If there's a shortage of H-1B visas (meaning there are times you can't obtain one no matter how much you're willing to pay), they should be put up for auction and sold to the highest bidder so everyone who wants one badly enough can get one. It's irresponsible of the government not to look for ways to reduce our tax burden.
If the negative externalities of fossil fuel usage (up to $1,600 per person annually) were properly internalized into the price of electricity as economists say should be done (with the revenue going to hospitals to pay for health care for respiratory patients), nuclear energy would suddenly become much more cost-effective than it is today.
But sadly, we live in an age of privatizing profits and socializing losses.
Last year, the USPS raised my 6 month P.O. box rental fee by 41%. It seems strange that they raised the rental rates even while fewer P.O. boxes were being rented in a down economy.
It just shows how the USPS (or Congress, who sets the rates) are disconnected from reality.
If we were to focus less on revenge and more on rehabilitation, as you suggest, then the sentence would be the same for all crimes. You could have shoplifters "locked up" for longer than mass murderers. And I'm not entirely sure that would be a bad thing.
When you listen to music on electrostatic speakers, you can hear things you couldn't hear before. It makes normal speakers sound muffled as if you're listening through a pillow. So the speakers can mean the difference between hearing the mp3 compression and not hearing it.
Germany is increasing coal consumption not because its investment in green energy has failed, but because it is shutting down nuclear reactors in the wake of Fukushima.
Let's also fix the market failures of air pollution and carbon emissions by internalizing their costs into the price of fossil fuels. If you agree that correcting market failures makes the free market more efficient, then you must be in favor of a carbon tax.
I've seen people banned simply because they held an unpopular viewpoint for which the moderators couldn't come up with a rational counterargument and didn't want to deal with the cognitive dissonance. Banning has become a shortcut abused by those in power to silence inconvenient truths, with no formal mechanism in place to appeal the bans.
Worse, there's no easy way to know which message forums engage in this overhanded behavior, because said message forums typically delete any messages exposing it. This creates information asymmetry which restricts the flow of alternate viewpoints. As a result, we all lose.
Boards like Slashdot and Reddit are better, because they (usually) don't delete posts without leaving a trace, but it still comes down to moderators downmodding simply because they don't agree. Maybe mod actions need to be individually justified, with those justifications open for debate and subject to cancellation, but that gets complicated real quick, and by the time it has gone through the process, the conversation has already moved on.
Crime is directly correlated with population density...
Don't worry, there's less crime in areas with higher property values.
...and quality of life is generally negative correlated.
When you narrowly define quality of life in terms of a sprawling tract home and two cars in the garage, it's easy to conclude that without these things, your quality of life is low.
There are very large plots of privately-owned undeveloped land and even farm land mixed in with normal suburban development, not quite large enough to be scenic but big enough to make it clear that we're sprawling.
I don't see a real solution without either refusing to push utilities further south or enacting price controls on land deals which is unfair to the owner (and maybe illegal).
Undeveloped land costs the city more per capita for infrastructure than high density development. So one solution is for the city to recover its costs by raising the property tax.
the moment there is enough room to physically fit a car (or almost enough in many cases) someone will fill the gap.
Selective memory makes it seem like that happens much more often than it actually does. But when it does happen, it's very easy to fix. Simply lift your foot off the gas for a few seconds.
Then you'd have an entire country of drivers staring at their speedos instead of looking at the road.
Not me. I'd go 5 mph or more below the speed limit.
Is the safer driver the one who can drive closest to the edge of a mountain road without falling off, or the one who stays as far from the edge as possible?
When I come up on a traffic light that is green I cannot really slow down trying to anticipate if/when it goes to yellow for I still need to maintain traffic speed. When that light goes yellow I have an instant to make a decision, because I cannot hit the brakes hard and throw 3000 lbs of horse forward.
It sounds like you're very nearly breaking the Basic Speed Law. Yes, you can be technically speeding even when you're driving below the posted speed limit. Other examples include driving in fog or on icy roads.
The worst part is that it made the roads less safe, because people slam on their brakes when they see the light go yellow when they're just about to enter the intersection and cause more rear-end collisions.
Slashdot Mirror
And bicycling is faster.
If there's a shortage of H-1B visas (meaning there are times you can't obtain one no matter how much you're willing to pay), they should be put up for auction and sold to the highest bidder so everyone who wants one badly enough can get one. It's irresponsible of the government not to look for ways to reduce our tax burden.
If the negative externalities of fossil fuel usage (up to $1,600 per person annually) were properly internalized into the price of electricity as economists say should be done (with the revenue going to hospitals to pay for health care for respiratory patients), nuclear energy would suddenly become much more cost-effective than it is today.
But sadly, we live in an age of privatizing profits and socializing losses.
Who needs it for transport? This could be a good alternative to cell towers, weather satellites, and so on.
In a way, it's like community mailboxes. Stuff is no longer delivered directly to your house, but it's still convenient.
Yes, exactly. Just go there, punch in the code, and the locker door opens automatically.
Last year, the USPS raised my 6 month P.O. box rental fee by 41%. It seems strange that they raised the rental rates even while fewer P.O. boxes were being rented in a down economy.
It just shows how the USPS (or Congress, who sets the rates) are disconnected from reality.
If we were to focus less on revenge and more on rehabilitation, as you suggest, then the sentence would be the same for all crimes. You could have shoplifters "locked up" for longer than mass murderers. And I'm not entirely sure that would be a bad thing.
Or crossing that OS off the list. Or having the bug fixed.
When you listen to music on electrostatic speakers, you can hear things you couldn't hear before. It makes normal speakers sound muffled as if you're listening through a pillow. So the speakers can mean the difference between hearing the mp3 compression and not hearing it.
Electricity from coal is only cheap if you ignore its external costs, up to $1,600 per person annually.
Germany is increasing coal consumption not because its investment in green energy has failed, but because it is shutting down nuclear reactors in the wake of Fukushima.
Of course we all want gas to be free.
Because only Nixon could go to China.
We know that air pollution costs up to $1,600 per person annually in respiratory problems. We also know that the cost of climate change is estimated at around $20 per ton of CO2. Therefore, the costs can be identified and quantified.
Let's also fix the market failures of air pollution and carbon emissions by internalizing their costs into the price of fossil fuels. If you agree that correcting market failures makes the free market more efficient, then you must be in favor of a carbon tax.
I've seen people banned simply because they held an unpopular viewpoint for which the moderators couldn't come up with a rational counterargument and didn't want to deal with the cognitive dissonance. Banning has become a shortcut abused by those in power to silence inconvenient truths, with no formal mechanism in place to appeal the bans.
Worse, there's no easy way to know which message forums engage in this overhanded behavior, because said message forums typically delete any messages exposing it. This creates information asymmetry which restricts the flow of alternate viewpoints. As a result, we all lose.
Boards like Slashdot and Reddit are better, because they (usually) don't delete posts without leaving a trace, but it still comes down to moderators downmodding simply because they don't agree. Maybe mod actions need to be individually justified, with those justifications open for debate and subject to cancellation, but that gets complicated real quick, and by the time it has gone through the process, the conversation has already moved on.
Don't worry, there's less crime in areas with higher property values.
When you narrowly define quality of life in terms of a sprawling tract home and two cars in the garage, it's easy to conclude that without these things, your quality of life is low.
Undeveloped land and farmland aren't sprawl. Sprawl is low density single-use development--singly family homes, strip malls, shopping malls, etc.
Undeveloped land costs the city more per capita for infrastructure than high density development. So one solution is for the city to recover its costs by raising the property tax.
If the city doesn't have a property tax, it ought to, not just for this reason, but also because sales taxes (which are the usual alternative) incentivize big-box stores while property taxes encourages the city to make land-use decisions that raise property values. Which would you rather have, more Wal-Marts or higher property values?
Selective memory makes it seem like that happens much more often than it actually does. But when it does happen, it's very easy to fix. Simply lift your foot off the gas for a few seconds.
A 50 mph difference in speed between the fastest and slowest vehicles is not unheard of on the Autobahn.
False. The danger is caused by speeding (driving too fast for conditions) and aggressive and distracted driving.
That sentence is wrong. The source it links to says most rear-end collisions are caused by tailgating.
Not me. I'd go 5 mph or more below the speed limit.
Is the safer driver the one who can drive closest to the edge of a mountain road without falling off, or the one who stays as far from the edge as possible?
It sounds like you're very nearly breaking the Basic Speed Law. Yes, you can be technically speeding even when you're driving below the posted speed limit. Other examples include driving in fog or on icy roads.
It's perfectly safe to slam on your brakes if you aren't being tailgated, which is he practice of driving on a road too close to the vehicle in front, at a distance which does not guarantee that stopping to avoid collision is possible. Therefore, slamming on your brakes doesn't cause rear-end collisions--tailgating does.