So 'common sense' suggests you don't do it near where your future generations best and brightest are likely to be taught. Well not unless you're an old man who received a lot of election money from the fracking industry anyway.
Common sense also says that the problem should actually exist before you consider it a problem. As has been noted here before, fracking is just a variation of some well proven drilling techniques. When done wrong, yes, it can release pollutants. When done correctly and it usually is done correctly, it does not.
So there's cause to insure that drilling on university property is done correctly, but there isn't cause to keep the activity from being done at all.
The need for energy is increasing exponentially and fracking will in the end be a blip on the radar in terms of energy supply.
Well, the need for energy isn't going to increase exponentially forever.
It is merely prolonging the time spent burning carbon and will only be harmful in the long run as it puts off real long term (the definition of sustainable, as so many people seem to forget) solutions.
Show there will be harm rather than merely saying it.. Let's consider another painful transition, death. By your rhetoric above, since we're all going to die anyway, it'd be "less harmful" for us to die now since otherwise we're putting off the real long term solution.
The point here is that just because there are transitions that we'll need to face, it doesn't mean that it is a good idea for us to embrace those transitions now. Procrastination does have its advantages and I think this switching over to more expensive and less capable energy sources is one of those places where procrastination shows value.
Everybody in America who cares about their health should make it a point to live as far away from exploitable natural resources as possible
I see you've chosen to live as far away from the natural resource of rationality as you can.
In third world countries, living near resources should be a boon--a ticket out of poverty. What usually happens though is some multinational corporation comes in, aided by a corrupt government
There we go. Complaining about tea partiers when the real problems you complain about are the same problems that the tea partiers are complaining about.
Well, at least it is a good way to destroy science.
How? Does mining have reality warping properties that destroy consistency of observation? From what it sounds, the public universities of Pennsylvania have funding trouble and this is a way to get funding. There is a problem and there is a solution.
Well how does this hurt students in the least? The article indicates that there are claims of "explosions" and pollution of air and water. And that somehow the campus could be damaged for generations. The claims of harm seem pretty exaggerated to me (""Students need a place to learn and grow, but they're being forced to jeopardize their health to get that education").
In comparison, the benefits seem pretty darn concrete. There's considerable profit in such things these days and that apparently is going to be applied to improve these schools.
Here's my take. I think the real problem is one of ideology. It's harder to advocate the end of such mining operations as fracking when there's a successful and clean operation of that sort within walking distance. The more removed reality is from the college campus, the more successfully that the current generation of ideologues will be able to indoctrinate the next generation of ideologues.
Why would Alice sell directly to Bob? A feature of this "communication" is that Alice and Bob aren't advertising their actual prices. That is, they're waiting for someone to place limit orders that they'll trade with. Instead I don't believe the trade would occur, at least not on short time scales (until Alice or Bob try a different approach or some other party puts up an order). This "attack" allows a trade to happen that wouldn't otherwise happen.
This makes your term for this activity even more questionable. Now, we see that not only does the activity not satisfy covertness, but the "attack" is beneficial to the supposedly attacked parties in that it creates an opportunity for trade where one hadn't existed before!
Eh, the original poster saw lying as some sort of deep imperfection in humanity. I just pointed out that lying would be present (and indeed, lying and other social tools of deception show up in other intelligent species on Earth) for anything that has certain basic qualities like humans.
This isn't about oppression, it's about common sense
Well, the solution makes it about oppression. I have an alternate solution: do nothing. That both addresses the problem with oppression and yields the proper level of attention to the "fattie" problem.
But destroying our freedom? It doesn't destroy freedom anymore than taxing and creating an interstate system destroys freedom.
Obamacare created a new means of control and did so in a way that violated the Constitution. For government power, the slippery slope is a real concern. What other things will they try now that they have the precedent of the individual mandate? My take is that they could have rewritten that aspect of Obamacare in a way that didn't violate the Constitution, by making a tax write off for having health care (beyond the already existing write offs on the business side). But that would have cost the government more money.
So they decided to, as I put it before, create a new means to subvert the US's basis of law and destroy US citizens' freedom in order to save a few bucks.
You know it is interesting that when the government is taking land from hard working US citizens and giving it to the canadian government so they can move canadian oil into tthe US and increase the indebtedness and serfdom of US citizen to foreign entities, everyone says how wonderful that is.
Sometimes the only way to make money is to spend money. Austerity is not necessarily a path to prosperity. I know there's a lot of people who think they can cut cut cut and that'll make things work out for the best, but sometimes you need to expand your offerings, or invest in yourself to reduce costs.
Here's the thing the anti-austerity people tend to ignore. The private world is a hell of a lot more effective at investing than the public world. All that cutting is putting money back in the pockets of the people who actually know how to invest it. So of course, cutting ill-directed public spending (which I might add frequently has no connection to any sort of Keynesian strategy, even a "Pay people to dig ditches and fill them up" approach) means economic growth.
One only needs to look at today's world to see that anti-austerity just doesn't work. Where's Japan's economy now? They've been down this path for two decades and they haven't gone anywhere. They went from the peril that scared the US to ignominy in a couple of short years and their spendthrift "investments" have kept them there.
We also need to keep in mind that there was a decade of easy credit and government spending throughout the developed world. That didn't prevent the latest financial crisis, instead it gave it the fuel it needed to be a crisis.
Think of somebody with a house. Say they spend a lot of money on heating because their house isn't well-insulted. Now they could just cut down their heating, but that has the cost of making the person uncomfortable, and less able to work. Wouldn't it be feasible for said person to go into debt in order to improve their house's ability to retain heat?
Whoa. You're ignoring finance and economics 101. What's the cost of doing this versus the benefits? What are the various choices? One is do nothing. No home improvement nor any attempt to lower heating. Or you could cut back on heating. Or you could upgrade the insulation of the home. Or possibly some mix of the three.
And these also depend on your finances. What's the debt you already owe on the home? If you're deeply underwater (owe more on the home than the home is worth), you might not even bother keeping the home. If you don't owe any debt, then it's not such a big deal to pick up a modest amount for a good home improvement thing.
And it depends on the climate. If there aren't many cold days, then you might just not care enough to do anything about the problem.
That's the complexity of real financial decisions. They're very dependent on initial conditions. This simplistic "spend money on good things" (where "good things" are whatever the politicians think they can get away with, such as bailing out banks or throwing money to their cronies and backers) is what got us into the mess in the first place.
So what are the initial conditions? A big one is that most of the world, developed world or not is heavily in debt and spending money very poorly. So that sounds to me like a throw good money after bad situation, especially when one considers that we have no exit strategy for this spending. It's basically permanent and cumulative.
When will the economy get well enough that someone will drop spending? Especially, when they think the economy would dip as a result? I think this strategy is a trap, a trip on a slowing speeding up treadmill.
I wonder why crap like this gets modded as "insightful". I can only guess that this poster has no sense of history. Something like this isn't going to stop with regulating the size of your drinks. Don't get me wrong, sure it'd be nice to have a healthier public, but I'd rather have a free, fat public than a enslaved, skinny public.
Are you saying private enterprise can do the same as NASA can now (or could have up til recently), but for an order of magnitude less? That has yet to be proven, since NASA's mandate extends beyond launching satellites into orbit, and humans into sub-orbital space.
Sure. I've seen a number of cases where private companies have done stuff like what NASA has done in the past. SpaceShipOne was another example which vastly undershoot the corresponding NASA program in development costs, the X-15.
I was responding to the general assertion that everything NASA did would've happened anyway by private enterprise, not specifically the spinoff applications linked to by UnknownSoldier. I refer more to "pure" research that typically lack short-term ROI (Hubble, environment monitoring satellites, Mars and other probes/landers), as well as manned orbital and lunar spacecraft.
Of course not. A number of things NASA did, such as fly the Space Shuttle had negative value. Who thinks a private group would fly a white elephant for thirty years and consume a fifth of a billion current dollars over that time? It just wouldn't make sense.
Note that without the ISS (thanks to taxpayers of many countries) as a destination, it's unclear why a private for-profit company would even want to develop a manned orbital craft.
Why do you think the ISS is the only destination in space? Bigelow Aerospace has already launched two prototype habitats into space. So creating new destinations just isn't that complicated.
"True development of space" is rather nebulous. No one has developed the ocean--no floating or underwater homes, just ships carrying cargo and passengers--and the latter usually short cruise jaunts, very few trans-oceanic liners these days. The closest analog to communication satellites might be the various undersea communication cables linking the world together. What kind of development of space were you thinking of?
Commercial space habitats in orbit and on the Moon. Methodical surveying of every body of significance in the Solar System. Non profits sponsoring exploration missions. Some early space-based solar power. That sort of thing.
Your free will isn't as all-powerful as you think it is. There are a great many people spending billions of dollars every year on cutting edge science to control your purchasing decisions, and you don't stand a snowflake's chance in hell against them. Only as a group can we fight back.
Bullshit. How come "fighting as a group" means some bunch of knuckleheaded bureaucrats get to tell me how to act and what I can buy? There's not even the illusion of freedom there.
Perhaps you could explain the mechanism then. You seem to be claiming that there's some sort of observational bias happening in religious people. I think that's unfound though there is a subgroup of religious people who clearly aren't operating empirically and make strange claims about the real world which don't have a scientific basis.
Well, I imagine lying would happen in any group of moderately sentient beings with independent, conflicting interests and an ability to lie, no matter how rational they might be. And when lying is advantageous to the liar, then it can't be pathological.
That's the same silly argument that all of Apple's iPod/iPhone/iPad innovations (NOT inventions) "would have happened anyway" by other companies.
Well, in my defense, most NASA spinoffs are by other parties which were already conducting research in the areas in question. That alone brings it out of the silly category, even if you do choose to ignore that your argument was a fallacy by virtue of the original statement being false. Most Apple innovations would indeed have happened anyway.
It took private enterprise over 50 years to replicate what NASA did in the early 60s, and they had that 50 years of experience to draw upon--back then many things about rockets and space were still being researched and discovered through trial and error, that's why many early attempts ended with an exploding rocket.
And for an order of magnitude lower cost than NASA could do the same now.
Space is far too expensive up front, with not enough profit to justify it.
If that were true, then it wouldn't be worth doing. The amazing work that companies like SpaceX are doing now demonstrate that the premise was false. You can speak of the "50 years of experience", but NASA wasn't doing anything with that experience except squandering it for another generation.
Does it ever bother you that the world is doing now, could have been done in the 60s and 70s? Commercial space launch a couple of decades early? The true development of space rather than a mere superficial exploration of it?
Obama pulled the country out of a death spiral set in motion by 8 years of the exact same policy standards that Romney supports.
Then why is the country still death spiraling?
If Romney managed to win and restored the failed Bush policies based in trickle down economics, the economy will crash again sometime around 2014, significantly worse than it did in 2008, and the Republicans can tell the masses it was Obama's fault to rally support for a full sweep of the house and senate.
Oh, how the projection shines forth! We even have Obamacare to make that happen.
Luckily Romney has no chance to win thanks to his countless lies, willingness to say anything, and complete lack of conviction.
How glibly you speak when the other guy is Obama who has those problems in spades.
Seriously, Obama compromised with Republicans on the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and you still attack him on it?
I guess that depends on whether you think compromise is better than honoring your word. Politicians compromise all the time by taking money for votes and other bits of corruption. Don't you respect them more for that?
Further, the world doesn't exist merely to give me what I want. So I expect that I'll be able to get some things and not others. I don't let other people decide what things I should get and not get. So how does keeping the Guantanamo Bay prison open, even if that is something I'd want, compensate for the things I don't want, such as destruction of freedom via Obamacare?
Slashdot Mirror
So 'common sense' suggests you don't do it near where your future generations best and brightest are likely to be taught. Well not unless you're an old man who received a lot of election money from the fracking industry anyway.
Common sense also says that the problem should actually exist before you consider it a problem. As has been noted here before, fracking is just a variation of some well proven drilling techniques. When done wrong, yes, it can release pollutants. When done correctly and it usually is done correctly, it does not.
So there's cause to insure that drilling on university property is done correctly, but there isn't cause to keep the activity from being done at all.
The need for energy is increasing exponentially and fracking will in the end be a blip on the radar in terms of energy supply.
Well, the need for energy isn't going to increase exponentially forever.
It is merely prolonging the time spent burning carbon and will only be harmful in the long run as it puts off real long term (the definition of sustainable, as so many people seem to forget) solutions.
Show there will be harm rather than merely saying it.. Let's consider another painful transition, death. By your rhetoric above, since we're all going to die anyway, it'd be "less harmful" for us to die now since otherwise we're putting off the real long term solution.
The point here is that just because there are transitions that we'll need to face, it doesn't mean that it is a good idea for us to embrace those transitions now. Procrastination does have its advantages and I think this switching over to more expensive and less capable energy sources is one of those places where procrastination shows value.
Because there's a vast area of cracks and fissures letting air into the fire.
Everybody in America who cares about their health should make it a point to live as far away from exploitable natural resources as possible
I see you've chosen to live as far away from the natural resource of rationality as you can.
In third world countries, living near resources should be a boon--a ticket out of poverty. What usually happens though is some multinational corporation comes in, aided by a corrupt government
There we go. Complaining about tea partiers when the real problems you complain about are the same problems that the tea partiers are complaining about.
Well, at least it is a good way to destroy science.
How? Does mining have reality warping properties that destroy consistency of observation? From what it sounds, the public universities of Pennsylvania have funding trouble and this is a way to get funding. There is a problem and there is a solution.
Well how does this hurt students in the least? The article indicates that there are claims of "explosions" and pollution of air and water. And that somehow the campus could be damaged for generations. The claims of harm seem pretty exaggerated to me (""Students need a place to learn and grow, but they're being forced to jeopardize their health to get that education").
In comparison, the benefits seem pretty darn concrete. There's considerable profit in such things these days and that apparently is going to be applied to improve these schools.
Here's my take. I think the real problem is one of ideology. It's harder to advocate the end of such mining operations as fracking when there's a successful and clean operation of that sort within walking distance. The more removed reality is from the college campus, the more successfully that the current generation of ideologues will be able to indoctrinate the next generation of ideologues.
Why would Alice sell directly to Bob? A feature of this "communication" is that Alice and Bob aren't advertising their actual prices. That is, they're waiting for someone to place limit orders that they'll trade with. Instead I don't believe the trade would occur, at least not on short time scales (until Alice or Bob try a different approach or some other party puts up an order). This "attack" allows a trade to happen that wouldn't otherwise happen.
This makes your term for this activity even more questionable. Now, we see that not only does the activity not satisfy covertness, but the "attack" is beneficial to the supposedly attacked parties in that it creates an opportunity for trade where one hadn't existed before!
Eh, the original poster saw lying as some sort of deep imperfection in humanity. I just pointed out that lying would be present (and indeed, lying and other social tools of deception show up in other intelligent species on Earth) for anything that has certain basic qualities like humans.
Oh, you like spending 17% of GDP on healthcare, do you?
That's a non sequitur. US health care is that expensive because demand is greatly encouraged and supply greatly restricted.
This isn't about oppression, it's about common sense
Well, the solution makes it about oppression. I have an alternate solution: do nothing. That both addresses the problem with oppression and yields the proper level of attention to the "fattie" problem.
But destroying our freedom? It doesn't destroy freedom anymore than taxing and creating an interstate system destroys freedom.
Obamacare created a new means of control and did so in a way that violated the Constitution. For government power, the slippery slope is a real concern. What other things will they try now that they have the precedent of the individual mandate? My take is that they could have rewritten that aspect of Obamacare in a way that didn't violate the Constitution, by making a tax write off for having health care (beyond the already existing write offs on the business side). But that would have cost the government more money.
So they decided to, as I put it before, create a new means to subvert the US's basis of law and destroy US citizens' freedom in order to save a few bucks.
You know it is interesting that when the government is taking land from hard working US citizens and giving it to the canadian government so they can move canadian oil into tthe US and increase the indebtedness and serfdom of US citizen to foreign entities, everyone says how wonderful that is.
Why don't you give an example?
Sometimes the only way to make money is to spend money. Austerity is not necessarily a path to prosperity. I know there's a lot of people who think they can cut cut cut and that'll make things work out for the best, but sometimes you need to expand your offerings, or invest in yourself to reduce costs.
Here's the thing the anti-austerity people tend to ignore. The private world is a hell of a lot more effective at investing than the public world. All that cutting is putting money back in the pockets of the people who actually know how to invest it. So of course, cutting ill-directed public spending (which I might add frequently has no connection to any sort of Keynesian strategy, even a "Pay people to dig ditches and fill them up" approach) means economic growth.
One only needs to look at today's world to see that anti-austerity just doesn't work. Where's Japan's economy now? They've been down this path for two decades and they haven't gone anywhere. They went from the peril that scared the US to ignominy in a couple of short years and their spendthrift "investments" have kept them there.
We also need to keep in mind that there was a decade of easy credit and government spending throughout the developed world. That didn't prevent the latest financial crisis, instead it gave it the fuel it needed to be a crisis.
Think of somebody with a house. Say they spend a lot of money on heating because their house isn't well-insulted. Now they could just cut down their heating, but that has the cost of making the person uncomfortable, and less able to work. Wouldn't it be feasible for said person to go into debt in order to improve their house's ability to retain heat?
Whoa. You're ignoring finance and economics 101. What's the cost of doing this versus the benefits? What are the various choices? One is do nothing. No home improvement nor any attempt to lower heating. Or you could cut back on heating. Or you could upgrade the insulation of the home. Or possibly some mix of the three.
And these also depend on your finances. What's the debt you already owe on the home? If you're deeply underwater (owe more on the home than the home is worth), you might not even bother keeping the home. If you don't owe any debt, then it's not such a big deal to pick up a modest amount for a good home improvement thing.
And it depends on the climate. If there aren't many cold days, then you might just not care enough to do anything about the problem.
That's the complexity of real financial decisions. They're very dependent on initial conditions. This simplistic "spend money on good things" (where "good things" are whatever the politicians think they can get away with, such as bailing out banks or throwing money to their cronies and backers) is what got us into the mess in the first place.
So what are the initial conditions? A big one is that most of the world, developed world or not is heavily in debt and spending money very poorly. So that sounds to me like a throw good money after bad situation, especially when one considers that we have no exit strategy for this spending. It's basically permanent and cumulative.
When will the economy get well enough that someone will drop spending? Especially, when they think the economy would dip as a result? I think this strategy is a trap, a trip on a slowing speeding up treadmill.
I wonder why crap like this gets modded as "insightful". I can only guess that this poster has no sense of history. Something like this isn't going to stop with regulating the size of your drinks. Don't get me wrong, sure it'd be nice to have a healthier public, but I'd rather have a free, fat public than a enslaved, skinny public.
consume a fifth of a trillion current dollars
Oops. Off by a little bit there.
Are you saying private enterprise can do the same as NASA can now (or could have up til recently), but for an order of magnitude less? That has yet to be proven, since NASA's mandate extends beyond launching satellites into orbit, and humans into sub-orbital space.
Sure. I've seen a number of cases where private companies have done stuff like what NASA has done in the past. SpaceShipOne was another example which vastly undershoot the corresponding NASA program in development costs, the X-15.
I was responding to the general assertion that everything NASA did would've happened anyway by private enterprise, not specifically the spinoff applications linked to by UnknownSoldier. I refer more to "pure" research that typically lack short-term ROI (Hubble, environment monitoring satellites, Mars and other probes/landers), as well as manned orbital and lunar spacecraft.
Of course not. A number of things NASA did, such as fly the Space Shuttle had negative value. Who thinks a private group would fly a white elephant for thirty years and consume a fifth of a billion current dollars over that time? It just wouldn't make sense.
Note that without the ISS (thanks to taxpayers of many countries) as a destination, it's unclear why a private for-profit company would even want to develop a manned orbital craft.
Why do you think the ISS is the only destination in space? Bigelow Aerospace has already launched two prototype habitats into space. So creating new destinations just isn't that complicated.
"True development of space" is rather nebulous. No one has developed the ocean--no floating or underwater homes, just ships carrying cargo and passengers--and the latter usually short cruise jaunts, very few trans-oceanic liners these days. The closest analog to communication satellites might be the various undersea communication cables linking the world together. What kind of development of space were you thinking of?
Commercial space habitats in orbit and on the Moon. Methodical surveying of every body of significance in the Solar System. Non profits sponsoring exploration missions. Some early space-based solar power. That sort of thing.
Your free will isn't as all-powerful as you think it is. There are a great many people spending billions of dollars every year on cutting edge science to control your purchasing decisions, and you don't stand a snowflake's chance in hell against them. Only as a group can we fight back.
Bullshit. How come "fighting as a group" means some bunch of knuckleheaded bureaucrats get to tell me how to act and what I can buy? There's not even the illusion of freedom there.
Perhaps you could explain the mechanism then. You seem to be claiming that there's some sort of observational bias happening in religious people. I think that's unfound though there is a subgroup of religious people who clearly aren't operating empirically and make strange claims about the real world which don't have a scientific basis.
Well, I imagine lying would happen in any group of moderately sentient beings with independent, conflicting interests and an ability to lie, no matter how rational they might be. And when lying is advantageous to the liar, then it can't be pathological.
Obviously the vast advantage of speed is where the HFT algorithms can act while a human cannot, so it DOES become impossible at human speeds.
Well, that is true. But in absence of faster computer trading, it is feasible for a person to do this sort of trading.
Alice and Bob cannot act while Eve is busy working out the profit margin - and they don't even know Eve is doing it.
To the contrary, they know one or more such Eves are doing the calculating. I'm puzzled by your insistence on calling this a man in the middle attack.
In any case, if I want something, and somebody agrees to let me have it, I will consider it dishonest to criticize them for that compromise.
I don't have that issue. I see the Guantanamo Bay thing as something Obama had to do which gets dressed up as a compromise.
Who says we aren't? Plus insurance and health care are the kinds of services you pay for and hope you never use.
That's the same silly argument that all of Apple's iPod/iPhone/iPad innovations (NOT inventions) "would have happened anyway" by other companies.
Well, in my defense, most NASA spinoffs are by other parties which were already conducting research in the areas in question. That alone brings it out of the silly category, even if you do choose to ignore that your argument was a fallacy by virtue of the original statement being false. Most Apple innovations would indeed have happened anyway.
It took private enterprise over 50 years to replicate what NASA did in the early 60s, and they had that 50 years of experience to draw upon--back then many things about rockets and space were still being researched and discovered through trial and error, that's why many early attempts ended with an exploding rocket.
And for an order of magnitude lower cost than NASA could do the same now.
Space is far too expensive up front, with not enough profit to justify it.
If that were true, then it wouldn't be worth doing. The amazing work that companies like SpaceX are doing now demonstrate that the premise was false. You can speak of the "50 years of experience", but NASA wasn't doing anything with that experience except squandering it for another generation.
Does it ever bother you that the world is doing now, could have been done in the 60s and 70s? Commercial space launch a couple of decades early? The true development of space rather than a mere superficial exploration of it?
Obama pulled the country out of a death spiral set in motion by 8 years of the exact same policy standards that Romney supports.
Then why is the country still death spiraling?
If Romney managed to win and restored the failed Bush policies based in trickle down economics, the economy will crash again sometime around 2014, significantly worse than it did in 2008, and the Republicans can tell the masses it was Obama's fault to rally support for a full sweep of the house and senate.
Oh, how the projection shines forth! We even have Obamacare to make that happen.
Luckily Romney has no chance to win thanks to his countless lies, willingness to say anything, and complete lack of conviction.
How glibly you speak when the other guy is Obama who has those problems in spades.
Seriously, Obama compromised with Republicans on the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and you still attack him on it?
I guess that depends on whether you think compromise is better than honoring your word. Politicians compromise all the time by taking money for votes and other bits of corruption. Don't you respect them more for that?
Further, the world doesn't exist merely to give me what I want. So I expect that I'll be able to get some things and not others. I don't let other people decide what things I should get and not get. So how does keeping the Guantanamo Bay prison open, even if that is something I'd want, compensate for the things I don't want, such as destruction of freedom via Obamacare?