And I don't mean to even criticize the Police in general, because among their ranks are everyday heros and legitimate true, ready to lay down their lives, heros.
The police have no responsibility to do anything. And the number of times the cops have sued to not have to enforce a crime in progress (violent or otherwise) and have no responsibility to respond to a call, makes me think that there is no "hero" in cops any more. All the "heroes" have left and are firefighters or such. All that's left are the dirty cops and the abusive racists on a power trip. "don't be a hero" is used in training (At least the training I witnessed). So they have been trained to be non-heroes.
One of the worst I've seen is whtn the police got a call from a woman that she received a death threat from someone she had a restraining order against (a crime), telling her that he was coming over at a specific time to kill her. The police were given the location of the suspect, and they didn't go arrest him, nor did they show up at the specific time mentioned (the informant requested they show up at that time because it would be a breach of restraining order). Nor did they show up when she called back when he arrived. But they showed up 30 minutes after, when the neighbors reported gunshots, and found the dead woman, killed by the person with a restraining order, who they were warned about multiple times. The family of the deceased sued and lost. The cops have the *right* to ignore any crime they want, and they have no responsibility to intervere, even if they are aware a crime is in progress. With response like that, there is no reason to ever call the cops. You could be one of the many who call for help and get arrested. At best, they leave you alone. I've never personally witnessed a cop "solve" a crime.
Hell, the one time I was robbed at gunpoint, I gave a description to the cops, and they had to call me in to identify him on the surveillance video, as they couldn't find a crime on a video when they had hours with the video. And 3 months later, I was called in to go to a lineup. I didn't identify anyone, as it had been months. The people who called me in for the lineup didn't even know there was a video of the robbery, so they didn't see it to see if it matched their suspect.
What car is that? I'm more familiar with the older autos (having worked on them long long ago), and it's too hard to keep up with them today, they change so much, and they'll all be CVTs in a few years anyway, so that's the one I pay attention to.
In fact, they say you should drive slower on the highway because of wind resistance
In the '40s, the "optimal speed" was about 35 mph. In the '70s the number was closer to 45 mph. Now, the number is closer to 55 mph (for gasoline-powered non-electric cars). Aerodynamics and efficiency has increased. But EVs are most efficient at the slowest possible speed. They don't have idle losses and generation losses that result in higher efficiencies at higher speeds, as happens with gasoline engines, so rolling at 10 mph will be more efficient than 35, 45, or 55.
I ride a motorbike in a place where lane splitting is legal, so I get 70+ MPG and get to work faster than any other method (unless I commuted by helicopter).
I'm sure you can have a private grazing field too, but it's simply not a necessary part of a tragedy of the commons. It's also extremely unrealistic to suggest a sealed factory.
It is a requirement of the prime example, where the ranchers have private land, but choose to graze in the common area. That you aren't familiar with the example doesn't make it any less of the prime example. It's required but implied. The "common area" is not the *only* area for all the ranchers involved, thus they *must* have a private area, separate from the common area.
And yes, a sealed factory is impractical. But so is unlimited pollution with no regulations. You must solve the equation for the frictionless spherical cow first, before making it realistic.
If you would like Kohath's argument translated from the economics everyone else is using into the economics YOU are using, then it would read The solution to "the tragedy of the commons" isn't "as little as possible" grazing in the common grazing area.
That's not inconsistent with anything I said (the original or the "correction").
Honest question: Have you ever taken an economics class? I seriously don't mean any offense and it certainly doesn't make you wrong, but it seems like we're using the same terms to describe different ideas. Maybe we'd be better off avoiding technical terms.
Yes, I have taken an economics class. And I always avoid using the technical terms on slashdot, as so many here don't know them. That's why I didn't address the tragedy of the commons directly, but repeated parts of the prime example and addressed those.
The actual tragedy of the commons states it makes the most economic sense in the short term for a rancher to over-graze the common area, but it makes the most sense in a longer term to graze proportionally, up to an agreed upon grazing threshold.
The points in contention are: Is air a shared resource? Loonitarians say no, as the threshold to sue for poisoning someone is impractically high in the loonitarian paradise. So yes, there is some discussion on whether "air" is a shared resource.
What is the maximum grazing threshold for grazing? What is the maximum allowable pollution? 1 PPM, 1000 PPM, 0.01 PPT. And for what pollutants?
What proportion do those that share the resource get to "use" it? Proportionally based on land area, per person, per manufacturing unit?
And, if none of that is "settled" there's the question of how much should a rational user use the resource? If the ideal threshold is 1 PPM and it's already a 10 PPM, then one should use it "as little as possible" until below the threshold. That's the situation we currently are in, and why we should be using it "as little as possible". If that's an irrational religion, please explain why. The anti-environment nuts are more "religious" in their lack of logic and devotion to the cause, regardless of facts.
Why do you use the clutch more on a bike than a car?
I actually like CVTs. I haven't owned one, so I haven't had to drive it on a regular basis, but borrowing others and test driving them, I like them better than other autos (yes, even the automatic manuals), and I may like them better than manuals, but would need to drive one in more conditions to make a judgment.
That's the great thing about the conspiracy theorists. They don't have to say anything. "what moon landing", not "The moon landing was staged in Studio 51 in Hollywood on the MGM lot," and then we can prove there isn't and never was a studio 51, or find people working there that day to get testimony and photographs proving it didn't happen there.
So what's the exact claim? The attack was a targeted assassination? What's the problem with that? That the administration did a PR spin on the attack to calm the situation? That Bush's cuts on security had the result of the death of an ambassador (the problem being that Obama is responsible for not fixing all Bush's problems fast enough)?
Why can't the conspiracy theorists state their claims clearly and concisely?
2-5% of building surface covered in PV panels every year. The capital will be higher, but a 10 year cost will about the same, and good returns after that. In 20-50 years, we'll have energy independence. And with a good finance plan, it's cheaper than doing nothing.
You aren't following. Cover the Pacific with a tarp. Pump all the water that lands on it to central Australia. It'll have more water than Iowa. Do the same with the freshwater landing on the Atlantic and Indian oceans to Sahara, and tell me how those calculations go.
Politeness is offending someone in an inoffensive manner. "You don't look as ugly today as you did last week." Yeah, that missed, but you get the point.
I've tested this on most of my cars. The pedal can move the cable in only one direction. Pulling the throttle with your fingers under the hood then pulling on the pedal will have no effect on the throttle under the hood where you are holding it. So the "stuck" must have been a stuck pedal, not a stuck cable. At least in the cars I've tried this on.
Why do you need a clutch if there is no mechanical connection to connect? The automatic-manuals are different than the hydraulic autos of old. The old-style don't have a clutch.
Most scooters these days are 3-speed autos (at least when I last paid attention). But the "real" motorbikes are almost all manuals (the only exceptions I've seen were special models for people missing a hand or something like that).
Leave a little more space and you won't need as many clutch actions. Also, I often roll down hill on the overpass-underpass routes in neutral. Clutch isn't that big of a deal. Also, you can keep it a gear lower/higher (depending on your usage) than "ideal" and rev a little higher but not need to shift as often.
Name one. I tried in 3 post 2000 cars (one 2013 model) and all shut off just fine with the gear in drive. Of course, you have to put it in Park to get the key out, but it stopped when I turned the key.
One would presume that a button would be cheaper, lighter, and more robust than a collection of mechanical parts in an ignition switch. Thus the "new" *is* progress.
I don't think that will work as an example. Part of the point I was trying to make is defining politeness is hard. In your example, is it a "polite society" when people who don't fit in are being threatened with violence? I wouldn't say so.
I bought a 128GB USB stick for under $50. Why buy blanks when I can use a stick that holds much much more and can sneakernet it around?
We've come back to sneakernets. It's safer than P2P and my TV, stereo, and media players will all play most video formats directly from USB, so I don't need a PC to have a HTPC. Put files on a drive, play directly. That's why disks are dying. They are small, slow, and expensive.
If you've never played baseball before and you have to catch a high fly ball before it bonks you off the forehead, well, since you have no practice, your first guess at the motion of the ball will likely be wrong, and it may take you too long to figure it out, so you won't catch it. instead you will go home with a lump in your head. oops.
No, it won't hit you in the head. It'll land 30 feet behind you. The ball will "appear" slower because it's far away, but because binocular vision is mostly useless for gauging distance over 20-30 feet, your brain will think it's much closer than it is, and tell you to run towards the ball. The ball will sail over your head before you have time to react.
Why yes, I do clearly remember learning to catch high fly balls around 35 years ago. I also remember one I caught in a game where I ran in, then corrected and was running out at full speed, tracking it with perephrial vision over my right shoulder and made a jumping/twisting over-the-shoulder catch about 10 feet from the fence. Made the throw to second from there, getting a double play. Nobody on the field thought I'd come up with it, so the runner ran and didn't come back until my throw was in the air and it beat him.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's the CIA that's responsible, not the anti-vaxxers.
I've heard people say sugar causes cancer as well. And I still take sugar.
What cached page? Both links are broken. There is no cache linked to.
Weather is the expression of climate. Global sea level rise is neither climate nor weather, but is driven by both.
And I don't mean to even criticize the Police in general, because among their ranks are everyday heros and legitimate true, ready to lay down their lives, heros.
The police have no responsibility to do anything. And the number of times the cops have sued to not have to enforce a crime in progress (violent or otherwise) and have no responsibility to respond to a call, makes me think that there is no "hero" in cops any more. All the "heroes" have left and are firefighters or such. All that's left are the dirty cops and the abusive racists on a power trip. "don't be a hero" is used in training (At least the training I witnessed). So they have been trained to be non-heroes.
One of the worst I've seen is whtn the police got a call from a woman that she received a death threat from someone she had a restraining order against (a crime), telling her that he was coming over at a specific time to kill her. The police were given the location of the suspect, and they didn't go arrest him, nor did they show up at the specific time mentioned (the informant requested they show up at that time because it would be a breach of restraining order). Nor did they show up when she called back when he arrived. But they showed up 30 minutes after, when the neighbors reported gunshots, and found the dead woman, killed by the person with a restraining order, who they were warned about multiple times. The family of the deceased sued and lost. The cops have the *right* to ignore any crime they want, and they have no responsibility to intervere, even if they are aware a crime is in progress. With response like that, there is no reason to ever call the cops. You could be one of the many who call for help and get arrested. At best, they leave you alone. I've never personally witnessed a cop "solve" a crime.
Hell, the one time I was robbed at gunpoint, I gave a description to the cops, and they had to call me in to identify him on the surveillance video, as they couldn't find a crime on a video when they had hours with the video. And 3 months later, I was called in to go to a lineup. I didn't identify anyone, as it had been months. The people who called me in for the lineup didn't even know there was a video of the robbery, so they didn't see it to see if it matched their suspect.
What car is that? I'm more familiar with the older autos (having worked on them long long ago), and it's too hard to keep up with them today, they change so much, and they'll all be CVTs in a few years anyway, so that's the one I pay attention to.
In fact, they say you should drive slower on the highway because of wind resistance
In the '40s, the "optimal speed" was about 35 mph. In the '70s the number was closer to 45 mph. Now, the number is closer to 55 mph (for gasoline-powered non-electric cars). Aerodynamics and efficiency has increased. But EVs are most efficient at the slowest possible speed. They don't have idle losses and generation losses that result in higher efficiencies at higher speeds, as happens with gasoline engines, so rolling at 10 mph will be more efficient than 35, 45, or 55.
I ride a motorbike in a place where lane splitting is legal, so I get 70+ MPG and get to work faster than any other method (unless I commuted by helicopter).
I'm sure you can have a private grazing field too, but it's simply not a necessary part of a tragedy of the commons. It's also extremely unrealistic to suggest a sealed factory.
It is a requirement of the prime example, where the ranchers have private land, but choose to graze in the common area. That you aren't familiar with the example doesn't make it any less of the prime example. It's required but implied. The "common area" is not the *only* area for all the ranchers involved, thus they *must* have a private area, separate from the common area.
And yes, a sealed factory is impractical. But so is unlimited pollution with no regulations. You must solve the equation for the frictionless spherical cow first, before making it realistic.
If you would like Kohath's argument translated from the economics everyone else is using into the economics YOU are using, then it would read The solution to "the tragedy of the commons" isn't "as little as possible" grazing in the common grazing area.
That's not inconsistent with anything I said (the original or the "correction").
Honest question: Have you ever taken an economics class? I seriously don't mean any offense and it certainly doesn't make you wrong, but it seems like we're using the same terms to describe different ideas. Maybe we'd be better off avoiding technical terms.
Yes, I have taken an economics class. And I always avoid using the technical terms on slashdot, as so many here don't know them. That's why I didn't address the tragedy of the commons directly, but repeated parts of the prime example and addressed those.
The actual tragedy of the commons states it makes the most economic sense in the short term for a rancher to over-graze the common area, but it makes the most sense in a longer term to graze proportionally, up to an agreed upon grazing threshold.
The points in contention are: Is air a shared resource?
Loonitarians say no, as the threshold to sue for poisoning someone is impractically high in the loonitarian paradise. So yes, there is some discussion on whether "air" is a shared resource.
What is the maximum grazing threshold for grazing?
What is the maximum allowable pollution? 1 PPM, 1000 PPM, 0.01 PPT. And for what pollutants?
What proportion do those that share the resource get to "use" it?
Proportionally based on land area, per person, per manufacturing unit?
And, if none of that is "settled" there's the question of how much should a rational user use the resource? If the ideal threshold is 1 PPM and it's already a 10 PPM, then one should use it "as little as possible" until below the threshold. That's the situation we currently are in, and why we should be using it "as little as possible". If that's an irrational religion, please explain why. The anti-environment nuts are more "religious" in their lack of logic and devotion to the cause, regardless of facts.
Why do you use the clutch more on a bike than a car?
I actually like CVTs. I haven't owned one, so I haven't had to drive it on a regular basis, but borrowing others and test driving them, I like them better than other autos (yes, even the automatic manuals), and I may like them better than manuals, but would need to drive one in more conditions to make a judgment.
That's the great thing about the conspiracy theorists. They don't have to say anything. "what moon landing", not "The moon landing was staged in Studio 51 in Hollywood on the MGM lot," and then we can prove there isn't and never was a studio 51, or find people working there that day to get testimony and photographs proving it didn't happen there.
So what's the exact claim? The attack was a targeted assassination? What's the problem with that? That the administration did a PR spin on the attack to calm the situation? That Bush's cuts on security had the result of the death of an ambassador (the problem being that Obama is responsible for not fixing all Bush's problems fast enough)?
Why can't the conspiracy theorists state their claims clearly and concisely?
2-5% of building surface covered in PV panels every year. The capital will be higher, but a 10 year cost will about the same, and good returns after that. In 20-50 years, we'll have energy independence. And with a good finance plan, it's cheaper than doing nothing.
Ah, then your wife must be exceptionally ugly today, making you radiant in comparison.
You aren't following. Cover the Pacific with a tarp. Pump all the water that lands on it to central Australia. It'll have more water than Iowa. Do the same with the freshwater landing on the Atlantic and Indian oceans to Sahara, and tell me how those calculations go.
Politeness is offending someone in an inoffensive manner. "You don't look as ugly today as you did last week." Yeah, that missed, but you get the point.
I've tested this on most of my cars. The pedal can move the cable in only one direction. Pulling the throttle with your fingers under the hood then pulling on the pedal will have no effect on the throttle under the hood where you are holding it. So the "stuck" must have been a stuck pedal, not a stuck cable. At least in the cars I've tried this on.
They also tend to select "gas" instead of "brake".
Why do you need a clutch if there is no mechanical connection to connect? The automatic-manuals are different than the hydraulic autos of old. The old-style don't have a clutch.
Most scooters these days are 3-speed autos (at least when I last paid attention). But the "real" motorbikes are almost all manuals (the only exceptions I've seen were special models for people missing a hand or something like that).
Leave a little more space and you won't need as many clutch actions. Also, I often roll down hill on the overpass-underpass routes in neutral. Clutch isn't that big of a deal. Also, you can keep it a gear lower/higher (depending on your usage) than "ideal" and rev a little higher but not need to shift as often.
Name one. I tried in 3 post 2000 cars (one 2013 model) and all shut off just fine with the gear in drive. Of course, you have to put it in Park to get the key out, but it stopped when I turned the key.
I know of plenty of people that have had key failures. The habit of hanging keys on a common chain, adding weight is known to cause ignition failures.
One would presume that a button would be cheaper, lighter, and more robust than a collection of mechanical parts in an ignition switch. Thus the "new" *is* progress.
I don't think that will work as an example. Part of the point I was trying to make is defining politeness is hard. In your example, is it a "polite society" when people who don't fit in are being threatened with violence? I wouldn't say so.
I bought a 128GB USB stick for under $50. Why buy blanks when I can use a stick that holds much much more and can sneakernet it around?
We've come back to sneakernets. It's safer than P2P and my TV, stereo, and media players will all play most video formats directly from USB, so I don't need a PC to have a HTPC. Put files on a drive, play directly. That's why disks are dying. They are small, slow, and expensive.
If you've never played baseball before and you have to catch a high fly ball before it bonks you off the forehead, well, since you have no practice, your first guess at the motion of the ball will likely be wrong, and it may take you too long to figure it out, so you won't catch it. instead you will go home with a lump in your head. oops.
No, it won't hit you in the head. It'll land 30 feet behind you. The ball will "appear" slower because it's far away, but because binocular vision is mostly useless for gauging distance over 20-30 feet, your brain will think it's much closer than it is, and tell you to run towards the ball. The ball will sail over your head before you have time to react.
Why yes, I do clearly remember learning to catch high fly balls around 35 years ago. I also remember one I caught in a game where I ran in, then corrected and was running out at full speed, tracking it with perephrial vision over my right shoulder and made a jumping/twisting over-the-shoulder catch about 10 feet from the fence. Made the throw to second from there, getting a double play. Nobody on the field thought I'd come up with it, so the runner ran and didn't come back until my throw was in the air and it beat him.