I assume a number of species unique to the Sahara would go extinct if we forested the area to become a large CO2 sink. Here's the deal though, if these people are right on the threat that global warming poses then humans will go extinct unless we do something.
What's more important to you? Saving humanity, or saving some desert snakes and lizards?
I'll vote for humanity. Fuck those desert critters. Darwinian evolution means some species survive and some don't. If people want to see these critters survive then see how people can turn them into pets or food. Do you believe that dogs, cats, pigs, cattle, or chickens will ever go extinct? Not likely so long as people find them useful or enjoyable.
This gets to the nonsense that hunting animals somehow puts them at risk. Hunters want to know that they will continue to be able to hunt for years to come. They will pay piles of money to maintain habitats, keep out poachers, and so on so that they can enjoy a hunt. The best thing for rare animals is a hunt. This means people have an incentive to keep them around. It means that problematic animals can be removed so that the ones that remain can breed. It means you have people, that paid to be there, out looking at the animals and reporting hazards to the animals to authorities. It means that these animals are a source of income instead of pests to farmers and ranchers. These people won't care how endangered the species might be, if it's threatening their crop then "shoot, shovel, shut up" will happen. If they can sell hunting rights, even if the hunt is with tranquilizers so the animal can be moved to another area or a zoo, then it's an income.
If we must choose saving humanity or these rare species then save humanity. But this isn't an either or choice we have to make. We can have both, but the "greenies" need to get out of the way because if we listen to them then we'd save the planet but watch civilization die.
The problem with standards is that they can be well defined to do one thing well, or be loosely defined and leave people guessing. The problems of cheap products that don't follow the standard, and therefore short out and explode, is rarely the fault of the standard.
Lightning is, IMHO, a well defined standard as it tells you exactly what it can do. USB is a generally good standard as it's mostly just a general purpose protocol that people can for the most part create devices that "just work". Where I believe USB screwed up is with the alternate modes on the USB-C socket and plug. Had they kept it better defined to things like protocols and power output/requirements then it'd be a far less confusing standard.
USB-C allows for numerous data protocols, video protocols, power, and recently added audio standard. Why add this new audio standard when (again IMHO) the previous USB audio spec worked just fine? A USB-C port could have any of a number of data protocols on it. Just the USB protocols it could support is confusing, is it 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, or the just announced 3.2? Then there is Thunderbolt and it's handful of variants. For video protocols the USB-C port might do DisplayPort (in various versions), HDMI (also numerous versions), MHL (four versions?), any combination of the above, or none at all.
There was nothing really wrong with Micro-USB if the spec was followed and employed on an appropriate device. It was limited to 5 watts or so for power, which was fine for phones at the time but improved battery technology and higher expectations from our pocket sized electronics lead manufacturers to push the limits on this, and/or just plain violate the voltage and current limits, which lead to melted cables and devices. Being limited to USB 2.0 speed didn't sit well for long either. Being extended, apparently with the USB standards group blessing, to cover things like video output extended it's life for a while. Micro-USB was a good spec for the time, and would likely still be popular if the USB group kept a better hold on enforcing the standard.
Micro-USB is one end of the spectrum on how to define a standard, make it well defined and it's limits will be found soon enough. USB-C on the other hand is so poorly defined that it will inevitably confuse users because it tries to pack in so much. Had they supported perhaps a single video standard, like DisplayPort, then that would have eliminated a lot of confusion. Had they required that USB-C ports must support USB 3.0 then that would have avoided a lot of confusion too. But then doing that would reduce flexibility. It would also mean that inexpensive "charge only" cables would be impossible, or come to market anyway without the USB spec supporting it.
There is a balance that has to be found. If the standard is "tight" then everything that follows the spec will just work. That also means limiting freedom for different capability and price points. If the standard is too "loose" then a lot of things won't work together. But if they do work together then wonderful capability can be enjoyed. It's finding this balance that can keep standards from being adopted among multiple competing companies.
when no one is home. How do these packages make it out of the van and to my porch/lobby/mailbox?
I have a few guesses. Ballista? Trebuchet? Catapult? Electromagnetic ramrod? No, probably none of those because that would be too awesome. More likely a smaller version of those hydraulic arms seen on the sides of garbage trucks that they use to pick up trash cans. Put the packages in cubbyholes on the interior of the van and program the system to correlate the cubbyholes to the addresses. Make it modular to accommodate different sized packages.
I will also put my ideas for alternate delivery means in the public domain if there is a chance that I thought of something that might be worthy of a patent. I'd like to see packages delivered to my door via a van mounted robotic ballista.
Then again, maybe I'd order an anvil for my neighbor with the dog that won't stop barking. Aaaaand I watched too many Wile E. Coyote cartoons as a child.
Try putting yourself in a situation where $50 is a big expense, and I think you'd manage to get yourself on the bike when it's the difference between getting to work in 30 minutes or getting there in 2 hours by walking since you can't afford a car.
30 minutes vs. 2 hours? I think you walk too slow or bike too fast. Must not be many stop lights for you. Where I live traveling as far as you imply could be a death sentence by bike in the winter. If sliding on ice won't kill you then the sub-zero temperatures will. Seeing 40 below zero temperatures are not uncommon, and wind chills can take that down a few notches more. I could bundle up in a heavy coat and such and find myself sweating a bit from the walk when I get to my destination. I do that on a bike and I'll find myself blown about like a leaf on the wind. If I'm to survive this on a bike it's not just $50 for a bike, it's a bike and a whole new winter outfit to bike in the wind and snow.
Oh, and finding a bike that's safe and comfortable for someone 6 feet 5 inches tall is not $50. That's about what I spent to replace the bent seat post on my last bike. Turns out that a cheap steel seat post will bend under my weight, and I was 180 pounds then. I weigh more now, and have an aluminum seat post on my current bike. Does anyone even make winter biking outfits for someone my size?
I know I'm in the 1% of the population, if only because of my height, but still if people are on that tight of a budget then getting a bike is still not always the wisest choice. Take that $50 and buy a bus pass. That might not get you all the way to and from but should cut that walking time down a bit, and you won't be freezing off body parts in the process.
Why would I vote for a carbon tax? Why would anyone vote for a carbon tax? I'm assuming we are discussing nations where people get to vote. A government can get addicted to taxes, creating a carbon tax means the government will never want to see coal go away. If the government honestly thought electric cars would dominate the roads then they'd be taxing electric cars right now instead of gasoline to pay for highway construction. If anyone thinks that there is an "addiction" to petroleum then that applies to the government tax revenue as much as anything else.
Hardly anyone is building nuclear anymore, because it just can't compete.
There are 400+ nuclear power plants operating now. 50 new plants are currently under construction. 160 are currently planned. Many existing plants are being upgraded and are expected to run for decades longer. In the short term the numbers of total nuclear reactors will remain about the same but total output is increasing. In a decade or so the numbers of operating reactors will be increasing.
Eventually it will all get replaced, of course. But we're already well into the climate danger zone, and if we keep emitting CO2 at anything close to our current rate for another forty years we'll be in really bad shape.
Well then, good thing that there are 20 more nations planning to get nuclear power to meet expected future demand for energy. Wind and solar power can only meet demand if there is storage available. The only technology we have that can do that right now is pumped hydro. Unless a nation has just gobs of existing hydro today then they aren't going to be seeing much for growth in wind and solar in the next 40 years.
But it's not going to magically happen on its own.
There's no "magic" involved here. All we need are government bureaucrats to get out of the way. They need to regulate, not ban, nuclear power. If the government makes rules that are logical then the market will make the nuclear power plants appear. It's not "magic" but it's close, it's called a free market.
I have relied on a bike for transportation. If it's raining, dark, icy, snowing, or windy then the bike is often not safe to ride. I have a nice scar on my elbow from my bike sliding out from under me when I hit a wet patch of pavement, leaving me skidding across the concrete.
I learned to schedule more time for a walk if the weather was not favorable to ride my bike. In really cold weather I drove to a parking lot about halfway to my destination and walked the rest. Getting to my destination soaked to the bone, with a nice stripe of mud down my back from the rear wheel picking up dirt and flinging it at me, is not the most comfortable way to spend my day. That's also not great on my clothes, that mud can stain.
I've also found it fun to go ride out in the rain, but only when I know I can at any time turn around, go home and shower off the sweat, mud, and rain. I'd also wear clothes for the occasion, not something I'd wear to work.
I still have that bike but it hasn't been moved in years, foot problems prevent me from enjoying riding my bike like I did before.
To prevent that, we need to accelerate the process and shut them down ahead of schedule. That's a lot easier (less expensive) to do if overall energy use is decreasing than if it's increasing.
If we use the same amount of electricity year after year then those existing plants will still be producing energy from burning carbon. If usage increases then new power plants must be built to meet demand. Those new plants would presumably be using new technology. This can be carbon free sources like solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear. Or at least "greener" energy like natural gas, "clean coal", or something. The per joule carbon output would be lowered. The funds for these new plants would be from people paying their electricity bills.
It wouldn't be too much of a stretch for an electric utility to see this growing demand and decide that instead of buying new land and running new wires that they could instead put these funds from new electricity demand into upgrading existing power plants. Instead of keeping the same old coal plant going for another decade or two they can shut it down, install a new natural gas boiler instead, and cut their carbon output in half. If demand really grows then they might shut down an old coal plant and clear that land for a nice shiny new nuclear plant and cut their carbon output to near zero.
I can play that game too. I can argue the ease in transitioning to carbon free from growing demand just as you can from a shrinking one. Japan went through something like this after the meltdown at Fukushima. They saw an effective growth in demand from the government forcing old nuclear plants to shut down. This meant that they had a lot of people that wanted electricity and were willing to pay for it. This meant a lot of old small power plants were shuttered so the land could be cleared for newer, bigger, and "greener" ones. They used to ship in all kinds of coal and saw air quality decline as a result. Now they've explored for more natural gas, and are building new nuclear plants.
Sure, and an enlightened nation realizes that a population that has food, clothes, shelter, clean water, and medical care is a good thing for every one too. Does that mean the government is somehow obligated to feed, house, clothe, shelter, etc. everyone too? Maybe these things are so important that the people need to be free enough to figure out how to get their food, shelter, clothing, and education on their own.
I've read some history books. I've seen what nations look like after the government provides education, clothing, food, shelter, etc. to the people. Police and fire are services the government provides on a very local level. If the government provides an education then it should also be on this very local level. If it doesn't then over time society starts to rot from within from generations that are not free to think what the government did not tell them.
An enlightened society will know that the family is the foundation of a free and prosperous nation. If the parents are not free to educate their own children as they chose then you have a government that does not trust the education and intelligence of the very same people that voted them into office. If this "enlightened" government wanted to make sure that the poor were properly educated then they'd give the parents the money to spend on their education, not to pay teachers' salaries from the government coffers. If these government officials deem the judgement of these parents unfit to make such important decisions then they've declared themselves unfit to hold office, because these same "unfit parents" voted them in.
I pay the government to stay out of my way, not teach my children. It's my job to educate my children, not the idiots that can't find a real job in the private sector.
If you want to compare countries then compare countries. Why limit the comparison to "first world Western democratic" nations? Can you define "first world", "Western", and "democratic"? Then explain why we are discussing only those nations as opposed to the rest of the world.
Can you even define "nation"? The USA is a federation of states, each with different laws on gun ownership, different styles of law enforcement, different drug laws, different cultures, different economies. Texas, California, and New York, are very large states separated by great distances. Each state is in many ways are as different or similar to each other as the UK is to Australia or Canada.
Does "first world Western democracy" define Mexico? Cuba? If not then why not? If so then it sure would be nice if they weren't our neighbors and the federal government wasn't letting the criminals just walk over the borders.
This will work it's way out in time. I see European "Western democracies" are seeing their own immigrant troubles now. I expect the crime rates to even out in time. Or Europe nations will cease to be "Western",or "democratic", or "first world", or perhaps even nations. Whatever problems the USA has it's not the guns. It might be the drugs. It might be the immigrants. Highly likely the immigrants with the drugs. You all in Europe there will see the same, if you don't do something about the immigrants, and the drugs they inevitably bring.
No, the American way of life is shooting yourself. Shooting each other is the national pastime of Venezuela.
The number of intentional deaths by firearm in the USA is about 10 per 100,000, and the murder rate in the USA is about 5 per 100,000. These numbers do not match unless suicides are being counted as deaths by firearm. About 2/3rds of deaths in the USA by firearm are suicides.
Venezuela on the other hand see 57 murders per 100,000, and 59 intentional deaths by firearm per 100,000. That only makes sense if a lot of people are shot to death by others.
Oh, and in America there are enough firearms for every man, woman, child, and household pet to be armed. In Venezuela there's 1 firearm for every 10 people. So, tell me how gun ownership is a problem in the USA again? Pretty sure that it's not the guns killing people in America, it's untreated mental conditions.
Perhaps if you lived in an enlightened country with free college, you wouldn't be in your current situation.
There is no such thing as an enlightened country with free college.
The people still pay for it through their taxes, and an enlightened country would not shackle their educational system with government mandates. I've read some history books. Government controlled schools are not where people get educated, they get indoctrinated. Schools know where they get their money, they will not bite the hand that feeds them and allow their students to think freely on matters that the government has already decided for them.
That's fine if we assume the continued use of coal and natural gas, and people don't have control on where their energy comes from. If the Democrats had not held up nuclear power then we'd have energy that is "green", cheap, and safe.
Oh, and nuclear power is effectively unlimited. There's enough uranium and thorium in the crust of the Earth to last humanity beyond when the sun consumes the planet.
Democrats holding us back from nuclear power goes back to the Carter administration. If the Democrats don't change their views on nuclear power then they will either find themselves irrelevant, or the cause of the fall of civilization. We do have a choice on where our energy comes from. That choice comes in the form of the boxes that protect our liberty, the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and if all that fails (and let's not let that happen, okay?) the cartridge box.
That did not clarify anything. Are they saying we should build more nuclear power plants? I'm not sure since it seemed to open with a concern over the shuttering of some aging nuclear power plants in the northeast US, but then never mentioned new nuclear power as a solution.
I'll get on board with the reduction of carbon output if that means nuclear power is part of the solution. We can choose nuclear power, keep burning coal, or we can all freeze to death in the dark. We don't have any other options.
We cannot power the nation with wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal. It cannot work with existing technology. If we are going to reduce our carbon output now then we need nuclear power. If we are going to do it later, once solar and wind technology has improved, then we might be able to do it without nuclear. If it can wait then we don't need to do anything. If we need to do something now then that something must include nuclear.
To those that won't bother to watch the video the complaint is most likely to be that nuclear is too expensive. Well, an all nuclear power solution would cost less than 7 trillion dollars (as low as 3 trillion dollars) and an all renewable solution would cost over 15 trillion dollars (quite likely more). Oh, and we'd have to replace 1.23 million square meters of solar panels EVERY DAY to keep up with replacing of old panels. These conclusions came from the numbers based on a paper from a solar and wind advocate. They just failed to mention the whole story.
Even if the numbers are off by an order of magnitude here or there it still does not look good for a nuclear free future.
So, what's important here? When it comes right down to it I don't care much about saving energy. Energy costs money, and money is something I care about, so I'll reduce my energy use if that means saving money. If I can find cheaper sources of energy then that means saving money too.
If the concern is carbon output then I still don't care much about how much energy I use so long as it's from carbon free sources. Going for a drive takes energy. So does running power tools in my shed to make something. If my car runs on gasoline, and my shop runs on electricity from hydro or nuclear, then even if I'm using the same total energy for both activities then working in my shop has far less impact on global warming. Not all energy is equal on environmental impact.
I'm trying to understand this concern over energy use. If the real concern is on carbon then measure the carbon. If the concern is on the money spent then measure the money spent. Perhaps I'm missing something? Why should I care about energy used?
What I keep hearing is that solar power will lower our carbon output per energy produced AND the money we have to spend for this energy. So, problem solved? Well, not solved exactly but the concerns over global warming should stop any day now and all we have to worry about is paying for the energy we use. Germany solved this problem. They got all kinds of solar power now and cheap energy too, right?
How long will such tracking continue before people decide to rip off their license plates in mass numbers? The government can only track license plates if they exist.
People will make the claim that we need license plates, licenses to drive, and so on, so that if someone runs over some kid on a bicycle then we can track them down and have them arrested. Well, this is the price you pay for those tiny fractions of crimes that might go unsolved, you have a government that can track you everywhere you go, every dollar you spend, and every breath you take. The government claims these license plates are for our safety, that if we didn't have them then unsafe drivers could not be removed from the road.
Make up your minds. Do you want freedom or safety? You can't have both.
No, deporting people and breaking up families is pathetic. Is that the best solution your tiny little brain can come up with?
By that logic we couldn't put anyone in jail for any crime, as that would break up families too.
Who broke up the family? It wasn't the law enforcers, it was the family member that broke the law. The law is clear, if you break the law then you will be detained. This is not a secret, they knew this possibility beforehand. If these people don't want to see their family broke up then DO NOT BREAK THE LAW!
In the case of deportation the solution of keeping the family together is far simpler, they can all go together. If a family member is a US citizen, such as a child of immigrants born here or an illegal alien marrying a citizen, then they are free to leave the country too. If for some reason the nation that the immigrant is from will not allow the family to enter then I'd suggest finding a different nation to immigrate to. They don't have to go home, but they can't stay here.
Is "think of the children" all your little brain can come up with?
We can think of the children and deport those that immigrated illegally. If the parent is so irresponsible and careless of their child's future to come to the USA illegally then it may be best for the child to be removed from the parent. Put the child up for adoption. Living in constant fear of deportation, evading the law to get employment, and generally living every day as a criminal is not setting this child up for success. Again, the parent put the child in this situation, it's not the fault of the government if enforcement of the law breaks up the family.
While I might agree with you that does bring up the question, what is the distinction between a big torch and a flamethrower? If we create a spectrum of things that produce flame, with step one being defined as "cigarette lighter" and step two as "plumber's torch", then how many steps would I have to go before getting to something defined as a "flamethrower"?
They chose the clock as their allegorical device precisely because a clock does not run backwards. That was their mistake. To say that things are bad, and will only get worse, is admitting defeat. Why publish anything if on the cover you admit that the world is going to end in the foreseeable future?
The study also recommends reducing or omitting certain ingredients that have a higher carbon footprint, like lettuce, tomato, cheese and meat.
If I can't eat those ingredients in a sandwich then I'm just having two slices of bread.
What do these sandal and socks wearing hippies eat? No lettuce, tomatoes, cheese or meat? Does this include other vegetables? Or, other dairy products? I also wonder if this study included only cold sandwiches or warm ones, like a hamburger.
One last question, if I need to calculate my carbon footprint before I even eat then I'm not thinking of anything else, so do these people that think this hard of their carbon footprint actually do anything productive?
No, because it is completely tone-deaf on race: the 'intelligent' white kid talking down to the 'ignorant' black woman at the end. It's actually rather offensive.
I think you need to read a book once in a while. I doubt her name (or nickname) being Scout is an accident.
Also, she's got a racially ambiguous enough look that calling her "white" is impossible to state for sure.
I found that odd as well. The ambiguity of the gender was taken a bit too far, to the point of being borderline creepy. After watching the advert a few times I noticed that she did a virtual signing of the guy's arm cast with "Scout". Watching it once more I caught that the disembodied voice at the beginning (which is hard to make out) called her Scout as well.
Let's see, a tomboyish and independent thinking girl, probably about 10 years old, maybe a bit younger, perhaps up to her teens. And she goes by the name Scout. I think someone read To Kill a Mockingbird one too many times before writing this advert.
Not for someone who was already renting there. Some are protected by rent control, but I am sure not all.
Which shows what price controls do to prices. Those that have rent control will have unnaturally low prices. Those without it are charged higher prices to make up for the losses on the artificially low prices.
Price controls are a death spiral. Prices get too high and so the government steps in with subsidies and mandates for lower prices. The prices go up. Government comes out with more subsidies and price controls.
This is no different than the complaints of wages at big companies being subsidized by welfare. A big company will be able to afford hiring a small number of people to get a large number of employees on food stamps (and rent control) so they don't have to pay as much to keep employees.
Get rid of rent control and rents will come down. If they don't then people move out. Which is why cities find it difficult to end rent control once started. If people move out then that means fewer people paying taxes. It also means fewer people to vote for rent control, which is how elected officials buy votes.
California is heading for a collapse. This can happen one of two ways, a nice smooth and slow reduction of the welfare payouts, or very quickly as people realize that the government can no longer pay for food stamps and rent subsidies. About the only thing they can hope for now is an earthquake or tsunami to blame the collapse on, that way they can dump the debt on the federal government and act like it wasn't their fault.
Slashdot Mirror
I assume a number of species unique to the Sahara would go extinct if we forested the area to become a large CO2 sink. Here's the deal though, if these people are right on the threat that global warming poses then humans will go extinct unless we do something.
What's more important to you? Saving humanity, or saving some desert snakes and lizards?
I'll vote for humanity. Fuck those desert critters. Darwinian evolution means some species survive and some don't. If people want to see these critters survive then see how people can turn them into pets or food. Do you believe that dogs, cats, pigs, cattle, or chickens will ever go extinct? Not likely so long as people find them useful or enjoyable.
This gets to the nonsense that hunting animals somehow puts them at risk. Hunters want to know that they will continue to be able to hunt for years to come. They will pay piles of money to maintain habitats, keep out poachers, and so on so that they can enjoy a hunt. The best thing for rare animals is a hunt. This means people have an incentive to keep them around. It means that problematic animals can be removed so that the ones that remain can breed. It means you have people, that paid to be there, out looking at the animals and reporting hazards to the animals to authorities. It means that these animals are a source of income instead of pests to farmers and ranchers. These people won't care how endangered the species might be, if it's threatening their crop then "shoot, shovel, shut up" will happen. If they can sell hunting rights, even if the hunt is with tranquilizers so the animal can be moved to another area or a zoo, then it's an income.
If we must choose saving humanity or these rare species then save humanity. But this isn't an either or choice we have to make. We can have both, but the "greenies" need to get out of the way because if we listen to them then we'd save the planet but watch civilization die.
The problem with standards is that they can be well defined to do one thing well, or be loosely defined and leave people guessing. The problems of cheap products that don't follow the standard, and therefore short out and explode, is rarely the fault of the standard.
Lightning is, IMHO, a well defined standard as it tells you exactly what it can do. USB is a generally good standard as it's mostly just a general purpose protocol that people can for the most part create devices that "just work". Where I believe USB screwed up is with the alternate modes on the USB-C socket and plug. Had they kept it better defined to things like protocols and power output/requirements then it'd be a far less confusing standard.
USB-C allows for numerous data protocols, video protocols, power, and recently added audio standard. Why add this new audio standard when (again IMHO) the previous USB audio spec worked just fine? A USB-C port could have any of a number of data protocols on it. Just the USB protocols it could support is confusing, is it 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, or the just announced 3.2? Then there is Thunderbolt and it's handful of variants. For video protocols the USB-C port might do DisplayPort (in various versions), HDMI (also numerous versions), MHL (four versions?), any combination of the above, or none at all.
There was nothing really wrong with Micro-USB if the spec was followed and employed on an appropriate device. It was limited to 5 watts or so for power, which was fine for phones at the time but improved battery technology and higher expectations from our pocket sized electronics lead manufacturers to push the limits on this, and/or just plain violate the voltage and current limits, which lead to melted cables and devices. Being limited to USB 2.0 speed didn't sit well for long either. Being extended, apparently with the USB standards group blessing, to cover things like video output extended it's life for a while. Micro-USB was a good spec for the time, and would likely still be popular if the USB group kept a better hold on enforcing the standard.
Micro-USB is one end of the spectrum on how to define a standard, make it well defined and it's limits will be found soon enough. USB-C on the other hand is so poorly defined that it will inevitably confuse users because it tries to pack in so much. Had they supported perhaps a single video standard, like DisplayPort, then that would have eliminated a lot of confusion. Had they required that USB-C ports must support USB 3.0 then that would have avoided a lot of confusion too. But then doing that would reduce flexibility. It would also mean that inexpensive "charge only" cables would be impossible, or come to market anyway without the USB spec supporting it.
There is a balance that has to be found. If the standard is "tight" then everything that follows the spec will just work. That also means limiting freedom for different capability and price points. If the standard is too "loose" then a lot of things won't work together. But if they do work together then wonderful capability can be enjoyed. It's finding this balance that can keep standards from being adopted among multiple competing companies.
when no one is home. How do these packages make it out of the van and to my porch/lobby/mailbox?
I have a few guesses. Ballista? Trebuchet? Catapult? Electromagnetic ramrod? No, probably none of those because that would be too awesome. More likely a smaller version of those hydraulic arms seen on the sides of garbage trucks that they use to pick up trash cans. Put the packages in cubbyholes on the interior of the van and program the system to correlate the cubbyholes to the addresses. Make it modular to accommodate different sized packages.
I will also put my ideas for alternate delivery means in the public domain if there is a chance that I thought of something that might be worthy of a patent. I'd like to see packages delivered to my door via a van mounted robotic ballista.
Then again, maybe I'd order an anvil for my neighbor with the dog that won't stop barking. Aaaaand I watched too many Wile E. Coyote cartoons as a child.
Try putting yourself in a situation where $50 is a big expense, and I think you'd manage to get yourself on the bike when it's the difference between getting to work in 30 minutes or getting there in 2 hours by walking since you can't afford a car.
30 minutes vs. 2 hours? I think you walk too slow or bike too fast. Must not be many stop lights for you. Where I live traveling as far as you imply could be a death sentence by bike in the winter. If sliding on ice won't kill you then the sub-zero temperatures will. Seeing 40 below zero temperatures are not uncommon, and wind chills can take that down a few notches more. I could bundle up in a heavy coat and such and find myself sweating a bit from the walk when I get to my destination. I do that on a bike and I'll find myself blown about like a leaf on the wind. If I'm to survive this on a bike it's not just $50 for a bike, it's a bike and a whole new winter outfit to bike in the wind and snow.
Oh, and finding a bike that's safe and comfortable for someone 6 feet 5 inches tall is not $50. That's about what I spent to replace the bent seat post on my last bike. Turns out that a cheap steel seat post will bend under my weight, and I was 180 pounds then. I weigh more now, and have an aluminum seat post on my current bike. Does anyone even make winter biking outfits for someone my size?
I know I'm in the 1% of the population, if only because of my height, but still if people are on that tight of a budget then getting a bike is still not always the wisest choice. Take that $50 and buy a bus pass. That might not get you all the way to and from but should cut that walking time down a bit, and you won't be freezing off body parts in the process.
A carbon tax for example.
Why would I vote for a carbon tax? Why would anyone vote for a carbon tax? I'm assuming we are discussing nations where people get to vote. A government can get addicted to taxes, creating a carbon tax means the government will never want to see coal go away. If the government honestly thought electric cars would dominate the roads then they'd be taxing electric cars right now instead of gasoline to pay for highway construction. If anyone thinks that there is an "addiction" to petroleum then that applies to the government tax revenue as much as anything else.
Hardly anyone is building nuclear anymore, because it just can't compete.
Provably false.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
There are 400+ nuclear power plants operating now. 50 new plants are currently under construction. 160 are currently planned. Many existing plants are being upgraded and are expected to run for decades longer. In the short term the numbers of total nuclear reactors will remain about the same but total output is increasing. In a decade or so the numbers of operating reactors will be increasing.
Eventually it will all get replaced, of course. But we're already well into the climate danger zone, and if we keep emitting CO2 at anything close to our current rate for another forty years we'll be in really bad shape.
Well then, good thing that there are 20 more nations planning to get nuclear power to meet expected future demand for energy. Wind and solar power can only meet demand if there is storage available. The only technology we have that can do that right now is pumped hydro. Unless a nation has just gobs of existing hydro today then they aren't going to be seeing much for growth in wind and solar in the next 40 years.
But it's not going to magically happen on its own.
There's no "magic" involved here. All we need are government bureaucrats to get out of the way. They need to regulate, not ban, nuclear power. If the government makes rules that are logical then the market will make the nuclear power plants appear. It's not "magic" but it's close, it's called a free market.
I have relied on a bike for transportation. If it's raining, dark, icy, snowing, or windy then the bike is often not safe to ride. I have a nice scar on my elbow from my bike sliding out from under me when I hit a wet patch of pavement, leaving me skidding across the concrete.
I learned to schedule more time for a walk if the weather was not favorable to ride my bike. In really cold weather I drove to a parking lot about halfway to my destination and walked the rest. Getting to my destination soaked to the bone, with a nice stripe of mud down my back from the rear wheel picking up dirt and flinging it at me, is not the most comfortable way to spend my day. That's also not great on my clothes, that mud can stain.
I've also found it fun to go ride out in the rain, but only when I know I can at any time turn around, go home and shower off the sweat, mud, and rain. I'd also wear clothes for the occasion, not something I'd wear to work.
I still have that bike but it hasn't been moved in years, foot problems prevent me from enjoying riding my bike like I did before.
I think you should check yourself, your false dichotomy is showing.
To prevent that, we need to accelerate the process and shut them down ahead of schedule. That's a lot easier (less expensive) to do if overall energy use is decreasing than if it's increasing.
If we use the same amount of electricity year after year then those existing plants will still be producing energy from burning carbon. If usage increases then new power plants must be built to meet demand. Those new plants would presumably be using new technology. This can be carbon free sources like solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear. Or at least "greener" energy like natural gas, "clean coal", or something. The per joule carbon output would be lowered. The funds for these new plants would be from people paying their electricity bills.
It wouldn't be too much of a stretch for an electric utility to see this growing demand and decide that instead of buying new land and running new wires that they could instead put these funds from new electricity demand into upgrading existing power plants. Instead of keeping the same old coal plant going for another decade or two they can shut it down, install a new natural gas boiler instead, and cut their carbon output in half. If demand really grows then they might shut down an old coal plant and clear that land for a nice shiny new nuclear plant and cut their carbon output to near zero.
I can play that game too. I can argue the ease in transitioning to carbon free from growing demand just as you can from a shrinking one. Japan went through something like this after the meltdown at Fukushima. They saw an effective growth in demand from the government forcing old nuclear plants to shut down. This meant that they had a lot of people that wanted electricity and were willing to pay for it. This meant a lot of old small power plants were shuttered so the land could be cleared for newer, bigger, and "greener" ones. They used to ship in all kinds of coal and saw air quality decline as a result. Now they've explored for more natural gas, and are building new nuclear plants.
Sure, and an enlightened nation realizes that a population that has food, clothes, shelter, clean water, and medical care is a good thing for every one too. Does that mean the government is somehow obligated to feed, house, clothe, shelter, etc. everyone too? Maybe these things are so important that the people need to be free enough to figure out how to get their food, shelter, clothing, and education on their own.
I've read some history books. I've seen what nations look like after the government provides education, clothing, food, shelter, etc. to the people. Police and fire are services the government provides on a very local level. If the government provides an education then it should also be on this very local level. If it doesn't then over time society starts to rot from within from generations that are not free to think what the government did not tell them.
An enlightened society will know that the family is the foundation of a free and prosperous nation. If the parents are not free to educate their own children as they chose then you have a government that does not trust the education and intelligence of the very same people that voted them into office. If this "enlightened" government wanted to make sure that the poor were properly educated then they'd give the parents the money to spend on their education, not to pay teachers' salaries from the government coffers. If these government officials deem the judgement of these parents unfit to make such important decisions then they've declared themselves unfit to hold office, because these same "unfit parents" voted them in.
I pay the government to stay out of my way, not teach my children. It's my job to educate my children, not the idiots that can't find a real job in the private sector.
If you want to compare countries then compare countries. Why limit the comparison to "first world Western democratic" nations? Can you define "first world", "Western", and "democratic"? Then explain why we are discussing only those nations as opposed to the rest of the world.
Can you even define "nation"? The USA is a federation of states, each with different laws on gun ownership, different styles of law enforcement, different drug laws, different cultures, different economies. Texas, California, and New York, are very large states separated by great distances. Each state is in many ways are as different or similar to each other as the UK is to Australia or Canada.
Does "first world Western democracy" define Mexico? Cuba? If not then why not? If so then it sure would be nice if they weren't our neighbors and the federal government wasn't letting the criminals just walk over the borders.
This will work it's way out in time. I see European "Western democracies" are seeing their own immigrant troubles now. I expect the crime rates to even out in time. Or Europe nations will cease to be "Western" ,or "democratic", or "first world", or perhaps even nations. Whatever problems the USA has it's not the guns. It might be the drugs. It might be the immigrants. Highly likely the immigrants with the drugs. You all in Europe there will see the same, if you don't do something about the immigrants, and the drugs they inevitably bring.
You mean like London, England?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
Or Paris, France?
https://crimeresearch.org/2017...
Pretty sure the problem is not the guns. France has a gun ownership rate of about 30 per 100, and England is about 6 per 100.
I'm still safer in Austin, Texas than Glasgow, Scotland.
No, the American way of life is shooting yourself. Shooting each other is the national pastime of Venezuela.
The number of intentional deaths by firearm in the USA is about 10 per 100,000, and the murder rate in the USA is about 5 per 100,000. These numbers do not match unless suicides are being counted as deaths by firearm. About 2/3rds of deaths in the USA by firearm are suicides.
Venezuela on the other hand see 57 murders per 100,000, and 59 intentional deaths by firearm per 100,000. That only makes sense if a lot of people are shot to death by others.
Oh, and in America there are enough firearms for every man, woman, child, and household pet to be armed. In Venezuela there's 1 firearm for every 10 people. So, tell me how gun ownership is a problem in the USA again? Pretty sure that it's not the guns killing people in America, it's untreated mental conditions.
Perhaps if you lived in an enlightened country with free college, you wouldn't be in your current situation.
There is no such thing as an enlightened country with free college.
The people still pay for it through their taxes, and an enlightened country would not shackle their educational system with government mandates. I've read some history books. Government controlled schools are not where people get educated, they get indoctrinated. Schools know where they get their money, they will not bite the hand that feeds them and allow their students to think freely on matters that the government has already decided for them.
That's fine if we assume the continued use of coal and natural gas, and people don't have control on where their energy comes from. If the Democrats had not held up nuclear power then we'd have energy that is "green", cheap, and safe.
Oh, and nuclear power is effectively unlimited. There's enough uranium and thorium in the crust of the Earth to last humanity beyond when the sun consumes the planet.
Democrats holding us back from nuclear power goes back to the Carter administration. If the Democrats don't change their views on nuclear power then they will either find themselves irrelevant, or the cause of the fall of civilization. We do have a choice on where our energy comes from. That choice comes in the form of the boxes that protect our liberty, the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and if all that fails (and let's not let that happen, okay?) the cartridge box.
Go nuclear or go extinct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That did not clarify anything. Are they saying we should build more nuclear power plants? I'm not sure since it seemed to open with a concern over the shuttering of some aging nuclear power plants in the northeast US, but then never mentioned new nuclear power as a solution.
I'll get on board with the reduction of carbon output if that means nuclear power is part of the solution. We can choose nuclear power, keep burning coal, or we can all freeze to death in the dark. We don't have any other options.
I have many citations for my claim. This is the most recent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
We cannot power the nation with wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal. It cannot work with existing technology. If we are going to reduce our carbon output now then we need nuclear power. If we are going to do it later, once solar and wind technology has improved, then we might be able to do it without nuclear. If it can wait then we don't need to do anything. If we need to do something now then that something must include nuclear.
To those that won't bother to watch the video the complaint is most likely to be that nuclear is too expensive. Well, an all nuclear power solution would cost less than 7 trillion dollars (as low as 3 trillion dollars) and an all renewable solution would cost over 15 trillion dollars (quite likely more). Oh, and we'd have to replace 1.23 million square meters of solar panels EVERY DAY to keep up with replacing of old panels. These conclusions came from the numbers based on a paper from a solar and wind advocate. They just failed to mention the whole story.
Even if the numbers are off by an order of magnitude here or there it still does not look good for a nuclear free future.
So, what's important here? When it comes right down to it I don't care much about saving energy. Energy costs money, and money is something I care about, so I'll reduce my energy use if that means saving money. If I can find cheaper sources of energy then that means saving money too.
If the concern is carbon output then I still don't care much about how much energy I use so long as it's from carbon free sources. Going for a drive takes energy. So does running power tools in my shed to make something. If my car runs on gasoline, and my shop runs on electricity from hydro or nuclear, then even if I'm using the same total energy for both activities then working in my shop has far less impact on global warming. Not all energy is equal on environmental impact.
I'm trying to understand this concern over energy use. If the real concern is on carbon then measure the carbon. If the concern is on the money spent then measure the money spent. Perhaps I'm missing something? Why should I care about energy used?
What I keep hearing is that solar power will lower our carbon output per energy produced AND the money we have to spend for this energy. So, problem solved? Well, not solved exactly but the concerns over global warming should stop any day now and all we have to worry about is paying for the energy we use. Germany solved this problem. They got all kinds of solar power now and cheap energy too, right?
Your proposal is acceptable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
How long will such tracking continue before people decide to rip off their license plates in mass numbers? The government can only track license plates if they exist.
People will make the claim that we need license plates, licenses to drive, and so on, so that if someone runs over some kid on a bicycle then we can track them down and have them arrested. Well, this is the price you pay for those tiny fractions of crimes that might go unsolved, you have a government that can track you everywhere you go, every dollar you spend, and every breath you take. The government claims these license plates are for our safety, that if we didn't have them then unsafe drivers could not be removed from the road.
Make up your minds. Do you want freedom or safety? You can't have both.
No, deporting people and breaking up families is pathetic. Is that the best solution your tiny little brain can come up with?
By that logic we couldn't put anyone in jail for any crime, as that would break up families too.
Who broke up the family? It wasn't the law enforcers, it was the family member that broke the law. The law is clear, if you break the law then you will be detained. This is not a secret, they knew this possibility beforehand. If these people don't want to see their family broke up then DO NOT BREAK THE LAW!
In the case of deportation the solution of keeping the family together is far simpler, they can all go together. If a family member is a US citizen, such as a child of immigrants born here or an illegal alien marrying a citizen, then they are free to leave the country too. If for some reason the nation that the immigrant is from will not allow the family to enter then I'd suggest finding a different nation to immigrate to. They don't have to go home, but they can't stay here.
Is "think of the children" all your little brain can come up with?
We can think of the children and deport those that immigrated illegally. If the parent is so irresponsible and careless of their child's future to come to the USA illegally then it may be best for the child to be removed from the parent. Put the child up for adoption. Living in constant fear of deportation, evading the law to get employment, and generally living every day as a criminal is not setting this child up for success. Again, the parent put the child in this situation, it's not the fault of the government if enforcement of the law breaks up the family.
A big torch is not the same as a flame thrower...
While I might agree with you that does bring up the question, what is the distinction between a big torch and a flamethrower? If we create a spectrum of things that produce flame, with step one being defined as "cigarette lighter" and step two as "plumber's torch", then how many steps would I have to go before getting to something defined as a "flamethrower"?
They chose the clock as their allegorical device precisely because a clock does not run backwards. That was their mistake. To say that things are bad, and will only get worse, is admitting defeat. Why publish anything if on the cover you admit that the world is going to end in the foreseeable future?
The study also recommends reducing or omitting certain ingredients that have a higher carbon footprint, like lettuce, tomato, cheese and meat.
If I can't eat those ingredients in a sandwich then I'm just having two slices of bread.
What do these sandal and socks wearing hippies eat? No lettuce, tomatoes, cheese or meat? Does this include other vegetables? Or, other dairy products? I also wonder if this study included only cold sandwiches or warm ones, like a hamburger.
One last question, if I need to calculate my carbon footprint before I even eat then I'm not thinking of anything else, so do these people that think this hard of their carbon footprint actually do anything productive?
No, because it is completely tone-deaf on race: the 'intelligent' white kid talking down to the 'ignorant' black woman at the end. It's actually rather offensive.
I think you need to read a book once in a while. I doubt her name (or nickname) being Scout is an accident.
Also, she's got a racially ambiguous enough look that calling her "white" is impossible to state for sure.
I found that odd as well. The ambiguity of the gender was taken a bit too far, to the point of being borderline creepy. After watching the advert a few times I noticed that she did a virtual signing of the guy's arm cast with "Scout". Watching it once more I caught that the disembodied voice at the beginning (which is hard to make out) called her Scout as well.
Let's see, a tomboyish and independent thinking girl, probably about 10 years old, maybe a bit younger, perhaps up to her teens. And she goes by the name Scout. I think someone read To Kill a Mockingbird one too many times before writing this advert.
Not for someone who was already renting there. Some are protected by rent control, but I am sure not all.
Which shows what price controls do to prices. Those that have rent control will have unnaturally low prices. Those without it are charged higher prices to make up for the losses on the artificially low prices.
Price controls are a death spiral. Prices get too high and so the government steps in with subsidies and mandates for lower prices. The prices go up. Government comes out with more subsidies and price controls.
This is no different than the complaints of wages at big companies being subsidized by welfare. A big company will be able to afford hiring a small number of people to get a large number of employees on food stamps (and rent control) so they don't have to pay as much to keep employees.
Get rid of rent control and rents will come down. If they don't then people move out. Which is why cities find it difficult to end rent control once started. If people move out then that means fewer people paying taxes. It also means fewer people to vote for rent control, which is how elected officials buy votes.
California is heading for a collapse. This can happen one of two ways, a nice smooth and slow reduction of the welfare payouts, or very quickly as people realize that the government can no longer pay for food stamps and rent subsidies. About the only thing they can hope for now is an earthquake or tsunami to blame the collapse on, that way they can dump the debt on the federal government and act like it wasn't their fault.