Well said, and I would like to think that the EPA works as well in this case as it seems to have done at your plant.
Maybe you're thinking of a different EPA because the one I know of said the air was good to breath in NYC after 911. The head of the EPA then, Christine Todd Whitman said it was safe to breath although toxins were in the air. And exactly how many of the Superfund sites have been cleaned up?
So, according to this, in the UK they pay the equivalent of 9 or 10 USD / gallon. Oh my!
Gas prices in the US are probably amoung the lowest in the world. Besides pumping a little ourself the US has low tax on fuel. That gas price in the UK includes a high tax. I'd support higher tax on fuel but only if the money was used to research renewable sources of fuel and energy, such as funding research into the use of algea to produce hydrogen.
When "alternative" renewable energy sources like hydrogen (I know it's a carrier not an energy source), solar, and wind get the same amount of subsidies as nuclear power then I may support it. That or subsidies are ended. Without subsidies there isn't a profit making business that would build and operate a nuclear power plant, they'd have to get insurance but no insurance company would insure them without astronomical premiums.
Good point unfortunately. If now in the US companies have to deal with stringent environmental regulations and in China they can pollute and get away with it, that's one more reason to close US plants and open plants in China.
Ya but now the Chinese are learning what it means to allow businesses to pollute. They are finding out heathcare costs, which the government pays, are going up. China just executed Fuchsia Dunlop, who was responsible for ensuring the safety of China's food and drugs for not doing his job. And now this: China's environment chief on Thursday unveiled a set of tough new rules to tackle worsening lake pollution while lambasting the country's "bumpkin policies" that encouraged local officials to turn a blind eye to environmental hazards."
What does having 80 more jobs means when the pollution causes millions in healthcare costs? On the other hand if BP were required to meet environmental standards then thye'd have to create even more jobs in order to still stay in business. If BP is allowed to do this I wouldn't be supprised if taxpayers have another Love Canal, have to clean up another Suderfund cleanup, or GE's cleanup of Hudson River.
America was a downright isolationist place at one time, and a lot of us liked it that way. It was how the Founders wanted us to be... free and independent. Then we started heavy trade with the rest of the world... and look where we are now.
I think you're mixed up some. It was in part because of trade the colonists threw a party in Boston Harbor and revolted. King George demanded all trade in the colonies be taxed, even that tea from India. Like the English back home the colonists loved tea, and they weren't going to stand for it to be taxed.
I'd rather work for a crappy, inefficient protected industry than not work at all, which is the direction we're heading with this "global economy". I mean, if you're a First-World nation that is just itching to achieve Third-World status, why, Free Trade is a marvelous idea.
As I told someone else previously, that IS NOT freetrade.
Personally, I'd say a little "protectionism" is long overdue, although it is likely far too late.
Protectionism is part of the problem, you as much as admitted it yourself when you said "Jaapan doesn't want to buy anything but raw materials from anyone else, period (so much for free trade), whereas China is perfectly happy to have you come and set up shop there, so long as you partner with a Chinese company and make them a gift of all your hard-won technology and manufacturing technique." Neither what the Japanese nor the Chinese do is freetrade. Under free trade a US company would be able to sale finished products in Japan without having to pay a bribe or tax. The same company would be able to setup shop in China building products without being required to partner with a Chinese business. That company could even make the product in China and then sale it in Japan.
NAFTA and free trade in general is pretty damn stupid.
NAFTA IS NOT freetrade. Anyone who things they are the same is wrong. NAFTA is all about government interference in trade whereas free trade is little if any government interference in trade.
Illegal workers are mostly a problem caused by making it difficult for workers to work legally
While I agree with the sentiment I'd also add that there would not be as many Mexicans trying to get into the US if NAFTA weren't so bad. According to NAFTA, with billions in taxpayer subsidies US agribusinesses can export to Mexico and sale food cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow food on farms there. When they can't make a living on farms Mexican farmers will head north.
Foreign workers seldom are in a position to demand goods and services from the US.
Actually immigrants are in pretty good positions to demand goods and services, many immigrants actually send, remit, a lot of money to relatives where they came from. Immigrants in the US are also more likely to start businesses creating jobs than US citizens are going to start a business.
The Wal-Mart shopping ethic, and the free trade agreements that make it possible, is killing us like a snake eating it's own tail.
If what's good? The Oil Sands in Alberta? This oil is bad. Not only is it a heavy oil requiring more processing, it also needs a lot of water to separate the oil from the sand. And the water has to be converted to steam. Alberta's oil sands are energy and resource intensive.
Heck, they even refuse to stop ships from wherever from coming in and dumping bilge water contaminated with all sorts of invasive species into the lakes.
There is hope -- if the Republican candidates agreed with each other on anything during their most recent TV-debate, it was that we need to build (much) more nuclear stations. That should ease the strain considerably...
Nuclear power would have no effect on the demand for petroleum. The only way it could is if petro powered vehicles were replaced with EVs. But by powering EVs with nuclear power you're getting rid of one set of problems with another set of problems. Such as disposal of radioactive waste. The only way to really put a dent in pollution caused by petro is by cutting down on travel, commutes. Instead of spending an hour in gridlocked traffice to get to work, work where you can ride a bike from home. Encouraging Mixed-use development will do more than building more nuclear power stations.
In India companies like Coca Cola and Pepsi are pumping water out of the aquifers faster than it be replaced. Some this could mean there is no potable water left. No water? Drink Coke!.
The Patriot Act made it illegal to transfer bulk currency (over $10,000) without reporting it.
The requirement to report a finacial transaction of $10,00 or more was in the law books before the PATRIOT Act ever existed. It was one of those laws meant to fight money laundering.
You're talking to wrong person about so called "illegal aliens". If you do want to talk about them then what Native American Indian tribe are you from? If you're not Indian then you're an illegal alien. Those wanting to make it illegal to immigrate are no better than the Know Nothings who wanted to exclude the Irish from immigrating to the USA, or those who supported the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Is that seriously supposed to be an argument against the Patriot Act? Do you really consider the founding fathers "illegal aliens"?
No it was a response to the argument you brought up when you said "Increased border security provisions to help stop illegal aliens from entering the country, with added provisions for the Canadian border." I neither consider any of the Founding Fathers, nor any Mexican crossing the USA border an "illegal alien". And many of those Mexicans have ancesters who were here before the first Europeans settled in the Americas, the Mayans. There are even tribes living on both the Canadian and Mexican borders with the USA who have the right to live and work on either side of the border, such as the Tohono O'odham Nation in AZ. As for "border security" there wouldn't much if any concern for terrorists crossing the border if, one the US didn't act like a big bully or support dictators, and two the US didn't create or support terrorists to being with.
What if a writer only makes $4000 off a piece? Or even $1000? They loose their copyright because they can't afford to pay? Though some writers may make a lot, some even get hugh advances, many writers don't make much on each piece they write. For instance people who write articles for magazines. For first periodical publication rights a writer may only get a few hundred dollars per piece. They may be able to get another couple of hundred for second periodical rights. Then they may be able to get say a 5% royalty for combinating a series of articles published in book form.
If any on candidate would win in a one on one election against any (read all) other candidates, he is the condorcet winner, and must be elected.
The original method of electing the president and vp in the USA was something like this, though elimination rounds in chess tournaments is closer. Originally all candidates ran for president The electoral college would vote for president and after each vote the candidate with the lowest number of votes would be dropped from the ballot. Finally when there were only two candidates left the final vote would decide who was the president and who was the vice president. The 12th admendment changed it to how it is now.
That the founders of the United States were geniuses... or lucky bastards.
Had they truly been geniuses in the sense you suggest, they'd have specified the algorithm for determination of the copyright period, instead of just the value.
Though I don't know how he came up with it, Thomas Jefferson used an actuarial table to determine the length of tyme copyrights and patents should last, which was 14 years with one 14 year extension possible.
There really is a simple and elegant optimal solution that would be a huge boon for innovation, yet still serve the public interest: 1) Allow copyrights to be forever.
Having no tyme limit doesn't encourage creativity and innovation, it stiffles them. To encourage the creation process you want to encourage people to constantly create, which means putting a short tyme limit to both. Having a short term means a person has to constantly create to keep the money coming in. However with copyrights and patents lasting forever once a person creates something that sells well they never need to create again, financially. Also with a short tyme limit another person could then use what is out of copyright as a basis for creating another thing.
It ought to be illegal for a corporation (a made-up entity) to lobby the government. There ought to be a seperation of corporation and state clause in the consitution, because they're just as dangerous as church and state.
Yeap, Thomas Jefferson warned of corporate challenges to government:
"I hope we shall crush... in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Roving wiretaps were already allowed before the PATROIT Act. They were allowed as late as 1988.
Expanding the warrants that can be issued by a judge to include targets more specific to terrorism.
What, warrants couldn't of been used before the act?
Created new crimes related to money laundering and financing terrorism
Like need more laws making things illegal.
Permits the confiscation of the property of those convicted of participating in or planning a terror attack
HAHA!!! Like RICO couldn't have been used for this? If they can use it to pull over someone driving because they fit a profile then confiscate any money found then it should be usable for terrorism as well.
Increased border security provisions to help stop illegal aliens from entering the country, with added provisions for the Canadian border.
You're talking to wrong person about so called "illegal aliens". If you do want to talk about them then what Native American Indian tribe are you from? If you're not Indian then you're an illegal alien. Those wanting to make it illegal to immigrate are no better than the Know Nothings who wanted to exclude the Irish from immigrating to the USA, or those who supported the Chinese Exclusion Act.
If you really want to argue that the Patriot Act is "not needed", you need to specifically address which of these provisions you don't like
Such as searching book store and library records? What of sneak and peek search warrants? The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 was specifically setup so the president could get warrants after Nixon abused his office. Or being barred from talking about what you know like Sibel Edmonds was by a Gag order issued by the admin?
I agree in theory, but if the FCC didn't regulate the airwaves, then it would be too easy for your competition to just jam you. Or else, everyone would try to use the same frequencies and the end result would be that nobody could use anything.
Actually broadcasters, those who use the airwaves, would eventually come up with an agreement on how to alocate the airwaves. If there wasn't an agreement it would lead to an arms races driving their costs skyward which would bankrupt them. If I recall right IEEE's Spectrum had an article on this last year, I didn't find it online but it may just of been in print. They do have another article on The End of Spectrum Scarcity though. It goes over some of the same stuff.
Not what a bank manager was telling me the other day, so I asked him to explain himself and he could say "That's what IT security control says", in other words there is a million dollar company to sue if they wish (at a lawyers suggestion).
Just because there's someone who can be sued for a million dollars doesn't make anything any safer.
Slashdot Mirror
Well said, and I would like to think that the EPA works as well in this case as it seems to have done at your plant.
Maybe you're thinking of a different EPA because the one I know of said the air was good to breath in NYC after 911. The head of the EPA then, Christine Todd Whitman said it was safe to breath although toxins were in the air. And exactly how many of the Superfund sites have been cleaned up?
FalconSo, according to this, in the UK they pay the equivalent of 9 or 10 USD / gallon. Oh my!
Gas prices in the US are probably amoung the lowest in the world. Besides pumping a little ourself the US has low tax on fuel. That gas price in the UK includes a high tax. I'd support higher tax on fuel but only if the money was used to research renewable sources of fuel and energy, such as funding research into the use of algea to produce hydrogen.
FalconWhen "alternative" renewable energy sources like hydrogen (I know it's a carrier not an energy source), solar, and wind get the same amount of subsidies as nuclear power then I may support it. That or subsidies are ended. Without subsidies there isn't a profit making business that would build and operate a nuclear power plant, they'd have to get insurance but no insurance company would insure them without astronomical premiums.
FalconGood point unfortunately. If now in the US companies have to deal with stringent environmental regulations and in China they can pollute and get away with it, that's one more reason to close US plants and open plants in China.
Ya but now the Chinese are learning what it means to allow businesses to pollute. They are finding out heathcare costs, which the government pays, are going up. China just executed Fuchsia Dunlop, who was responsible for ensuring the safety of China's food and drugs for not doing his job. And now this: China's environment chief on Thursday unveiled a set of tough new rules to tackle worsening lake pollution while lambasting the country's "bumpkin policies" that encouraged local officials to turn a blind eye to environmental hazards."
FalconWhat does having 80 more jobs means when the pollution causes millions in healthcare costs? On the other hand if BP were required to meet environmental standards then thye'd have to create even more jobs in order to still stay in business. If BP is allowed to do this I wouldn't be supprised if taxpayers have another Love Canal, have to clean up another Suderfund cleanup, or GE's cleanup of Hudson River.
FalconNuclear power would have no effect on the demand for petroleum.
Well, not a big effect. But not "no effect", either.
All I see is a pie chart of energy sources, I see nothing about how nuclear power can replace petro.
FalconAmerica was a downright isolationist place at one time, and a lot of us liked it that way. It was how the Founders wanted us to be ... free and independent. Then we started heavy trade with the rest of the world ... and look where we are now.
I think you're mixed up some. It was in part because of trade the colonists threw a party in Boston Harbor and revolted. King George demanded all trade in the colonies be taxed, even that tea from India. Like the English back home the colonists loved tea, and they weren't going to stand for it to be taxed.
I'd rather work for a crappy, inefficient protected industry than not work at all, which is the direction we're heading with this "global economy". I mean, if you're a First-World nation that is just itching to achieve Third-World status, why, Free Trade is a marvelous idea.
As I told someone else previously, that IS NOT freetrade.
Personally, I'd say a little "protectionism" is long overdue, although it is likely far too late.
Protectionism is part of the problem, you as much as admitted it yourself when you said "Jaapan doesn't want to buy anything but raw materials from anyone else, period (so much for free trade), whereas China is perfectly happy to have you come and set up shop there, so long as you partner with a Chinese company and make them a gift of all your hard-won technology and manufacturing technique." Neither what the Japanese nor the Chinese do is freetrade. Under free trade a US company would be able to sale finished products in Japan without having to pay a bribe or tax. The same company would be able to setup shop in China building products without being required to partner with a Chinese business. That company could even make the product in China and then sale it in Japan.
FalconNAFTA and free trade in general is pretty damn stupid.
NAFTA IS NOT freetrade. Anyone who things they are the same is wrong. NAFTA is all about government interference in trade whereas free trade is little if any government interference in trade.
Illegal workers are mostly a problem caused by making it difficult for workers to work legally
While I agree with the sentiment I'd also add that there would not be as many Mexicans trying to get into the US if NAFTA weren't so bad. According to NAFTA, with billions in taxpayer subsidies US agribusinesses can export to Mexico and sale food cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow food on farms there. When they can't make a living on farms Mexican farmers will head north.
Foreign workers seldom are in a position to demand goods and services from the US.
Actually immigrants are in pretty good positions to demand goods and services, many immigrants actually send, remit, a lot of money to relatives where they came from. Immigrants in the US are also more likely to start businesses creating jobs than US citizens are going to start a business.
The Wal-Mart shopping ethic, and the free trade agreements that make it possible, is killing us like a snake eating it's own tail.
Once again that's not free trade.
FalconIf what's good? The Oil Sands in Alberta? This oil is bad. Not only is it a heavy oil requiring more processing, it also needs a lot of water to separate the oil from the sand. And the water has to be converted to steam. Alberta's oil sands are energy and resource intensive.
FalconHeck, they even refuse to stop ships from wherever from coming in and dumping bilge water contaminated with all sorts of invasive species into the lakes.
You mean like the Zebra mussle?
FalconThere is hope -- if the Republican candidates agreed with each other on anything during their most recent TV-debate, it was that we need to build (much) more nuclear stations. That should ease the strain considerably...
Nuclear power would have no effect on the demand for petroleum. The only way it could is if petro powered vehicles were replaced with EVs. But by powering EVs with nuclear power you're getting rid of one set of problems with another set of problems. Such as disposal of radioactive waste. The only way to really put a dent in pollution caused by petro is by cutting down on travel, commutes. Instead of spending an hour in gridlocked traffice to get to work, work where you can ride a bike from home. Encouraging Mixed-use development will do more than building more nuclear power stations.
FalconIn India companies like Coca Cola and Pepsi are pumping water out of the aquifers faster than it be replaced. Some this could mean there is no potable water left. No water? Drink Coke! .
FalconBig buisiness wins again against the environment and people's health.
FalconThe Patriot Act made it illegal to transfer bulk currency (over $10,000) without reporting it.
The requirement to report a finacial transaction of $10,00 or more was in the law books before the PATRIOT Act ever existed. It was one of those laws meant to fight money laundering.
You're talking to wrong person about so called "illegal aliens". If you do want to talk about them then what Native American Indian tribe are you from? If you're not Indian then you're an illegal alien. Those wanting to make it illegal to immigrate are no better than the Know Nothings who wanted to exclude the Irish from immigrating to the USA, or those who supported the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Is that seriously supposed to be an argument against the Patriot Act? Do you really consider the founding fathers "illegal aliens"?
No it was a response to the argument you brought up when you said "Increased border security provisions to help stop illegal aliens from entering the country, with added provisions for the Canadian border." I neither consider any of the Founding Fathers, nor any Mexican crossing the USA border an "illegal alien". And many of those Mexicans have ancesters who were here before the first Europeans settled in the Americas, the Mayans. There are even tribes living on both the Canadian and Mexican borders with the USA who have the right to live and work on either side of the border, such as the Tohono O'odham Nation in AZ. As for "border security" there wouldn't much if any concern for terrorists crossing the border if, one the US didn't act like a big bully or support dictators, and two the US didn't create or support terrorists to being with.
FalconWhat if a writer only makes $4000 off a piece? Or even $1000? They loose their copyright because they can't afford to pay? Though some writers may make a lot, some even get hugh advances, many writers don't make much on each piece they write. For instance people who write articles for magazines. For first periodical publication rights a writer may only get a few hundred dollars per piece. They may be able to get another couple of hundred for second periodical rights. Then they may be able to get say a 5% royalty for combinating a series of articles published in book form.
FalconIf any on candidate would win in a one on one election against any (read all) other candidates, he is the condorcet winner, and must be elected.
The original method of electing the president and vp in the USA was something like this, though elimination rounds in chess tournaments is closer. Originally all candidates ran for president The electoral college would vote for president and after each vote the candidate with the lowest number of votes would be dropped from the ballot. Finally when there were only two candidates left the final vote would decide who was the president and who was the vice president. The 12th admendment changed it to how it is now.
FalconThat the founders of the United States were geniuses... or lucky bastards.
Had they truly been geniuses in the sense you suggest, they'd have specified the algorithm for determination of the copyright period, instead of just the value.
Though I don't know how he came up with it, Thomas Jefferson used an actuarial table to determine the length of tyme copyrights and patents should last, which was 14 years with one 14 year extension possible.
FalconThere really is a simple and elegant optimal solution that would be a huge boon for innovation, yet still serve the public interest: 1) Allow copyrights to be forever.
Having no tyme limit doesn't encourage creativity and innovation, it stiffles them. To encourage the creation process you want to encourage people to constantly create, which means putting a short tyme limit to both. Having a short term means a person has to constantly create to keep the money coming in. However with copyrights and patents lasting forever once a person creates something that sells well they never need to create again, financially. Also with a short tyme limit another person could then use what is out of copyright as a basis for creating another thing.
FalconMaybe reserve an open chunk for directional antenna use only for fixed long-range wireless use?
No, no, no! I want roaming long range broadband wireless. I want to be able to have access while I'm out hiking so I can upload my photos.
FalconIt ought to be illegal for a corporation (a made-up entity) to lobby the government. There ought to be a seperation of corporation and state clause in the consitution, because they're just as dangerous as church and state.
Yeap, Thomas Jefferson warned of corporate challenges to government: ... in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Falcon"I hope we shall crush
roving wiretaps
Roving wiretaps were already allowed before the PATROIT Act. They were allowed as late as 1988.
Expanding the warrants that can be issued by a judge to include targets more specific to terrorism.
What, warrants couldn't of been used before the act?
Created new crimes related to money laundering and financing terrorism
Like need more laws making things illegal.
Permits the confiscation of the property of those convicted of participating in or planning a terror attack
HAHA!!! Like RICO couldn't have been used for this? If they can use it to pull over someone driving because they fit a profile then confiscate any money found then it should be usable for terrorism as well.
Increased border security provisions to help stop illegal aliens from entering the country, with added provisions for the Canadian border.
You're talking to wrong person about so called "illegal aliens". If you do want to talk about them then what Native American Indian tribe are you from? If you're not Indian then you're an illegal alien. Those wanting to make it illegal to immigrate are no better than the Know Nothings who wanted to exclude the Irish from immigrating to the USA, or those who supported the Chinese Exclusion Act.
If you really want to argue that the Patriot Act is "not needed", you need to specifically address which of these provisions you don't like
Such as searching book store and library records? What of sneak and peek search warrants? The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 was specifically setup so the president could get warrants after Nixon abused his office. Or being barred from talking about what you know like Sibel Edmonds was by a Gag order issued by the admin?
FalconI agree in theory, but if the FCC didn't regulate the airwaves, then it would be too easy for your competition to just jam you. Or else, everyone would try to use the same frequencies and the end result would be that nobody could use anything.
Actually broadcasters, those who use the airwaves, would eventually come up with an agreement on how to alocate the airwaves. If there wasn't an agreement it would lead to an arms races driving their costs skyward which would bankrupt them. If I recall right IEEE's Spectrum had an article on this last year, I didn't find it online but it may just of been in print. They do have another article on The End of Spectrum Scarcity though. It goes over some of the same stuff.
Falconfor a change
Oh, the FCC will do it's job, give megacorps control. I'd rather see the FCC abolished, banned, or otherwise gotten rid of.
FalconYes, I said "reduce the risk", as the risk can't be eliminated even in a police state run by a military dictator.
In such a situation the majority of terrorists are likely to join the police force...
Join the police or the military like in Iraq.
FalconNot what a bank manager was telling me the other day, so I asked him to explain himself and he could say "That's what IT security control says", in other words there is a million dollar company to sue if they wish (at a lawyers suggestion).
Just because there's someone who can be sued for a million dollars doesn't make anything any safer.
Falcon