I wasn't trying to argue that Airbus was perfect, they make mistakes, just like Boeing. However this example does show why the combination of four different airplane builders works: strong compartmentalization and good software which combine different subprojects. The error was stupid (incompatible word documents happens often enough that they might have though about the possibility sooner). Still the fact remains that Airbus planes have been as safe as BOeing ones (safer if you unfairly add the pre-A300 boeing planes).
Or, alternatively, the combination could work because the language barrier means everything has to be checked extra thoroughly. Instead of yelling across the factory floor "hey bill, are these alright for the new plane?" and assuming the grunt from bill means an acknowledgment. (Yes the last part isn't very realistic, but considering Airbus has been building excellent planes for some thirty years and Boeing is currently making mistake after mistake with the 787 I find the xenophobic, stereotype view of Airbus rather silly).
It *is* quote heavily outsourced (as have most Airbus types). A lot of the subcontractors are of course European, but there are plenty of American firms involved.
But a final assembly line is out of the question, not because of the 'subsidized' nature of the airbus (the loans get payed back no matter how Airbus makes its profit) but because it doesn't make economic sense. A second assembly line would only be practical if orders would rise to more than 60 or so per year.
There's also the comfort that while the design of a nuclear bomb might be relatively easy, the actual building is quite a long and noticeable project. Everyone knew North Korea was close and that is the most closed of society on earth. Similarly all the fracas about Iran is about the possibility of them building a bomb (as in one or at the most 3) in 36 months at the soonest.
Yeah, there is a real meaning behind "Christmas": the entire population of the temperate Northern Hemisphere deluding themselves into thinking that cold and lack of daylight are somehow jolly!
It's more the entire population of the temperate Northern Hemisphere (well Europe) wanting to celebrate to end of increasing nighttime and cold.
In case nobody's told you, your savior was born in April or May.
And christmas was placed in December because that was when most northern pagans celebrated the winter solstice. I've always thought winter solstice once one of the most 'logical' holidays. If you live in a area with seasons anyway.
The police in germany ( and I'd think in netherlands as well) CAN and DO search you whenever it pleases them. There is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Well, yes and no. In Germany, depending on the 'Land' the police is allowed to conduct stop and search operations on motorways and other important cross border traffic roads within 30 km of the German border, in international transport facilities (harbours, train stations, airports) and in trains. In the Netherlands the police can only search you in specific "High risk areas". These can be assigned by the justice department on the request of the mayor and are valid for a maximum of 12 hours. So no they can't search you always and everywhere but they can stop and search a lot more people in more cases than a few years ago.
While I agree this is bad, and probably worse than in the US, I do think it's a matter of degree and of implementation. After an early highpoint search actions in the Netherlands are rare; the German searches are more common, but mostly in checking ID's (trains, cars) and not in complete searches. And while I haven't traveled enough in the US to know for sure, aren't similar rules in effect in large public places like trainstations, airports (outside of the security zone) federal buildings etc.? I though I'd read something like that.
* there is a huge difference! If I want something ( vote, drivers-license etc) I'll go someplace to make it happen, no problem but having a legal obligation to do so is something else entirely (mind you, 'public servants' work from 10 to 4 here, so you usually need to take a days leave...)
But if almost everyone is going to do it anyway (and do it multiple times without a central administration) doesn't it make more sense to let them handle most of it? They know where you live anyway, and in the Netherlands at least the registration exist only on a municipal level (that is: there is no big central administration for the whole country).
I can see how a 10-16 opening time could make the job somewhat more difficult. In Germany times are similarly restricted, but they do tend to open early (7:30) and often have a once a month Saturday opening to accommodate working people. In the Netherlands opening times are generally 9-17 Mo-Fri and 9-21 on Thursdays. But even beyond opening hours, one central registration means the ability to do more stuff online, since you don't have to prove you're you every time you try to do something.
* "no people are punished for not doing"... I WAS punished with fines and even threatened with jail for refusing to register simply on principle, no fraud involved.
If you're going to explicitly taunt them obviously you get the appropriate fine. My point was that there isn't a crack team of enforces, working tirelessly to ensure everyone registers immediately after moving. I am curious though: when was the chain of events? You moved and refused to change your registration? They threatened jail so you paid the fine and registered anyway? (Not trying to annoy, just curious)
Hmm...too bad then, that here in the US, we switched to allowing the populace to vote for our senators, rather than having them appointed.
Well, if I remember correctly back then senators where quite dependent on the state legislature. So they were wiimply accountable to a different kind of fool.
For me *the* most convincing argument is the 2000 elections. No, not the Florida farce, the popular vote thing. If you accept Bush won Florida, he still lost the popular vote by a significant margin. In many ways it's unfortunate that the hanging chad thing got in the way of that issue. (strangely enough, before the election there assumption was that the result would be reversed, EV win for Gore, PV win for Bush and the Bush camp had a whole argument planned for why Elector should therefore choose Bush or turn it over to Congress).The idea that the *second* most popular candidate becomes president hard to accept as being democratic.
The same, but to a lesser degree, goes for elections like the 1992 one. Clinton winning with 43% of the vote against 57% for a combined Bush/Perot total seems less than just.
One man one vote (a opposed to a Wyoming vote being 4 times as important as a Texas vote) is a good second though.
While you're at it, could you please fix--kill off, that is--the two-party system? Have a look at Condorcet voting and the Schulze method.
I'd settle for a runoff if no candidate gets > 50%. That should give third parties a fighting chance without changing the system too much (other solutions would be better, but Concordet voting and the likes would run into "too complicated" objections and any kind of proportional voting would require a complete overhaul of the system; very unlikely).
,i>The point of the electoral college at this point is not the safeguard against the uneducated masses that it originally (partially) was. The other half of the formation of the Electoral College was that it balanced out the political power of the states to prevent candidates from neglecting entire section of the nation, something that was a very real possibility then and remains one now.
It happens just as much *with* the electoral college. How much attentions is payed to the interests of Texas or New York in this election? How much add dollars are spend on South Carolina or Rhode Island?
Without an Electoral College candidates might not give a lot of speeches in Wyoming or Iowa, but they'd still try to woo the farmers, the blue collar workers or veterans. And those are the ones Presidents actually can help or hinder. And if a group was ignored by one side, you can bet that the other side would be quick to woo them.
I find your post really funny but it's nothing personal. Europeans can get so snobbish about America (not saying you are) but often fail to comprehend how much their state/government actually owns them. What's it like to be just free? To not have to register every time you move? To have police that can't search or arrest you without probable cause? Have a look at your laws sometime, you'll be suprised how much of a subject you actually are..
While I do agree that many Europeans (myself included) sometime fall too easily into snobishness, I'd say you're displaying the reverse here.
First of all, the police isn't allowed to arrest or search you any more in European nations than it is in the US (European convention on human rights Articles 5 and 8 respectively). What's more, pretty much *all* rights that are guaranteed in the US constitution (and a few others which are not, such as privacy) are guaranteed in Europe as well. Either in the constitutions of the different countries or by European convention on human rights. The main differences between the EU and the US is the relative balance between different rights, and even there the difference are mostly small (Yes, some countries outlaw speech inciting hatred, but only is extreme cases and even the US places some restrictions on free speech as well: libel, the fire in a crowded theater thing).
Also, while I can appreciated the underlying sentiment (if you want to, you can move without having to tell anyone in the US) the reality is that you must let the State/local government know when you've moved in the US as well; it's difficult to function without doing so. How much difference is there between a de facto requirement and a legal requirement?
Personally I'd argue that often it's better to have the legal requirement. It simplifies the access, error and abuse issues and it keeps things in the open. The Dutch (and German, Belgian, etc.) requirement to register when moving may be a bit more restrictive than the US example but the real test for me is in what happens if you don't do it. And the answer is: very little. While you are required to register moving there, no people are punished for not doing so (unless it was part of a fraud, like collecting double unemployment benefits, in which case you're persecuted for the fraud, not the failure to register). Of people where jailed or seriously fined for not registering their new home quickly enough you would have a point. However this is not the case.
While the USA certainly offers more freedom (and thereby less security) than most European nations, I think the differences are often overstated. On both sides of the Atlantic.
Forced wealth redistribution is wrong on any level and for any reason. It is nothing more than government sponsored theft.
Punishing people for being successful is wrong on any level and for any reason. It encourages business owners to leave the country for greener pastures.
So you favour abolishing the income tax? Or just creating a flat tax, which would mean a huge tax raise on the poorest? Because the current US tax system certainly redistributes wealth. As would almost any society that has any kind of tax. Beyond that, where are all those business owners going to go? Somalia? I hear there's no tax there.
Wealth redistribution is a normal part of a civilized society. The real discussion is about how much should be redistributed/how much inequality is acceptable. So if you feel the Bush tax cuts were needed to get the equation right, fine but it's just as much or as little theft as raising them back up.
The popularity of airplanes in terroist circles has mainly to do with the number of victems. Blowing up/crashing a plane means 100+ guaranteed victims (300+ if you pick the right plane). Detonating a bomb on a train only kills those in the immediate vicinity. BLowing up the track only works if you do it very shortly before the train arives and if it is a high speed train. And even then, depending on landscape, most people might make it out alive.
There is one area which almost always benefits significantly from war: medicine. Looking at the number of amputees from the Iraq I would expect significant advances in that area.
Those figures don't include waste storage or decommissioning, which can run up quite a high bill. And of course the generating price depends in uranium ore cost, which could rise quite a lot if everyone turns to nuclear.
Also important to remember: in most nuclear power generating countries new plants where never outlawed. If any company wanted to build one they could. The fact that they haven't says something about the cost/benefit analysis (yes there's also the NIMBY problem but still).
First of all, that kind of load balancing only comes into play if solar makes up more than half the generating power. By far the most energy is used during business hours. Load balancing doesn't have to be a major issue until the renewable share is much higher. Nuclear and coal power station have quite long lead times for changing their output as well and need to be balanced.
The UK shows how much load balancing can be done: because millions of housholds put on electric waterheaters after the end of the most popular soap the have a 2000 MW spike every weekday. And they are able to compensate for it by using gravity reservoirs on the other side of the island.
Of course it can be payed back. It's called inflation (possibly combined with economic growth) which makes paying back a debt relativly easy since it's share of the budget keeps getting smaller.
Maybe because the drilling is largely in the economic exclusion zone, which is granted to the US as a whole not to individual states? Also oil spills would likely affect more than one state, making it a federal issue.
They also didn't start at 1. The first time the 'year' was calculated was early in the second century. Not to mention that if Jesus really existed the year is wrong anyway (Herodutus died several years before AD 1).
No, energy payback is *much* shorter than that (See this DoE paper for example). And as the article states guaranteed energy production is 90% after 10 years and 80% after 20.
I disagree. Would you say the same about the Manhattan Project? The fact is that any other nation could NOT have done it - as evidenced by the fact that the Soviet Union never landed a man on the moon.
Yes I would. Once again the Manhanttan project was a big project, forever out of the reach of the likes of Luxembourg. But any large reasonably advanced country could (and has) done it. Hell if Heisenberg hadn't made an error/deliberate mistake Nazi Germany could have had the bomb before the US.
It's also important to remember that the biggest cost/difficulty of the Manhattan project wasn't the development of the two bomb types as such (though those where high) but the development of an infrastructurethat could serial produce them. At least 4 other countries have done the same (and arguably 8, including North Korea with it's ruined economy and 20 million inhabitants).
So yes, it was the combination of the US's strong economy, lenient immigration policies, talent, organization, etc. It all came together in a way that hasn't been duplicated yet, here or anywhere.
Erm... it came together in the USSR? Even faster than in the US? Seeing as they launched a satellite, an animal and a man into space long before the US got anywhere near'. And that in a country which didn't have a strong economy, lenient immigration policies (hah!) and was at ther time still recovering from having it's most productive parts completely wasted and losing some 20 million of it's people.
The USSR was also quite close where the Moon race was concerned. So from an 'being able to do it' viewpoint: yes they could have and basically did.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't trying to argue that Airbus was perfect, they make mistakes, just like Boeing. However this example does show why the combination of four different airplane builders works: strong compartmentalization and good software which combine different subprojects. The error was stupid (incompatible word documents happens often enough that they might have though about the possibility sooner). Still the fact remains that Airbus planes have been as safe as BOeing ones (safer if you unfairly add the pre-A300 boeing planes).
Or, alternatively, the combination could work because the language barrier means everything has to be checked extra thoroughly. Instead of yelling across the factory floor "hey bill, are these alright for the new plane?" and assuming the grunt from bill means an acknowledgment. (Yes the last part isn't very realistic, but considering Airbus has been building excellent planes for some thirty years and Boeing is currently making mistake after mistake with the 787 I find the xenophobic, stereotype view of Airbus rather silly).
But a final assembly line is out of the question, not because of the 'subsidized' nature of the airbus (the loans get payed back no matter how Airbus makes its profit) but because it doesn't make economic sense. A second assembly line would only be practical if orders would rise to more than 60 or so per year.
Well maybe not *all* live, but a hunderd or so British nuclear warheads sure could reduce the total population.
There's also the comfort that while the design of a nuclear bomb might be relatively easy, the actual building is quite a long and noticeable project. Everyone knew North Korea was close and that is the most closed of society on earth. Similarly all the fracas about Iran is about the possibility of them building a bomb (as in one or at the most 3) in 36 months at the soonest.
And christmas was placed in December because that was when most northern pagans celebrated the winter solstice. I've always thought winter solstice once one of the most 'logical' holidays. If you live in a area with seasons anyway.
Well, yes and no. In Germany, depending on the 'Land' the police is allowed to conduct stop and search operations on motorways and other important cross border traffic roads within 30 km of the German border, in international transport facilities (harbours, train stations, airports) and in trains. In the Netherlands the police can only search you in specific "High risk areas". These can be assigned by the justice department on the request of the mayor and are valid for a maximum of 12 hours. So no they can't search you always and everywhere but they can stop and search a lot more people in more cases than a few years ago.
While I agree this is bad, and probably worse than in the US, I do think it's a matter of degree and of implementation. After an early highpoint search actions in the Netherlands are rare; the German searches are more common, but mostly in checking ID's (trains, cars) and not in complete searches. And while I haven't traveled enough in the US to know for sure, aren't similar rules in effect in large public places like trainstations, airports (outside of the security zone) federal buildings etc.? I though I'd read something like that.
But if almost everyone is going to do it anyway (and do it multiple times without a central administration) doesn't it make more sense to let them handle most of it? They know where you live anyway, and in the Netherlands at least the registration exist only on a municipal level (that is: there is no big central administration for the whole country).
I can see how a 10-16 opening time could make the job somewhat more difficult. In Germany times are similarly restricted, but they do tend to open early (7:30) and often have a once a month Saturday opening to accommodate working people. In the Netherlands opening times are generally 9-17 Mo-Fri and 9-21 on Thursdays. But even beyond opening hours, one central registration means the ability to do more stuff online, since you don't have to prove you're you every time you try to do something.
If you're going to explicitly taunt them obviously you get the appropriate fine. My point was that there isn't a crack team of enforces, working tirelessly to ensure everyone registers immediately after moving. I am curious though: when was the chain of events? You moved and refused to change your registration? They threatened jail so you paid the fine and registered anyway? (Not trying to annoy, just curious)
Well, if I remember correctly back then senators where quite dependent on the state legislature. So they were wiimply accountable to a different kind of fool.
For me *the* most convincing argument is the 2000 elections. No, not the Florida farce, the popular vote thing. If you accept Bush won Florida, he still lost the popular vote by a significant margin. In many ways it's unfortunate that the hanging chad thing got in the way of that issue. (strangely enough, before the election there assumption was that the result would be reversed, EV win for Gore, PV win for Bush and the Bush camp had a whole argument planned for why Elector should therefore choose Bush or turn it over to Congress).The idea that the *second* most popular candidate becomes president hard to accept as being democratic.
The same, but to a lesser degree, goes for elections like the 1992 one. Clinton winning with 43% of the vote against 57% for a combined Bush/Perot total seems less than just.
One man one vote (a opposed to a Wyoming vote being 4 times as important as a Texas vote) is a good second though.
I'd settle for a runoff if no candidate gets > 50%. That should give third parties a fighting chance without changing the system too much (other solutions would be better, but Concordet voting and the likes would run into "too complicated" objections and any kind of proportional voting would require a complete overhaul of the system; very unlikely).
It happens just as much *with* the electoral college. How much attentions is payed to the interests of Texas or New York in this election? How much add dollars are spend on South Carolina or Rhode Island?
Without an Electoral College candidates might not give a lot of speeches in Wyoming or Iowa, but they'd still try to woo the farmers, the blue collar workers or veterans. And those are the ones Presidents actually can help or hinder. And if a group was ignored by one side, you can bet that the other side would be quick to woo them.
While I do agree that many Europeans (myself included) sometime fall too easily into snobishness, I'd say you're displaying the reverse here.
First of all, the police isn't allowed to arrest or search you any more in European nations than it is in the US (European convention on human rights Articles 5 and 8 respectively). What's more, pretty much *all* rights that are guaranteed in the US constitution (and a few others which are not, such as privacy) are guaranteed in Europe as well. Either in the constitutions of the different countries or by European convention on human rights. The main differences between the EU and the US is the relative balance between different rights, and even there the difference are mostly small (Yes, some countries outlaw speech inciting hatred, but only is extreme cases and even the US places some restrictions on free speech as well: libel, the fire in a crowded theater thing).
Also, while I can appreciated the underlying sentiment (if you want to, you can move without having to tell anyone in the US) the reality is that you must let the State/local government know when you've moved in the US as well; it's difficult to function without doing so. How much difference is there between a de facto requirement and a legal requirement?
Personally I'd argue that often it's better to have the legal requirement. It simplifies the access, error and abuse issues and it keeps things in the open. The Dutch (and German, Belgian, etc.) requirement to register when moving may be a bit more restrictive than the US example but the real test for me is in what happens if you don't do it. And the answer is: very little. While you are required to register moving there, no people are punished for not doing so (unless it was part of a fraud, like collecting double unemployment benefits, in which case you're persecuted for the fraud, not the failure to register). Of people where jailed or seriously fined for not registering their new home quickly enough you would have a point. However this is not the case.
While the USA certainly offers more freedom (and thereby less security) than most European nations, I think the differences are often overstated. On both sides of the Atlantic.
So you favour abolishing the income tax? Or just creating a flat tax, which would mean a huge tax raise on the poorest? Because the current US tax system certainly redistributes wealth. As would almost any society that has any kind of tax. Beyond that, where are all those business owners going to go? Somalia? I hear there's no tax there.
Wealth redistribution is a normal part of a civilized society. The real discussion is about how much should be redistributed/how much inequality is acceptable. So if you feel the Bush tax cuts were needed to get the equation right, fine but it's just as much or as little theft as raising them back up.
The popularity of airplanes in terroist circles has mainly to do with the number of victems. Blowing up/crashing a plane means 100+ guaranteed victims (300+ if you pick the right plane). Detonating a bomb on a train only kills those in the immediate vicinity. BLowing up the track only works if you do it very shortly before the train arives and if it is a high speed train. And even then, depending on landscape, most people might make it out alive.
There is one area which almost always benefits significantly from war: medicine. Looking at the number of amputees from the Iraq I would expect significant advances in that area.
Who cares if it is out of date? It will still generate the promised amount of KW hours, for the next few decades.
It should be noted though that at least half those countries could probably produce nuclear weapons within months, should they decide to do so.
Those figures don't include waste storage or decommissioning, which can run up quite a high bill. And of course the generating price depends in uranium ore cost, which could rise quite a lot if everyone turns to nuclear.
Also important to remember: in most nuclear power generating countries new plants where never outlawed. If any company wanted to build one they could. The fact that they haven't says something about the cost/benefit analysis (yes there's also the NIMBY problem but still).
The UK shows how much load balancing can be done: because millions of housholds put on electric waterheaters after the end of the most popular soap the have a 2000 MW spike every weekday. And they are able to compensate for it by using gravity reservoirs on the other side of the island.
Of course it can be payed back. It's called inflation (possibly combined with economic growth) which makes paying back a debt relativly easy since it's share of the budget keeps getting smaller.
Maybe because the drilling is largely in the economic exclusion zone, which is granted to the US as a whole not to individual states? Also oil spills would likely affect more than one state, making it a federal issue.
They also didn't start at 1. The first time the 'year' was calculated was early in the second century. Not to mention that if Jesus really existed the year is wrong anyway (Herodutus died several years before AD 1).
No, energy payback is *much* shorter than that (See this DoE paper for example). And as the article states guaranteed energy production is 90% after 10 years and 80% after 20.
Erm... it came together in the USSR? Even faster than in the US? Seeing as they launched a satellite, an animal and a man into space long before the US got anywhere near'. And that in a country which didn't have a strong economy, lenient immigration policies (hah!) and was at ther time still recovering from having it's most productive parts completely wasted and losing some 20 million of it's people.
The USSR was also quite close where the Moon race was concerned. So from an 'being able to do it' viewpoint: yes they could have and basically did.