Here you have the US Congress trying to create a law, that would require a privately and voluntarily created video game rating board, to play through the entire game before rating it, when Congress doesn't even bother to read the entirety, or even a majority of the bills they vote on.
What a barrel of crude oil makes (Product Gallons per Barrel) Gasoline 19.4, Distillate Fuel Oil 9.7(Includes both home heating oil and diesel fuel), Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel 4.3, Coke 2.0, Residual Fuel Oil 1.9(Heavy oils used as fuels in industry, marine transportation, and for electric power generation), Liquefied Refinery Gases 1.9, Still Gas 1.8, Asphalt and Road Oil 1.4, Petrochemical Feedstocks 1.1, Lubricants 0.5, Kerosene 0.2, Other 0.4
Looking at only the gas portion and ignoring taxes and refining costs, at $20 per gallon, a barrel would bring in $388. Including taxes, costs, and the value of the other fuels, a barrel would likely have to get well above $600 for gas prices to actually hit $20.
The exception is if our government decides it wants gas to be more expensive and people agree with it, for the children.
For the US to get above $5 in the next 5 years, it would take a major disruption in the oil industry (2X Katrina), war, or government intervention (taxes).
"I live in the USA, and I welcome a higher gas tax and higher gas prices, so long as that money is going to research and road maintenance instead of lining someone's pockets. Even though higher gas prices aren't hurting me substantially, I miss the days when $10 (USD) would get me 330 miles."
Glad to hear that. As a politician, it is comforting to see that there are still members of the public that want to pay more in taxes. I'll get working on this right away.
I like your idea of spending the money on road maintenance. That seems to be a common complaint from my constituents, and I have a cousin that is looking for some new contracts. He's had a tough time with his low 7 figure salary after we started diverting the taxes you already pay for road maintenance to other things. As always, thanks for the support.
It would be even nicer if the money was never spent. It's not like the money needs to be spent or it burns up and is lost. The federal government is consistently spending more money than it takes in. When the government boasts of being over budget, it really means that they haven't overspent as much as they had planned originally. And that is a rare occurrence.
If we had the exact same budget as we had in 2000, the income tax could be eliminated. With no VAT and no income tax, and maybe a little more freedom, where do you think the most productive, innovative, and mobile people in the world would want to live? Then, what do you think we could accomplish?
Governments spending is often just a check against other government spending and regulations. That 300 billion, like a few other 300 billion, would be much better utilized in the hands of private citizens.
"How much could we save by switching to silver? I suppose after the collapse of the photographic film industry, it may no longer be quite such a precious metal."
Silver has gone up in price considerably over the last couple of years, similar to what has happened to gold. I just checked the commodity prices:
Gold $651 per troy ounce Silver $12.73 per troy ounce Copper $3.82 per pound
Copper is still considerably cheaper than silver. It wouldn't make sense to change the distribution system when the costs would far exceed to costs of the power losses.
This is the same reason why masses of people do not drive Honda Insights, Toyota Priuses, or have solar power on their houses. It's cheaper to buy power from the power company and continue to pay more for gas on a gas guzzler than take on a new vehicle payment.
When the economics change, so will peoples preferences.
Funny, I was looking at webcams today, and find it annoying that they all have nearly the same specs for video. The same thing goes for digital cameras.
This will be a selling point for video, even if it is not top quality for still images.
No matter what Sony charges, they will sell all their initial inventory. The hype and the scarcity will increase demand for their product.
Once all the initial units are sold, they may choose to release a non BD version, that is much cheaper. At that point, the market is already seeded with BD players. While they may not have the console marketshare anymore, they will have the HD player market advantage, from the initial must buy consumers. Having the first 500,000 to 1 million players will be a huge advantage. The console market could always catch up with a non-BD version, or a more heavily subsidized one. Of course, they'll probably screw it up anyways.
I'm just glad I don't live in the UK. Maybe it is part of the drivers training in California, but I see people talk on the phone while driving all the time. And I even talk on the phone while driving, although not very often.
I have seen many accidents in my life, and don't understand what is more evil about a cellphone over smoking, eating, drinking, changing the radio station, smacking your bratty kids in the back seat, giving someone the bird, talking on a CB radio, etc.
I think that cell phones are just a target because they are largely a youth and middle aged phenomenon, and something has to be responsible, old people are crabby, and tend to vote more than youth.
I was in a car a few years back with my aunt, who was infuriated over a driver talking on her cell phone. She asked me, "Doesn't that just make you mad."
No. There are bad drivers all around. There are many different behaviors we partake in that affect our personal risk. Not everybody is as skilled and conscious as the next person and it is wrong to single out talking on the cell phone while not concidering other risk factors. Maybe the person on the phone is a great driver, even while talking on the phone. While there are other drivers that are crappy, even when they give driving their undivided attention.
Then you should choose to fly with the ID checking airlines, while other choose to fly with the non-checking airlines. Unfortunately, we don't have this choice.
I would much rather travel on an airline that focuses on measures that are actually effective in achieving their goal of keeping people safe. Bomb sniffers, metal detectors, and luggage screening do more than checking ID.
And I would rather travel on an airline that does not have this unnecessary TAX on it.
I also ordered from butterfly photo. They called back to offer accessories and a warranty and to confirm my order. I actually haggled with the guy online and got him to match the best price online I had seen for a spare extended life battery.
I received the camera and extended life battery shortly after. Good experience for me.
It's due to the competition that we are not stuck with escalating costs and diminishing service.
For a long time, the cable company had a monopoly on premium service to deliver viewing content. Sure, there is free over the air TV, but even that isn't free...you pay by watching the commercials (and it is still a private for profit business). People kept complaining that cable prices kept going up, much faster than inflation, and they weren't offering anything more. Choices were limited.
Then came the satellite networks. Now we can choose between cable, Dish, DirecTV, and Voom. Netflix has also changed the market.
Internet access is the same. You can choose between a number of DSL companies, cable modem, satellite, dialup, and soon service over power lines. Prices have also been dropping and speed has been increasing. That is the market. If there is a demand, it will be met, provided the government does not over regulate, restrict, or otherwise impede it from working.
Frankly, if we could get our fair share of royalties for letting all the oil/gas be mined on and off our coast...get the 40%-50% that other states do when natural resources like oil are harvested (many interior states)...revenue that we've not had, but, should have for years...we could easily take care of ourselves and build a system that would make Holland blush. It is money that is ours, and should be ours...but, we can't seem to get it out of congress
While I feel for the people that have lost their homes, I don't understand why people feel justified in robbing and looting others to pay for their misfortune. You state the it is YOUR money. Mineral rights are bought and sold like any other property. Retroactively changing the terms would be akin to theft by beauracracy.
The whole FEMA thing is another issue...they should either set the standards ASAP, or better yet, get out of the insurance business and let private institutions set their own standards. I had to trim a tree back to be compliant with my homeowners insurance policy. It only makes sense that private insurance companies would charge more for greater risks, but would also pass the savings on to those that build with lower risk of catostrophic loss.
The tax cuts Californians voted for, if you are referring to Proposition 13, were in response to a growing trend in the legislature to continuously raise property taxes. While not perfect, prop 13 set a limit on the pecentage that can be assessed on property taxes, and the rate at which the taxes may be raised.
While govt. spending is not also checked, the people sent an important message to the government legislature, and achieved a goal wideshared by the people.
The spending is a completely separate issue. Education spending does make up a majority of all California tax expenditures, but it is not the only thing. Hopefully, people in California will wake up and realize that spending more does not deliver any better education. And hopefully some day Californians will rebel against out taxandspendislature, and pass a constitutional amendment limiting spending like Colorado, or what Nevada (even better) is currently pondering.
In the meantime, I'd settle for any form of fiscal responsibility limiting spending, even if education doesn't take a cut.
I know there would be change - but I don't automatically assume the chane will have a net negative effect...hence my comment on changing the ocean level by 5 or 10 feet. While some areas would lose land (undesirable if you live there), others would gain beachfront land. Some deserts may even become beach front locations, or be able to grow crops they never have been able to before.
I'd like to hear more about the net effect (the good and the bad), without assuming that any change should be resisted, regardless of the $ cost.
BTW - I liked The Day After Tomorrow - but don't consider it a credible source:)
I have to ask the same question...what is it with people that are so willing to accept global warming as a human created phenomenon? Where is the evidence?
Prior to enacting laws and restrictions that cost our economy hundreds of billions of dollars (trillions over time), I'd like to know that not only is this not a natural cyclic phenomenon, but that 1) The proposed changes will actually make a difference; and 2) That global warming is BAD for us.
I have never heard an argument about why raising the temperature a few degrees is actually bad, and I'm not talking about raising sea level 5 or 10 feet. Don't more plants grow if the climate is warmer?
Also, why do pro environmental climatologists exclude data that does not fit their model, and overemphasize data that does? Ever heard of the hockey stick and the BS surrounding it? What about the medieval warm period? Notice how most of the historic temp graphs don't cover pre 1500 AD. Also, notice how the climatologists have flipped since the 70's, when we were headed for an ice age. Should we have burnt more fossil fuels then and turned on our heaters 24/7?
I'm all for wait and gather more data, then decide the best course of action for the results we want to achieve. And my SUV gets 15mpg, but I rarely drive it because I DO pay more than most people, every time I fill up the tank.
How much of you and your childs future (economically) are you willing to gamble on the scientists and big check writing politicians being wrong?
"From your question, it appears that you have never studied science, but letting that go, I always have to wonder about what it is with people that seem so resistant to the idea of global warming. After all, what is it that you are objecting to? Not being able to drive your 9MPG SUV without having to pay more?
Lemme ask you this: How much of your future and your children's future are you willing to gamble on all us scientists being wrong?"
I wholeheartedly agree. Things need to change. Now is the opportunity with over 200,000 people that identify themselves as libertarian, and approximately 20,000 that are members of the Libertarian Party (dues paying). Of the 20,000 registered members, a much more vocal minority has swayed party platform and political tactics to the detriment of a cause many of us (all party affiliations) believe in, smaller government.
Is it difficult to set up better public transportation in the US?
Yes. US consumers have had cheap gas so long, the effects (sprawling metro areas, big box stores) make it much harder to construct a transit system that people will use. (They'll want other people to use it so that the roads become clearer for *them*.)
Also, most other countries are smaller than the US. Amtrak has been a disaster in part because the notion of a nationwide passenger rail company does not fit well when much of the population is concentrated on near coasts thousands of miles apart.
I think it's possible to set up better public transportation -- but it requires a lot of zoning changes, support for biking and walking paths, and some innovative pricing of road use (somehow make them more expensive) and transit use (make sure it's cheap or free). And don't even *think* about passenger rail -- a fixed infrastructure (track) in a flexible world isn't the best idea.
As the price of oil rises, people will adapt. It's just unfortunate that because of the lack of foresight, many people will end up in trouble because the economy will suffer for a while, and a recession plus higher gas prices would hit the working poor the hardest
---
but I must have clicked on the wrong post, because it did not attach my post beneath the original as I had intended. My point was central planning often has unintended consequences, and I worry whenever people talk about the virtues of rezoning and fixing an area by pumping in money or providing other taxpayer subsidies. The comment "make sure it's cheap or free" means someone else pays for your free ride, the system is not accountable, and thus will inherrently be inefficient.
"Your link doesn't seem to work, but it would be great if they could work out one cell phone standard so my european phone would work in the US too. The UN seems a perfect body to come up with something like that."
Actually, there are even multiple standards in the U.S. And that is the way it should be. The competition will foster improving standards and better prices, which benefits consumers. If there was a real market and consumer demand for interoperability - without government regulation and intervention - it would already exist.
BTW - My phone will work in Europe, and it works in the U.S. Maybe you didn't buy the right phone?
I find your post disturbing. It wreaks of central planning and socialism. It can hurt the local economy as a sinkhole for public monies, causing a more expensive standard of living and decreasing economic prosperity. You talk of the poor suffering economically, however your ideas would help make that a reality.
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article.php/628. html
"When has a PvP MMORPG been successfully balanced?"
I have one example - Neverwinter Nights. The single player original campaign and expansions were fun to play with multiple character class combinations.
As a multiplayer, it is very much the same. The design is simple - they developed (based on 3E DnD) a system that allows combination of character classes, where abilites from each of the classes are accrued as one levels up in a manner that makes sense and preserves balance. Think the rogues have it too good? take a level or two.
The system works because you are not pigeonholed into a single progression path and there is no right way.
This is quite evident on a PVP server I play on, Bastions of War. They did a little tweaking, but there are so many combos that work - all with strenghts and weaknesses - think rock, paper, scissors.
The other thing that makes it work is that persistent NWN worlds are fan based, not for profit. The motivation is prestige and fun, not persistent subscriptions. There is also more than one style of world, and if you don't like the individual world modifications - move to a new game world. There are 1000's to choose from. Players have a choice, unlike typical MMORPGs.
This is the first time I noticed this, but the standard for conviction is considerably lower in England than in the U.S. To be found guilty in the U.S., the conviction must be unanimous 12-0. The two charges that stuck were both decided 10-2 and the article I read implied that a majority was all that was needed.
It also seems that the burden is much higher in England than in the U.S. to use self defense.
The guy should have been convicted of weapons charges, period. Yet he was never charged with that offence. The burglars got what they deserved. What should he have done, in the middle of the night, with 3 burglars having broken in, without lighting to see the burglars, without knowing how many, if they were armed, if they intended to harm him? I think he did the right thing. Was the man a paranoid loon? It isn't paranoia when they really are out to get you. He obviously knew, as many in England do, that the police are less and less empowered to protect people. The criminals know this. The fact that 3 men broke into an occupied home at night shows the guy, while a bit strange, was not paranoid. He was dead right. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. In this case, they tried, and he was able to protect himself and his property. If the criminals, on their combined 114 previous convictions were in jail, this never would have happened.
I agree with this : Look, I've already been subjected to the security gropefest a couple times. I'd take the X-ray *any* day over that. In my mind, this is a restoration of some of my rights... I don't have to worry about being fondled.
However, I would take it a step further. Since the stated, and court supported true intent is to keep weapons off of planes, there should be no need for ID checks at all. Bomb detectors, XRAY for the luggage, and these new detectors for people should be enough to keep us safe. I'd also put a barrier between the people who are monitoring and the people who see the actual person. If there is an issue, they can alert the people in the screening line to hold someone. This should alieve some of the privacy concerns.
"It (as always) is going to come down to the games. "
I disagree with this. It will also come down to the features. Either console will have great games. If the PS3 doesn't have wireless controllers, will not support a keyboard/mouse, is not 802.11X ready, cannot interact with your PC as a media center extender for pictures, music, and movies - AND XBOX 360 can, that may make the difference that will convince people to pay a premium price above the current new system price point. Of course the PS3 is supposed to support blu-ray dvd, which is another feature that may be taken into consideration in the overall value of the new system.
Slashdot Mirror
Here you have the US Congress trying to create a law, that would require a privately and voluntarily created video game rating board, to play through the entire game before rating it, when Congress doesn't even bother to read the entirety, or even a majority of the bills they vote on.
Don't expect $20/gallon gas anytime soon.
What a barrel of crude oil makes (Product Gallons per Barrel)
Gasoline 19.4, Distillate Fuel Oil 9.7(Includes both home heating oil and diesel fuel), Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel 4.3, Coke 2.0, Residual Fuel Oil 1.9(Heavy oils used as fuels in industry, marine transportation, and for electric power generation), Liquefied Refinery Gases 1.9, Still Gas 1.8, Asphalt and Road Oil 1.4, Petrochemical Feedstocks 1.1,
Lubricants 0.5, Kerosene 0.2, Other 0.4
Looking at only the gas portion and ignoring taxes and refining costs, at $20 per gallon, a barrel would bring in $388. Including taxes, costs, and the value of the other fuels, a barrel would likely have to get well above $600 for gas prices to actually hit $20.
The exception is if our government decides it wants gas to be more expensive and people agree with it, for the children.
For the US to get above $5 in the next 5 years, it would take a major disruption in the oil industry (2X Katrina), war, or government intervention (taxes).
"I live in the USA, and I welcome a higher gas tax and higher gas prices, so long as that money is going to research and road maintenance instead of lining someone's pockets. Even though higher gas prices aren't hurting me substantially, I miss the days when $10 (USD) would get me 330 miles."
Glad to hear that. As a politician, it is comforting to see that there are still members of the public that want to pay more in taxes. I'll get working on this right away.
I like your idea of spending the money on road maintenance. That seems to be a common complaint from my constituents, and I have a cousin that is looking for some new contracts. He's had a tough time with his low 7 figure salary after we started diverting the taxes you already pay for road maintenance to other things. As always, thanks for the support.
There is also a difference between how people view voluntary and involuntary cooperation.
Government coerces and indoctrinates us to accept involuntary cooperation. Perhaps that is the root of some of the violence in the world - government?
It would be even nicer if the money was never spent. It's not like the money needs to be spent or it burns up and is lost. The federal government is consistently spending more money than it takes in. When the government boasts of being over budget, it really means that they haven't overspent as much as they had planned originally. And that is a rare occurrence.
If we had the exact same budget as we had in 2000, the income tax could be eliminated. With no VAT and no income tax, and maybe a little more freedom, where do you think the most productive, innovative, and mobile people in the world would want to live? Then, what do you think we could accomplish?
Governments spending is often just a check against other government spending and regulations. That 300 billion, like a few other 300 billion, would be much better utilized in the hands of private citizens.
"How much could we save by switching to silver? I suppose after the collapse of the photographic film industry, it may no longer be quite such a precious metal."
Silver has gone up in price considerably over the last couple of years, similar to what has happened to gold. I just checked the commodity prices:
Gold $651 per troy ounce
Silver $12.73 per troy ounce
Copper $3.82 per pound
Copper is still considerably cheaper than silver. It wouldn't make sense to change the distribution system when the costs would far exceed to costs of the power losses.
This is the same reason why masses of people do not drive Honda Insights, Toyota Priuses, or have solar power on their houses. It's cheaper to buy power from the power company and continue to pay more for gas on a gas guzzler than take on a new vehicle payment.
When the economics change, so will peoples preferences.
Funny, I was looking at webcams today, and find it annoying that they all have nearly the same specs for video. The same thing goes for digital cameras.
This will be a selling point for video, even if it is not top quality for still images.
No matter what Sony charges, they will sell all their initial inventory. The hype and the scarcity will increase demand for their product.
Once all the initial units are sold, they may choose to release a non BD version, that is much cheaper. At that point, the market is already seeded with BD players. While they may not have the console marketshare anymore, they will have the HD player market advantage, from the initial must buy consumers. Having the first 500,000 to 1 million players will be a huge advantage. The console market could always catch up with a non-BD version, or a more heavily subsidized one. Of course, they'll probably screw it up anyways.
I'm just glad I don't live in the UK. Maybe it is part of the drivers training in California, but I see people talk on the phone while driving all the time. And I even talk on the phone while driving, although not very often.
I have seen many accidents in my life, and don't understand what is more evil about a cellphone over smoking, eating, drinking, changing the radio station, smacking your bratty kids in the back seat, giving someone the bird, talking on a CB radio, etc.
I think that cell phones are just a target because they are largely a youth and middle aged phenomenon, and something has to be responsible, old people are crabby, and tend to vote more than youth.
I was in a car a few years back with my aunt, who was infuriated over a driver talking on her cell phone. She asked me, "Doesn't that just make you mad."
No. There are bad drivers all around. There are many different behaviors we partake in that affect our personal risk. Not everybody is as skilled and conscious as the next person and it is wrong to single out talking on the cell phone while not concidering other risk factors. Maybe the person on the phone is a great driver, even while talking on the phone. While there are other drivers that are crappy, even when they give driving their undivided attention.
Or a copy of the fourth Reicht, signed by G.W.
Then you should choose to fly with the ID checking airlines, while other choose to fly with the non-checking airlines. Unfortunately, we don't have this choice.
I would much rather travel on an airline that focuses on measures that are actually effective in achieving their goal of keeping people safe. Bomb sniffers, metal detectors, and luggage screening do more than checking ID.
And I would rather travel on an airline that does not have this unnecessary TAX on it.
I also ordered from butterfly photo. They called back to offer accessories and a warranty and to confirm my order. I actually haggled with the guy online and got him to match the best price online I had seen for a spare extended life battery.
I received the camera and extended life battery shortly after. Good experience for me.
It's due to the competition that we are not stuck with escalating costs and diminishing service.
For a long time, the cable company had a monopoly on premium service to deliver viewing content. Sure, there is free over the air TV, but even that isn't free...you pay by watching the commercials (and it is still a private for profit business). People kept complaining that cable prices kept going up, much faster than inflation, and they weren't offering anything more. Choices were limited.
Then came the satellite networks. Now we can choose between cable, Dish, DirecTV, and Voom. Netflix has also changed the market.
Internet access is the same. You can choose between a number of DSL companies, cable modem, satellite, dialup, and soon service over power lines. Prices have also been dropping and speed has been increasing. That is the market. If there is a demand, it will be met, provided the government does not over regulate, restrict, or otherwise impede it from working.
While I feel for the people that have lost their homes, I don't understand why people feel justified in robbing and looting others to pay for their misfortune. You state the it is YOUR money. Mineral rights are bought and sold like any other property. Retroactively changing the terms would be akin to theft by beauracracy. The whole FEMA thing is another issue...they should either set the standards ASAP, or better yet, get out of the insurance business and let private institutions set their own standards. I had to trim a tree back to be compliant with my homeowners insurance policy. It only makes sense that private insurance companies would charge more for greater risks, but would also pass the savings on to those that build with lower risk of catostrophic loss.
The tax cuts Californians voted for, if you are referring to Proposition 13, were in response to a growing trend in the legislature to continuously raise property taxes. While not perfect, prop 13 set a limit on the pecentage that can be assessed on property taxes, and the rate at which the taxes may be raised.
While govt. spending is not also checked, the people sent an important message to the government legislature, and achieved a goal wideshared by the people.
The spending is a completely separate issue. Education spending does make up a majority of all California tax expenditures, but it is not the only thing. Hopefully, people in California will wake up and realize that spending more does not deliver any better education. And hopefully some day Californians will rebel against out taxandspendislature, and pass a constitutional amendment limiting spending like Colorado, or what Nevada (even better) is currently pondering.
In the meantime, I'd settle for any form of fiscal responsibility limiting spending, even if education doesn't take a cut.
I should have clarified...
:)
I know there would be change - but I don't automatically assume the chane will have a net negative effect...hence my comment on changing the ocean level by 5 or 10 feet. While some areas would lose land (undesirable if you live there), others would gain beachfront land. Some deserts may even become beach front locations, or be able to grow crops they never have been able to before.
I'd like to hear more about the net effect (the good and the bad), without assuming that any change should be resisted, regardless of the $ cost.
BTW - I liked The Day After Tomorrow - but don't consider it a credible source
I have to ask the same question...what is it with people that are so willing to accept global warming as a human created phenomenon? Where is the evidence?
Prior to enacting laws and restrictions that cost our economy hundreds of billions of dollars (trillions over time), I'd like to know that not only is this not a natural cyclic phenomenon, but that 1) The proposed changes will actually make a difference; and 2) That global warming is BAD for us.
I have never heard an argument about why raising the temperature a few degrees is actually bad, and I'm not talking about raising sea level 5 or 10 feet. Don't more plants grow if the climate is warmer?
Also, why do pro environmental climatologists exclude data that does not fit their model, and overemphasize data that does? Ever heard of the hockey stick and the BS surrounding it? What about the medieval warm period? Notice how most of the historic temp graphs don't cover pre 1500 AD. Also, notice how the climatologists have flipped since the 70's, when we were headed for an ice age. Should we have burnt more fossil fuels then and turned on our heaters 24/7?
I'm all for wait and gather more data, then decide the best course of action for the results we want to achieve. And my SUV gets 15mpg, but I rarely drive it because I DO pay more than most people, every time I fill up the tank.
How much of you and your childs future (economically) are you willing to gamble on the scientists and big check writing politicians being wrong?
"From your question, it appears that you have never studied science, but letting that go, I always have to wonder about what it is with people that seem so resistant to the idea of global warming. After all, what is it that you are objecting to? Not being able to drive your 9MPG SUV without having to pay more?
Lemme ask you this: How much of your future and your children's future are you willing to gamble on all us scientists being wrong?"
I wholeheartedly agree. Things need to change. Now is the opportunity with over 200,000 people that identify themselves as libertarian, and approximately 20,000 that are members of the Libertarian Party (dues paying). Of the 20,000 registered members, a much more vocal minority has swayed party platform and political tactics to the detriment of a cause many of us (all party affiliations) believe in, smaller government.
http://www.reformthelp.org/home/intro/
Check out this link. I have hope. With support, the opportunity to reform the LP into an effective party is a real possibility.
I was replying to this:
Is it difficult to set up better public transportation in the US?
Yes. US consumers have had cheap gas so long, the effects (sprawling metro areas, big box stores) make it much harder to construct a transit system that people will use. (They'll want other people to use it so that the roads become clearer for *them*.)
Also, most other countries are smaller than the US. Amtrak has been a disaster in part because the notion of a nationwide passenger rail company does not fit well when much of the population is concentrated on near coasts thousands of miles apart.
I think it's possible to set up better public transportation -- but it requires a lot of zoning changes, support for biking and walking paths, and some innovative pricing of road use (somehow make them more expensive) and transit use (make sure it's cheap or free). And don't even *think* about passenger rail -- a fixed infrastructure (track) in a flexible world isn't the best idea.
As the price of oil rises, people will adapt. It's just unfortunate that because of the lack of foresight, many people will end up in trouble because the economy will suffer for a while, and a recession plus higher gas prices would hit the working poor the hardest
---
but I must have clicked on the wrong post, because it did not attach my post beneath the original as I had intended. My point was central planning often has unintended consequences, and I worry whenever people talk about the virtues of rezoning and fixing an area by pumping in money or providing other taxpayer subsidies. The comment "make sure it's cheap or free" means someone else pays for your free ride, the system is not accountable, and thus will inherrently be inefficient.
"Your link doesn't seem to work, but it would be great if they could work out one cell phone standard so my european phone would work in the US too. The UN seems a perfect body to come up with something like that."
Actually, there are even multiple standards in the U.S. And that is the way it should be. The competition will foster improving standards and better prices, which benefits consumers. If there was a real market and consumer demand for interoperability - without government regulation and intervention - it would already exist.
BTW - My phone will work in Europe, and it works in the U.S. Maybe you didn't buy the right phone?
I find your post disturbing. It wreaks of central planning and socialism. It can hurt the local economy as a sinkhole for public monies, causing a more expensive standard of living and decreasing economic prosperity. You talk of the poor suffering economically, however your ideas would help make that a reality. http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article.php/628. html
"When has a PvP MMORPG been successfully balanced?"
I have one example - Neverwinter Nights. The single player original campaign and expansions were fun to play with multiple character class combinations.
As a multiplayer, it is very much the same. The design is simple - they developed (based on 3E DnD) a system that allows combination of character classes, where abilites from each of the classes are accrued as one levels up in a manner that makes sense and preserves balance. Think the rogues have it too good? take a level or two.
The system works because you are not pigeonholed into a single progression path and there is no right way.
This is quite evident on a PVP server I play on, Bastions of War. They did a little tweaking, but there are so many combos that work - all with strenghts and weaknesses - think rock, paper, scissors.
The other thing that makes it work is that persistent NWN worlds are fan based, not for profit. The motivation is prestige and fun, not persistent subscriptions. There is also more than one style of world, and if you don't like the individual world modifications - move to a new game world. There are 1000's to choose from. Players have a choice, unlike typical MMORPGs.
This is the first time I noticed this, but the standard for conviction is considerably lower in England than in the U.S. To be found guilty in the U.S., the conviction must be unanimous 12-0. The two charges that stuck were both decided 10-2 and the article I read implied that a majority was all that was needed.
It also seems that the burden is much higher in England than in the U.S. to use self defense.
The guy should have been convicted of weapons charges, period. Yet he was never charged with that offence. The burglars got what they deserved. What should he have done, in the middle of the night, with 3 burglars having broken in, without lighting to see the burglars, without knowing how many, if they were armed, if they intended to harm him? I think he did the right thing. Was the man a paranoid loon? It isn't paranoia when they really are out to get you. He obviously knew, as many in England do, that the police are less and less empowered to protect people. The criminals know this. The fact that 3 men broke into an occupied home at night shows the guy, while a bit strange, was not paranoid. He was dead right. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. In this case, they tried, and he was able to protect himself and his property. If the criminals, on their combined 114 previous convictions were in jail, this never would have happened.
I agree with this : Look, I've already been subjected to the security gropefest a couple times. I'd take the X-ray *any* day over that. In my mind, this is a restoration of some of my rights ... I don't have to worry about being fondled.
However, I would take it a step further. Since the stated, and court supported true intent is to keep weapons off of planes, there should be no need for ID checks at all. Bomb detectors, XRAY for the luggage, and these new detectors for people should be enough to keep us safe. I'd also put a barrier between the people who are monitoring and the people who see the actual person. If there is an issue, they can alert the people in the screening line to hold someone. This should alieve some of the privacy concerns.
"It (as always) is going to come down to the games. "
I disagree with this. It will also come down to the features. Either console will have great games. If the PS3 doesn't have wireless controllers, will not support a keyboard/mouse, is not 802.11X ready, cannot interact with your PC as a media center extender for pictures, music, and movies - AND XBOX 360 can, that may make the difference that will convince people to pay a premium price above the current new system price point. Of course the PS3 is supposed to support blu-ray dvd, which is another feature that may be taken into consideration in the overall value of the new system.