Why don't we have more nuclear power? because no matter how well you build a nuclear reactors you can know 100% for certain that you will have planned for accidents and what percentage of them will make large area's of the earth uninhabitable. over enough time ( 1000, 10000, etc. years is hard to say) you virtually guaranteed to make large parts planet uninhabitable and poison significant portions of the rest. How many more area's the size of small states do you want to be utterly uninhabitable until you recognize that any of catastrophic failure is too high. Unless you can prove your chance of catastrophic failure is less then 1 in 1000000 years then nuclear is poor choice. That includes accidents caused by leaking of nuclear waste, which is also toxic for thousands or millions of years and no one has any idea how to properly store it for that amount of time because it is not natural for people to think it time spans that long.
Global warming is going to be bad as well, maybe worse , so that might still make nuclear a option to think about, however, I would not be cavalier about it , because it is probably not a good long term ( aka 5000 year) solution to the problem. It might make a reasonable stop gap while we figure out something better.
Does the trillions spent by the USA on "defense" prevent trillions in damage? Yes it does. Can you make the estimate of how much the united states of america is worth. Without sufficient defense spending the united states will cease to exist aka total loss and I suspect the country and it's security is 'worth' a lot more the $10 trillion dollars. Even if you simply count the GDP over the next 20 years;)
Mind you, I'm not really an advocate of increased defense spending. I tend to think we spend to much, but I'd rather have people making arguments against defense spending that make good sense rather then this kind of messy thinking.
No any hr person will tell you that the appearance is enough to force you to defend a multi million dollar law suit that you may lose. It has been in my training from every company. It simply isn't worth the million dollar law suit and the price nightmare even if you could win.
It seems like a perfectly natural Darwinian cycle. Any species that is too successful must top out it's food supply and then decline in population. If you believe there is a 'moral imperative' to somehow control that situation , it can only come from some belief in a higher power, because nothing in the laws of science suggests such a coarse is required or that any particular result 'preservation of the human race, avoiding mass starvation' etc. is provably superior then simply letting nature take it's coarse.
Myself, I believe there is a being who is the cause of all the primary fields ( higs field, electromagnetic field, gravitational etc.) that hold the universe together and that singular being has an ideal shape he would prefer the universe to reach. It is because of that will , we have evolved to be sensitive too,that we all have a moral sense, and that it should be easily agreed that upon that the preserving the usefulness and beauty of the planet we live on is something we owe each other as a human community. ( however, like with many things I suppose I will be told to keep my religion out of other politics).
When government reviews your hiring they expect you to show that your diversity level is consistent with the normal spread of minority groups ( some consideration of candidate pool MAY be given.)
In other words, if your only criteria is hiring whomever best for the job, you will likely be operating illegally and subject to fines and lawsuits. This is the product of laws that are designed to create social engineering based restrictions based on someones religious idea that any measurable discrepancy in minority placement must be corrected.
This is of coarse correct. One of the things that is a 'weird grey area' for uber is that they are having 'contractors' who do not regularly re-negotiate rates, that and there is a 'long term nature' to the agreement, which is probably the real kicker for them not being simply contractors.
I agree they should probably put in some kind of bidding system for the contractors. ( the fact there are too many is supposed to cause enough people to quit that it Evans out).
First of all technically speaking, contractors ARE employees, the are a specific sub category of employee, they contract for a short time. In the case of uber , I believe you contract literally per hour, as you can set any day or any time any place you want to work and refuse work any other time. (A non contract employee is told when and where to work).
The driver's fares are set by Uber ( not exactly true, the 'fair' amount, for a route is set by uber, and both people agree to pay it. It actually would be interesting if uber could put in some kind of bidding system to let the drivers bid on route for say 3 min from the time it was created. The the drivers would set the price.) Even so , every contractor is paid on some unit of work or work product with the fee set by the employer. Last I checked into driver for uber ( a while ago now, drivers could reject any route , or accept any route when it was sent to them). I don think the non - fluidness of the price structure is half an argument for calling the drivers employees as generally contractors negotiate salary every time they contract, even if there are more or less expected / fixed rates .
Uber should fix that.
Uber terminates drivers who break the code of conduct Uber sets a minimum rating that the driver must maintain Since these two are basically the same, as one is only a mechanism for the other, I'd point out that this is true for all contractors at all companies. If I hire a contractor and they show up to work naked , or use racial slurs that make it illegal for me to keep them in the work place, or do such a poor job they aren't getting the work done I paid them for, they are gone.
Uber provides the clients (riders) for the driver ( this is technically kind of a grey area craigs list provides does not provide buyers for the sellers, uber provides a websight that connects clients with drivers).
The driver must pick up any rider assigned to them ( this is not true, the drivers must pick up riders assigned for them during the time they are singed in to pick up drivers. I also, suspect there is a list of criteria that allow you not to pick up a customer. Covered in blood and holding a gun or naked would probably both be good starts).
The driver must drive the route the Uber app plots ( is this something like writing the computer program I told you I wanted.) Still if they are too strick about this I can see why their contractors would hate it.
Uber sends recommendations for improvement to the driver ( Do they require you follow them? is there some accountability mechanism or are you free to ignore these suggestions?)
Are you saying that is not possible? On the other hand they would have to pay you a lot more then 7.95 because 7.95 would not cover your grill rental , or the cost of the meat. Also, if you want health care, dental, you should look for something that pays better as you need and you can't forget that you will need to pay into Social security and state and federal taxes. So realistically you can't contract at Mc Donald's for less then say $15 per hour, the difference is some of that is already covered by MC Donald, health benefits ( sometimes ), scholarships etc. When you consider the full value of what Mc Donald's pays it is much higher then that I suspect. http://corporate.mcdonalds.com....
Although , there is something in my mind that also suspects most of the employees would rather just have the case and then decide for themselves what kind of benefits they wanted to buy.
Also, since you are supplying the meat, there would have to be an expectation that you could source your own meat, the requirement for buying from a specific supplier would violate anti-trust laws. Since you are on call, you should also expect some kind of 'retainer' unless there is no obligation for you to show up.
I do think an economy where all employees are contractors is an interesting idea. It would have to have some further regulations, to really make it workable, but in theory the idea is that the employee gains both personal responsibility and control of their finances as well as having greater investment in the work product. Can you imaging the wage difference between those who can flip 10 burgers and hours and those who can flip 25, and since there is no expected obligation , there is no reason you can't check out burger king, McDonald, and Wendy's and see which one is willing to pay you more today.
I think the 'you will be penalized if you are unwilling to show up when we call you' is one of the major things that distinguishes and employee from a contractor. A contractor shows up when they agree to show up and and are/should always be paid for that agreement commitment. A employee is expected to be available when the employer assigns them duties.
All these companies talk about the value of diversity? So this is what you get, if you actually want it. People from different political and social ideals as yours and you need to work together with them.
One amendment - you mean republicans. Not everyone who you might label conservative is against net neutrality just like not everyone you might label liberal is not for it.
As a rule however, republicans are all about letting 'business owners' maximize profit and the expense of consumers on the tired and self serving assumption that ANYTHING that is good for business is always good for consumers.
so reading this makes sense to me: "Please note that there is a way out of this seemingly impossible scenario, but the loophole may be difficult to swallow: if Einstein's Relativity is wrong, and the speed of light is NOT a limit for propagation of cause and effect (which is called "signal locality"), then that would give us a way out of the situation. Theoretically, there could exist non-local hidden variables (Bohm outlined such a theory, for example). But regardless, the net effect of Bell's Theorem is profound. Reality is somehow dependent upon how we observe it. "
I guess I have always assumed such a variable exists. Many people call it 'the will of God'.
After all, IF there exists an entity that concentrates all information into a singularity (aka omniscience) of some kind and the existence of all particles is dependent on that same entity (aka prime cause) , then obviously information,within some limited context, propagates much faster then the speed of light, because all information about all states of the system exists at the point simultaneously united by the entity that causes their existence.
It seems to me that much of the 'weirdness' of quantum physics comes from the complexity of mathematics that are meant to allow for a possible range of unknown values (aka probability fields).
So, what I've never been able to understand is this. Just because we are unable to know both the position and speed of a particle, why is there an assumption made that the particle doesn't have both a position and speed?
I guess the point is it seems like most of the 'weirdness' stems from the assumption that the model is a complete and accurate description of reality. Why do people assume that?
I'm not well educated on some of this but I'm trying to learn.
I mean , why do I want a list , made by anyone, to tell me what I should listen too. Honestly I mostly listen to the same songs over and over again, in my playlist. Why , because they are the ones I like and especially when they are 'background' music I'd rather not have my attention drawn to something unfamiliar. Those list don't need to be updated weekly, or even monthly. Especially if you make 1 with 100 songs or so on it. It is a false market pressure that people need to listen to 'the new' thing. It is a case of advertisers 'creating a need'.
other peoples feelings are fine, but there are basically 3 problems here.
1) Changing terminology is not just about feelings in involves time and money that must be used to just make people feel better. The only thing harmed is there feelings, which cost them nothing to change.
2) The actual analogy should reflect the constructs. A slave has no choice but to do what it's master commands, a child has a different kind of relationship to it's parent, a much more equal one then a slave to a master, so adopting terms that are actually more descriptive in there analogy is actually a good thing.
3) What moral principle, reason, or world view are you advocating , in which , the majority, is somehow obligated to spend time and money, and energy appeasing the emotions of the minority? ( we aren't even talking physical health, we are talking emotional comfort). There isn't a single coherent philosophy I'm aware of that advocates taking it to that level. The closest is the Christian ideal of universal respect for the image of God in each person , but even in that your actions need to follow from Love of neighbor and empathy.
You certainly find no argument for equality or even equability in Darwinism, materialism, or atheism, if there is one please frame it for me so I can be educated. Start by defining where you get a universal moral requirement from then work from there please.
The other major world religions have none that I'm aware of.
So your argument for wanting others to expend their resources is basically because I said I want it and I'm god you must obey what I want.
If you can't come up with a better reason then that it makes some people feel better, you don't really have a reason,because guaranteed it will make at least the same number of people feel good as feel bad and use resources of time and money that could be put to better use somewhere else.
It's also important to actually have a reason because where Do you stop, are Christians or Satanist offended at the world Daemon? Is know there are minorities offended by the term 'Darwin' OS and the use of the 'sexual and sinful symbol' Apple. If you can't articulate your reason, you have no way of articulating your limits to that reason and frankly, you rob human dialog of everything colorful and meaningful if you remove from it every term and idea that offends someone, because there is someone offended by nearly everything. So how do you choose who's emotions to appease and whose not too.
If you want people to be able to advocate for change in other countries an a way that is illegal for them to advocate for in those countries. You cannot expect to gather enough information on everyone to stop people from advocating for change in your country. ( even if they advocate for change by protesting and bombing you).
You have no proof what you are saying is possible within the laws of physics. Maybe not maybe yes , but there are missing pieces that still need to be invented for it to happen.
My friend -- There is no such thing as 'free'. There is only 'not directly paid for'. The labor and materials to create the artifacts ( tools and medicine) cost more the a few somebodies quite a great deal , and that is not to mention those who perform the diagnosis and dispense the needed medicine. There can not be any realistic question about someone paying for all these things, the only question is who and how. Do you pay for them directly as you consume them? Do you pay for them via a direct tax that is then distributed to all consumers? Or do you pay for them via a indirect tax ( say national income tax) so there is not even a easily traceable connection between paid money and services provided? Another important aspect to consider is who is in control.
Each system has it's trade offs.
I would agree, that as a Christian value , everyone should have access to needed health care. I don't think that is as easy a case to make from any other world view. So far as I know the Hindu perspective is poor people are poor because of karma and they deserve to be left that way. ( Maybe some Hindu who understands better can correct me on this.) Certainly a Evolutionist might argue that providing free health care is weakening the natural mechanisms that are in place to keep the species healthy and prevent overpopulation.
Is it better to allow a paid system for some and set of free clinics for those who can't pay? Is it better to create a system of volunteer who devote themselves to the service of others out of Christian justice and fund there project of free clinics through charitable donations as was done in the past?
The best answer for a solution to the problem is complex at best especially when you start talking about what is fair and not fair, what best supports human dignity and responsibility with limited resources. The discussion is of coarse complicated when you start adding in many voices who cannot even agree that human dignity ( as images of God) exists.
Zero emission batters. What is the carbon footprint of a creation process for a battery? How may of them do you need? The electricity to charge the battery might be green , but you have to also take into account the carbon footprint of creation and recycling of the battery itself, which is no easy task. Especially when you factor in the carbon footprint of mining and refining the rare earth metals needed to create them.
No, nuclear is a poor option. You think dealing with the problems of too much carbon is difficult, how about nuclear waste? What people get it to make dirty bombs, it is poisons for multiple thousands of years and we have no good way to store it. it is nearly impossible to get rid of and is deadly to all life.
Maybe he'll ban out-of-state gas-powered cars from crossing over CA state lines? Ban most forms of manufacturing in the state?
I suspect 1 would and I'm sure 2 would run up against the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Any kind of boarder crossing tax to control those things would also have that problem, so you would be left with carbon sequestering, which no on can prove works and may require more energy then was generated by the original emission to work even if it can be made to work at all.
I mean this sincerely. Simply because you 'must' do something doesn't mean it is physically possible. I do not know of any fully carbon neutral nation. You basically have to fake the inputs and outputs to even show that such a system is possible. Why sequestering carbon takes energy, where to you get that energy? To be carbon neutral you would have to: 1 ) sequester carbon ( is there a way of sequestering Carbon that does not require more energy then the energy produced by creating the carbon emission in the first place? ) 2 ) virtually ban all internal combustion engines. 3 ) Generate all your electricity from clean sources 4 ) Somehow control where you source every item entering your territory from ( cars, lumber, solar panels, computers) so they were produced with only green power , or have some rule that requires you sequester carbon equal to the carbon cost of producing those items.
turn off images on your web browser and block java-script... it is fun. or better yet install a text based HTML client then call tech support saying you can't access their site.
Last time I checked no service uses any bandwidth on a network unless someone connects to it and requests to interact with it.
The people who are asking for the connections are the ones using the traffic NOT netflix etc. If no one was requesting they would never answer. The ISP have need to be stopped from lining their pockets on both side of the equation. Charging both the upstream and the downstream. The downstream already pays for their connection so why does the ISP get to decide which of their requiest deserves to be treated differently then another. Even if they do , they should be forced to publish exactly which request and when , so that the downstream can at least pretend they have a choice in the matter.
Slashdot Mirror
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Why don't we have more nuclear power? because no matter how well you build a nuclear reactors you can know 100% for certain that you will have planned for accidents and what percentage of them will make large area's of the earth uninhabitable. over enough time ( 1000, 10000, etc. years is hard to say) you virtually guaranteed to make large parts planet uninhabitable and poison significant portions of the rest. How many more area's the size of small states do you want to be utterly uninhabitable until you recognize that any of catastrophic failure is too high. Unless you can prove your chance of catastrophic failure is less then 1 in 1000000 years then nuclear is poor choice. That includes accidents caused by leaking of nuclear waste, which is also toxic for thousands or millions of years and no one has any idea how to properly store it for that amount of time because it is not natural for people to think it time spans that long.
Global warming is going to be bad as well, maybe worse , so that might still make nuclear a option to think about, however, I would not be cavalier about it , because it is probably not a good long term ( aka 5000 year) solution to the problem. It might make a reasonable stop gap while we figure out something better.
Does the trillions spent by the USA on "defense" prevent trillions in damage? Yes it does. Can you make the estimate of how much the united states of america is worth. Without sufficient defense spending the united states will cease to exist aka total loss and I suspect the country and it's security is 'worth' a lot more the $10 trillion dollars. ;)
Even if you simply count the GDP over the next 20 years
Mind you, I'm not really an advocate of increased defense spending. I tend to think we spend to much, but I'd rather have people making arguments against defense spending that make good sense rather then this kind of messy thinking.
No any hr person will tell you that the appearance is enough to force you to defend a multi million dollar law suit that you may lose. It has been in my training from every company. It simply isn't worth the million dollar law suit and the price nightmare even if you could win.
It seems like a perfectly natural Darwinian cycle. Any species that is too successful must top out it's food supply and then decline in population.
If you believe there is a 'moral imperative' to somehow control that situation , it can only come from some belief in a higher power, because nothing in the laws of science suggests such a coarse is required or that any particular result 'preservation of the human race, avoiding mass starvation' etc. is provably superior then simply letting nature take it's coarse.
Myself, I believe there is a being who is the cause of all the primary fields ( higs field, electromagnetic field, gravitational etc.) that hold the universe together and that singular being has an ideal shape he would prefer the universe to reach. It is because of that will , we have evolved to be sensitive too ,that we all have a moral sense, and that it should be easily agreed that upon that the preserving the usefulness and beauty of the planet we live on is something we owe each other as a human community. ( however, like with many things I suppose I will be told to keep my religion out of other politics).
When government reviews your hiring they expect you to show that your diversity level is consistent with the normal spread of minority groups ( some consideration of candidate pool MAY be given.)
In other words, if your only criteria is hiring whomever best for the job, you will likely be operating illegally and subject to fines and lawsuits. This is the product of laws that are designed to create social engineering based restrictions based on someones religious idea that any measurable discrepancy in minority placement must be corrected.
This is of coarse correct. One of the things that is a 'weird grey area' for uber is that they are having 'contractors' who do not regularly re-negotiate rates, that and there is a 'long term nature' to the agreement, which is probably the real kicker for them not being simply contractors.
I agree they should probably put in some kind of bidding system for the contractors. ( the fact there are too many is supposed to cause enough people to quit that it Evans out).
First of all technically speaking, contractors ARE employees, the are a specific sub category of employee, they contract for a short time. In the case of uber , I believe you contract literally per hour, as you can set any day or any time any place you want to work and refuse work any other time. (A non contract employee is told when and where to work).
The driver's fares are set by Uber ( not exactly true, the 'fair' amount, for a route is set by uber, and both people agree to pay it. It actually would be interesting if uber could put in some kind of bidding system to let the drivers bid on route for say 3 min from the time it was created. The the drivers would set the price.)
Even so , every contractor is paid on some unit of work or work product with the fee set by the employer. Last I checked into driver for uber ( a while ago now, drivers could reject any route , or accept any route when it was sent to them). I don think the non - fluidness of the price structure is half an argument for calling the drivers employees as generally contractors negotiate salary every time they contract, even if there are more or less expected / fixed rates .
Uber should fix that.
Uber terminates drivers who break the code of conduct
Uber sets a minimum rating that the driver must maintain
Since these two are basically the same, as one is only a mechanism for the other, I'd point out that this is true for all contractors at all companies. If I hire a contractor and they show up to work naked , or use racial slurs that make it illegal for me to keep them in the work place, or do such a poor job they aren't getting the work done I paid them for, they are gone.
Uber provides the clients (riders) for the driver ( this is technically kind of a grey area craigs list provides does not provide buyers for the sellers, uber provides a websight that connects clients with drivers).
The driver must pick up any rider assigned to them ( this is not true, the drivers must pick up riders assigned for them during the time they are singed in to pick up drivers. I also, suspect there is a list of criteria that allow you not to pick up a customer. Covered in blood and holding a gun or naked would probably both be good starts).
The driver must drive the route the Uber app plots
( is this something like writing the computer program I told you I wanted.) Still if they are too strick about this I can see why their contractors would hate it.
Uber sends recommendations for improvement to the driver
( Do they require you follow them? is there some accountability mechanism or are you free to ignore these suggestions?)
Are you saying that is not possible? On the other hand they would have to pay you a lot more then 7.95 because 7.95 would not cover your grill rental , or the cost of the meat. Also, if you want health care, dental, you should look for something that pays better as you need and you can't forget that you will need to pay into Social security and state and federal taxes. So realistically you can't contract at Mc Donald's for less then say $15 per hour, the difference is some of that is already covered by MC Donald, health benefits ( sometimes ), scholarships etc. When you consider the full value of what Mc Donald's pays it is much higher then that I suspect. http://corporate.mcdonalds.com....
Although , there is something in my mind that also suspects most of the employees would rather just have the case and then decide for themselves what kind of benefits they wanted to buy.
Also, since you are supplying the meat, there would have to be an expectation that you could source your own meat, the requirement for buying from a specific supplier would violate anti-trust laws. Since you are on call, you should also expect some kind of 'retainer' unless there is no obligation for you to show up.
I do think an economy where all employees are contractors is an interesting idea. It would have to have some further regulations, to really make it workable, but in theory the idea is that the employee gains both personal responsibility and control of their finances as well as having greater investment in the work product. Can you imaging the wage difference between those who can flip 10 burgers and hours and those who can flip 25, and since there is no expected obligation , there is no reason you can't check out burger king, McDonald, and Wendy's and see which one is willing to pay you more today.
I think the 'you will be penalized if you are unwilling to show up when we call you' is one of the major things that distinguishes and employee from a contractor. A contractor shows up when they agree to show up and and are/should always be paid for that agreement commitment. A employee is expected to be available when the employer assigns them duties.
All these companies talk about the value of diversity?
So this is what you get, if you actually want it. People from different political and social ideals as yours and you need to work together with them.
One amendment - you mean republicans. Not everyone who you might label conservative is against net neutrality just like not everyone you might label liberal is not for it.
As a rule however, republicans are all about letting 'business owners' maximize profit and the expense of consumers on the tired and self serving assumption that ANYTHING that is good for business is always good for consumers.
so reading this makes sense to me:
"Please note that there is a way out of this seemingly impossible scenario, but the loophole may be difficult to swallow: if Einstein's Relativity is wrong, and the speed of light is NOT a limit for propagation of cause and effect (which is called "signal locality"), then that would give us a way out of the situation. Theoretically, there could exist non-local hidden variables (Bohm outlined such a theory, for example). But regardless, the net effect of Bell's Theorem is profound. Reality is somehow dependent upon how we observe it. "
I guess I have always assumed such a variable exists. Many people call it 'the will of God'.
After all, IF there exists an entity that concentrates all information into a singularity (aka omniscience) of some kind and the existence of all particles is dependent on that same entity (aka prime cause) , then obviously information ,within some limited context, propagates much faster then the speed of light, because all information about all states of the system exists at the point simultaneously united by the entity that causes their existence.
I asked basically that question a few post back, but was told to read Bell's theorem. I'm still reading but having difficulty seeing how it relates.
It seems to me that much of the 'weirdness' of quantum physics comes from the complexity of mathematics that are meant to allow for a possible range of unknown values (aka probability fields).
So, what I've never been able to understand is this. Just because we are unable to know both the position and speed of a particle, why is there an assumption made that the particle doesn't have both a position and speed?
I guess the point is it seems like most of the 'weirdness' stems from the assumption that the model is a complete and accurate description of reality.
Why do people assume that?
I'm not well educated on some of this but I'm trying to learn.
Thanks for patients ahead of time.
I mean , why do I want a list , made by anyone, to tell me what I should listen too.
Honestly I mostly listen to the same songs over and over again, in my playlist. Why , because they are the ones I like and especially when they are 'background' music I'd rather not have my attention drawn to something unfamiliar. Those list don't need to be updated weekly, or even monthly. Especially if you make 1 with 100 songs or so on it. It is a false market pressure that people need to listen to 'the new' thing. It is a case of advertisers 'creating a need'.
other peoples feelings are fine, but there are basically 3 problems here.
1) Changing terminology is not just about feelings in involves time and money that must be used to just make people feel better. The only thing harmed is there feelings, which cost them nothing to change.
2) The actual analogy should reflect the constructs. A slave has no choice but to do what it's master commands, a child has a different kind of relationship to it's parent, a much more equal one then a slave to a master, so adopting terms that are actually more descriptive in there analogy is actually a good thing.
3) What moral principle, reason, or world view are you advocating , in which , the majority, is somehow obligated to spend time and money, and energy appeasing the emotions of the minority? ( we aren't even talking physical health, we are talking emotional comfort). There isn't a single coherent philosophy I'm aware of that advocates taking it to that level. The closest is the Christian ideal of universal respect for the image of God in each person , but even in that your actions need to follow from Love of neighbor and empathy.
You certainly find no argument for equality or even equability in Darwinism, materialism, or atheism, if there is one please frame it for me so I can be educated. Start by defining where you get a universal moral requirement from then work from there please.
The other major world religions have none that I'm aware of.
So your argument for wanting others to expend their resources is basically because I said I want it and I'm god you must obey what I want.
If you can't come up with a better reason then that it makes some people feel better, you don't really have a reason ,because guaranteed it will make at least the same number of people feel good as feel bad and use resources of time and money that could be put to better use somewhere else.
It's also important to actually have a reason because where Do you stop, are Christians or Satanist offended at the world Daemon? Is know there are minorities offended by the term 'Darwin' OS and the use of the 'sexual and sinful symbol' Apple. If you can't articulate your reason, you have no way of articulating your limits to that reason and frankly, you rob human dialog of everything colorful and meaningful if you remove from it every term and idea that offends someone, because there is someone offended by nearly everything. So how do you choose who's emotions to appease and whose not too.
If you want people to be able to advocate for change in other countries an a way that is illegal for them to advocate for in those countries.
You cannot expect to gather enough information on everyone to stop people from advocating for change in your country. ( even if they advocate for change by protesting and bombing you).
You have no proof what you are saying is possible within the laws of physics. Maybe not maybe yes , but there are missing pieces that still need to be invented for it to happen.
My friend -- There is no such thing as 'free'. There is only 'not directly paid for'. The labor and materials to create the artifacts ( tools and medicine) cost more the a few somebodies quite a great deal , and that is not to mention those who perform the diagnosis and dispense the needed medicine. There can not be any realistic question about someone paying for all these things, the only question is who and how.
Do you pay for them directly as you consume them?
Do you pay for them via a direct tax that is then distributed to all consumers?
Or do you pay for them via a indirect tax ( say national income tax) so there is not even a easily traceable connection between paid money and services provided?
Another important aspect to consider is who is in control.
Each system has it's trade offs.
I would agree, that as a Christian value , everyone should have access to needed health care. I don't think that is as easy a case to make from any other world view. So far as I know the Hindu perspective is poor people are poor because of karma and they deserve to be left that way. ( Maybe some Hindu who understands better can correct me on this.) Certainly a Evolutionist might argue that providing free health care is weakening the natural mechanisms that are in place to keep the species healthy and prevent overpopulation.
Is it better to allow a paid system for some and set of free clinics for those who can't pay? Is it better to create a system of volunteer who devote themselves to the service of others out of Christian justice and fund there project of free clinics through charitable donations as was done in the past?
The best answer for a solution to the problem is complex at best especially when you start talking about what is fair and not fair, what best supports human dignity and responsibility with limited resources. The discussion is of coarse complicated when you start adding in many voices who cannot even agree that human dignity ( as images of God) exists.
Zero emission batters. What is the carbon footprint of a creation process for a battery?
How may of them do you need? The electricity to charge the battery might be green , but you have to also take into account the carbon footprint of creation and recycling of the battery itself, which is no easy task. Especially when you factor in the carbon footprint of mining and refining the rare earth metals needed to create them.
No, nuclear is a poor option.
You think dealing with the problems of too much carbon is difficult, how about nuclear waste?
What people get it to make dirty bombs, it is poisons for multiple thousands of years and we have no good way to store it. it is nearly impossible to get rid of and is deadly to all life.
Maybe he'll ban out-of-state gas-powered cars from crossing over CA state lines?
Ban most forms of manufacturing in the state?
I suspect 1 would and I'm sure 2 would run up against the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Any kind of boarder crossing tax to control those things would also have that problem,
so you would be left with carbon sequestering, which no on can prove works and may require more energy then was generated by the original emission to work even if it can be made to work at all.
I mean this sincerely. Simply because you 'must' do something doesn't mean it is physically possible.
I do not know of any fully carbon neutral nation. You basically have to fake the inputs and outputs to even show that such a system is possible. Why sequestering carbon takes energy, where to you get that energy?
To be carbon neutral you would have to:
1 ) sequester carbon ( is there a way of sequestering Carbon that does not require more energy then the energy produced by creating the carbon emission in the first place? )
2 ) virtually ban all internal combustion engines.
3 ) Generate all your electricity from clean sources
4 ) Somehow control where you source every item entering your territory from ( cars, lumber, solar panels, computers) so they were produced with only green power , or have some rule that requires you sequester carbon equal to the carbon cost of producing those items.
turn off images on your web browser and block java-script ... it is fun.
or better yet install a text based HTML client then call tech support saying you can't access their site.
Last time I checked no service uses any bandwidth on a network unless someone connects to it and requests to interact with it.
The people who are asking for the connections are the ones using the traffic NOT netflix etc. If no one was requesting they would never answer. The ISP have need to be stopped from lining their pockets on both side of the equation. Charging both the upstream and the downstream. The downstream already pays for their connection so why does the ISP get to decide which of their requiest deserves to be treated differently then another. Even if they do , they should be forced to publish exactly which request and when , so that the downstream can at least pretend they have a choice in the matter.