any sort of fracking. Correlation isn't causation especially in areas where natural gas already appears in ground water.
No, it's fracking and it's a problem because it includes fracturing the rock which is inevitably not a neat thing.
That has been done before. Which was my point.
I don't think going into denial about it fixes anything.
Then stop doing that.
He should not be taking donations from the fracking companies to get elected, then giving them permission to frack on college campuses when this is the known problem with fracking.
As I was saying, it's a fixed problem. Just inspect the wells in question to make sure they're doing anything dangerous.
On business a few years ago, a nice young man who was shuttling me into downtown Copenhagen in a company car described to me his intense interest in buying his own car, despite the tax disincentives to do so. And China is abandoning their bike culture, making single occupancy vehicle trips a sign of progress. And as an American I've found myself thinking: "It's not obligatory to copy every mistake we've made, feel free to learn from our bad examples."
What makes you think the car was a "bad example"?
So are you saying that Governor Corbett destroyed your common sense? Because you aren't making any.
It's not greed when it's not harmful. You have yet to establish that any harm would occur as a result.