We obviously differ on what the function of society is. No point arguing about that one.
I am not talking about trolls and griefers. There is a difference between your examples and the case in question. In this case, a woman lied about her identity and harrassed a girl. The fact the girl committed suicide is unfortunate but what is more unfortunate is that the woman's intent was malicious and meditated and the laws were unable to signal that such behavior is wrong.
I don't think the legal angle being used is the right way to address this as it sets dangerous legal precedence. If this is the cost that you are worried about then I agree with you.
However, I think that a society that permits malicious, meditated behavior in order to preserve such freedoms is too expensive a cost.
As for your arguments about violent media being banned, hate crimes fall in this category and they are banned (at least in Canada). It is considered in the public good that individual free speech is limited when it comes to encouraging violence against a select group of people. I don't believe this exists in the USA, which does explain a lot.
Your point about peanuts is not a good analogy. This is not an all or nothing proposition. Peanuts are allowed in society because we have rules that require that peanuts are labeled on food products. This accommodation by society is a good balance as the good from being able to eat peanuts outweighs the cost to label them.
If you tell a suicidal person on top of a building to jump, are you at fault? You should know better. For those who don't, that is why we have laws.
That's fine but the issue here is about whether society should allow one to torment others. By saying 'So what?' you are condoning those who harrass others. This is the sort of attitude that allows disasters like Columbine to happen.
It is clear that what that woman did was wrong but the laws are not able to address this. The crime is harrassment and the current law is inadequate. Not addressing this is bad news for those who do not fit in.
What about geothermal energy?
There is enough heat radiating from the earth's core to supply our energy needs, but it will cost us to exploit it. Geothermal energy has a relatively small footprint, but is limited by the availability of economically feasible sites. As the cost of fossil fuel increases, the number of economically viable sites will grow.
err...what about those other renewable sources like wind, solar, and geothermal. All these types of energy are available now, with varying degrees of economic competitiveness. Wind is currently the cheapest, and competitive with nuclear and natural gas. It, unfortunately, does not provide a reliable source of power. Geothermal is more expensive, but provides reliable, baseload power. Solar is currently too expensive to implement on a large scale, but provides power during peak periods. All three are zero emission, and are generating power commercially now. To tell people to deal with it is both arrogant and incorrect.
Actually, the tourist traps were the places where I saw the most entrepreneurial spirit. To clarify my point on giving something for nothing, I was near the border of Mozambique and Zambia, where I met the owner of a small campground. He said that the Mozambiquians (?) were twice as productive as the Zambians, even though they were from the same tribe. His theory was that the Portuguese were only interested in stripping Mozambique of any resources that were available, and did not bother to set up any sort of infrastructure. Someone waiting for a handout in Mozambique most likely died of starvation.
Meanwhile, in English Zambia, a colonial system was set up, where the Zambians were basically directed what to do all the time. Things got built without much local input, and operations were directed by the English. As such, the Zambians just waited for things to come to them, and never got much practice in doing things for themselves.
I don't know if his theory is correct, but my experiences in former colonial countries indicate there is some truth here.
I'm not saying that providing computers won't help, but giving them computers for free is not the way that I would implement this. There have been programs to donate bikes in Africa that have failed miserably because a free bike has no inherent value to the person receiving it. Even charging a nominal amount like $10 changes the attitude from handout to investment. A small fee, coupled with some training, would get you further than arriving at a village and handing them out like candy.
Are we doing more harm than good by helping Africans by giving them things? I've only visited, and not lived there, so my impressions are limited. What I did notice was the sense of entitlement, and an underlying system of patronage, where people wanted help from others, rather than moving to help themselves. I suspect this was the product of several generations of colonialism, where there was always a white guy telling the locals how to live.
The attitude in much of Africa is much different than that in Asia, which was the third world not that long ago. I never encountered so many people expecting a handout as I did in Africa. It was very common to have someone approach you and ask for something they wanted from you, like a jacket or t-shirt. If we keep providing goods like computers without a context on how to use them to make life better, are we really helping them at all?
Canada has a larger land area than the USA, yet 41% of Canadian adults hold a passport, as opposed to 34% in the USA. By your reasoning, Canadians should travel outside Canada less than Americans travel outside the USA. I strongly doubt this is the case.
That being said, why is this? In Canada, most of the land is inaccessible, whereas much more of the land in the USA is accessible. If we were to ask how many Europeans had travelled outside the EU, would the numbers become closer to Americans outside the USA? I think this is a fairer comparison.
For the record, I do have a passport, and have travelled to more than 60 countries. I live on the West Coast, where going anywhere usually means taking a plane. I don't travel much in Canada or the USA. I prefer to go where the food is cheap, and the sun is warm.
The argument against CO2 production being damaging goes something like: CO2 production on this planet is huge by comparison to whatever we, as polluters, contribute. Therefore, anything we do is insignificant and likely to be pointless anyhow.
However, CO2 in the atmosphere is a measure of excess CO2, and not CO2 production. The earth is a balanced system, and increases in CO2 in the atmosphere are indicative of how the balance is being shifted.
This is somewhat similar to the ratio of males to females on this planet. If you measure the amount of couples in the given population, male bias at birth (like in India or China) does not significantly affect the number of couples. However, if you were to measure the amount of unpartnered males, shifting a male/female ratio from the 50/50 mix to 52/48 significantly increases this number. Many researchers are talking of a social catalysm waiting to happen in Asia because of this, even though the changes in birth rates look relatively small.
What I am getting at is that the earth is a buffered system, where there are large amounts of CO2 converted back and forth. A small change in the balance can significantly affect the amount of excess, which is what appears to be happening now. Whether this increase in CO2 will cause massive global changes is open to debate, but humanity is making an impact, and we should be trying to evaluate what the impact will be, and not be denying that it is not our fault.
The vast majority of North American cities are designed for vehicles. Suburbs of single homes create low population densities, making it very impractical to use public transportation or bicycles. The only practical alternative is to drive a personal vehicle. Whenever the price of fuel spikes upward, drivers must pay, because they have no choice. When oil was $10/barrel, nobody thought twice about commuting from the burbs in a guzzling SUV, but now that it is 4x the price, people will consider living closer to work, or living in areas where amenities are close, but densities are higher. If free markets and government regulations work correctly, builders and city planners will respond accordingly and build higher density neighbourhoods. Unfortunately, this happens much more slowly than the gyrations in the fuel markets. This is a long term driver, and will not alleviate the present supply/demand mismatch.
As for dependence on foreign oil, the US will have a dependency so long as someone in a foreign country can pump oil out of the ground for less than the cost of alternatives created domestically. Although diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines, converting to diesel does not change the fact that you still need a supply of crude oil to make diesel.
That is not to say that converting to diesel is a bad idea. More efficient processes will alleviate the demand, but the rate of oil consumption in the US is very high and increasing with the growth of the US economy. Given this, energy independence is likely an impossibility in the near future.
Alternatives such as hydrogen, biodiesel or ethanol are currently too expensive or unreliable to be viable at the present time. Should the price of oil remain high, these fuel alternatives will be able to compete, but that means that instead of being forced to buy expensive gasoline, you will have the choice of expensive ethanol, expensive gasoline, or expensive hydrogen. At least the air might be a bit clearer.
Slashdot Mirror
We obviously differ on what the function of society is. No point arguing about that one. I am not talking about trolls and griefers. There is a difference between your examples and the case in question. In this case, a woman lied about her identity and harrassed a girl. The fact the girl committed suicide is unfortunate but what is more unfortunate is that the woman's intent was malicious and meditated and the laws were unable to signal that such behavior is wrong. I don't think the legal angle being used is the right way to address this as it sets dangerous legal precedence. If this is the cost that you are worried about then I agree with you. However, I think that a society that permits malicious, meditated behavior in order to preserve such freedoms is too expensive a cost. As for your arguments about violent media being banned, hate crimes fall in this category and they are banned (at least in Canada). It is considered in the public good that individual free speech is limited when it comes to encouraging violence against a select group of people. I don't believe this exists in the USA, which does explain a lot. Your point about peanuts is not a good analogy. This is not an all or nothing proposition. Peanuts are allowed in society because we have rules that require that peanuts are labeled on food products. This accommodation by society is a good balance as the good from being able to eat peanuts outweighs the cost to label them. If you tell a suicidal person on top of a building to jump, are you at fault? You should know better. For those who don't, that is why we have laws.
That's fine but the issue here is about whether society should allow one to torment others. By saying 'So what?' you are condoning those who harrass others. This is the sort of attitude that allows disasters like Columbine to happen. It is clear that what that woman did was wrong but the laws are not able to address this. The crime is harrassment and the current law is inadequate. Not addressing this is bad news for those who do not fit in.
What about geothermal energy? There is enough heat radiating from the earth's core to supply our energy needs, but it will cost us to exploit it. Geothermal energy has a relatively small footprint, but is limited by the availability of economically feasible sites. As the cost of fossil fuel increases, the number of economically viable sites will grow.
err...what about those other renewable sources like wind, solar, and geothermal. All these types of energy are available now, with varying degrees of economic competitiveness. Wind is currently the cheapest, and competitive with nuclear and natural gas. It, unfortunately, does not provide a reliable source of power. Geothermal is more expensive, but provides reliable, baseload power. Solar is currently too expensive to implement on a large scale, but provides power during peak periods. All three are zero emission, and are generating power commercially now. To tell people to deal with it is both arrogant and incorrect.
Actually, the tourist traps were the places where I saw the most entrepreneurial spirit. To clarify my point on giving something for nothing, I was near the border of Mozambique and Zambia, where I met the owner of a small campground. He said that the Mozambiquians (?) were twice as productive as the Zambians, even though they were from the same tribe. His theory was that the Portuguese were only interested in stripping Mozambique of any resources that were available, and did not bother to set up any sort of infrastructure. Someone waiting for a handout in Mozambique most likely died of starvation. Meanwhile, in English Zambia, a colonial system was set up, where the Zambians were basically directed what to do all the time. Things got built without much local input, and operations were directed by the English. As such, the Zambians just waited for things to come to them, and never got much practice in doing things for themselves. I don't know if his theory is correct, but my experiences in former colonial countries indicate there is some truth here. I'm not saying that providing computers won't help, but giving them computers for free is not the way that I would implement this. There have been programs to donate bikes in Africa that have failed miserably because a free bike has no inherent value to the person receiving it. Even charging a nominal amount like $10 changes the attitude from handout to investment. A small fee, coupled with some training, would get you further than arriving at a village and handing them out like candy.
Are we doing more harm than good by helping Africans by giving them things? I've only visited, and not lived there, so my impressions are limited. What I did notice was the sense of entitlement, and an underlying system of patronage, where people wanted help from others, rather than moving to help themselves. I suspect this was the product of several generations of colonialism, where there was always a white guy telling the locals how to live. The attitude in much of Africa is much different than that in Asia, which was the third world not that long ago. I never encountered so many people expecting a handout as I did in Africa. It was very common to have someone approach you and ask for something they wanted from you, like a jacket or t-shirt. If we keep providing goods like computers without a context on how to use them to make life better, are we really helping them at all?
Canada has a larger land area than the USA, yet 41% of Canadian adults hold a passport, as opposed to 34% in the USA. By your reasoning, Canadians should travel outside Canada less than Americans travel outside the USA. I strongly doubt this is the case.
That being said, why is this? In Canada, most of the land is inaccessible, whereas much more of the land in the USA is accessible. If we were to ask how many Europeans had travelled outside the EU, would the numbers become closer to Americans outside the USA? I think this is a fairer comparison.
For the record, I do have a passport, and have travelled to more than 60 countries. I live on the West Coast, where going anywhere usually means taking a plane. I don't travel much in Canada or the USA. I prefer to go where the food is cheap, and the sun is warm.
The argument against CO2 production being damaging goes something like: CO2 production on this planet is huge by comparison to whatever we, as polluters, contribute. Therefore, anything we do is insignificant and likely to be pointless anyhow.
However, CO2 in the atmosphere is a measure of excess CO2, and not CO2 production. The earth is a balanced system, and increases in CO2 in the atmosphere are indicative of how the balance is being shifted.
This is somewhat similar to the ratio of males to females on this planet. If you measure the amount of couples in the given population, male bias at birth (like in India or China) does not significantly affect the number of couples. However, if you were to measure the amount of unpartnered males, shifting a male/female ratio from the 50/50 mix to 52/48 significantly increases this number. Many researchers are talking of a social catalysm waiting to happen in Asia because of this, even though the changes in birth rates look relatively small.
What I am getting at is that the earth is a buffered system, where there are large amounts of CO2 converted back and forth. A small change in the balance can significantly affect the amount of excess, which is what appears to be happening now. Whether this increase in CO2 will cause massive global changes is open to debate, but humanity is making an impact, and we should be trying to evaluate what the impact will be, and not be denying that it is not our fault.
The vast majority of North American cities are designed for vehicles. Suburbs of single homes create low population densities, making it very impractical to use public transportation or bicycles. The only practical alternative is to drive a personal vehicle. Whenever the price of fuel spikes upward, drivers must pay, because they have no choice. When oil was $10/barrel, nobody thought twice about commuting from the burbs in a guzzling SUV, but now that it is 4x the price, people will consider living closer to work, or living in areas where amenities are close, but densities are higher. If free markets and government regulations work correctly, builders and city planners will respond accordingly and build higher density neighbourhoods. Unfortunately, this happens much more slowly than the gyrations in the fuel markets. This is a long term driver, and will not alleviate the present supply/demand mismatch.
As for dependence on foreign oil, the US will have a dependency so long as someone in a foreign country can pump oil out of the ground for less than the cost of alternatives created domestically. Although diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines, converting to diesel does not change the fact that you still need a supply of crude oil to make diesel. That is not to say that converting to diesel is a bad idea. More efficient processes will alleviate the demand, but the rate of oil consumption in the US is very high and increasing with the growth of the US economy. Given this, energy independence is likely an impossibility in the near future.
Alternatives such as hydrogen, biodiesel or ethanol are currently too expensive or unreliable to be viable at the present time. Should the price of oil remain high, these fuel alternatives will be able to compete, but that means that instead of being forced to buy expensive gasoline, you will have the choice of expensive ethanol, expensive gasoline, or expensive hydrogen. At least the air might be a bit clearer.