Cuba is free to trade with whomever they want to, the fact that they have nothing of value and that nobody is willing to invest there is not Americas problem.
What colour is the sky in your world?
From this FAQ and many others turned up in a simple search of "USA Cuba travel", it is clear that the US/Cuba reltionship is much more complicated than them having "nothing of value". It references in part: "For the most part, according to our government it is illegal for tourists to spend money in Cuba. As recently as October of 2000, the Congress again tried to ban travel to Cuba. "
It is generally illegal in the USA to do business with Cuba. There are few (if any) US investors in Cuban ventures, meaning that if you do get to visit Cuba you will see a lot of Canadian and German hotels, but not many US businesses.
If your world political opinions are based on similar levels of understanding as demonstrated by you knowledge of Cuba, I don't know how much I would trust them.
My understanding of the theology of the confessional is that in order to be absolved of one's sins, a sincere attempt at restitution and acceptance of the consequences mush be made. You have to pay back the money you stole and apologize to your mom for swearing at her, for example.
Generally speaking, a murderer would not receive absoution from God unless he or she were truely sorry for the murder, and such a truley contrite person would tend to want to also confess to the police and do the "right thing" by going to jail. The priest can't call the cops, but would remind the "sinner" of their duties to society if they actually want forgiveness from God.
In addition to the emmissions, there are also the costs of exploration and refining which are often given tax breaks, the military costs of involvement in areas of "national security" around the world, and all sorts of really-hard-to-pin-down subsidies and incentives. All forms of energy production have things like this, but the "alternative" forms tend to be much less heavily subsidized in this indirect manner.
IIRC, only if you ignore the costs involved in dealing with the waste products
Exactly! That's the problem! We have been ignoring the costs involved in dealing with the waste products of the fossil fuel plants. And it is time to stop. If we included ALL the medical, military, social, and environmental costs associated with every time of energy production, we could make better comparisons.
As an aside, years ago I saw a comparison of the injury and death rates per generated meggawatt of power for various forms of generation. Not too suprising, nuclear had the best rate, since while there have been some deaths, compared to the numbers killed in coal mining accidents and the like, they are pretty darn small (uranium mining for instance may be dangerous, but it produces much more energy per tonne of material, and then you get fewer deaths at the train station due to fewer rail-cars, etc. What was sort of funny in this type of comparison was that solar power (and I am a big fan of solar power) was the worst due to the low amounts of power generated, and the comparitively large numbers of people falling off their roofs installing panels.
It is PayPerView but you get a start button. Basically it transmits the movie when you want it rather than forcing you to watch at whatever time it is on. Some systems have pause and rewind type features, some just allow you to watch it at "any time" as long as "any time" is on ten minute intervals (so their system only has to rebroadcast it at most six times per hour).
What might be interesting is if TiVo were to do something like rent a late-nite channel to broadcase some encrypted movies that would get downloaded onto al TiVo systems and you could then call up TiVo to get the key to play the show after you paid for it. Not much new technology needed to be deployed, and pretty much the same VOD experience. Of course there would have to be some sort of controls to make sure the TiVo didn't record over something that the owner wanted, but they already have this type of protection implemented in their "maybe you will like this also" recording feature.
But it's by definition impossible to understand the new paradigm solely in terms of the old; if it weren't you wouldn't need a new paradigm.
This is true, and is a valid criticism of many refutiations of new/crackpot theories.
However, the thing that the new theory needs to do before anyone should bother even trying to refute it is to explain WHY a new paradigm is needed in the first place.
Some possible reasons for examining new ideas would be: the old one doesn't work in certain stated cases. the new one does the job just as well but is easier to use/interpret/extend. the old one is ugly.
Many "crackpot" theories are justfied by this last reason - the old established theory is unpleasant for the proponents of the new theory in some way. They don't like "virtual particles" or "probablilty waves" or some other seeming shortfall of the established theory. That is fine, but justifications based on estetics are a tough sell. If the old theory works, it will be hard to find converts. Additionally, you certainly need the new theory to do as good a job explaind things as the old theory did.
In this particular case it seems to me that the only thing that the new theory offers is the promise of free energy. It doesn't seem to do much in the way of doing the rest of the work that the old theory did.
Unless they can come up with something that the old theory cannot explain, they will have a hard time finding any converts.
Many things in science have no *clear* answer. Like, for instance, the fact that the octet rule can be broken and a valence shell can have *more* than eight electrons (go figure) like that fact that there is no *definite* molecular conformation (and probably many others that we cannot perceive) because the truth is that quantum theory works except in those cases where it *doesn't_work*, the idea that our math does not fit.0000001 percent of the time makes it either A. Incorrect B. Primitive.
While it is certainly true that we have many things left to figure out, I think you are really overstating the idea that there is a lot of "problems" with quantum theory.
Quantum electrodynamics, which describes the interactions between light and matter, is extremely well understood. By this I mean, the coorespondence between experimental measurements and theoretical calculations differ by no more than one part in ten to the twelve (or is it 18?). The differences are at the level of our ability to measure and our ability to calculate the model, thus there are (as yet) no points that we can point to and claim "this model doesn't seem to work here".
Granted, quantum electrodynamics (QED) isn't EVERYTHING, as it does not model gravity or the nuclear processes, but it does model all of chemist and electronics and material science and everything based on those fields - basically everything that we use.
If QED "explains" all of chemistry so darn well, why do we still study chemistry (and all those other fields)? QED "explains" chemistry to the same extent that the rule book "explains" chess. Understanding the rules of chess does not help much in explaining how to defeat the "Smith Left Side Queen Gambit" for example. It all depends on what you mean by "explains". QED can predict every interaction between the different atoms in a computer chip, but you need higher level models to do anything practically useful like figure out how to program you game of tetris.
Looking at a chemistry experiment that you do not understand the results of does not mean that QED is necessarily wrong (or even very likely that QED is wrong). It is more like looking at a high level chess game and not understanding why one player makes one particular move. Maybe when the queen was moved one space to the left when you thought it would be moved two places it means that you don't understand the rules, but more likely it means you don't understand the player's strategy. Jumping to the conclusion that you need to modify your theoretical chess rulebook to include a rule like "queens must move two places when the chess player has eaten tuna for lunch" is probably a bit premature.
A very fun read is Feynman's QED (or in Canada)which gives a very accessible, but not dumbed-down, explanation of QED.
In any case, it was too small a piece of code to be disorganized, so maybe my entire comment is moot. It was definitely undisciplined. Frankly, I'm surprised anyone disagrees with me: every coder has had this experience--writing code without thinking about it that turns out to be the best they've written.
One can "write from the gut" and still produce clean, readable code. You had an "gut feeling" for the sense of the algorithm that was needed for the task at hand - but you implemented that in a less than clear manner. Ideally, one gets a flash of brilliance, and then uses one's discipline, training, and experience to write clear, clean, inspired code. Similar examples can be drawn from "the arts", where writers, painters, sculptors and poets all are expected to do creative works, but use their training and experience to craft that creativity into realizations of their visions. It is hard work to learn how form a complete sentence, to hold a brush, carve a chunk of granite or find a good rhyme. It takes even more experience to know WHEN to form an incomplete sentence, splatter paint with your toes, use a jackhammer on the rock, or break the rhyming scheme.
Get a physics degree. Maybe better would be an Applied Physics degree rather than the more standard graduate-school focussed programs. Since the modeling you want to be doing is based on phyiscs, it makse some sense to go with the physics degree.
As others have pointed out though, comp sci programs (and engineering ones too) often have emphasis on group projects and teamwork, which are very valuable skills, so maybe a double major of physics/comp sci would be good.
In any case, an individual with a fair amount of physics background is a valuable addition to almost any programming effort involving real-world modeling.
The point is not to stop spending money, but rather to make informed decisions about buying. Pumping money into the economy by purchasing lots of "GI Joe with the Kung Fu Grip (TM)" dolls is really not as effective as using that money to purchase durrable goods or productivity material.
Buying stuff just for the sake of buying stuff is really not a very sustainable way of running an economy. Need, quality, and value should really enter into the system.
The ecconomic payback for a panel is generally in the 10-30 year range. The cost of a panel reflects the cost of materials and the cost of production which of course includes the cost of the electricty used for that production.
Foccusing only on the energy used, I think Homepower.com had an article saying the energy payback was something liek 3-5 years.
The environmental cost of producing (and later
discarding) rechargable batteries and solar cells
is vastly larger than the collateral costs of
producing power centrally
That just is not true. Lead acid batteries are completely recycleable and most places in the USA REQUIRE them to be recycled when disposed of.
Solar panels are typically guaranteed for 20-30 years, and generally are productive for much beyond that. I have seen no evidence to indicate there is any particularly probelms with disposal afterwards.
Home Power Magazine has some references to studies on teh energy, environmental, and financial aspects of solar panel production showing that these types of statements, while worth investigating, are not significant problems.
Now as for me, I am pretty pro-nuke, but distributed solar is certainly a good way to go. Of course the best choice would be to not waste the energy in the first place - you know, install some compact flourescent and LED lights around the house, and turn down the AC once in a while...
Re:Economic incentives do work...
on
Solar Power Play
·
· Score: 2
I do support alternative energy sources, by the way. But I'm also firmly against the government taking away my money unless it has a damn good reason to do so. Supporting preliminary research is not a damn good reason; it's a pretty damn poor one.
I would argue that basic research is a pretty decent thing for the government to support. Now if we want to talk about eliminiating the subsidies and incentives being paid to big agribusiness, or the oil and gas industries...
I think that much of the "alternative energy" proponents would be more than happy to compete on a completely even playing field. If the entrenched energy producers had to pay for all of the costs of exploration, research and development, environmental degredation, health effects, etc. it would be very clear that the "alternatives" are pretty dam cheap.
Most proposals that I have seen simply launch a ship into earth orbit and use a bunch of PV panels there where the sun always shines. Then you beam the power down the the desert via microwaves and have a wire grid antenna in the desert to collect the energy.
I think one could even do this over cropland or grazing land.
The initial cost is high, but the per watt cost is only a few times what is needs to be to be ecconomical in the long run. If we ever serously take into account the environmental costs of fossil fuel, some of these "expensive" options might not be so expensive.
I think you are pretty much alone in these thoughts in this forum.
You ideas that proof of such an event is hard to come by definatively, is valid. But similar statements about Australia can be made. I have never been there - hvae you?
Something that might be persuasive without actually being proof of the landing, is the lack of proof of the fakery. It would be very easy to provide evidence of the faking if it in fact did occur in my opinion. How easy would it be to cover up the filming of a major motion picture? Not very.
There has not been one credible person to come forward explaining how the "fake" was carried out in any real detail. Where were the movie sets? Who made them? Who paid for them? Who did the filming? Where are the out-takes?
Nixon and his buddies couldn't keep the wraps on a couple of hours of audio tapes, yet NASA and how many other people managed to destroy all of the physical evidence of their fakery and managed to convince everyone who worked on it to keep their mouth's shut, for 30+ years?
Going to the moon was difficult, but no where near as hard as faking the whole thing successfully would have been. The moon visit just required some good engineering. The hiding of such a big fake I feel is virtually impossible.
If "they" are this good at coverups, and "they" control NASA, the USSR, and everyone else... then why the heck would anyone ever speak up against "them"? If I thought "they" were this powerful, I would be scared shitless. You would have to be *crazy* to try to fight against "them"...
Re:OCR errors mostly caused by poor scan quality
on
Just One Page a Day
·
· Score: 2
Some versions of the bible are online, but not all of them. Multiple editions of a single work can be at PG, the bible is probably the most common one with multiple versions.
That just speaks to making derrivative works of things that are copyrighted (such as fan fiction). It is certianly not clear to me how this effects derrivative works of public domain material.
I am pretty sure that PG takes care to only use
old copies of books that are in fact no longer copyrighted if that is in fact necessary. They seem very picky in making sure that they follow the rules.
I can easily see validity to most of your points, though I (as before) question many of your conculsions. In my opinion, you are being overly simplistic with most of your solutions to what are generally complex issues.
Yes there are abuses of many of our systems. I contend that many of those "loopholes" are the result of design choices necessary to achive some of our societal goals.
Unfortunately, the system we have is not designed to let you or I decide these types of issues, but rather to try to get "the public" by way of elected politicians to create laws, institutions, and practices. Against the wishes and desires of various large bodies of the population, it is unlikely in the extreme that any of your proposals would find sufficient support to be enacted. One possible explination is that everyone else is deluded, but perhaps many just do not share your desires.
Personally, I think that for the most part, the "western world" is doing a pretty good job. Our leaders have a lot of perks, but compared to other times and places, they are much closer to the "commoner" than they might be. The abuses in our systems should be addressed, but they are much less than they might be. I happen to support many limits of our "freedoms" in the way of regulation of businesses and in our regulation of "vices", and in fact feel that in some areas we should be tightening up (don't get me started about state sponsored lotteries as a way of raising finances!)/
I worry a lot about the programs and protections offered to workers, researchers, the poor, etc. and am very cautious when examining policy changes that might impact those programs and protections. Crafting rules that would let you easly dismiss your skirt-raiser while still protecting my whistle-blower is not as easy as you seem to be implying.
I dont' really follow your logic. Sales taxes are not taxes applied for the privledge of doing business, they are taxes applied for the priveldge of buying things. The Canadian is doing all of the buying, so should be subject to the taxes, regardless of where the goods or services are coming from.
In the broader picture of the GST in general, and the PM's promises in particularl, I do not really have much to disagree with you on. I have always doubted any politician's promise to eliminate the GST though - I doubt even the NDP would do so if they were ever in power federally (like that is going to happen in my lifetime...)
I did not mean to imply that my responses were complete rebuttals to your points, but rather that each of your points was not completely unassailable (sp?). Your counter points too have merit, but again, are not the last word on the issues, and neither are my responses herein. The point is that these are not simple problems, and policies to address them can and do have wide ranging and complex interactions and results.
1. and 2. The point is that basic research can and does lead to things that we do not know the possible use for until we get there. The microelectronics industry was not viewed as being a potential benifit, so we would not have invested heavily in creating it without the space program. In 1965 if you stood up in congress and said that you wanted 100 billion dollars to create a viable microelectronics industry, you would have got nowhere. Standing up and saying that we should go to the moon (before the evil USSR) managed to get the job done. So maybe we should find another cold war partner to dance with? Cut out basic research and it seems to me you cut out future inovations. Of course some other country will eventually do the figuring out and we can try to learn from them, so it isn't like the human race will wither and die...
3. In some sense it is voted on - we ellect the "bastards". Elect someone who's platform is based on reducing the pay rates and Bob's your uncle I suppose.
4. The limo is not faster, but you need not stand in line waiting for your turn like you do for the taxi stand at the airport. Finding out the best possible economy can be of value of course, but it is not a trivial proposition. One example would be the use of a travel agent vs buying the tickets yourself. A travel agent gnerally will charge a commission and may not be able to find the ultimate cheapest flight because they cannot possibly know all possible details of your life like your anut in Telsa who you wouldn't mind visiting on a 3 hour layover, but only if it is after her bingo game at 5. However looking over all possible flight arangements would probably take you four or five hours. Four or five hours might be worth a few hundred dollars savings to you personally, but is that type of "savings" worth it to the tax payer when balanced against the value of the job that the tax payer is paying a governmental worker to do? How much would it cost in time and resources to do complete cost-benifit analysis on all decisions of this type? For each and every case of "wasted" money in any organization, there is a non-zero cost associated with alanyzing how to best avoid such "waste". This doesn't mean that such analysis should not be done, but does indicate that there can be many cases where even the most "efficient" method can be less efficient than a more expensive method.
5. The psychology of leadership is not completely worthless. Even you and I with our great intelectual insight react differently to different people based in part on things that have little logical value. If your elected leader showed up in a dirty Metalica t-shirt to an important event, as much as I would like to say I would not be effected, I know it would have an impact. Given two people telling me that the new law on X was going to be implemented, I would react differently depending on my low level perception of the type of person they were, which would be infleuenced by how they appeared. I agree that there can be inappropriate levels of "perks", but I disagree with the idea that we can attract and retain competent people without offering them a competitive (or at least slightly competitive) benifits package. If you think that the current package is so out of wack with what it should be, why are you not trying to get such a job?
6. I think that this is a valid criticism of the tax system, but I do not think that you have properly examined all of the results of your proposal. Or if you have properly examined them, you are not shaving that insight when you say we should scrap everything and go with an ultra simple system. As only one single item amoung the billions to be considered let us look at donations to charities. Currently there is a tax advantage given when soneone donates money to someone like the Red Cross. While there aremany opinions about what sort of organizations should be considered charities, in general, most people do feel that charities are a good thing and can provide good things for society. If we eliminate the tax credit for such donations, there will be an effect on charitable giving. How much of an effect? Is this change worth the savings in complecxity? Should we enact some other change to offset it? Should we do something to help those served by charities if the charities can no longer function? As I said before, there is much merit to simplified tax codes, but there are also a lot of benifits to many of the "complications" of the current tax codes.
7. As I have stated previously, I think that there can be many areas (potentially the Suess statue, but I like Seuss:-) where there are inappropriate buildings, but I disagree with the idea that the least expensive option to build and maintain is neccessarily the best one to build. Peole work better in better enviornments, regardless of what we may or may not want. People do not want to work in drab blocks of concreete, and forcing them to do so is not going to help maintain moral, productivity, or employment - and we do have to attract workers to perform soem of the jobs of government and we do have to convince people to run for office. We probably do not need to have gold plated toilets, but it is probably a good idea to sweep the halls and wash the windows now and then. Somewhere between the two extremes is probably optimal.
8. A balanced budget is not always benificial. If that were the case, then one would expect to rarely see any family or business take out a loan. A loan can be a very useful ecconomic tool. One small example might be if a municipality borrows money to construct a convention center which then brings an increase in business which increases tax revenue which pays the interest on the loan. Or borrows money to fund a work study program which heps people get off social assistance and into the work-force and into paying taxes to incrase revenu. The idea that a balanced budget is somehow the ultimate in goals in all cases is just plain incorrect. This can be seen by just focusing on what might be meant by "budget" in the first place. Are we talking one year? Two years? One month? On different time scales it is impossible to always have a balanced budget. Of course, it is very important to have a sustainable budgetary system, and repeatedly running deficits is fiscally irresponsible and as you have pointed out interest payments can be killers. But the blanket prohibition against running a deficit is simplistic.
9. Growth does not and has not continued "ad infinititum". The USA has been around for a couple of hundred years and governmental growth has not choked us all to death yet. Looking at some older countries, we do not see any sort of problems that mandating a certain size of government would prevent, in my opinion.
10. I am not claiming that reforms would have no value, but rather that current systems do have some value. I do not know the specific laws in question, so perhaps I should conceed that you might have found a case where a simple solution is viable.
11. It is not the case that there are many programs that are universally or nearly so agreed to be useless, because if there were, then they would quickly get cut. As for social assistance type programs, you may not like being forced to be a part of it, but universiality is one of the strengths of such programs - a wide base of support is sometimes required for such a system. Incidentally, it is my understanding that SS is not a savings program, but rather a payment program where recipients get many generated from the people paying it. Thus, when it started, people immediately got money even though they had not been making payments previously. The projected problems with SS have been associated with the projected increases in the number of recipients compared to the number of payers. Granted, this might not have been the best way to set up the system (but at the time, it was pretty good since there were a lot more payers than recipients, and that was expected to be the normal state of affairs), but it actually seems to be working fairly well, and with the changes made over the past few years, does not seem to be in as much of a crisis as it was once though to be.
12. I would agree that there should be ways to remove those who are not doing their jobs, but some of the rules in place that retain such people might be rules that we son't really want to get rid of. Things like tenue can be compared a bit to things like freedom of speach - in order for freedom of speach to work the way we want it to work (allowing dissent) we have to also allow behaviour that we generally find offensive (things like racial slurs). Similarly, for tenue to work for what we want (ensuring academic freedom) we might also have to accept some level of undesired results (retention of some "deadwood"). This is not to say that such rules should not be examined, but rather to remind us that any changes must be carefully weighed.
13, 14, 15. Prostitution, gambling, and drugs. The areas where these are legal (Nevada, Amseterdam, etc.) do have problems with abuses and explaitation - this could be a result of how they are legalized, but it could also be more closely linked with the "vices" themselves. It is clear that human sexuality is a complex subject, and it should not be suprising that combining that with money has a high potential for undesired consequences. Drugs (including alcholol and tobacco) can and do have extream effects on significiant portions of the population and their mere consumption (regardless of the legality of their availability) can have significant effects on the individual as well as those immediataly surrounding adn society at large. Gambling also can be problamatical for a significant fraction of the population (from 1 to 5% of people are potentially "problem gamblers" according to published reports - which seems like a small number until you think that in a city of one million, this translates into over ten thousand people). Easy access to gambling for those problem gamblers can pose quite a strain on society. Again, I am not saying that the current methods of dealing with these problems are optimal, but I do maintain that blanket legalization is clearly not necessarily the ultimate soltion.
I think that there is a lot of merrit to your idea that we might be better served by those who do not want to be in office than by those clamouring for the position, but I have serious doubts that any of your proposals would move us in that direction.
Under the current state of affairs, we have so many many positions (judges, AG's, sheriffs, mayors, school boards, etc, etc, etc) that need to be filled that it seems necessary to me that we need to offer reasonable benifits in order to fill them. Cut the pay to the bare minimum for survival and no body who is qualified other than the independantly wealthy or perhaps the power mad, would ever run for office, at least in the numbers necessary. As stated before - are you running for office, even with what you think are unreasonably high rates of payment?
I have often looked with interest at systems like in Austrailia where people are required to vote and wonder if that might have any effect. I wonder if there is any way to have some sort of required governmental service or draft where rather than elect people who chose to run, we force people to take up office or the civil service. This type of idea is an interesting thought, but seems very unlikely to ever be able to be implemented - though I suppose if the military draft is constitutional a civil service draft would be equally so.
The biggest problem seems to be that many US sellers are just not aware of the brokerage issue and the first time the customer learns about it is when the shipper hands them a bill. I got burned by UPS once on this for a $10 item with their $25 minimum brokerage fee and started being much more careful. For a number of places (Apple for instance), the retailer can take care of the brokering and the shipper need do nothing. For some shippers, the brokering is included in the price of sending the shipment (FedEx was doing this in 2001, but is no longer doing this in 2002, at least for the type of shipping that I have been using). All in all, the postal system seems to be the best one to use when possible.
I try my best when dealing with any US orders to make sure that I know what the shiping method is going to impose on the total price and try to convince the seller that having a postal option is in their best interest (and explaining about customs and brokerage on their sales site is a good thing too.).
As for the application of GST, I would disagree with you. I may not like the various sales taxes, but if we are going to have them, I do think that they should be applied to everything. Giving imports a free ride isn't going to do anything other than drive business outside the country and reduce the amount of tax collected. While I would like for ME to be able to avoid all these taxes, I don't want anyone else to be able to avoid them...
While it is worth examining where we spend our money, each one of the things you think of as being obviously wasteful is not so clear to me:
1. There is a lot of weight behind the idea that the NASA Apollo program lead directly to the microelectronics industry. Not such a bad thing to spend money on creating.
2. Fundamental physics research lead to the transistor - again a pretty good thing. Other examples exist.
3. Most politicians earn less while in office than when out of office, incidating that the pay of office holders is probably not that much too high.
4. There can often be "false savings" in going for the lowest price economy items. The limo might be more likely to get there on time and the taxi less so - this could potentially cost big bucks in trying to save a few pennies. Additionally, having competitive pay, having competitive "benifits" should help attract and maintain people capable of doing the job.
5. Some of the trappings of office reflect the importance we feel that office has. This type of psychological value has some financial cost which needs to be paid. If we want our leaders to look like leaders (and for the most part, we do), then it costs some money.
6. The tax system is complex because it is designed to serve many many ideals from revenu generation to wealth shifting to ecconomic encouragement and discouragement. Anything to replace it needs to examine all of these items and state how they might be addressed (or why they should not be addressed I suppose). A single tax addresses few of them.
7. The function of buildings extends beyond utilitarian ideals and can streatch into art and fancy stuff like that. People are happier in nice places at the very least which provides some ecconomic benifit to making places nice to work in or to visit.
8. A balanced budget at all times is not in the best interest of the country/state/city. Purely ecconomically, at times it makes sense to borrow to help things through the rough spots, and hopefully to pay that back and/or save when things are going well. Blanket policies can be disasters.
9. Mandated growth rates might not reflect the desires or needs of a changing society. What if we decide to go for some sort of national health care? Or get rid of the military? (Probably equally unlikely, but what the heck)
10. Some form of state campaign monies can level the playing field and allow for a wider possible choice of candidates. Preventing a slate of only the rich can be a good thing.
11. What constitutes a useless program is not widely agreed upon. People bitch and moan about SS and Medicare quite a lot, but both programs seem to actually do fairly well for what they were designed to do. From an ecconomic point of view, almost ANYTHING that moves money around has some benifits to people. Even make-work projects at the very least, make work.
12. Labour laws and union rules can provide for checks and balances against arbitrary firing and evil work conditions. This is a good thing.
13. The sex trade, even where legal, is rife with abuses and exploitation and linked to crime and other anti-social behaviour that society has an interest in discouraging.
14. The same with gambling.
15. The same with drugs.
While I think that all of the above issues are worth examining and reexamining - none of them are clearly slam dunks (because if they were, they would have been dunked by now.) Government subsidies, prohibitions, and perks clearly can have unwanted costs, but they can and do also have clear benifits, which is generally why they were inacted in the first place.
Do we want to make governmental service so unrewarding that only saints and mental deficients want to persue it? How many saints will we attract? Would you (presumably an intelligent well informed wonderkid) want to go into civil service or politics if that did not offer a reasable wage/benifit package? Do we not want people like you to do that? Should society reward the president of Pepsi or the president of the USA more? How much more? Should we borrow money to build a road like we borrow money to buy a house or should we just live in a shack until we can save enough to buy outright? Should we invest in long term research and developement either directly or through the tax system or should we save our money? Should we discourage destrutive behaviour or should we let people do pretty much anything?
All of these are valuable questions - none of the answers are clear cut.
Easiest way to balance your budget: inherit a bunch of money from your rich uncle.
Alberta may well have had excellent financial management, but it also had a huge windfall in the form of vast amounts of natural resources (oil and gas) and a good market for those resources. It is not clear that things would be as rosey if the province was a little less blessed by providence.
Now why AB can't afford to do the right thing by Kyoto if they are so well off is another matter:-)
Slashdot Mirror
What colour is the sky in your world?
From this FAQ and many others turned up in a simple search of "USA Cuba travel", it is clear that the US/Cuba reltionship is much more complicated than them having "nothing of value". It references in part: "For the most part, according to our government it is illegal for tourists to spend money in Cuba. As recently as October of 2000, the Congress again tried to ban travel to Cuba. "
It is generally illegal in the USA to do business with Cuba. There are few (if any) US investors in Cuban ventures, meaning that if you do get to visit Cuba you will see a lot of Canadian and German hotels, but not many US businesses.
If your world political opinions are based on similar levels of understanding as demonstrated by you knowledge of Cuba, I don't know how much I would trust them.
Generally speaking, a murderer would not receive absoution from God unless he or she were truely sorry for the murder, and such a truley contrite person would tend to want to also confess to the police and do the "right thing" by going to jail. The priest can't call the cops, but would remind the "sinner" of their duties to society if they actually want forgiveness from God.
In addition to the emmissions, there are also the costs of exploration and refining which are often given tax breaks, the military costs of involvement in areas of "national security" around the world, and all sorts of really-hard-to-pin-down subsidies and incentives. All forms of energy production have things like this, but the "alternative" forms tend to be much less heavily subsidized in this indirect manner.
Exactly! That's the problem! We have been ignoring the costs involved in dealing with the waste products of the fossil fuel plants. And it is time to stop. If we included ALL the medical, military, social, and environmental costs associated with every time of energy production, we could make better comparisons.
As an aside, years ago I saw a comparison of the injury and death rates per generated meggawatt of power for various forms of generation. Not too suprising, nuclear had the best rate, since while there have been some deaths, compared to the numbers killed in coal mining accidents and the like, they are pretty darn small (uranium mining for instance may be dangerous, but it produces much more energy per tonne of material, and then you get fewer deaths at the train station due to fewer rail-cars, etc. What was sort of funny in this type of comparison was that solar power (and I am a big fan of solar power) was the worst due to the low amounts of power generated, and the comparitively large numbers of people falling off their roofs installing panels.
What might be interesting is if TiVo were to do something like rent a late-nite channel to broadcase some encrypted movies that would get downloaded onto al TiVo systems and you could then call up TiVo to get the key to play the show after you paid for it. Not much new technology needed to be deployed, and pretty much the same VOD experience. Of course there would have to be some sort of controls to make sure the TiVo didn't record over something that the owner wanted, but they already have this type of protection implemented in their "maybe you will like this also" recording feature.
This is true, and is a valid criticism of many refutiations of new/crackpot theories.
However, the thing that the new theory needs to do before anyone should bother even trying to refute it is to explain WHY a new paradigm is needed in the first place.
Some possible reasons for examining new ideas would be: the old one doesn't work in certain stated cases. the new one does the job just as well but is easier to use/interpret/extend. the old one is ugly.
Many "crackpot" theories are justfied by this last reason - the old established theory is unpleasant for the proponents of the new theory in some way. They don't like "virtual particles" or "probablilty waves" or some other seeming shortfall of the established theory. That is fine, but justifications based on estetics are a tough sell. If the old theory works, it will be hard to find converts. Additionally, you certainly need the new theory to do as good a job explaind things as the old theory did.
In this particular case it seems to me that the only thing that the new theory offers is the promise of free energy. It doesn't seem to do much in the way of doing the rest of the work that the old theory did.
Unless they can come up with something that the old theory cannot explain, they will have a hard time finding any converts.
While it is certainly true that we have many things left to figure out, I think you are really overstating the idea that there is a lot of "problems" with quantum theory.
Quantum electrodynamics, which describes the interactions between light and matter, is extremely well understood. By this I mean, the coorespondence between experimental measurements and theoretical calculations differ by no more than one part in ten to the twelve (or is it 18?). The differences are at the level of our ability to measure and our ability to calculate the model, thus there are (as yet) no points that we can point to and claim "this model doesn't seem to work here".
Granted, quantum electrodynamics (QED) isn't EVERYTHING, as it does not model gravity or the nuclear processes, but it does model all of chemist and electronics and material science and everything based on those fields - basically everything that we use.
If QED "explains" all of chemistry so darn well, why do we still study chemistry (and all those other fields)? QED "explains" chemistry to the same extent that the rule book "explains" chess. Understanding the rules of chess does not help much in explaining how to defeat the "Smith Left Side Queen Gambit" for example. It all depends on what you mean by "explains". QED can predict every interaction between the different atoms in a computer chip, but you need higher level models to do anything practically useful like figure out how to program you game of tetris.
Looking at a chemistry experiment that you do not understand the results of does not mean that QED is necessarily wrong (or even very likely that QED is wrong). It is more like looking at a high level chess game and not understanding why one player makes one particular move. Maybe when the queen was moved one space to the left when you thought it would be moved two places it means that you don't understand the rules, but more likely it means you don't understand the player's strategy. Jumping to the conclusion that you need to modify your theoretical chess rulebook to include a rule like "queens must move two places when the chess player has eaten tuna for lunch" is probably a bit premature.
A very fun read is Feynman's QED (or in Canada)which gives a very accessible, but not dumbed-down, explanation of QED.
One can "write from the gut" and still produce clean, readable code. You had an "gut feeling" for the sense of the algorithm that was needed for the task at hand - but you implemented that in a less than clear manner. Ideally, one gets a flash of brilliance, and then uses one's discipline, training, and experience to write clear, clean, inspired code. Similar examples can be drawn from "the arts", where writers, painters, sculptors and poets all are expected to do creative works, but use their training and experience to craft that creativity into realizations of their visions. It is hard work to learn how form a complete sentence, to hold a brush, carve a chunk of granite or find a good rhyme. It takes even more experience to know WHEN to form an incomplete sentence, splatter paint with your toes, use a jackhammer on the rock, or break the rhyming scheme.
As others have pointed out though, comp sci programs (and engineering ones too) often have emphasis on group projects and teamwork, which are very valuable skills, so maybe a double major of physics/comp sci would be good.
In any case, an individual with a fair amount of physics background is a valuable addition to almost any programming effort involving real-world modeling.
Buying stuff just for the sake of buying stuff is really not a very sustainable way of running an economy. Need, quality, and value should really enter into the system.
Foccusing only on the energy used, I think Homepower.com had an article saying the energy payback was something liek 3-5 years.
I think Neptune is a bit closer than 200 light years away...
That just is not true. Lead acid batteries are completely recycleable and most places in the USA REQUIRE them to be recycled when disposed of.
Solar panels are typically guaranteed for 20-30 years, and generally are productive for much beyond that. I have seen no evidence to indicate there is any particularly probelms with disposal afterwards.
Home Power Magazine has some references to studies on teh energy, environmental, and financial aspects of solar panel production showing that these types of statements, while worth investigating, are not significant problems.
Now as for me, I am pretty pro-nuke, but distributed solar is certainly a good way to go. Of course the best choice would be to not waste the energy in the first place - you know, install some compact flourescent and LED lights around the house, and turn down the AC once in a while...
I would argue that basic research is a pretty decent thing for the government to support. Now if we want to talk about eliminiating the subsidies and incentives being paid to big agribusiness, or the oil and gas industries...
I think that much of the "alternative energy" proponents would be more than happy to compete on a completely even playing field. If the entrenched energy producers had to pay for all of the costs of exploration, research and development, environmental degredation, health effects, etc. it would be very clear that the "alternatives" are pretty dam cheap.
I think one could even do this over cropland or grazing land.
The initial cost is high, but the per watt cost is only a few times what is needs to be to be ecconomical in the long run. If we ever serously take into account the environmental costs of fossil fuel, some of these "expensive" options might not be so expensive.
You ideas that proof of such an event is hard to come by definatively, is valid. But similar statements about Australia can be made. I have never been there - hvae you?
Something that might be persuasive without actually being proof of the landing, is the lack of proof of the fakery. It would be very easy to provide evidence of the faking if it in fact did occur in my opinion. How easy would it be to cover up the filming of a major motion picture? Not very.
There has not been one credible person to come forward explaining how the "fake" was carried out in any real detail. Where were the movie sets? Who made them? Who paid for them? Who did the filming? Where are the out-takes?
Nixon and his buddies couldn't keep the wraps on a couple of hours of audio tapes, yet NASA and how many other people managed to destroy all of the physical evidence of their fakery and managed to convince everyone who worked on it to keep their mouth's shut, for 30+ years?
Going to the moon was difficult, but no where near as hard as faking the whole thing successfully would have been. The moon visit just required some good engineering. The hiding of such a big fake I feel is virtually impossible.
If "they" are this good at coverups, and "they" control NASA, the USSR, and everyone else... then why the heck would anyone ever speak up against "them"? If I thought "they" were this powerful, I would be scared shitless. You would have to be *crazy* to try to fight against "them"...
Some versions of the bible are online, but not all of them. Multiple editions of a single work can be at PG, the bible is probably the most common one with multiple versions.
That just speaks to making derrivative works of things that are copyrighted (such as fan fiction). It is certianly not clear to me how this effects derrivative works of public domain material.
I am pretty sure that PG takes care to only use old copies of books that are in fact no longer copyrighted if that is in fact necessary. They seem very picky in making sure that they follow the rules.
Yes there are abuses of many of our systems. I contend that many of those "loopholes" are the result of design choices necessary to achive some of our societal goals.
Unfortunately, the system we have is not designed to let you or I decide these types of issues, but rather to try to get "the public" by way of elected politicians to create laws, institutions, and practices. Against the wishes and desires of various large bodies of the population, it is unlikely in the extreme that any of your proposals would find sufficient support to be enacted. One possible explination is that everyone else is deluded, but perhaps many just do not share your desires.
Personally, I think that for the most part, the "western world" is doing a pretty good job. Our leaders have a lot of perks, but compared to other times and places, they are much closer to the "commoner" than they might be. The abuses in our systems should be addressed, but they are much less than they might be. I happen to support many limits of our "freedoms" in the way of regulation of businesses and in our regulation of "vices", and in fact feel that in some areas we should be tightening up (don't get me started about state sponsored lotteries as a way of raising finances!)/
I worry a lot about the programs and protections offered to workers, researchers, the poor, etc. and am very cautious when examining policy changes that might impact those programs and protections. Crafting rules that would let you easly dismiss your skirt-raiser while still protecting my whistle-blower is not as easy as you seem to be implying.
In the broader picture of the GST in general, and the PM's promises in particularl, I do not really have much to disagree with you on. I have always doubted any politician's promise to eliminate the GST though - I doubt even the NDP would do so if they were ever in power federally (like that is going to happen in my lifetime...)
1. and 2. The point is that basic research can and does lead to things that we do not know the possible use for until we get there. The microelectronics industry was not viewed as being a potential benifit, so we would not have invested heavily in creating it without the space program. In 1965 if you stood up in congress and said that you wanted 100 billion dollars to create a viable microelectronics industry, you would have got nowhere. Standing up and saying that we should go to the moon (before the evil USSR) managed to get the job done. So maybe we should find another cold war partner to dance with? Cut out basic research and it seems to me you cut out future inovations. Of course some other country will eventually do the figuring out and we can try to learn from them, so it isn't like the human race will wither and die...
3. In some sense it is voted on - we ellect the "bastards". Elect someone who's platform is based on reducing the pay rates and Bob's your uncle I suppose.
4. The limo is not faster, but you need not stand in line waiting for your turn like you do for the taxi stand at the airport. Finding out the best possible economy can be of value of course, but it is not a trivial proposition. One example would be the use of a travel agent vs buying the tickets yourself. A travel agent gnerally will charge a commission and may not be able to find the ultimate cheapest flight because they cannot possibly know all possible details of your life like your anut in Telsa who you wouldn't mind visiting on a 3 hour layover, but only if it is after her bingo game at 5. However looking over all possible flight arangements would probably take you four or five hours. Four or five hours might be worth a few hundred dollars savings to you personally, but is that type of "savings" worth it to the tax payer when balanced against the value of the job that the tax payer is paying a governmental worker to do? How much would it cost in time and resources to do complete cost-benifit analysis on all decisions of this type? For each and every case of "wasted" money in any organization, there is a non-zero cost associated with alanyzing how to best avoid such "waste". This doesn't mean that such analysis should not be done, but does indicate that there can be many cases where even the most "efficient" method can be less efficient than a more expensive method.
5. The psychology of leadership is not completely worthless. Even you and I with our great intelectual insight react differently to different people based in part on things that have little logical value. If your elected leader showed up in a dirty Metalica t-shirt to an important event, as much as I would like to say I would not be effected, I know it would have an impact. Given two people telling me that the new law on X was going to be implemented, I would react differently depending on my low level perception of the type of person they were, which would be infleuenced by how they appeared. I agree that there can be inappropriate levels of "perks", but I disagree with the idea that we can attract and retain competent people without offering them a competitive (or at least slightly competitive) benifits package. If you think that the current package is so out of wack with what it should be, why are you not trying to get such a job?
6. I think that this is a valid criticism of the tax system, but I do not think that you have properly examined all of the results of your proposal. Or if you have properly examined them, you are not shaving that insight when you say we should scrap everything and go with an ultra simple system. As only one single item amoung the billions to be considered let us look at donations to charities. Currently there is a tax advantage given when soneone donates money to someone like the Red Cross. While there aremany opinions about what sort of organizations should be considered charities, in general, most people do feel that charities are a good thing and can provide good things for society. If we eliminate the tax credit for such donations, there will be an effect on charitable giving. How much of an effect? Is this change worth the savings in complecxity? Should we enact some other change to offset it? Should we do something to help those served by charities if the charities can no longer function? As I said before, there is much merit to simplified tax codes, but there are also a lot of benifits to many of the "complications" of the current tax codes.
7. As I have stated previously, I think that there can be many areas (potentially the Suess statue, but I like Seuss :-) where there are inappropriate buildings, but I disagree with the idea that the least expensive option to build and maintain is neccessarily the best one to build. Peole work better in better enviornments, regardless of what we may or may not want. People do not want to work in drab blocks of concreete, and forcing them to do so is not going to help maintain moral, productivity, or employment - and we do have to attract workers to perform soem of the jobs of government and we do have to convince people to run for office. We probably do not need to have gold plated toilets, but it is probably a good idea to sweep the halls and wash the windows now and then. Somewhere between the two extremes is probably optimal.
8. A balanced budget is not always benificial. If that were the case, then one would expect to rarely see any family or business take out a loan. A loan can be a very useful ecconomic tool. One small example might be if a municipality borrows money to construct a convention center which then brings an increase in business which increases tax revenue which pays the interest on the loan. Or borrows money to fund a work study program which heps people get off social assistance and into the work-force and into paying taxes to incrase revenu. The idea that a balanced budget is somehow the ultimate in goals in all cases is just plain incorrect. This can be seen by just focusing on what might be meant by "budget" in the first place. Are we talking one year? Two years? One month? On different time scales it is impossible to always have a balanced budget. Of course, it is very important to have a sustainable budgetary system, and repeatedly running deficits is fiscally irresponsible and as you have pointed out interest payments can be killers. But the blanket prohibition against running a deficit is simplistic.
9. Growth does not and has not continued "ad infinititum". The USA has been around for a couple of hundred years and governmental growth has not choked us all to death yet. Looking at some older countries, we do not see any sort of problems that mandating a certain size of government would prevent, in my opinion.
10. I am not claiming that reforms would have no value, but rather that current systems do have some value. I do not know the specific laws in question, so perhaps I should conceed that you might have found a case where a simple solution is viable.
11. It is not the case that there are many programs that are universally or nearly so agreed to be useless, because if there were, then they would quickly get cut. As for social assistance type programs, you may not like being forced to be a part of it, but universiality is one of the strengths of such programs - a wide base of support is sometimes required for such a system. Incidentally, it is my understanding that SS is not a savings program, but rather a payment program where recipients get many generated from the people paying it. Thus, when it started, people immediately got money even though they had not been making payments previously. The projected problems with SS have been associated with the projected increases in the number of recipients compared to the number of payers. Granted, this might not have been the best way to set up the system (but at the time, it was pretty good since there were a lot more payers than recipients, and that was expected to be the normal state of affairs), but it actually seems to be working fairly well, and with the changes made over the past few years, does not seem to be in as much of a crisis as it was once though to be.
12. I would agree that there should be ways to remove those who are not doing their jobs, but some of the rules in place that retain such people might be rules that we son't really want to get rid of. Things like tenue can be compared a bit to things like freedom of speach - in order for freedom of speach to work the way we want it to work (allowing dissent) we have to also allow behaviour that we generally find offensive (things like racial slurs). Similarly, for tenue to work for what we want (ensuring academic freedom) we might also have to accept some level of undesired results (retention of some "deadwood"). This is not to say that such rules should not be examined, but rather to remind us that any changes must be carefully weighed.
13, 14, 15. Prostitution, gambling, and drugs. The areas where these are legal (Nevada, Amseterdam, etc.) do have problems with abuses and explaitation - this could be a result of how they are legalized, but it could also be more closely linked with the "vices" themselves. It is clear that human sexuality is a complex subject, and it should not be suprising that combining that with money has a high potential for undesired consequences. Drugs (including alcholol and tobacco) can and do have extream effects on significiant portions of the population and their mere consumption (regardless of the legality of their availability) can have significant effects on the individual as well as those immediataly surrounding adn society at large. Gambling also can be problamatical for a significant fraction of the population (from 1 to 5% of people are potentially "problem gamblers" according to published reports - which seems like a small number until you think that in a city of one million, this translates into over ten thousand people). Easy access to gambling for those problem gamblers can pose quite a strain on society. Again, I am not saying that the current methods of dealing with these problems are optimal, but I do maintain that blanket legalization is clearly not necessarily the ultimate soltion.
I think that there is a lot of merrit to your idea that we might be better served by those who do not want to be in office than by those clamouring for the position, but I have serious doubts that any of your proposals would move us in that direction.
Under the current state of affairs, we have so many many positions (judges, AG's, sheriffs, mayors, school boards, etc, etc, etc) that need to be filled that it seems necessary to me that we need to offer reasonable benifits in order to fill them. Cut the pay to the bare minimum for survival and no body who is qualified other than the independantly wealthy or perhaps the power mad, would ever run for office, at least in the numbers necessary. As stated before - are you running for office, even with what you think are unreasonably high rates of payment?
I have often looked with interest at systems like in Austrailia where people are required to vote and wonder if that might have any effect. I wonder if there is any way to have some sort of required governmental service or draft where rather than elect people who chose to run, we force people to take up office or the civil service. This type of idea is an interesting thought, but seems very unlikely to ever be able to be implemented - though I suppose if the military draft is constitutional a civil service draft would be equally so.
I try my best when dealing with any US orders to make sure that I know what the shiping method is going to impose on the total price and try to convince the seller that having a postal option is in their best interest (and explaining about customs and brokerage on their sales site is a good thing too.).
As for the application of GST, I would disagree with you. I may not like the various sales taxes, but if we are going to have them, I do think that they should be applied to everything. Giving imports a free ride isn't going to do anything other than drive business outside the country and reduce the amount of tax collected. While I would like for ME to be able to avoid all these taxes, I don't want anyone else to be able to avoid them...
1. There is a lot of weight behind the idea that the NASA Apollo program lead directly to the microelectronics industry. Not such a bad thing to spend money on creating.
2. Fundamental physics research lead to the transistor - again a pretty good thing. Other examples exist.
3. Most politicians earn less while in office than when out of office, incidating that the pay of office holders is probably not that much too high.
4. There can often be "false savings" in going for the lowest price economy items. The limo might be more likely to get there on time and the taxi less so - this could potentially cost big bucks in trying to save a few pennies. Additionally, having competitive pay, having competitive "benifits" should help attract and maintain people capable of doing the job. 5. Some of the trappings of office reflect the importance we feel that office has. This type of psychological value has some financial cost which needs to be paid. If we want our leaders to look like leaders (and for the most part, we do), then it costs some money. 6. The tax system is complex because it is designed to serve many many ideals from revenu generation to wealth shifting to ecconomic encouragement and discouragement. Anything to replace it needs to examine all of these items and state how they might be addressed (or why they should not be addressed I suppose). A single tax addresses few of them. 7. The function of buildings extends beyond utilitarian ideals and can streatch into art and fancy stuff like that. People are happier in nice places at the very least which provides some ecconomic benifit to making places nice to work in or to visit. 8. A balanced budget at all times is not in the best interest of the country/state/city. Purely ecconomically, at times it makes sense to borrow to help things through the rough spots, and hopefully to pay that back and/or save when things are going well. Blanket policies can be disasters. 9. Mandated growth rates might not reflect the desires or needs of a changing society. What if we decide to go for some sort of national health care? Or get rid of the military? (Probably equally unlikely, but what the heck) 10. Some form of state campaign monies can level the playing field and allow for a wider possible choice of candidates. Preventing a slate of only the rich can be a good thing. 11. What constitutes a useless program is not widely agreed upon. People bitch and moan about SS and Medicare quite a lot, but both programs seem to actually do fairly well for what they were designed to do. From an ecconomic point of view, almost ANYTHING that moves money around has some benifits to people. Even make-work projects at the very least, make work. 12. Labour laws and union rules can provide for checks and balances against arbitrary firing and evil work conditions. This is a good thing. 13. The sex trade, even where legal, is rife with abuses and exploitation and linked to crime and other anti-social behaviour that society has an interest in discouraging. 14. The same with gambling. 15. The same with drugs. While I think that all of the above issues are worth examining and reexamining - none of them are clearly slam dunks (because if they were, they would have been dunked by now.) Government subsidies, prohibitions, and perks clearly can have unwanted costs, but they can and do also have clear benifits, which is generally why they were inacted in the first place.
Do we want to make governmental service so unrewarding that only saints and mental deficients want to persue it? How many saints will we attract? Would you (presumably an intelligent well informed wonderkid) want to go into civil service or politics if that did not offer a reasable wage/benifit package? Do we not want people like you to do that? Should society reward the president of Pepsi or the president of the USA more? How much more? Should we borrow money to build a road like we borrow money to buy a house or should we just live in a shack until we can save enough to buy outright? Should we invest in long term research and developement either directly or through the tax system or should we save our money? Should we discourage destrutive behaviour or should we let people do pretty much anything?
All of these are valuable questions - none of the answers are clear cut.
Alberta may well have had excellent financial management, but it also had a huge windfall in the form of vast amounts of natural resources (oil and gas) and a good market for those resources. It is not clear that things would be as rosey if the province was a little less blessed by providence.
Now why AB can't afford to do the right thing by Kyoto if they are so well off is another matter :-)