No, it wouldn't be a "quick haul." How could it be?
Take a fraction of the money to look busy at the construction site. Move the rest out of the country. Disappear the moment someone starts to catch on. That's the short game.
Or do you just envision a bunch of wealthy successful people blindly cutting large checks without any due diligence whatsoever?
If he's getting any funding now, that's probably going on.
The fact that you can string together a series of words in English doesn't necessarily make it a valid idea.
Compared to what? We're speaking of the fall of civilization not taking on a superpower at its prime. They don't need to be that powerful.
and they rely on civil order to protect them as much as they exploit it to threaten others
Not really. "Civil order" doesn't provide all that much for them now. Nobody will recover those stolen drugs your homey stole from you. The police aren't going out of their way to help you when your rival tries to kill you.
Stripped of social controls they could easily face extermination if they poked their head above ground.
From who?
People have banded together before to put an end to various threats to the community.
And people have also not done that. The very existence of organized crime in the first place is due to people not taking that sort of action.
Further, it's quite possible that they'll be least bad of the alternatives present and have popular support.
The Communists were not organized crime but a revolutionary social-political movement It Irgun was only one a several factions.
Neither observation detracts from my point since you're just using a different label. The communists talked a good game, but they also robbed banks and ran protection rackets. Irgun is one faction more than zero.
Major urban centers would be destroyed, but there is a vast network of governments and residual capability in rural areas that would survive to varying degrees.
Ripe for takeover especially if those governments lose the support of their populace.
Obvious fraud involving large sums of money tends to increase the likelihood of getting caught.
It also is a quick haul. And I see here that you acknowledge the chance of getting caught even with rather outrageous and obvious fraud is not 100%. So there's a retirement strategy here. Grab a bunch of money and don't get caught.
Try reading up on Biosphere II and you'll see how that's not really workable, and that was with environmental experts, access to sunlight, and lots of funding to supply everything that they could think of.
Having actually read some of that stuff, what makes you think it 's not workable? I wouldn't expect a first generation of these bunkers to be able to do that, but it's just another engineering problem. Biosphere II wasn't the last word here.
I doubt organized crime will make it that far, but it is interesting to see you pulling for them.
So what? Your doubts are irrelevant. I'm merely pointing out the obvious. They're a rival power structure and the primary thing keeping them in check went away. It's also worth noting here that there are a number of governments which started out as organized crime of one sort or another, for example, the Communists of the USSR or the modern Israeli government (particularly, the Irgun paramilitary group which formed part of the roots for the current Likud party).
And from a practical standpoint, any organization which can survive the complete collapse of society is a strong candidate for seeding a new regional or national government, including religions and existing local governments.
It's also a practical and widely used technique in math called homotopy which puts it beyond philosophical or empirical theory (as no such basis for the idea is required as a result - though math carries its own considerable baggage here).
Also, glancing at the video you linked, I counted five solutions, not five possible solutions. There is an implicit assumption made in the video that these solutions can't be simultaneously applied. However, just by the act of outlining each solution in turn, they are applied simultaneously.
The resolution to the paradox is not the solutions, but rather what properties do you want the Ship of Theseus to have? Once you have chosen those properties, then you have chosen the solution.
There's an old story about an axe that has it's handle replaced a few times. Eventually over the years it's used so much the head is replaced. And a few more handles after that. There was always a piece of the axe included when something was replaced. Is the current axe the same axe we started with? If not, at what point did it become a different axe?
Hence, why the discussion of the incremental change versus copying. The human brain is a perduring (for lack of a better word, see perdurantism for my inspiration for the term) phenomenon like your example of the ax. Copying onto a completely different substrate with very different properties is a very considerable change which might be enough to void the property of perdurantism.
I think the point here is that just because there is a bunker and you paid money to have a spot in that bunker, doesn't mean you will have a spot in that bunker when it matters. For example, who's more valuable to a bunker leader, an extremely rich person and their rather useless family who just lost everything they owned, or a doctor, mechanic, or ex-soldier?
For any such organization that survives the collapse of society in good working order, this is an automatic promotion to proto-government though it'll take more work to establish the traditional monopoly on rule that governments tend to enjoy.
In 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races that had been decided by mid-day Nov. 5, the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning
And an apolitical business person is going to donate to a losing campaign why? This does indicate significant corruption, but of the money buying winning politicians rather than money buying votes. Also, I wonder how people can mesh this belief with the notorious short-term thinking common to business. A CEO can't be bothered to think past the next few quarters, but can be bothered to spend years creating and maintaining a political puppet? Yeah right.
The USA has phenomenally low socio-economic mobility
Your linked research doesn't back that claim. It merely shows that US residents overestimate certain sorts of socio-economic mobility factors. The actual numbers do show significant mobility.
I love the "class warfare" narrative for the Left that has become fashionable amoung the Right. Pointing out that for the last half century that wealth inequality has increased while the middle class has shrunk and that maybe we should do something about that is not class warfare. Anyone who has received half a political science education can tell you that massive wealth inequality is one of the most significant threats to successful republican governance.
Actually, this is typical class warfare rhetoric. The thing to remember here is that wealth inequality is not a significant threat to successful democracy. Our freedoms are not threatened merely because some people have a lot of wealth. They are threatened because a fair fraction of the voting population can be swayed by rather transparent propaganda (which is something that money can buy).
who are wealthier then they have ever been in American history.
Once you adjust for inflation, you find this assertion is patently false. Here's a typical list with the richest living US citizen, Bill Gates at 12th place. Again, this is class warfare rhetoric. Humanity has always had a small elite in control of an inordinate amount of resources.
In fact, I think one might be able to make the case that it is our conservatives who are engaged in class warfare.
One can make the case that the Moon is made of green cheese. So what?
My view is that wealth inequality is worse now than it was in say, 1970. But I think we should expect it to be in the face of intense labor competition from the developing world, which is the elephant in this room. And rather than adopt policies that make that problem worse, maybe we should concern ourselves with stuff that actually matters, like making US labor more competitive with the rest of the world.
That means among other things, abandoning the class warfare rhetoric - the rich will continue to get richer because their wealth is in capital not labor, reducing costs like the inefficient and often counterproductive social safety nets that price US labor out of a lot of markets, and cleaning up the ridiculous morass of regulation surrounding employment and business.
The US had several platforms for launching killsats that would have been more effective and an order of magnitude lower cost than the Shuttle. For example, the killsat could be ballast on a Delta II or Saturn IB flight.
The DoD was responsible for the crazy shuttle modifications that killed its original benefits in favor of it being useful to the military to perform single orbit covert missions. But then the US military changed their mind after it was built and NASA was left holding the bag (and 7 members of STS-107 died for a never used 1000 mile cross range capability).
And if NASA hadn't built a Saturn V replacement, then they wouldn't have needed DoD funding. The DoD shouldn't bear blame for poor NASA design decisions.
Also, if you look at it from the DoD's point of view, the Shuttle simply didn't live up to its promises from NASA. They didn't launch it enough and when as in Challenger, they stopped flying the Shuttle for a couple of years and then flew it on a reduced rate schedule, the Shuttle proved to be way too unreliable for DoD use.
Why is it irrelevant how much radioactive material went airborne?
That was not said. Instead, it was all about the alleged untrustworthiness of TEPCO. TEPCO lying or not doesn't change in the least change what happened. That's why it's irrelevant.
Let us also note that the data was not collected and made available to the public making this a very convenient argument for you. Care to cite a source of such strictly controlled information that such a University could access?
Not my problem.
Here you are, a Nuclear Shill planting the seed of a meme "Those children would have never suffered if they didn't start treating them for thyroid cancer". You're almost a professional.
And here you are not providing a credible counter argument. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.
It wouldn't matter if this was peer reviewed a thousand times, every argument that criticizes the nuclear industry would be irrelevant to you.
Because peer review doesn't change reality. It's like you haven't thought a bit about this. It's all those mean shills making reality not work the way you want it to work.
So what you are saying is that if a child does not get tested for thyroid cancer, the child will cure themselves of it?
It is worth noting that does happen. Plus, sounds like we're not actually speaking of cancer. It's very possible that this won't develop into cancer over the course of a human lifetime.
because that's the craziest shit I ever heard
Yea, right. Now it's crazy to want basic scientific procedures, like use of a control group, followed.
Now, does anyone actually believe what TEPCO says about how much radioactive material went airborne?
That is completely irrelevant.
The one criticism from TFA
Let us note that now there are other criticisms of the research. And lack of correlation with radiation exposure is another warning sign that this research is far from definitive.
It is something that should eventually be pretty clear, the issue now is to get as many cancers diagnosed when it's "easy" to treat.
Unless, of course, the cancers aren't actually cancers and treatment ends up causing more harm than it prevents.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it wouldn't be a "quick haul." How could it be?
Take a fraction of the money to look busy at the construction site. Move the rest out of the country. Disappear the moment someone starts to catch on. That's the short game.
Or do you just envision a bunch of wealthy successful people blindly cutting large checks without any due diligence whatsoever?
If he's getting any funding now, that's probably going on.
The fact that you can string together a series of words in English doesn't necessarily make it a valid idea.
You have to use reason too. Go for it.
They have the food and a better tactical position. They probably would also have the weapons.
It's only irrelevant if I'm wrong
That's a good reason right there.
Organized crime isn't that powerful
Compared to what? We're speaking of the fall of civilization not taking on a superpower at its prime. They don't need to be that powerful.
and they rely on civil order to protect them as much as they exploit it to threaten others
Not really. "Civil order" doesn't provide all that much for them now. Nobody will recover those stolen drugs your homey stole from you. The police aren't going out of their way to help you when your rival tries to kill you.
Stripped of social controls they could easily face extermination if they poked their head above ground.
From who?
People have banded together before to put an end to various threats to the community.
And people have also not done that. The very existence of organized crime in the first place is due to people not taking that sort of action.
Further, it's quite possible that they'll be least bad of the alternatives present and have popular support.
The Communists were not organized crime but a revolutionary social-political movement It Irgun was only one a several factions.
Neither observation detracts from my point since you're just using a different label. The communists talked a good game, but they also robbed banks and ran protection rackets. Irgun is one faction more than zero.
Major urban centers would be destroyed, but there is a vast network of governments and residual capability in rural areas that would survive to varying degrees.
Ripe for takeover especially if those governments lose the support of their populace.
Obvious fraud involving large sums of money tends to increase the likelihood of getting caught.
It also is a quick haul. And I see here that you acknowledge the chance of getting caught even with rather outrageous and obvious fraud is not 100%. So there's a retirement strategy here. Grab a bunch of money and don't get caught.
Try reading up on Biosphere II and you'll see how that's not really workable, and that was with environmental experts, access to sunlight, and lots of funding to supply everything that they could think of.
Having actually read some of that stuff, what makes you think it 's not workable? I wouldn't expect a first generation of these bunkers to be able to do that, but it's just another engineering problem. Biosphere II wasn't the last word here.
I doubt organized crime will make it that far, but it is interesting to see you pulling for them.
So what? Your doubts are irrelevant. I'm merely pointing out the obvious. They're a rival power structure and the primary thing keeping them in check went away. It's also worth noting here that there are a number of governments which started out as organized crime of one sort or another, for example, the Communists of the USSR or the modern Israeli government (particularly, the Irgun paramilitary group which formed part of the roots for the current Likud party).
And from a practical standpoint, any organization which can survive the complete collapse of society is a strong candidate for seeding a new regional or national government, including religions and existing local governments.
Not building shelters will be obvious fraud and will be discovered before a crisis.
So?
Either of those means jail time before any crisis.
Plenty of people scam and embezzle without an escape route. But having said that, jail time only matters if the people involved are caught first.
And how do you think those people that didn't make provisions will know to be there, and make it past the people that did?
Because the bunker leaders don't let the people that "made provisions" in and instead let the people with valuable skills in.
Just because you despise them doesn't mean their plan will fail.
I don't despise them. I just note that the plan ignores a practical and obvious choice available to whoever controls access to the bunker.
It's also a practical and widely used technique in math called homotopy which puts it beyond philosophical or empirical theory (as no such basis for the idea is required as a result - though math carries its own considerable baggage here).
Also, glancing at the video you linked, I counted five solutions, not five possible solutions. There is an implicit assumption made in the video that these solutions can't be simultaneously applied. However, just by the act of outlining each solution in turn, they are applied simultaneously.
The resolution to the paradox is not the solutions, but rather what properties do you want the Ship of Theseus to have? Once you have chosen those properties, then you have chosen the solution.
What do you think the odds of those "on-site maintenance people" surviving that treachery? What of their families and friends?
Pretty good. The bunker is designed to be defensible right? They probably could hold out for years under a protracted siege.
There's an old story about an axe that has it's handle replaced a few times. Eventually over the years it's used so much the head is replaced. And a few more handles after that. There was always a piece of the axe included when something was replaced. Is the current axe the same axe we started with? If not, at what point did it become a different axe?
Hence, why the discussion of the incremental change versus copying. The human brain is a perduring (for lack of a better word, see perdurantism for my inspiration for the term) phenomenon like your example of the ax. Copying onto a completely different substrate with very different properties is a very considerable change which might be enough to void the property of perdurantism.
By not building the shelters?
That's an option right there. Or overbooking what's there. And if you have money flow which you control, then you can embezzle it.
I think the point here is that just because there is a bunker and you paid money to have a spot in that bunker, doesn't mean you will have a spot in that bunker when it matters. For example, who's more valuable to a bunker leader, an extremely rich person and their rather useless family who just lost everything they owned, or a doctor, mechanic, or ex-soldier?
For any such organization that survives the collapse of society in good working order, this is an automatic promotion to proto-government though it'll take more work to establish the traditional monopoly on rule that governments tend to enjoy.
In 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races that had been decided by mid-day Nov. 5, the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning
And an apolitical business person is going to donate to a losing campaign why? This does indicate significant corruption, but of the money buying winning politicians rather than money buying votes. Also, I wonder how people can mesh this belief with the notorious short-term thinking common to business. A CEO can't be bothered to think past the next few quarters, but can be bothered to spend years creating and maintaining a political puppet? Yeah right.
The USA has phenomenally low socio-economic mobility
Your linked research doesn't back that claim. It merely shows that US residents overestimate certain sorts of socio-economic mobility factors. The actual numbers do show significant mobility.
I love the "class warfare" narrative for the Left that has become fashionable amoung the Right. Pointing out that for the last half century that wealth inequality has increased while the middle class has shrunk and that maybe we should do something about that is not class warfare. Anyone who has received half a political science education can tell you that massive wealth inequality is one of the most significant threats to successful republican governance.
Actually, this is typical class warfare rhetoric. The thing to remember here is that wealth inequality is not a significant threat to successful democracy. Our freedoms are not threatened merely because some people have a lot of wealth. They are threatened because a fair fraction of the voting population can be swayed by rather transparent propaganda (which is something that money can buy).
who are wealthier then they have ever been in American history.
Once you adjust for inflation, you find this assertion is patently false. Here's a typical list with the richest living US citizen, Bill Gates at 12th place. Again, this is class warfare rhetoric. Humanity has always had a small elite in control of an inordinate amount of resources.
In fact, I think one might be able to make the case that it is our conservatives who are engaged in class warfare.
One can make the case that the Moon is made of green cheese. So what?
My view is that wealth inequality is worse now than it was in say, 1970. But I think we should expect it to be in the face of intense labor competition from the developing world, which is the elephant in this room. And rather than adopt policies that make that problem worse, maybe we should concern ourselves with stuff that actually matters, like making US labor more competitive with the rest of the world.
That means among other things, abandoning the class warfare rhetoric - the rich will continue to get richer because their wealth is in capital not labor, reducing costs like the inefficient and often counterproductive social safety nets that price US labor out of a lot of markets, and cleaning up the ridiculous morass of regulation surrounding employment and business.
Why should I believe they are empty?
The same reason anyone else can see they are empty. You refuse to provide evidence or other support for your assertions.
You have, on various occasions, repeated claims that have already been refuted.
I believe you are in error here.
Of course most of their suspicions where true.
The US had several platforms for launching killsats that would have been more effective and an order of magnitude lower cost than the Shuttle. For example, the killsat could be ballast on a Delta II or Saturn IB flight.
The DoD was responsible for the crazy shuttle modifications that killed its original benefits in favor of it being useful to the military to perform single orbit covert missions. But then the US military changed their mind after it was built and NASA was left holding the bag (and 7 members of STS-107 died for a never used 1000 mile cross range capability).
And if NASA hadn't built a Saturn V replacement, then they wouldn't have needed DoD funding. The DoD shouldn't bear blame for poor NASA design decisions.
Also, if you look at it from the DoD's point of view, the Shuttle simply didn't live up to its promises from NASA. They didn't launch it enough and when as in Challenger, they stopped flying the Shuttle for a couple of years and then flew it on a reduced rate schedule, the Shuttle proved to be way too unreliable for DoD use.
Your behavior in this thread. We have empty assertions which are repeatedly asserted. Repeating unproductive and silly behavior is irrational.
Because you have aspirations to being rational?
Why is it irrelevant how much radioactive material went airborne?
That was not said. Instead, it was all about the alleged untrustworthiness of TEPCO. TEPCO lying or not doesn't change in the least change what happened. That's why it's irrelevant.
Let us also note that the data was not collected and made available to the public making this a very convenient argument for you. Care to cite a source of such strictly controlled information that such a University could access?
Not my problem.
Here you are, a Nuclear Shill planting the seed of a meme "Those children would have never suffered if they didn't start treating them for thyroid cancer". You're almost a professional.
And here you are not providing a credible counter argument. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.
It wouldn't matter if this was peer reviewed a thousand times, every argument that criticizes the nuclear industry would be irrelevant to you.
Because peer review doesn't change reality. It's like you haven't thought a bit about this. It's all those mean shills making reality not work the way you want it to work.
So what you are saying is that if a child does not get tested for thyroid cancer, the child will cure themselves of it?
It is worth noting that does happen. Plus, sounds like we're not actually speaking of cancer. It's very possible that this won't develop into cancer over the course of a human lifetime.
because that's the craziest shit I ever heard
Yea, right. Now it's crazy to want basic scientific procedures, like use of a control group, followed.
I still see no supporting evidence for your assertions. This is baseless ad hominem, not legitimate argument.
Now, does anyone actually believe what TEPCO says about how much radioactive material went airborne?
That is completely irrelevant.
The one criticism from TFA
Let us note that now there are other criticisms of the research. And lack of correlation with radiation exposure is another warning sign that this research is far from definitive.
It is something that should eventually be pretty clear, the issue now is to get as many cancers diagnosed when it's "easy" to treat.
Unless, of course, the cancers aren't actually cancers and treatment ends up causing more harm than it prevents.