Fire isn't nearly as big a deal when your dormitory is not primarily made of flammable materials. Minor fires will naturally ventilate through an airshaft that you'd presumably already have for cooking under.
Radon's a problem for underground dwellings. But these caves are on a mountainside. Which means they're actually elevated.
Earthquakes are a problem though. But they'd be a problem irrespective of whether you're in a cave or a house. There are always engineering solutions for that, irrespective of whether you're living in an enclosed space underground or overground. It costs money to engineer a solution--but it's money that you would or wouldn't have again, irrespective. You might even have more money if you lived in a cave, since it's cheaper to dig a hole in an existing natural structure than to build an artificial free-standing structure.
You need to buy the plot. And then there's the whole bit about digging the hole and then filling it up later that costs money too. That's why there's life insurance. So yeah, even dying costs money these days.
It is, however, where we'll all eventually end up. If we don't get stuffed into a jar and left somewhere exotic or scattered into the wind first.
Note that business models that revolve around creating things is alive and well. It's just that copying things already created no longer has any value.
Could be both. Railroad tracks are notoriously convenient for running infrastructure under. No need to dig up a street or risk somebody building over it.
Interesting thing is, this is where the "mythical man-month" concept applies. If they threw all $100B around for future investments, it doesn't mean they'll get anywhere close to 10x the amount of returns as if they only spent $10B.
So in effect, they really do have more money than they can spend.
I do have to point out that grammar rules and the strict adherence to (or lack thereof) is not an outright violation of the language. Most grammar rules are more suggestions, and as you've stated yourself, sometimes (oftimes) colloquial. In particular for grammar, even colloquial differences are minor (colloquialisms that affect word usage is a bit more ambigious, and should be avoided in favor of more common words and phrases).
English is an ambiguous language. It is the nature of the language to tend towards the uncertain, and ultimately the unintelligible (and yet still correct). We make a conscious effort to be as unambigious as possible, to be as clear and consise as possible, through our application of grammar "rules". But it is not the natural state of the language. Think of Perl.
Not to mention that errors in clarity only exists when the ambiguity is not intentional.
Because using the proper conventions of language (grammar, spelling etc.) is a form of politeness.
On this point (and while I concur with your sentiments overall), I would like to point out that it's not so much that using language correctly being a form of politeness, but taking the point communicated and the communication medium seriously. Interchanging their/there/they're, two/to/too, for/four, than/then, through/threw, and other such errors imply one of three things:
1) Non-native speaker, confusing one word for another. 2) Ignorance on the writer's part. 3) Carelessness.
Two of the three boils down to negligence. The remaining can be easily confirmed or disproven through context; non-native speakers typically have a very distinct pattern of grammatical errors that are more complex in nature. Non-native speakers' errors are typically tense, object-subject, or otherwise construct-related, as opposed to simply not using (and hence not knowing) the correct word. There are vocabulary issues for non-native speakers, but they tend to substitute similar-meaning words, as opposed to completely unrelated but similar-sounding words.
But I digress. For the former case, since the writing was done trivially, the act of reading would be trivial as well. If the writer obviously doesn't care about what's written, why should any reader put the same level of effort into parsing the words? Since the writer cannot be bothered to use a dictionary (which is easier than ever now that there's a search bar at the top of every browser) or proof-read, or even learn the language used, why should the reader bother with trying the decipher the information that's probably not so important anyway.
As such, it's not so much about respecting the reader, but respecting the point. The merits of the point can only be addressed after acknowledging that the point is important enough to warrant addressing. And that starts with the initial communication of the point--in this case and in many others, the written text.
Or the Second Avenue subway line. It's been in the planning stages since the Great Depression (1929), and the project actually started work in 1967. That existing piece of tunnel won't even be open until 2016 at the earliest, and the entire project's slated to be completed near the turn of the next century.
I'd say the British are fairly efficient in comparison.
In the past, we used to call them bullshit artists. Or confidence men: They take you into their confidence and trick you into giving something up. In This American Life's instance, what they got tricked to give up is credibility.
Has political correctness come the the point where we can't call a pig a pig? Or an ass an ass?
That's why the U.S. invaded Iraq the second time around. Messing with the status of the USD is a big taboo. It's because everybody knows that once the USD is no longer the de facto international currency, the U.S. will go to hell in a handbasket really quickly. The only reason why despite Obama printing so much money, there hasn't been any major repercussions is because the entire world is sharing the loss of value.
There is absolutely no reason to continue to embargo Cuba. It's done only because Castro isn't a U.S. puppet, and successfully defended his country from becoming one. Since the U.S. couldn't screw it over like they did to the rest of South America (remember Bay of Pigs?), the only option is to try to weaken it with trade sanctions. The embargo won't go away while Cuba prospers.
The U.S. had some measure of control over Qaddafi. Same with Mubarak, and Assad for that matter. They were backed by the U.S. (if anyone remembers that far back in the past) because they could be controlled.
The OP also failed to mention Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" speech
A lot of things get lost in translation, and some things are misquoted and taken out of context. For Ahmadinejad, it happens quite often on purpose. You can't rally the troops at home if your "enemy" actually sounds reasonable. The English translations are just propoganda pieces. He may be an antisemite (or may not--not supporting Israel has nothing to do with being antisemetic despite what everybody wants you to think), but he's not crazy.
He didn't actually say "wipe Israel off the map." He said something closer to, "It'd be better if Israel didn't exist." To paraphrase, he meant there wouldn't be as many problems in the Middle East if Israel hadn't been created in the first place.
There are numerous other things that he supposedly said that paint a very negative picture of him. These are mostly untrue when taken in context and translated properly. In order to even understand the situation, you first have to recognize that when it comes to any information related to Israel, the propaganda machine is on full blast. Some of it is unintentional, but most of it is very intentional.
Yeah, but here's the catch regarding U.S. foreign policy: it changes every 4-8 years. Hell, it changes period.
The U.S. backed Saddam Hussein in the Iran/Iraq war. Iraq finds out that during the war, Kuwait is actually drilling across the border into their oil fields. So once their scuffle with Iran is over, Iraq demands restitution from Kuwait. When that didn't happen, they went to war thinking that 1) they're in the right and 2) they have U.S. backing. Guess what happened next?
U.S. foreign policy is unreliable. The U.S. has a solid reputation for not honoring its commitments when it doesn't suit them. Iran and NK knows this. In fact, the Iranian revolution itself was a result of U.S. (and U.K.) meddling, so these guys have had more than enough experience with U.S. foreign policy.
They know that the only real way of getting any measure of respect from the U.S. is with nukes. Look at Pakistan. They have nukes, and the U.S. can still trample all over what's supposd to be a sovereign government. If they didn't have nukes, they would've been invaded as soon as the military leaders suspected bin Laden was no longer in Afganistan.
Fortunately for NK, they really only need to make overtures, as China's not going to allow the U.S. to invade it. All the noise NK is making is posturing to get more foreign aid.
Iran is in a different boat. They have no allies. Israel is a ticking time bomb (literally, if you accept that they have U.S. nukes stored there). Iraq is a mess, and if it wasn't, it'd be a U.S.-backed government that isn't going to be very friendly to anyone else. Their only hope is Russia, which is no longer mired in the Cold War mentality anymore (while the U.S. still is), so Russian support is not a guarantee. They need something that can command respect, and that's nukes.
And all this just because the U.S. and other major western powers won't give other countries respect if it doesn't have nukes. All of these countries talk about non-proliferation and decommissioning, but their attitude when treating others countries is that of a schoolyard bully.
The Swiss are the exception, not the norm. They are a reasonable, intelligent, and secure people, a characterization which applies to almost every individual in the country as opposed to a very small minority present in every other country. I'm not sure what they did in their few centuries of history, but they sure as hell did something right.
1) This guy, who's now $45K in debt defending himself from fraudulent charges. 2) The customs officer, for having seen these drawings, is now scarred for life. 3) Us, for having to waste time and energy yet again to assert that drawn pictures is not illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
I may be missing something here, but what do they have to do with teeth?
It's a party they're starting!
is food too cheap, or labor too expensive
Yes. At least in the States, this was always the case. A lot of land for comparatively little people. That's why there's so much waste here.
This doesn't apply to Europe so much. They're much denser, and things are not nearly as cheap. It's really only limited to the U.S. and Canada.
Fire isn't nearly as big a deal when your dormitory is not primarily made of flammable materials. Minor fires will naturally ventilate through an airshaft that you'd presumably already have for cooking under.
Radon's a problem for underground dwellings. But these caves are on a mountainside. Which means they're actually elevated.
Earthquakes are a problem though. But they'd be a problem irrespective of whether you're in a cave or a house. There are always engineering solutions for that, irrespective of whether you're living in an enclosed space underground or overground. It costs money to engineer a solution--but it's money that you would or wouldn't have again, irrespective. You might even have more money if you lived in a cave, since it's cheaper to dig a hole in an existing natural structure than to build an artificial free-standing structure.
It's not free.
You need to buy the plot. And then there's the whole bit about digging the hole and then filling it up later that costs money too. That's why there's life insurance. So yeah, even dying costs money these days.
It is, however, where we'll all eventually end up. If we don't get stuffed into a jar and left somewhere exotic or scattered into the wind first.
In a word: MeeGo.
You pretty much summed it up.
Note that business models that revolve around creating things is alive and well. It's just that copying things already created no longer has any value.
there's only one God and his name is Jesus.
He just denied the Father and deified the Son, first commandment be damned. I'm surprised nobody caught that bit of blasphemy.
By watching chess, you are not doing your taxes. Duh!
Could be both. Railroad tracks are notoriously convenient for running infrastructure under. No need to dig up a street or risk somebody building over it.
A lot of fiber is run under tracks.
Two players enter, three players leave!
Interesting thing is, this is where the "mythical man-month" concept applies. If they threw all $100B around for future investments, it doesn't mean they'll get anywhere close to 10x the amount of returns as if they only spent $10B.
So in effect, they really do have more money than they can spend.
I do have to point out that grammar rules and the strict adherence to (or lack thereof) is not an outright violation of the language. Most grammar rules are more suggestions, and as you've stated yourself, sometimes (oftimes) colloquial. In particular for grammar, even colloquial differences are minor (colloquialisms that affect word usage is a bit more ambigious, and should be avoided in favor of more common words and phrases).
English is an ambiguous language. It is the nature of the language to tend towards the uncertain, and ultimately the unintelligible (and yet still correct). We make a conscious effort to be as unambigious as possible, to be as clear and consise as possible, through our application of grammar "rules". But it is not the natural state of the language. Think of Perl.
Not to mention that errors in clarity only exists when the ambiguity is not intentional.
Because using the proper conventions of language (grammar, spelling etc.) is a form of politeness.
On this point (and while I concur with your sentiments overall), I would like to point out that it's not so much that using language correctly being a form of politeness, but taking the point communicated and the communication medium seriously. Interchanging their/there/they're, two/to/too, for/four, than/then, through/threw, and other such errors imply one of three things:
1) Non-native speaker, confusing one word for another.
2) Ignorance on the writer's part.
3) Carelessness.
Two of the three boils down to negligence. The remaining can be easily confirmed or disproven through context; non-native speakers typically have a very distinct pattern of grammatical errors that are more complex in nature. Non-native speakers' errors are typically tense, object-subject, or otherwise construct-related, as opposed to simply not using (and hence not knowing) the correct word. There are vocabulary issues for non-native speakers, but they tend to substitute similar-meaning words, as opposed to completely unrelated but similar-sounding words.
But I digress. For the former case, since the writing was done trivially, the act of reading would be trivial as well. If the writer obviously doesn't care about what's written, why should any reader put the same level of effort into parsing the words? Since the writer cannot be bothered to use a dictionary (which is easier than ever now that there's a search bar at the top of every browser) or proof-read, or even learn the language used, why should the reader bother with trying the decipher the information that's probably not so important anyway.
As such, it's not so much about respecting the reader, but respecting the point. The merits of the point can only be addressed after acknowledging that the point is important enough to warrant addressing. And that starts with the initial communication of the point--in this case and in many others, the written text.
Yes, but in doing so, they're clearly taking away jobs from Americans.
Or the Second Avenue subway line. It's been in the planning stages since the Great Depression (1929), and the project actually started work in 1967. That existing piece of tunnel won't even be open until 2016 at the earliest, and the entire project's slated to be completed near the turn of the next century.
I'd say the British are fairly efficient in comparison.
In the past, we used to call them bullshit artists. Or confidence men: They take you into their confidence and trick you into giving something up. In This American Life's instance, what they got tricked to give up is credibility.
Has political correctness come the the point where we can't call a pig a pig? Or an ass an ass?
That's why the U.S. invaded Iraq the second time around. Messing with the status of the USD is a big taboo. It's because everybody knows that once the USD is no longer the de facto international currency, the U.S. will go to hell in a handbasket really quickly. The only reason why despite Obama printing so much money, there hasn't been any major repercussions is because the entire world is sharing the loss of value.
The Cold War is over.
Let me reiterate once more:
The Cold War is over.
There is absolutely no reason to continue to embargo Cuba. It's done only because Castro isn't a U.S. puppet, and successfully defended his country from becoming one. Since the U.S. couldn't screw it over like they did to the rest of South America (remember Bay of Pigs?), the only option is to try to weaken it with trade sanctions. The embargo won't go away while Cuba prospers.
The U.S. had some measure of control over Qaddafi. Same with Mubarak, and Assad for that matter. They were backed by the U.S. (if anyone remembers that far back in the past) because they could be controlled.
The OP also failed to mention Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" speech
A lot of things get lost in translation, and some things are misquoted and taken out of context. For Ahmadinejad, it happens quite often on purpose. You can't rally the troops at home if your "enemy" actually sounds reasonable. The English translations are just propoganda pieces. He may be an antisemite (or may not--not supporting Israel has nothing to do with being antisemetic despite what everybody wants you to think), but he's not crazy.
He didn't actually say "wipe Israel off the map." He said something closer to, "It'd be better if Israel didn't exist." To paraphrase, he meant there wouldn't be as many problems in the Middle East if Israel hadn't been created in the first place.
There are numerous other things that he supposedly said that paint a very negative picture of him. These are mostly untrue when taken in context and translated properly. In order to even understand the situation, you first have to recognize that when it comes to any information related to Israel, the propaganda machine is on full blast. Some of it is unintentional, but most of it is very intentional.
Yeah, but here's the catch regarding U.S. foreign policy: it changes every 4-8 years. Hell, it changes period.
The U.S. backed Saddam Hussein in the Iran/Iraq war. Iraq finds out that during the war, Kuwait is actually drilling across the border into their oil fields. So once their scuffle with Iran is over, Iraq demands restitution from Kuwait. When that didn't happen, they went to war thinking that 1) they're in the right and 2) they have U.S. backing. Guess what happened next?
U.S. foreign policy is unreliable. The U.S. has a solid reputation for not honoring its commitments when it doesn't suit them. Iran and NK knows this. In fact, the Iranian revolution itself was a result of U.S. (and U.K.) meddling, so these guys have had more than enough experience with U.S. foreign policy.
They know that the only real way of getting any measure of respect from the U.S. is with nukes. Look at Pakistan. They have nukes, and the U.S. can still trample all over what's supposd to be a sovereign government. If they didn't have nukes, they would've been invaded as soon as the military leaders suspected bin Laden was no longer in Afganistan.
Fortunately for NK, they really only need to make overtures, as China's not going to allow the U.S. to invade it. All the noise NK is making is posturing to get more foreign aid.
Iran is in a different boat. They have no allies. Israel is a ticking time bomb (literally, if you accept that they have U.S. nukes stored there). Iraq is a mess, and if it wasn't, it'd be a U.S.-backed government that isn't going to be very friendly to anyone else. Their only hope is Russia, which is no longer mired in the Cold War mentality anymore (while the U.S. still is), so Russian support is not a guarantee. They need something that can command respect, and that's nukes.
And all this just because the U.S. and other major western powers won't give other countries respect if it doesn't have nukes. All of these countries talk about non-proliferation and decommissioning, but their attitude when treating others countries is that of a schoolyard bully.
The Swiss are the exception, not the norm. They are a reasonable, intelligent, and secure people, a characterization which applies to almost every individual in the country as opposed to a very small minority present in every other country. I'm not sure what they did in their few centuries of history, but they sure as hell did something right.
The victim? There are plenty.
1) This guy, who's now $45K in debt defending himself from fraudulent charges.
2) The customs officer, for having seen these drawings, is now scarred for life.
3) Us, for having to waste time and energy yet again to assert that drawn pictures is not illegal.
OMG, how did you find out my password was hunter2???
It's projected onto the surface of a sphere, so yeah, it's non-Euclidean.