It's been theorized that the universe is crawling with rogue primordial black holes. Hell some people even think the Tunguska event was caused by a black hole.
Obviously we're not going to be able to carry out this experiment in the next decade, but if we ever manage to sustained space exploration, finding and feeding a small black hole might be high on the list of experiments.
I don't think we're talking about black holes measured in solar masses. However, if it's possible for a naked black hole to exist, we might be able to feed and disrobe a small primordial black hole or micro black hole formed through high energy collisions.
It's not about what Obama could do differently it's about responsibility.
BP's primary responsibility isn't to clean up the Gulf, it's to preserve shareholder value. There is a great deal of overlap, but they are not the same.
If BP North America were placed into temporary receivership we could be assured that decisions are being made by people who's primary responsibility is to the country, not to BP's investors.
Receivership wouldn't mean that the well would get capped any faster, but it would probably mean that people who were economically impacted would be more likely to be made whole.
If the Coal plant down the street minimized (read: falsified) the amount of cadmium it was discharging into the local aquifer to avoid fines is that ok?
If I cared about my backyard I wouldn't give gold miners permission to work there.
You don't actually think you own the mineral rights to your property do you?
Yes, it's a bullshit justification, but that's the choice America made. If you drill for oil a mile under the sea there will very likely be accidents. If you situate the wells in "economically important fisheries and tourist areas" then they are going to suffer when the accident happens. BP got a license to drill.
How long ago was it that anyone who questioned the wisdom of "Drill Baby Drill" was branded as unpatriotic?
How is it that the people responsible for oil safety are the same people collecting oil revenue?
How is it that once employees of the regulatory agency in charge of regulating oil drilling were caught snorting crystal meth off toasters with mining representatives the entire fucking agency wasn't turned inside out and beefed up?
It's not a question of "a choice america made." It's the fact that the people at the highest levels of government with conflicts of interest out the wazoo placed the lowest priorities on environmental risk, and placed untoward amounts of faith in private industries to regulate themselves.
FWIW I think the US ought to be harvesting it's own oil, but first we need to demonstrate that we're not only competent in enforcing safety regulations, but also if the unexpected does happen there are contingency plans already in existence.
*snort* BP may be working diligently to resolve the matter, but they've showed no interest in keeping the public informed - other than to say we're trying everything we can think of.
Really, it doesn't matter how much oil is flowing.
People reading newspapers don't know what methyl hydrates and clathrates are. Ice is a reasonable description for something that is liquid under STP, but solid at the bottom of the ocean.
President Calderón, in response to the AZ immigration law, withdraws from the Berne conventions and offers to shelter limewire. Instantly Mexico's GDP doubles and drags the company out of poverty.
How exactly do you think that anybody can regulate a company to keep it from failing?
You can't. However you might be able to regulate an entity so that if it fails it doesn't take the entire economy with it.
Or, you might be able to regulate a company so that it isn't allowed to make spectacularly bad decisions with other people's money. No one has any problem with companies making risky bets with their money, but as we should have learned from the first depression, making naked bets is stupid and shouldn't be allowed.
As an example look at the financial regulation bills that Congress is considering. They will require massive increases on the paperwork that banks have to file
That's one of the oddest assertions about financial reform I've heard yet. (though not as odd as "making financial firms pay today for future liquidations = the government will bail out everyone")
Most of the bill is, "don't bilk your customers." (to which auto dealers respond... "but we wanna".)
Obviously living standards are strongly correlated to labor rate, but labor rate is correlated to a ton of other things besides free trade.
I'm not implying that you're praying to any alter, just that, in contrast to your original post, it's complicated. So while you may not be one of them, there are an awful lot of people who think that free trade is the biggest favor the US can do for the world, and as Russia can testify, and it's just not that simple.
the point is that there's more to the equation than free trade and labor rate. It's so complicated that there will never be such a thing as equilibrium - or alternatively we are now and always will be in a state of quasi-equilibrium.
Furthermore, low labor rates are balanced by a lot of undesirable things that have global consequences, for instance pollution and authoritarianism, so rather than pray at the alter of free trade and rising labor rates, we ought to be considering more holistic global economic policy positions.
Honestly, I'm not sure that is necessarily desirable. Not everyone, even intelligent people, are capable of managing financial holdings. In theory the best way to do what you want would be to privatize social security. Aside from the fact that this allows the financial sector to skim even more from the real economy, the recent market crash demonstrates pretty aptly why this would be undesirable.
As far as athletic footwear goes though, it's a little unfair to expect companies like Adidas, Puma and Asics to make their wares in the country, although it might be nice if Nike did.
You also have to have either equivalent or "unrestricted" worker safety, environmental protection, organized labor , corporate liability, social security, etc. etc. etc.
What you say is true. But something that takes 1 man hour to assemble in the US may take 4 or 5 to assemble in China. The reason is simple, when labor is cheep you fix problems by throwing hours at it. In the US one operator can frequently run an automated line several times faster than out-sourced labor can. This of course means a larger capital outlay - but that's how the economy grows.
And, ultimately, why the US -- and the world, more generally -- needs to find a wind a way to radically flatten the distribution of capital holdings to prevent crushing poverty with a narrow super-wealthy elite even in the places that have had thriving middle classes.
We know how to do this, and it's only radical on AM talk radio. Look at the US economy from 1950-1978ish (the largest economic expansion anywhere in history) to see how. Two simple steps. (1) Strong labor unions. (2) High marginal income tax rates on the highest earners.
I would think that if I were running an investment bank I would encourage my employees to engage in this sort of behavior - use company resources, but not funds. I think this sort of thing would make for remarkably good training for predicting actual financial markets. This fact is also why I think the economic utility of investment banks is wildly overstated.
Slashdot Mirror
The nearest black hole that we know about.
It's been theorized that the universe is crawling with rogue primordial black holes. Hell some people even think the Tunguska event was caused by a black hole.
Obviously we're not going to be able to carry out this experiment in the next decade, but if we ever manage to sustained space exploration, finding and feeding a small black hole might be high on the list of experiments.
I don't think we're talking about black holes measured in solar masses. However, if it's possible for a naked black hole to exist, we might be able to feed and disrobe a small primordial black hole or micro black hole formed through high energy collisions.
It's not about what Obama could do differently it's about responsibility.
BP's primary responsibility isn't to clean up the Gulf, it's to preserve shareholder value. There is a great deal of overlap, but they are not the same.
If BP North America were placed into temporary receivership we could be assured that decisions are being made by people who's primary responsibility is to the country, not to BP's investors.
Receivership wouldn't mean that the well would get capped any faster, but it would probably mean that people who were economically impacted would be more likely to be made whole.
There's a difference between not admitting fault and lying.
How do you not have a problem with that?
If the Coal plant down the street minimized (read: falsified) the amount of cadmium it was discharging into the local aquifer to avoid fines is that ok?
You don't actually think you own the mineral rights to your property do you?
How long ago was it that anyone who questioned the wisdom of "Drill Baby Drill" was branded as unpatriotic?
How is it that the people responsible for oil safety are the same people collecting oil revenue?
How is it that once employees of the regulatory agency in charge of regulating oil drilling were caught snorting crystal meth off toasters with mining representatives the entire fucking agency wasn't turned inside out and beefed up?
It's not a question of "a choice america made." It's the fact that the people at the highest levels of government with conflicts of interest out the wazoo placed the lowest priorities on environmental risk, and placed untoward amounts of faith in private industries to regulate themselves.
FWIW I think the US ought to be harvesting it's own oil, but first we need to demonstrate that we're not only competent in enforcing safety regulations, but also if the unexpected does happen there are contingency plans already in existence.
I agree with Robert Reich.
BP North America ought to be placed in temporary receivership.
That's not the purpose of dispersant ... when applied at the surface.
When applied at 5000', the hope is that the oil never shows up.
*snort*
BP may be working diligently to resolve the matter, but they've showed no interest in keeping the public informed - other than to say we're trying everything we can think of.
Really, it doesn't matter how much oil is flowing.
We think there is 1000 barrels a day.
There's no underwater oil plumes
Etc. etc.
People reading newspapers don't know what methyl hydrates and clathrates are. Ice is a reasonable description for something that is liquid under STP, but solid at the bottom of the ocean.
Nice.
New headline. "RIAA claims piracy more damaging than holocaust."
I see where this is going.
President Calderón, in response to the AZ immigration law, withdraws from the Berne conventions and offers to shelter limewire. Instantly Mexico's GDP doubles and drags the company out of poverty.
You can't. However you might be able to regulate an entity so that if it fails it doesn't take the entire economy with it.
Or, you might be able to regulate a company so that it isn't allowed to make spectacularly bad decisions with other people's money. No one has any problem with companies making risky bets with their money, but as we should have learned from the first depression, making naked bets is stupid and shouldn't be allowed.
That's one of the oddest assertions about financial reform I've heard yet. (though not as odd as "making financial firms pay today for future liquidations = the government will bail out everyone")
Most of the bill is, "don't bilk your customers." (to which auto dealers respond ... "but we wanna".)
Obviously living standards are strongly correlated to labor rate, but labor rate is correlated to a ton of other things besides free trade.
I'm not implying that you're praying to any alter, just that, in contrast to your original post, it's complicated. So while you may not be one of them, there are an awful lot of people who think that free trade is the biggest favor the US can do for the world, and as Russia can testify, and it's just not that simple.
Well that's new.
There may be one person with an artificial heart (unless he's already got his replacement.)
the point is that there's more to the equation than free trade and labor rate. It's so complicated that there will never be such a thing as equilibrium - or alternatively we are now and always will be in a state of quasi-equilibrium.
Furthermore, low labor rates are balanced by a lot of undesirable things that have global consequences, for instance pollution and authoritarianism, so rather than pray at the alter of free trade and rising labor rates, we ought to be considering more holistic global economic policy positions.
Honestly, I'm not sure that is necessarily desirable. Not everyone, even intelligent people, are capable of managing financial holdings. In theory the best way to do what you want would be to privatize social security. Aside from the fact that this allows the financial sector to skim even more from the real economy, the recent market crash demonstrates pretty aptly why this would be undesirable.
New Balance makes most of its shoes in the US.
As far as athletic footwear goes though, it's a little unfair to expect companies like Adidas, Puma and Asics to make their wares in the country, although it might be nice if Nike did.
Yeah, because labor makes up 75% of the cost of sneakers...
Not quite.
You also have to have either equivalent or "unrestricted" worker safety, environmental protection, organized labor , corporate liability, social security, etc. etc. etc.
What you say is true. But something that takes 1 man hour to assemble in the US may take 4 or 5 to assemble in China. The reason is simple, when labor is cheep you fix problems by throwing hours at it. In the US one operator can frequently run an automated line several times faster than out-sourced labor can. This of course means a larger capital outlay - but that's how the economy grows.
We know how to do this, and it's only radical on AM talk radio. Look at the US economy from 1950-1978ish (the largest economic expansion anywhere in history) to see how. Two simple steps. (1) Strong labor unions. (2) High marginal income tax rates on the highest earners.
I would think that if I were running an investment bank I would encourage my employees to engage in this sort of behavior - use company resources, but not funds. I think this sort of thing would make for remarkably good training for predicting actual financial markets. This fact is also why I think the economic utility of investment banks is wildly overstated.
Seriously.
I swear, if I come to /. and see one more European/South American centric article, I'm out of here
With artificial hearts - 0
With VADs - hundreds
With pacemakers or internal defibrillators - tens or hundreds of thousands
I don't think any of these are accessible via the internet (yet), but most newer pacemakers are accessible wirelessly.