It's a wall, but it isn't bare at this point; it has special purpose primer and paint for a gain of one on it. The somewhat odd brightness of the previous image is a combination of exposure time and pushing to get the cabinet to show up decently. For an image that reflects more of what you see in terms of brightness, look here. It's a DLP projector, so it does OK with blacks.
Actually, I think the parent has hit the nail on the head. As an early adopter (PS3 from day one), I've bought a lot of Blue ray disks, but far less than I would have if they didn't ask for $30 each.
I'd be happy to eventually replace my entire DVD collection at $10...$15; but not at thirty. As it is, we only purchase the movies that we like the very best; if it is so-so or just a popcorn flick (light humor, yet-another-sequel, etc.) we don't get it on Blue ray, even if we don't already have it -- we'll just get a DVD.
I really love the hi-res, too (and can see it, too: 204" screen); but ten disks x $30 is $300, and a hundred is three grand; I have *many* hundreds of DVDs, and there's no way I'm going to replace them just as a matter of course.
As more good movies come out, or let's at least say movies that appeal to my family, we'll slowly build up a considerable collection in the hidef format. But a mass replacement... no. Not until they stop charging so much.
Anyone know if this means the Earth gets less solar energy? Will there be global cooling because the sun has less output?
Sunspots do not correlate with solar heating by irradiation in the sense of "the sun feels warm on my skin." However, they do correlate with the degree that the upper atmosphere gets swept by magnetic fields and particles from the sun, and this in turn appears to have an effect upon cloud formation -- changes of 3-4% in cloudiness and concurrent changes in cloud top temperatures have been correlated to the 11 and 22 year solar (sunspot) cycles -- and that affects the amount of energy that reaches the ground. More info here.
As of 2000, stored power to the tune of about 2.5% of the US load (19.5 gigawatts) was online in the form of Pumped Storage. The EU had 32 gigawatts.
There's plenty of room to do more of that out in the desert; it can be subsurface, so as to have little or no long-term impact on the environment (obviously construction would temporarily beat up the habitat, though.) All pumped storage requires are wires, pumps, generators, a couple of big storage systems (one uphill, one down), and water. Doesn't have to be fresh water, either. The larger the height difference, the more energy can be stored. It's lossy; but still, it is both clean and effective.
Companies like EEStor that are working to create ultracapacitors with storage capacities exceeding those of batteries may be key to storage; storage can be local, on a per-unit basis which insulates users from the myriad types of grid failures that occur. It also allows them to store power locally if they generate any themselves (solar, etc.) Ultracaps are good for moderate term storage without much loss, and they can be fused in such a way as to prevent huge power discharges in case of accidents, so they're pretty safe.
There are some other contenders - flywheels, for instance -- but do *you* want an aging flywheel, high mass, high speed, coming apart in your basement? Me either. I saw a 4-inch grinder wheel come apart once and chunks of it outright severed a 2x4 in the wall next to the workbench. So those are probably best left in large scale storage farms.
Aside from storage, the thing that has always amazed me is that solar never seems to become really affordable. No matter how many ways they make it, or what tech they use, somehow, I can't buy inexpensive panels that will cope with hot summers, cold winters, and rain. New printing process? Ultra cheap cells? Mass production? Sure, I hear about those. But for SOME reason, all their output is bought up, and I can't buy the stuff. Not to get out the tinfoil, but if nothing else, it is very annoying.
Arghh sorry, I misedited that and can't fix it now. For python file i/o, I meant to show "$| = 1" to flush. My cutting got ahead of my pasting, or something.
I think if I show someone perl code, and then show them python code, they're going to feel a lot more comfortable with python. Perl's $, %, and @ variable prefixes, file i/o weirdness (print $_) and other way-too-shorthands are seriously intimidating and foreign looking as compared to python. Python's regular, sensible indentation makes an impression of regularity and comprehensibility as well. Python's just a cleaner technology by nature. You can make Perl look pretty good, but you have to work at it.
I know I'm a lot more comfortable with Python, and I wrote in Perl for many years. Basically until I discovered Python, then that was the end of Perl for me.:)
Ants, termites, swallows, various corals, all build cities.
Birds and various apes use tools.
I can put a dollop of whipped cream on my cat's head, and when she gets on the washstand and looks in the mirror and sees it, she immediately licks her paw, reaches up to the top of her head, and wipes it off (and eats it.) She always gets it all, and turns her head this way and that while watching the mirror to make sure.
I taught her to do that. You know how? Trivial:
I put it on, used *my* finger to gets some off her head while she was watching in the mirror, and put it on her lips. I did this exactly once. Consequently, it is perfectly evident that she knows what she sees in the mirror perfectly well. It's just that she had no reason to care about what she saw until I gave her one.
If you have a cat, please try this; takes no special equipment other than whipped cream and a mirror, and I very much suspect there's nothing special about my cat as compared to yours; mine's a neutered female "snowshoe" meezer, just for reference. Here she is.
My experience with cats (I've always had at least one, and I'm 52) leads me to think they're the same as we are, they just tend to be similar to children in their mental capacities, except where they're neurologically better than we are (athletic abilities, predation, faster processing of threats and faster reactions, different set of vision compromises...) I've not had nearly as many dogs, but even so, I'm very comfortable saying they're like children with a different set of limits than cats. In turn, I strongly suspect that the rest of the animal kingdom follows in like fashion.
As far as I've ever been able to tell, the entire "we're superior to animals" meme is a consequence of hubris, thousands of years of religious nonsense, a lack of a decent way to really measure, quantify, and compare either us or them, and a baseline resistance because they're trivially easy to enslave and worse, plus they can't argue about it effectively, unlike humans.
IMHO, as a race, we have a long way to go. I don't see much hope for change, either. The citizens of my country (USA) are still convinced for the most part that they're the specially cared for children of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent creator, who "made" animals for their convenience. Which would be pitiful, if the consequences weren't so outright savage for animals and people.
Here's a place where you can support victimless animal meat research; please consider donating. I do.
The real question is, can you afford legal action to contest your firing, and do the state and federal laws, and your employment contract, support your actions? To answer those toughies, you need a good lawyer. Not slashdot.
Nope. Table here. What you do is check a cumulative exposure meter or "dosimeter", like this one. To check an area, you reset it, then leave it there for 24 hours, then read the exposure. If it exceeds any of the guidelines, you have cause. Simple.
Must you wait until you are actively hurt to stop me?
No. If you impinge upon the *edge* of my property with dangerous levels, I have justification for action; that doesn't mean I'm hanging out at the edge of my property; and the kind of radiation danger you're talking about decreases rapidly with distance. It really isn't a problem, as long as I know to monitor the levels. But law or no law, there's no difference there. I do own a Geiger counter and two resettable dosimeters, so your example is fine. Might not be for someone else, but then again, they aren't my problem, either.
But the overarching rule is that a majority can change any rule (except for the majority rule).
Actually, not here. We're a republic, not a democracy. So small numbers of people make the rules. This is an attempt to avoid tyranny of the majority; IMHO, it doesn't work, but nonetheless, that's our system.
Zoning may step on people's liberties, if they disagree with the zoning. Aren't you the one that arguing about potential negative consequences is no reason to restrict liberty? Like the liberty of a group of people to enact zoning laws?
No. I argue for personal liberty. Group liberty is something else entirely and is usually antithetical to individual liberty. The latter is more important than the former.
I agree with this. But a shared resource requires government control. At least to keep people from poisoning it. But why should air be treated differently from land? Why is land not a shared resource?
Because land is generally stable and can be controlled, fortified, quantified, guarded, mined, farmed, populated with domiciles and storage and manufacturing facilities and canals and roads and otherwise significantly improved without losing control or location; investments such as these need the assurance of stability in order to encourage the investment. If I point to a chunk of land and tell you, we all share this land, you can build here, and you do, and after you build your home, someone else comes along and says 'we all share this land, I'm going to live in your house with you', you're likely to be a little bit miffed. Without ownership, you lose control, and without control, there's little reason to invest. No investment means no improvement, no improvement means less commerce, taxes, etc., and so government has every reason to make ownership an important priority. Governments that don't do this - the ex-USSR comes to mind - tend to see very little enthusiasm for working the land. Farms under produce, buildings are not kept up, etc. Without a direct connection to the value of the land, again, investment is stifled.
I cannot get over the question of the original aquisition. The first person to get the land did not buy it, he claimed it. Other people cannot claim the same land, because he "saw it first".
This is true. The original "ownership" is a consequence of exploration and exertion of power, either directly (taking from previous residents, such as American Indians) or indirectly (claims made in the name of the monarch who funds the expedition or claims the region.) However, in this case, it's "he who has the power makes the rules" and it always has been. Doesn't make it right; but it makes it a fact.
You have effectually limited the second amendment to hunting rights
You are completely out of your mind. Just so you know. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting whatsoever. It is a blanket authorization for citizens to keep and transport arms of any kind, end of subject. If someone tried to make the case to me that the 2nd amendment "was for hunting", I'd laugh, and then either ignore them or explain it, depending on the apparent intelligence of the claimant.
As for the rest, most of it isn't responding to. But to accuse "people like me" of promoting a moron's interpretation of the 2nd... that's just uncalled for.
At what stage of insufficent(sic) shielding of my reactor do you step in?
At the level known to do harm. The "radiation pouring into me" is far below that level. When the REMs impinging on the edge of my property exceed the REM levels known to be a problem, then there is a problem. This is not a tough thing to figure out.
Neat. So there was also a clause that let a group of X people impose additional clauses in the future without prior constent(sic).
Not at all. There is a clause that REQUIRES prior consent, which is something else entirely.
And it was set up by the city/township before you bought your house.
I don't have as much of a problem with rules that exist before you buy in, as long as you can find out about them. What I said, and exactly what I meant, was you move in, THEN they add a rule. That's what I have a major problem with in terms of homeowner's rights. If the rules aren't to your liking prior to purchase, don't purchase, unless the sacrifice is balanced out some other way. When it gets sticky, though, is when everyone zones things in such a way as to preclude finding a home if you want to fly a flag, raise a horse, experiment with chemistry, build a house with no windows. This is one of the factors that makes zoning a problem. There are others, and I've outlined some of them already. The main one is that unless there is no one living in a zoned area yet, then the zoning will step on people's liberties, even if they're not mine because I came in later.
When I moved here, there were zoning issues I didn't like. I sat with my lawyer for two days going over them. In the end, I bought, because the property had many advantages. I had, and have, nothing to bitch about in that regard; I knew what I was doing.
After I moved here, they tried to pass something else, and I went to every council meeting and raised the roof. It didn't pass (nor should it have - it was stupid.) I'm a good speaker, and frankly, most people who want to pass restrictive zoning laws are dimwits, or worse. Unfortunately, most towns have no one who will stand up and speak for the rights of the individual; for liberty; for freedom. While they have a surfeit of those who want protection from imaginary threats.
And no sensible person wants the loudest music to determine what everyone on the block listens to. This argument seems to undermine your whole chain. I'll apply the same argument you make for your property rights to my property rights not to have you vibrate my air. Or do you see some difference?
Yes, I think there's a difference. Music -- at SPLs less than jet engines or thereabouts, let's stipulate -- isn't going to hurt you and is something you can block out of your domicile; also, the air isn't yours, per se. It's a shared resource. Barring poisoning it, degrading its ability to support life, or outright withholding it, I'm not really convinced that you should have any leverage to otherwise control it. Which of the founding fathers was it who said "it neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg"... Thomas Jefferson? Further, we've seen what happens when government gets control over speech; censorship. "Free speech zones." Curfews. Jail time. Fines. I don't like the smell of totalitarianism in the morning. I'd rather own some earplugs. But again, I value liberty far more than comfort. You, apparently, do not feel the same way.
So if I light a fuse on a stick of dynamite on my property next to your house you do you have any right to stop me before the dynamite explodes and rips a hole in your house?
No, I shouldn't have have any such right. I do have the right to build a wall; and/or buy enough land in the first place that I have buffer space against actions and events I think I might be at risk from; and to harden my domicile against whatever I think it might need hardening against.
I don't consider explosives to be a likely risk, so I'm not intentionally hardened against explosions. However, once you've blown your stick of dynamite up, if you have done me harm I have obtained the right to respond. This factor is one that should generate some prudence on your part. This is true for any behavior that could, if mismanaged, put others at risk. There should be consequences - not just financial - for committing unprovoked violence upon others, their wards, and their property. This is an important basis for liberty; just as you should let me walk around with arms or martial arts skills, you make the rule that says I can't just arbitrarily use those arms or marital arts against people. You don't say "no arms" or "no martial arts"; you say "observe everyone's right to remain unmolested or we (society) will step on your head until it squishes." And, you allow the exception that when someone steps on my liberties, freedom to use my arms or my skills becomes immediately available to me; I, in turn, need to make my best efforts at making sure I can explain this after the fact.
Real-world example: I consider fire from the neighbors to be a serious risk; consequently I harden against that possibility. I don't carry fire insurance, either, as investing in the house's fire-resistance is a better path, in my opinion, than engaging in gambling with the insurance company. Should I wish to sell the building, telling people it is essentially fireproof to outside forces is a valuable selling point; that makes my approach not only safer, but an investment as well. There are many ways to harden against external fire risk; metal roof (check), fire resistant exterior treatment (check), top-to-bottom roof based sprinklers (check), minimal vegetation near the building (check), generator and local water storage (check)... you get the idea. And in the end, it costs less than fire insurance does.
What if I'm just storing a crate of dynamite next to your house (on my property) sure it's old, not properly contained and starting to sweat, but odds are it's not going to blow.
Same answer. I can harden to some degree if I'm concerned (border walls seem to be the obvious answer); I have the right to recourse once damage is done, though recourse may be limited by practical issues (and that is one of the factors that makes hardening something to consider.) I can also offer to help you store the materials in a manner that minimizes my risk while offering some benefit to you.
What if I'm storing PCBs in my basement? Sure they're likely to just sit in the 55 gallon drum until I get around to disposing of them (properly?) but maybe there'll be a fire that starts in the air conditioner upstairs and when the fire department puts out my house fire the water washes them into your vegetable garden.
Same answer. I can harden to some degree if I'm concerned (peripheral drainage control, which I do have, but for different reasons, also buffer area comes into play); I have the right to recourse once damage is done, though recourse may be limited by practical issues (and that is one of the factors that makes hardening something to consider.) In many cases, risks like this exist anyway; many houses have large containers of fuel oil on site; some store large amounts of paints and other chemicals.
There was a fire, and he had a shitload of chemicals improperly stored in a residential neighbourhood. Can you connect the dots, Mr. Libertarian Crusader?
Sure I can. He had chemicals stored in his house in whatever way he chose to store them. Perfectly fine with me. But the government got involved as a side effect of serving a legitimate function -- tax supported fire suppression (of something that had nothing to do with his chemical activities, you'll note) -- and now that they have seen that there are chemicals, they're going to impose all manner of coercive, liberty crushing rules, likewise they are going to apply penalties for liberty-crushing rules previously not followed. Inside this man's home. So we go from paid service to coercive liberty crushing. This is pretty typical government behavior, and doesn't surprise me, though I certainly don't agree with it. So what is your point? Did you actually have a point?
I'm sure if this was your neighbour(sic) and his next "accident" managed to burn your house down, you'd be the first one filing a lawsuit against the man plus any authorities that knew about this situation but did nothing to rectify it.
Your certainty is entirely misplaced. It is in no way based upon any factual knowledge of my behavior, my situation, or the prophylactic actions I have taken as a consequence of my view that it is my responsibility to see to it that my home does not burn. Whatever your certainty develops from, it has nothing to do with me. I suspect some introspection is called for here.
Something tells me your high-flying rhetoric would be immediately forgotten, assuming your were lucky enough to survive the experience.
That would be your imagination failing to take into account that not everyone views the world the way you do, not everyone thinks the world is a place where they should depend on the government acting like "mommy", and not everyone thinks actions at law are the correct remedy for every problem that comes up. The fact is, you could walk up to my home and apply a blowtorch to it for an hour, and it wouldn't burn or even smoke. So I don't worry about the neighbor's buildings burning, or not. In other words, I took the responsibility for seeing to it that my home wouldn't burn, and consequently, I don't have to worry about my neighbor in that regard. See how easy that is?
Self-styled "Libertarians" are always people who want to evade responsibility for following any reasonable rule themselves, but immediately scream "there oughta be a law!" when they suffer the consequences of an encounter with someone was self-centred(sic) and childish as they are.
Is that so? And your evidence of me doing this is... what, exactly? Further, what is your evidence of libertarians in general screaming "there oughta be a law"? Feel free to get back to me when you have actual data to replace your rhetoric.
No to all your questions (although for the reasons you outlined, toilets are commonly confined to bathrooms.) That's a ludicrus(sic) strawman of my position.
Confining toilets to bathrooms doesn't stop me from using materials brewed therein against you. The Chemist confined his work to his house, wasn't hurting anyone either; so the comparison is quite apt. The man wasn't doing anything that harmed anyone else, so he should have been left alone.
And, for the record, your hands cannot tear off my head.
For the record, unless you're in the habit of wearing chain mail or have a neck like an elephant, they almost certainly can. However, if that's impossible for you to admit, let's just say that my fingers can poke your eyes out, and then follow up with, do you want to outlaw fingers?
Insurance is the antithesis of gambling.
Nonsense. Insurance is precisely the definition of gambling. Gambling is defined by taking a position of risk against an unknown outcome in order to benefit if you predict correctly. In the specific case of insurance, if you pay premiums all your life against fire, for instance, and your home never burns, then you predicted incorrectly and lost your bet, and the "house", that is, the insurance company, wins. They take all your bet money and return absolutely nothing of value to you. If, on the other hand, you've paid three premiums, and your house does burn, then the house (insurance company) pays off and you win. As is the case with all formalized gambling operations, the house knows the odds very well and has arranged things so that the bets -- the premium rates -- will cover them even though there are sure to be a few winners.
Okay, now replace band with reactor. I don't particularly want to insulate it; I have lead shielding. You should get some too. And a suit to go outside with. I just sit inside and watch TV, so I'm fine.
Radiation will do harm; the correct analogy would be to bullets flying across your property, not to music. Fail.
Yup, I jave(sic) a tiny patch of land in a subdivision. And yup, when it was all one big plot, limitations were placed on what you could do, what color you could paint your house, etc. And then my neighbors bought their house. They should live with those conditions that were on the property when they bought it, or go elsewhere, right?
If there is a signed covenant between the neighbors that must be executed in order to buy, then yes, certainly. The sellers can ensure this is the case. That's a consensual agreement between informed, competent adults.
If the means of control is coercive, however, then we have a different situation. So if your neighbor moved in and then a zoning law is passed that says (for instance) that they cannot display a flag or raise a horse in the back yard, this is not reasonable. If you, on the other hand, go to your neighbor on the east and hand them a document that says "All homeowners signatory to this document agree not to permit or cause the display of flags on their property, and to require the signature of this document if the property is sold, and that displaying a flag will incur the following penalty to the homeowner", and they sign it, and you sign it, then you're on solid ground. If your neighbor to the west doesn't choose to sign, though, that's where your flag-free zone ends.
Your last statement brings up the question of what makes it "your" property. I never agreed to any private ownership of land on your part. Why should I be bound by it? Why should I be bound in what I claim as my property by what you or the government says I can or cannot do on it because "you own it"?
The real question is what Mr. Libertarian does after the chemist who destroys his property value in the long term - lets say chemical soil contamination - does after the chemist declares bankruptcy.
Yes, (a) this should be actionable [it is actual interference with property], and (b) it is possible that the losses may not be recoverable. Just as a rape cannot be followed by virginity, a mugging cannot be followed by innocence, etc. Some things happen and you are changed, or your resources change, and that's the end of it. You can whine like a little bitch, or you can pull up your big-boy pants and go on with life.
Life is full of risks. If there's nothing to be done, then that's the way it is. Such risks are worth taking to preserve liberty. That's where you (and the rest of the nanny-staters) differ, really. You think that the reduction of risk is worth giving up freedom. I don't think so. I find the entire idea to be cowardly.
This fixation on property "value" is a side effect of property as investment; or in other words, gambling. What you're trying to accomplish by telling the neighbors what to do is have them guarantee a risk you decided to take by purchasing the property. I simply don't see where the neighbors become responsible for risks you decided to take (unless you enter into a signed covenant with them) such that you think you have the right to coerce them into behaving the way you want them to on their own property.
Libertarian theory rests on the assumption that everyone can be held responsible for their actions.
No, your version of libertarian theory rests on that presumption.
My theory rests on the idea that I don't have any right to tell you what to do until you are causing me damage. If you stay off of my property, do not harm or trespass upon my property, and leave my physical self and those of my dependents alone, I don't have a beef with you.
Is there is a risk this approach could lead to a loss on my part? Sure. Is it likely to? Not very. Are there benefits to taking this position? Yes, there are many. I judge the risk to be more than acceptable in light of the benefits received.
Precedent is not a worthy argument, it assumes previous decisions were correct, and the record doesn't show that to be an accurate presumption.
in at least one case a person purchased a small plot of land next to a large estate for the sole purpose if putting in a tannery to drive out the estate owners so he could purchase the estate for pennies.
I guess the estate wasn't large enough, then, was it? And also, the estate owners didn't buy the plot of land next door before the tannery people, did they? And whose responsibility would that have been? So who is at fault here? The estate owners, clearly.
Part of zoning is to regulate what types of businesses can be placed in places where people live for both their comfort & safety.
One word: Covenants. Otherwise, I don't authorize you to decide what liberties you may crush in order to make me "safer." I deem liberty of considerably greater value than safety. Your attempt to redefine that is anathema to me. So do it for yourself; don't do it for -- or to -- me.
According to at least one person, Mr Deeb had dioxins in his basement.
Oh, fiddlesticks. The supermarket that is my neighbor has row after row of containers of insecticide, chemicals like ammonia and bleach (Chlorine) and numerous other quite deadly things on the shelves. They even carry Twinkies, for goodness sake. Those things will kill you! If that store burns down, the vapors will no doubt be hugely hazardous. I *really* don't give a flying dog turd. Stop trying to protect me from everything. Really. Just STOP it. I'm gonna die anyway, eventually, from some damned thing. I'd like to get there without being bundled in swaddling cloth, breathing through a mandated filter, and being forbidden to walk because it puts wear on my hip joints. And I like buying my bleach next door. I really do.
I can understand a certain minimum set of standards, like having to mow your lawn and not painting the house plaid
Covenants ensure that what you want (prevent plaid homes, unmowed lawns, junk cars) is accomplished by mutual agreement, prior to the purchase of your property. You enter into a contract with clearly set out terms that shares something that you and your neighbor(s) agree is of sufficient value in the overall picture of ownership as to certify your performance in regard to it. If that's not the case, you don't buy the property.
Zoning, on the other hand, coerces people into doing what they don't want, or not doing what they do want, often well after the purchase of their property. Usually because a bunch of people were trying to come up with crimes that people MIGHT do in their fevered little imaginations.
This is why zoning is fascist evil by its very nature.
i don't see anywhere where the gp mentioned [...] science
From the GP (now G....GP): "conducting scientific research in a residential neighborhood"
...the next-door neighbor likes to cook up nitroglycerin? not cool, for example. and yes, please remove the materials from next to my house. he wants to do it in some shed or barn not in my backyard? by all means. have a blast.
Yes, exactly, he shouldn't be doing it in a shed or barn in your backyard. He should be doing it in his backyard, basement, etc. Cooking it up isn't, and shouldn't, be a problem. Blowing it up such that it blows you up, breaks your windows, and/or showers you with shrapnel... now that is a problem. And there are laws against blowing up your neighbor, so we don't need laws against cooking up nitroglycerin; also, if you are concerned that your neighbor's domicile or outbuildings may explode, then you should buy enough land so that if such an event happens, you'll be safe. Me, I just gamble that the neighbor won't explode, burn down, or conduct a study of communicable diseases in their upstairs bedroom. If I decide I don't like the odds at some point, I'll adjust them in place on my property as best I can, or I'll try to buy out the neighbor, or I'll move.
I even have a smallish example along these lines; the motel to the east is a bit decrepit, and so doesn't qualify as "lovely scenery", etc. So I put in stained glass windows. Now my view is gorgeous. Never had to say a word to the neighbor. Probably increased the value of his property.:)
The problem with regulating behaviors so that risk is abolished is that there is literally no end to such regulation, or to such risks.
Houses burn, so we should clearly outlaw matches. And gas, coal, oil, and wood furnaces! And magnifying glasses! And sticks - you can rub sticks together, definite fire hazard there. And fireplaces. And lighters, and lighter fluid, and grills, and stoves, and incandescent lightbulbs, and electricity... and weather, because lightning can cause fires... to do that, we'll have to strip the atmosphere from the planet, which will of course reduce the risk of fire even further... THAT'S IT! Lets outlaw the atmosphere!
Given where you live (obviously not in a residential suburb), your comments about zoning being evil are irrelevant.
I'm sorry, you think only residential suburbs have zoning? Are you high?
What, are you angry because your city prevented you from opening a plutonium processing facility in your empty lot?
No, I'm angry because the gentleman in TFA/TFS was stopped from conducting scientific research in his own home, in the absence of any activity that was harming anyone else. Read the thread. This unusual (and seemingly uncommon) procedure may, presuming a modicum of intelligence that you have not, I must admit, demonstrated, yield an understanding of the conversation thus far, and in so doing, answer your question for you. Reading comprehension - highly underrated. Trust me on this.
Sounds like you got lucky. I'd love to live next to a grocery store, personally.
Yeah, we (my sweetheart and I) laughingly refer to it as "the larder." It's about 60 feet from one of my doors to their door; and they even gave us our own cart we can wheel home. Nice neighbors. Not at all like those drunk, infrastructure destroying sharks the other post talked about...
what if your neighbor decided to start a junkyard (excuse me, auto salvage business) instead? Is that affecting you yet (I'd say yes, but YMMV)
To the degree that I want to control what the adjacent land is used for, I need to buy it. Otherwise, it'll be used for whatever the owner deems appropriate. That's right and proper, and junkyard, sewage treatment plant, or slaughterhouse (which, as a vegetarian, I would definitely find appalling, since you're looking for something that would annoy me), it's not my place to say one way or the other, unless I own the land. If I want to control that land, I need to undertake the purchase of it. I don't obtain legitimate rights over the neighbors because my sense of (whatever) is offended, or if I live in fear of some issue. Nor do they obtain legitimate rights over me.
To put it another way, nothing affects me that doesn't actually affect me. Neighbors set up a crack house? Not my land, not my business. They have guns? Not my business. They shoot a bullet through my property? Now I care, and there are laws that deal with that, and there should be, because such an action is a direct assault on me, so I can take appropriate action. I don't need a law that says "you can't sell crack", I just need a law that says "you can't shoot guns across another person's property." And of course, if there were no law saying they couldn't sell crack, then crack would be a mega-cheap commodity and no dealer or buyer would need to use their guns in the normal course of business, so there's another facet of how crushing people's liberties doesn't solve problems, it causes them.
Your science experiments, if dangerous (say you are trying to find a more energy-dense fuel then gasoline), certainly can blow up my house.
My hands can tear off your head. Do you now want to say I can't have hands? My feet can drive your nuts right into your abdomen, rupturing them along the way, destroying your ability to have kids. You want to outlaw my feet? My tree has branches which a high wind can toss through your windows, or I can pick up from the ground and use to whip your face into a bloody mess. You want to outlaw trees? My toilet often contains matter that would qualify as a biological weapon; I could use that against you in any number of unsavory ways. You want to outlaw toilets except in "designated toilet zones"?
What you're doing here is (a) imagining how terrible it would be if someone did "something" you don't like with something else, and (b) outlawing the something else because you have terrified yourself that the something could happen. No crime has been committed, you're outlawing things based on your imagination. It's sick behavior.
Why should I assume that risk?
If you want to reduce your risk, you should go ahead and do so to the degree you have resources that allow you to get it accomplished. Buy more land; put some space between you and those people you're so terrified of. Build a bunker. Pull the sheets over your head. But if you want to control what *I* do so as to reduce *your* risk, you can go take a long walk off a short pier. If you don't have the resources to reduce your risk, then you don't get to do so.
And they lower my property values certainly, because other people want to be compensated for that risk.
Property values are always a gamble. For me, and for you. Now, why is it that you think I am supposed to serve as an uncompensated guarantor of your property values at the cost of my liberties? Get back to me on that, would you?
It could raise my insurance premiums.
Insurance is, by definition, gambling. You bet amounts of money that something is going to happen; the insurance company takes the bet and pays off if it does. Unless it can get out of it, of course. The rates are based on the odds you have bought into by choosing how and where you live, as well as innumerable other factors like your credit rating, your criminal history, the flood plain, your neighbors, etc. All of these things are a matter of your choice and control at one point or another, and aside from that, it is your choice to gamble in the first place. Now, why *exactly* am I responsible for your gambling habits? Get back to me on that one too. Oh, and don't even go to the "I have a mortgage and am required to have insurance"; that's not my fault or responsibility in any way. You entered into that contract by your own free will. Not my problem. Talk to your bank. And good luck with that.
Suppose you paint your house day-glow orange. Well, it doesn't seem dangerous, but on the other hand, again, it lowers my property values. I have to look at an ugly eyesore (assuming I have line of sight).
Oh, brother. Is there some guarantee that the world must look beautiful in your sight? If you want such a guarantee, buy enough of the world that all you can see is yours, and then see to it that it looks like you want it to. Don't tell me what MY part of the world must look like. If you can't afford to buy enough of the world to guarantee what you see is what you want to see, then you get to suffer along with the rest of us, actually seeing what other people do with their little chunks of land. It's terrible, I know, this blatant conjunction of the ideas of actual ownership and freedom. Just sends shivers down your spine, doesn't it?
When your neighbour decides to turn his home into a fish & chips bar, you'll understand why zoning laws exist.
My neighbor on the east is an Albertson's grocery store. This is extremely convenient for me, frankly. My neighbor to the south, across the street, is a Dairy queen. My neighbor to the west is a motel (across an empty lot that in fact, I do own. And plan to turn into something. Someday.)
I have no problem with any of these uses of private property, nor can I think of any reason why I should -- they're not using my property, after all.
Now, I presume that a "fish and chips bar" is where they train sharks to chip away at national security assets, is that right? And it's a bar, so these are (potentially) drunk sharks?
[thinks hard] Nope, as long as they keep their drunk sharks off my land, I think I'd be ok with a "fish and chips bar." Sharks need to relax too, you know. Did you know they have to swim 24/7 just to breathe? Poor things. No wonder they drink.
Yes, lawd lawd lawd. Lawd forbid you pursue a hobby in the (presently imaginary) sanctity of your own home.
"Zoning" is anti-liberty crapola law; always has been. You want to control what goes on at the property next door, or down the block? Fine, then buy it. Otherwise, you have no legitimate authority over the owner's use unless they actually do something that affects you or your property -- not "might' do something, or you are "afraid" they might do something, because that nonsense is thought-crime (and it's YOUR thoughts!), but actually does something.
Now, that's not saying you don't have *power*, because the deep pathology of our legal system is you can always steal unauthorized power on the basis of all manner of your own thought crimes; but you sure don't have any such right, no matter what you do.
This country needs a deep cleaning of its nanny infection. Then we need the equivalent of mouse traps or prophylactic rings of poison around the legal system so they can't come back and re-infect us.
...you'd see that he had *WAY* too much stuff in his home
Ooooo.. TOO MUCH STUFF!!! Now there's a crime you can sink your teeth into!
...was breaking the zoning laws by conducting scientific research in a residential neighborhood.
Oh, yes. Yes! Yes indeed! Science doesn't belong in a residential neighborhood. Only churches. Science is a frightening, anti-social activity that must be guarded against most zealously in order that results, those evil, destabilizing fact-based destroyers of the status quo may be properly controlled by the government agency assigned to the task. Save the churches! Down with Science!
Man, are you Stalin's reincarnated evil soul, or what?
I hate the government too, but what I hate more is idiots that spread half-truths.
What I hate are idiots that think suppression, repression, and outright theft of personal and property-related liberties is normal and nothing to get upset over. You know anyone like that? I think you do. I think you can figure this out. Really.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a wall, but it isn't bare at this point; it has special purpose primer and paint for a gain of one on it. The somewhat odd brightness of the previous image is a combination of exposure time and pushing to get the cabinet to show up decently. For an image that reflects more of what you see in terms of brightness, look here. It's a DLP projector, so it does OK with blacks.
Actually, I think the parent has hit the nail on the head. As an early adopter (PS3 from day one), I've bought a lot of Blue ray disks, but far less than I would have if they didn't ask for $30 each.
I'd be happy to eventually replace my entire DVD collection at $10...$15; but not at thirty. As it is, we only purchase the movies that we like the very best; if it is so-so or just a popcorn flick (light humor, yet-another-sequel, etc.) we don't get it on Blue ray, even if we don't already have it -- we'll just get a DVD.
I really love the hi-res, too (and can see it, too: 204" screen); but ten disks x $30 is $300, and a hundred is three grand; I have *many* hundreds of DVDs, and there's no way I'm going to replace them just as a matter of course.
As more good movies come out, or let's at least say movies that appeal to my family, we'll slowly build up a considerable collection in the hidef format. But a mass replacement... no. Not until they stop charging so much.
Sunspots do not correlate with solar heating by irradiation in the sense of "the sun feels warm on my skin." However, they do correlate with the degree that the upper atmosphere gets swept by magnetic fields and particles from the sun, and this in turn appears to have an effect upon cloud formation -- changes of 3-4% in cloudiness and concurrent changes in cloud top temperatures have been correlated to the 11 and 22 year solar (sunspot) cycles -- and that affects the amount of energy that reaches the ground. More info here.
As of 2000, stored power to the tune of about 2.5% of the US load (19.5 gigawatts) was online in the form of Pumped Storage. The EU had 32 gigawatts.
There's plenty of room to do more of that out in the desert; it can be subsurface, so as to have little or no long-term impact on the environment (obviously construction would temporarily beat up the habitat, though.) All pumped storage requires are wires, pumps, generators, a couple of big storage systems (one uphill, one down), and water. Doesn't have to be fresh water, either. The larger the height difference, the more energy can be stored. It's lossy; but still, it is both clean and effective.
Companies like EEStor that are working to create ultracapacitors with storage capacities exceeding those of batteries may be key to storage; storage can be local, on a per-unit basis which insulates users from the myriad types of grid failures that occur. It also allows them to store power locally if they generate any themselves (solar, etc.) Ultracaps are good for moderate term storage without much loss, and they can be fused in such a way as to prevent huge power discharges in case of accidents, so they're pretty safe.
There are some other contenders - flywheels, for instance -- but do *you* want an aging flywheel, high mass, high speed, coming apart in your basement? Me either. I saw a 4-inch grinder wheel come apart once and chunks of it outright severed a 2x4 in the wall next to the workbench. So those are probably best left in large scale storage farms.
Aside from storage, the thing that has always amazed me is that solar never seems to become really affordable. No matter how many ways they make it, or what tech they use, somehow, I can't buy inexpensive panels that will cope with hot summers, cold winters, and rain. New printing process? Ultra cheap cells? Mass production? Sure, I hear about those. But for SOME reason, all their output is bought up, and I can't buy the stuff. Not to get out the tinfoil, but if nothing else, it is very annoying.
It's just a sign you have a decent ear. :)
Arghh sorry, I misedited that and can't fix it now. For python file i/o, I meant to show "$| = 1" to flush. My cutting got ahead of my pasting, or something.
I think if I show someone perl code, and then show them python code, they're going to feel a lot more comfortable with python. Perl's $, %, and @ variable prefixes, file i/o weirdness (print $_) and other way-too-shorthands are seriously intimidating and foreign looking as compared to python. Python's regular, sensible indentation makes an impression of regularity and comprehensibility as well. Python's just a cleaner technology by nature. You can make Perl look pretty good, but you have to work at it.
I know I'm a lot more comfortable with Python, and I wrote in Perl for many years. Basically until I discovered Python, then that was the end of Perl for me. :)
Just a thought.
Ants, termites, swallows, various corals, all build cities.
Birds and various apes use tools.
I can put a dollop of whipped cream on my cat's head, and when she gets on the washstand and looks in the mirror and sees it, she immediately licks her paw, reaches up to the top of her head, and wipes it off (and eats it.) She always gets it all, and turns her head this way and that while watching the mirror to make sure.
I taught her to do that. You know how? Trivial:
I put it on, used *my* finger to gets some off her head while she was watching in the mirror, and put it on her lips. I did this exactly once. Consequently, it is perfectly evident that she knows what she sees in the mirror perfectly well. It's just that she had no reason to care about what she saw until I gave her one.
If you have a cat, please try this; takes no special equipment other than whipped cream and a mirror, and I very much suspect there's nothing special about my cat as compared to yours; mine's a neutered female "snowshoe" meezer, just for reference. Here she is.
My experience with cats (I've always had at least one, and I'm 52) leads me to think they're the same as we are, they just tend to be similar to children in their mental capacities, except where they're neurologically better than we are (athletic abilities, predation, faster processing of threats and faster reactions, different set of vision compromises...) I've not had nearly as many dogs, but even so, I'm very comfortable saying they're like children with a different set of limits than cats. In turn, I strongly suspect that the rest of the animal kingdom follows in like fashion.
As far as I've ever been able to tell, the entire "we're superior to animals" meme is a consequence of hubris, thousands of years of religious nonsense, a lack of a decent way to really measure, quantify, and compare either us or them, and a baseline resistance because they're trivially easy to enslave and worse, plus they can't argue about it effectively, unlike humans.
IMHO, as a race, we have a long way to go. I don't see much hope for change, either. The citizens of my country (USA) are still convinced for the most part that they're the specially cared for children of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent creator, who "made" animals for their convenience. Which would be pitiful, if the consequences weren't so outright savage for animals and people.
Here's a place where you can support victimless animal meat research; please consider donating. I do.
New Harvest - Non-profit
You can be fired for anything.
The real question is, can you afford legal action to contest your firing, and do the state and federal laws, and your employment contract, support your actions? To answer those toughies, you need a good lawyer. Not slashdot.
Nope. Table here. What you do is check a cumulative exposure meter or "dosimeter", like this one. To check an area, you reset it, then leave it there for 24 hours, then read the exposure. If it exceeds any of the guidelines, you have cause. Simple.
No. If you impinge upon the *edge* of my property with dangerous levels, I have justification for action; that doesn't mean I'm hanging out at the edge of my property; and the kind of radiation danger you're talking about decreases rapidly with distance. It really isn't a problem, as long as I know to monitor the levels. But law or no law, there's no difference there. I do own a Geiger counter and two resettable dosimeters, so your example is fine. Might not be for someone else, but then again, they aren't my problem, either.
Actually, not here. We're a republic, not a democracy. So small numbers of people make the rules. This is an attempt to avoid tyranny of the majority; IMHO, it doesn't work, but nonetheless, that's our system.
No. I argue for personal liberty. Group liberty is something else entirely and is usually antithetical to individual liberty. The latter is more important than the former.
Because land is generally stable and can be controlled, fortified, quantified, guarded, mined, farmed, populated with domiciles and storage and manufacturing facilities and canals and roads and otherwise significantly improved without losing control or location; investments such as these need the assurance of stability in order to encourage the investment. If I point to a chunk of land and tell you, we all share this land, you can build here, and you do, and after you build your home, someone else comes along and says 'we all share this land, I'm going to live in your house with you', you're likely to be a little bit miffed. Without ownership, you lose control, and without control, there's little reason to invest. No investment means no improvement, no improvement means less commerce, taxes, etc., and so government has every reason to make ownership an important priority. Governments that don't do this - the ex-USSR comes to mind - tend to see very little enthusiasm for working the land. Farms under produce, buildings are not kept up, etc. Without a direct connection to the value of the land, again, investment is stifled.
This is true. The original "ownership" is a consequence of exploration and exertion of power, either directly (taking from previous residents, such as American Indians) or indirectly (claims made in the name of the monarch who funds the expedition or claims the region.) However, in this case, it's "he who has the power makes the rules" and it always has been. Doesn't make it right; but it makes it a fact.
You are completely out of your mind. Just so you know. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting whatsoever. It is a blanket authorization for citizens to keep and transport arms of any kind, end of subject. If someone tried to make the case to me that the 2nd amendment "was for hunting", I'd laugh, and then either ignore them or explain it, depending on the apparent intelligence of the claimant.
As for the rest, most of it isn't responding to. But to accuse "people like me" of promoting a moron's interpretation of the 2nd... that's just uncalled for.
At the level known to do harm. The "radiation pouring into me" is far below that level. When the REMs impinging on the edge of my property exceed the REM levels known to be a problem, then there is a problem. This is not a tough thing to figure out.
Not at all. There is a clause that REQUIRES prior consent, which is something else entirely.
I don't have as much of a problem with rules that exist before you buy in, as long as you can find out about them. What I said, and exactly what I meant, was you move in, THEN they add a rule. That's what I have a major problem with in terms of homeowner's rights. If the rules aren't to your liking prior to purchase, don't purchase, unless the sacrifice is balanced out some other way. When it gets sticky, though, is when everyone zones things in such a way as to preclude finding a home if you want to fly a flag, raise a horse, experiment with chemistry, build a house with no windows. This is one of the factors that makes zoning a problem. There are others, and I've outlined some of them already. The main one is that unless there is no one living in a zoned area yet, then the zoning will step on people's liberties, even if they're not mine because I came in later.
When I moved here, there were zoning issues I didn't like. I sat with my lawyer for two days going over them. In the end, I bought, because the property had many advantages. I had, and have, nothing to bitch about in that regard; I knew what I was doing.
After I moved here, they tried to pass something else, and I went to every council meeting and raised the roof. It didn't pass (nor should it have - it was stupid.) I'm a good speaker, and frankly, most people who want to pass restrictive zoning laws are dimwits, or worse. Unfortunately, most towns have no one who will stand up and speak for the rights of the individual; for liberty; for freedom. While they have a surfeit of those who want protection from imaginary threats.
Yes, I think there's a difference. Music -- at SPLs less than jet engines or thereabouts, let's stipulate -- isn't going to hurt you and is something you can block out of your domicile; also, the air isn't yours, per se. It's a shared resource. Barring poisoning it, degrading its ability to support life, or outright withholding it, I'm not really convinced that you should have any leverage to otherwise control it. Which of the founding fathers was it who said "it neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg"... Thomas Jefferson? Further, we've seen what happens when government gets control over speech; censorship. "Free speech zones." Curfews. Jail time. Fines. I don't like the smell of totalitarianism in the morning. I'd rather own some earplugs. But again, I value liberty far more than comfort. You, apparently, do not feel the same way.
No, I shouldn't have have any such right. I do have the right to build a wall; and/or buy enough land in the first place that I have buffer space against actions and events I think I might be at risk from; and to harden my domicile against whatever I think it might need hardening against.
I don't consider explosives to be a likely risk, so I'm not intentionally hardened against explosions. However, once you've blown your stick of dynamite up, if you have done me harm I have obtained the right to respond. This factor is one that should generate some prudence on your part. This is true for any behavior that could, if mismanaged, put others at risk. There should be consequences - not just financial - for committing unprovoked violence upon others, their wards, and their property. This is an important basis for liberty; just as you should let me walk around with arms or martial arts skills, you make the rule that says I can't just arbitrarily use those arms or marital arts against people. You don't say "no arms" or "no martial arts"; you say "observe everyone's right to remain unmolested or we (society) will step on your head until it squishes." And, you allow the exception that when someone steps on my liberties, freedom to use my arms or my skills becomes immediately available to me; I, in turn, need to make my best efforts at making sure I can explain this after the fact.
Real-world example: I consider fire from the neighbors to be a serious risk; consequently I harden against that possibility. I don't carry fire insurance, either, as investing in the house's fire-resistance is a better path, in my opinion, than engaging in gambling with the insurance company. Should I wish to sell the building, telling people it is essentially fireproof to outside forces is a valuable selling point; that makes my approach not only safer, but an investment as well. There are many ways to harden against external fire risk; metal roof (check), fire resistant exterior treatment (check), top-to-bottom roof based sprinklers (check), minimal vegetation near the building (check), generator and local water storage (check)... you get the idea. And in the end, it costs less than fire insurance does.
Same answer. I can harden to some degree if I'm concerned (border walls seem to be the obvious answer); I have the right to recourse once damage is done, though recourse may be limited by practical issues (and that is one of the factors that makes hardening something to consider.) I can also offer to help you store the materials in a manner that minimizes my risk while offering some benefit to you.
Same answer. I can harden to some degree if I'm concerned (peripheral drainage control, which I do have, but for different reasons, also buffer area comes into play); I have the right to recourse once damage is done, though recourse may be limited by practical issues (and that is one of the factors that makes hardening something to consider.) In many cases, risks like this exist anyway; many houses have large containers of fuel oil on site; some store large amounts of paints and other chemicals.
Sure I can. He had chemicals stored in his house in whatever way he chose to store them. Perfectly fine with me. But the government got involved as a side effect of serving a legitimate function -- tax supported fire suppression (of something that had nothing to do with his chemical activities, you'll note) -- and now that they have seen that there are chemicals, they're going to impose all manner of coercive, liberty crushing rules, likewise they are going to apply penalties for liberty-crushing rules previously not followed. Inside this man's home. So we go from paid service to coercive liberty crushing. This is pretty typical government behavior, and doesn't surprise me, though I certainly don't agree with it. So what is your point? Did you actually have a point?
Your certainty is entirely misplaced. It is in no way based upon any factual knowledge of my behavior, my situation, or the prophylactic actions I have taken as a consequence of my view that it is my responsibility to see to it that my home does not burn. Whatever your certainty develops from, it has nothing to do with me. I suspect some introspection is called for here.
That would be your imagination failing to take into account that not everyone views the world the way you do, not everyone thinks the world is a place where they should depend on the government acting like "mommy", and not everyone thinks actions at law are the correct remedy for every problem that comes up. The fact is, you could walk up to my home and apply a blowtorch to it for an hour, and it wouldn't burn or even smoke. So I don't worry about the neighbor's buildings burning, or not. In other words, I took the responsibility for seeing to it that my home wouldn't burn, and consequently, I don't have to worry about my neighbor in that regard. See how easy that is?
Is that so? And your evidence of me doing this is... what, exactly? Further, what is your evidence of libertarians in general screaming "there oughta be a law"? Feel free to get back to me when you have actual data to replace your rhetoric.
Confining toilets to bathrooms doesn't stop me from using materials brewed therein against you. The Chemist confined his work to his house, wasn't hurting anyone either; so the comparison is quite apt. The man wasn't doing anything that harmed anyone else, so he should have been left alone.
For the record, unless you're in the habit of wearing chain mail or have a neck like an elephant, they almost certainly can. However, if that's impossible for you to admit, let's just say that my fingers can poke your eyes out, and then follow up with, do you want to outlaw fingers?
Nonsense. Insurance is precisely the definition of gambling. Gambling is defined by taking a position of risk against an unknown outcome in order to benefit if you predict correctly. In the specific case of insurance, if you pay premiums all your life against fire, for instance, and your home never burns, then you predicted incorrectly and lost your bet, and the "house", that is, the insurance company, wins. They take all your bet money and return absolutely nothing of value to you. If, on the other hand, you've paid three premiums, and your house does burn, then the house (insurance company) pays off and you win. As is the case with all formalized gambling operations, the house knows the odds very well and has arranged things so that the bets -- the premium rates -- will cover them even though there are sure to be a few winners.
Radiation will do harm; the correct analogy would be to bullets flying across your property, not to music. Fail.
If there is a signed covenant between the neighbors that must be executed in order to buy, then yes, certainly. The sellers can ensure this is the case. That's a consensual agreement between informed, competent adults.
If the means of control is coercive, however, then we have a different situation. So if your neighbor moved in and then a zoning law is passed that says (for instance) that they cannot display a flag or raise a horse in the back yard, this is not reasonable. If you, on the other hand, go to your neighbor on the east and hand them a document that says "All homeowners signatory to this document agree not to permit or cause the display of flags on their property, and to require the signature of this document if the property is sold, and that displaying a flag will incur the following penalty to the homeowner", and they sign it, and you sign it, then you're on solid ground. If your neighbor to the west doesn't choose to sign, though, that's where your flag-free zone ends.
It is my opinion -
Yes, (a) this should be actionable [it is actual interference with property], and (b) it is possible that the losses may not be recoverable. Just as a rape cannot be followed by virginity, a mugging cannot be followed by innocence, etc. Some things happen and you are changed, or your resources change, and that's the end of it. You can whine like a little bitch, or you can pull up your big-boy pants and go on with life.
Life is full of risks. If there's nothing to be done, then that's the way it is. Such risks are worth taking to preserve liberty. That's where you (and the rest of the nanny-staters) differ, really. You think that the reduction of risk is worth giving up freedom. I don't think so. I find the entire idea to be cowardly.
This fixation on property "value" is a side effect of property as investment; or in other words, gambling. What you're trying to accomplish by telling the neighbors what to do is have them guarantee a risk you decided to take by purchasing the property. I simply don't see where the neighbors become responsible for risks you decided to take (unless you enter into a signed covenant with them) such that you think you have the right to coerce them into behaving the way you want them to on their own property.
No, your version of libertarian theory rests on that presumption.
My theory rests on the idea that I don't have any right to tell you what to do until you are causing me damage. If you stay off of my property, do not harm or trespass upon my property, and leave my physical self and those of my dependents alone, I don't have a beef with you.
Is there is a risk this approach could lead to a loss on my part? Sure. Is it likely to? Not very. Are there benefits to taking this position? Yes, there are many. I judge the risk to be more than acceptable in light of the benefits received.
Precedent is not a worthy argument, it assumes previous decisions were correct, and the record doesn't show that to be an accurate presumption.
I guess the estate wasn't large enough, then, was it? And also, the estate owners didn't buy the plot of land next door before the tannery people, did they? And whose responsibility would that have been? So who is at fault here? The estate owners, clearly.
One word: Covenants. Otherwise, I don't authorize you to decide what liberties you may crush in order to make me "safer." I deem liberty of considerably greater value than safety. Your attempt to redefine that is anathema to me. So do it for yourself; don't do it for -- or to -- me.
Oh, fiddlesticks. The supermarket that is my neighbor has row after row of containers of insecticide, chemicals like ammonia and bleach (Chlorine) and numerous other quite deadly things on the shelves. They even carry Twinkies, for goodness sake. Those things will kill you! If that store burns down, the vapors will no doubt be hugely hazardous. I *really* don't give a flying dog turd. Stop trying to protect me from everything. Really. Just STOP it. I'm gonna die anyway, eventually, from some damned thing. I'd like to get there without being bundled in swaddling cloth, breathing through a mandated filter, and being forbidden to walk because it puts wear on my hip joints. And I like buying my bleach next door. I really do.
Covenants ensure that what you want (prevent plaid homes, unmowed lawns, junk cars) is accomplished by mutual agreement, prior to the purchase of your property. You enter into a contract with clearly set out terms that shares something that you and your neighbor(s) agree is of sufficient value in the overall picture of ownership as to certify your performance in regard to it. If that's not the case, you don't buy the property.
Zoning, on the other hand, coerces people into doing what they don't want, or not doing what they do want, often well after the purchase of their property. Usually because a bunch of people were trying to come up with crimes that people MIGHT do in their fevered little imaginations.
This is why zoning is fascist evil by its very nature.
From the GP (now G....GP): "conducting scientific research in a residential neighborhood"
Yes, exactly, he shouldn't be doing it in a shed or barn in your backyard. He should be doing it in his backyard, basement, etc. Cooking it up isn't, and shouldn't, be a problem. Blowing it up such that it blows you up, breaks your windows, and/or showers you with shrapnel... now that is a problem. And there are laws against blowing up your neighbor, so we don't need laws against cooking up nitroglycerin; also, if you are concerned that your neighbor's domicile or outbuildings may explode, then you should buy enough land so that if such an event happens, you'll be safe. Me, I just gamble that the neighbor won't explode, burn down, or conduct a study of communicable diseases in their upstairs bedroom. If I decide I don't like the odds at some point, I'll adjust them in place on my property as best I can, or I'll try to buy out the neighbor, or I'll move.
I even have a smallish example along these lines; the motel to the east is a bit decrepit, and so doesn't qualify as "lovely scenery", etc. So I put in stained glass windows. Now my view is gorgeous. Never had to say a word to the neighbor. Probably increased the value of his property. :)
The problem with regulating behaviors so that risk is abolished is that there is literally no end to such regulation, or to such risks.
Houses burn, so we should clearly outlaw matches. And gas, coal, oil, and wood furnaces! And magnifying glasses! And sticks - you can rub sticks together, definite fire hazard there. And fireplaces. And lighters, and lighter fluid, and grills, and stoves, and incandescent lightbulbs, and electricity... and weather, because lightning can cause fires... to do that, we'll have to strip the atmosphere from the planet, which will of course reduce the risk of fire even further... THAT'S IT! Lets outlaw the atmosphere!
[narrows eyes] careful, boy, we don't stand for no one talkin sense 'round here...
I'm sorry, you think only residential suburbs have zoning? Are you high?
No, I'm angry because the gentleman in TFA/TFS was stopped from conducting scientific research in his own home, in the absence of any activity that was harming anyone else. Read the thread. This unusual (and seemingly uncommon) procedure may, presuming a modicum of intelligence that you have not, I must admit, demonstrated, yield an understanding of the conversation thus far, and in so doing, answer your question for you. Reading comprehension - highly underrated. Trust me on this.
Yeah, we (my sweetheart and I) laughingly refer to it as "the larder." It's about 60 feet from one of my doors to their door; and they even gave us our own cart we can wheel home. Nice neighbors. Not at all like those drunk, infrastructure destroying sharks the other post talked about...
To the degree that I want to control what the adjacent land is used for, I need to buy it. Otherwise, it'll be used for whatever the owner deems appropriate. That's right and proper, and junkyard, sewage treatment plant, or slaughterhouse (which, as a vegetarian, I would definitely find appalling, since you're looking for something that would annoy me), it's not my place to say one way or the other, unless I own the land. If I want to control that land, I need to undertake the purchase of it. I don't obtain legitimate rights over the neighbors because my sense of (whatever) is offended, or if I live in fear of some issue. Nor do they obtain legitimate rights over me.
To put it another way, nothing affects me that doesn't actually affect me. Neighbors set up a crack house? Not my land, not my business. They have guns? Not my business. They shoot a bullet through my property? Now I care, and there are laws that deal with that, and there should be, because such an action is a direct assault on me, so I can take appropriate action. I don't need a law that says "you can't sell crack", I just need a law that says "you can't shoot guns across another person's property." And of course, if there were no law saying they couldn't sell crack, then crack would be a mega-cheap commodity and no dealer or buyer would need to use their guns in the normal course of business, so there's another facet of how crushing people's liberties doesn't solve problems, it causes them.
My hands can tear off your head. Do you now want to say I can't have hands? My feet can drive your nuts right into your abdomen, rupturing them along the way, destroying your ability to have kids. You want to outlaw my feet? My tree has branches which a high wind can toss through your windows, or I can pick up from the ground and use to whip your face into a bloody mess. You want to outlaw trees? My toilet often contains matter that would qualify as a biological weapon; I could use that against you in any number of unsavory ways. You want to outlaw toilets except in "designated toilet zones"?
What you're doing here is (a) imagining how terrible it would be if someone did "something" you don't like with something else, and (b) outlawing the something else because you have terrified yourself that the something could happen. No crime has been committed, you're outlawing things based on your imagination. It's sick behavior.
If you want to reduce your risk, you should go ahead and do so to the degree you have resources that allow you to get it accomplished. Buy more land; put some space between you and those people you're so terrified of. Build a bunker. Pull the sheets over your head. But if you want to control what *I* do so as to reduce *your* risk, you can go take a long walk off a short pier. If you don't have the resources to reduce your risk, then you don't get to do so.
Property values are always a gamble. For me, and for you. Now, why is it that you think I am supposed to serve as an uncompensated guarantor of your property values at the cost of my liberties? Get back to me on that, would you?
Insurance is, by definition, gambling. You bet amounts of money that something is going to happen; the insurance company takes the bet and pays off if it does. Unless it can get out of it, of course. The rates are based on the odds you have bought into by choosing how and where you live, as well as innumerable other factors like your credit rating, your criminal history, the flood plain, your neighbors, etc. All of these things are a matter of your choice and control at one point or another, and aside from that, it is your choice to gamble in the first place. Now, why *exactly* am I responsible for your gambling habits? Get back to me on that one too. Oh, and don't even go to the "I have a mortgage and am required to have insurance"; that's not my fault or responsibility in any way. You entered into that contract by your own free will. Not my problem. Talk to your bank. And good luck with that.
Oh, brother. Is there some guarantee that the world must look beautiful in your sight? If you want such a guarantee, buy enough of the world that all you can see is yours, and then see to it that it looks like you want it to. Don't tell me what MY part of the world must look like. If you can't afford to buy enough of the world to guarantee what you see is what you want to see, then you get to suffer along with the rest of us, actually seeing what other people do with their little chunks of land. It's terrible, I know, this blatant conjunction of the ideas of actual ownership and freedom. Just sends shivers down your spine, doesn't it?
What abo
My neighbor on the east is an Albertson's grocery store. This is extremely convenient for me, frankly. My neighbor to the south, across the street, is a Dairy queen. My neighbor to the west is a motel (across an empty lot that in fact, I do own. And plan to turn into something. Someday.)
I have no problem with any of these uses of private property, nor can I think of any reason why I should -- they're not using my property, after all.
Now, I presume that a "fish and chips bar" is where they train sharks to chip away at national security assets, is that right? And it's a bar, so these are (potentially) drunk sharks?
[thinks hard] Nope, as long as they keep their drunk sharks off my land, I think I'd be ok with a "fish and chips bar." Sharks need to relax too, you know. Did you know they have to swim 24/7 just to breathe? Poor things. No wonder they drink.
Yes, lawd lawd lawd. Lawd forbid you pursue a hobby in the (presently imaginary) sanctity of your own home.
"Zoning" is anti-liberty crapola law; always has been. You want to control what goes on at the property next door, or down the block? Fine, then buy it. Otherwise, you have no legitimate authority over the owner's use unless they actually do something that affects you or your property -- not "might' do something, or you are "afraid" they might do something, because that nonsense is thought-crime (and it's YOUR thoughts!), but actually does something.
Now, that's not saying you don't have *power*, because the deep pathology of our legal system is you can always steal unauthorized power on the basis of all manner of your own thought crimes; but you sure don't have any such right, no matter what you do.
This country needs a deep cleaning of its nanny infection. Then we need the equivalent of mouse traps or prophylactic rings of poison around the legal system so they can't come back and re-infect us.
Ooooo.. TOO MUCH STUFF!!! Now there's a crime you can sink your teeth into!
Oh, yes. Yes! Yes indeed! Science doesn't belong in a residential neighborhood. Only churches. Science is a frightening, anti-social activity that must be guarded against most zealously in order that results, those evil, destabilizing fact-based destroyers of the status quo may be properly controlled by the government agency assigned to the task. Save the churches! Down with Science!
Man, are you Stalin's reincarnated evil soul, or what?
What I hate are idiots that think suppression, repression, and outright theft of personal and property-related liberties is normal and nothing to get upset over. You know anyone like that? I think you do. I think you can figure this out. Really.