Just because I like working on the worse case scenarios. So, I think it would kind of depend on the evacuation plan / structural integrity of the ship / hotel.
It’s basically a very top heavy boat. So a 3 meter wave would not pick it up and throw it around but it might be enough to tip it. (which still may be safer than being on-shore)
Or maybe just enough stress to pop out some of the windows in the 21 underwater bedrooms.The structure would survive but how fast can you evacuate the people from below?
As an aside, why? If I am a bank making a loan what do I care about non-monetary gains? I care about if the loan is going to be paid back. If there are non-monetary gains they should be monetized as far as possible. I am a big believer that incentivizing people correct is important. For example, I am a big believer in a carbon tax.
But back to your point specifically. The longer the payback period, the higher the market risk is, the more risky there is drives up the required return. Don’t like my example of monetary risk between nuclear and natural gas? Let’s try a non-monetary gain, reduction in greenhouse gases. What is the chance that Wind or Solar will be able to crack the code and beat nuclear? Not just in terms of price but the whole package - base load, seasonal adjustments, etc. in terms of price and base load in the next 10 years? Zero to nil – they would need to knock coal with its high carbon emissions out of the way first. What about 20 years? I don’t think anybody knows but I am going to pull a 20% chance out of thin air. That is there is a 1 in 5 chance that you will have a ½ paid worthless nuclear power plant. Or maybe 5% - or maybe 50%.
So, the future you go out, the more you discount monetary and non-monetary gains.
That is truish. Fracking has been around for a long time. The specific technique that has led to the recent boom in natural gas was only developed in the 80s. So, no, it was not a major factor in the time period being discussed.
We kind of have that today. You can rent wombs and have a 3rd party deliver your baby. IIRC a American couple outsourced their twins to 2 Indians.
And I don’t think that is the limiting factor. It is the cost of raising the kids that is the big deterrent. As we get wealthier we put more resources into fewer kids. (There is a sound evolutionary bias for this – I think it called high / low K (as in care) but I can’t find a link)
I agree with the statement but I am going to guess for different reasons.
If I am a banker, you are asking me to underwrite a 30 year loan that is based on the assumption that you will competitively produce electricity for the next 30 years. Trying to figure out what the market for electricity is going to do for 10 is hard. 10 years ago it looked like with high fuel prices that Nuclear would be profitable. Fracking came along and natural gas prices, and the electricity it produces, dropped like a rock. Bye bye profitability projections.
Unless you are talking about forced sterilization, free contraception has little impact on population growth. The biggest effect it has is to delay when a woman has their first child, not how many they have.
Wealth is one of the better ways to curb population. When people move from abject poverty to poverty child births go up. When people move from poverty to middle class their child births go down. This effect is magnified if you have educated women in the work force. You hit the replacement rate about when everybody needs a college education and said college education costs about as much as a house.
Of course, to produce wealth you need a vibrant economy, which implies a lot more energy use.
I think you are distorting environmentalist’s views on natural gas and global warming. I don’t know of a single environmentalist who every believed that natural gas did not cause global warming. The argument was always that natural gas was less damaging then coal.
Then add the fact that the time period you are referencing, 2000s, fracking was a new, novel concept, and the amount of gas it produced was low.
One can always refuse a breathalyzer test. In all US states that I know it revokes your license and your refusal can be used in court. In short, it is worse to refuse a breathalyzer then to have a positive breathalyzer.
So it is kind of a useless right. Which is why implied consent is so devious and makes DWI works.
On of the reason why DWI laws work is because of implied consent. You get into a car, you consent to getting a breathalyzer. A much lower level of proof than probably cause.
In most car accidents there would be no proof of texting. If I get rear ended on a busy highway there is next to no chance that an eye-wittiness will come forward. And it’s not like a beer bottle in the back seat. The phone would be slipped into a pocket and it would not be obvious that they were texting. So what then?
Do we have a worthless law on the books saying that you can’t text but there is no way to check and enforce it? I am against worthless laws like that. The logical choice would be to have some lower level than probably cause, such as DWI’s implied consent. If you get into an accident you phone is pulled and check.
And as I posted in my OP, I am not sure if I would be o.k. with that.
I think in most states it’s “more legal” for a copy to shoot somebody then a citizen, in the sense that a cop has a wider range of circumstances where they can legally use lethal force.
In my state I have to be in immediate danger before I can start shooting. If I have a drunk guy on my lawn shooting random shots in the air I can’t shoot at him. Cops can.
Now, if you are saying that cops have a tougher legal review after they shoot somebody – I would agree with that. They are professionals, it’s an act that can’t be reversed, and is open for abuse. So it tends to be examined in much closer detail.
In my state – and I think most states – cops are required to investigate all car accidents that cause more than $2,500 (I think that is the number) in damages. So almost any fender bender. Primarily this is to determine fault, create a paper trail for the insurance company (to cut down on insurance fraud), etc.
While at the scene they try to figure out what was the cause. Poor design of signs, wet road, accident, one of the drivers being blind drunk. I am not saying that they are going to start a wiretap or anything, but they will be investigating.
I would tend to agree with you – but let me play the Devil’s Advocate.
Crashing your car is not a crime. Most crashes fall into the fender bender category. In no-fault states they don’t even bother figuring out who cause a multi-car crash.
Driving your car impaired (drunk, texting, whatever) is a crime. Crashing your car while impaired even more so. You pay for everybody’s repair plus jail time.
When a cop shows up to determine cause of the crash, how do they determine if the crash was caused by impaired driving? If a driver is drunk that is semi-obvious. If a person was texting? How then? Subpoena everybody’s phone on the off chance that there might have been texting? (Not sure if that would clear probably cause.). If not, then would the “no texting” law have any real teeth?
US standards say that a convertible has to have pylons, roll bars, or something so when the car flips it does not crush the people inside. In theory, if you have your seatbelts on, you should just hang there. Older cars are grandfathered in.
(I might have to take that back. I think the USSR did something similar. Made a really pretty lake, if I recall, but they could never keep it stocked with fish. But I can’t find a link so it might be my imagination.)
Basically, you just need a few atomic devices to carve out a new canal. I assume China has a few laying around and that the who thing would only take a few months to construct.
I don’t think that is true. I can think of a lot of critics that love low brow humor.
What they don’t like is reheated, stale second servings that pander to the audience.
Then add that humor tends to be a bit more subjective. I have gone into films that came highly recommended from critics and friends and I did not laugh – while there were cases that were just the opposite.
As for getting a job – why not? Start a blog and go from there. It is a relatively straight forward process and I know people who have done it, like James Berardinelli. (Now, there is a big difference between straight forward and easy – but it is more about skill then luck.)
If you want a poster child for the right not to incriminate yourself, I would point to Thomas More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More#Trial_and_execution. (Or you can wach the play / movie “A Man for All Seasons”.) I think he meets all of your conditions.
But I am going to guess you want more. Assume that all men are of good conscious and we will not have any abuse such as torture, fishing expeditions, etc. You are altering the relationship between the citizen and the state in what I believe is a negative way. Citizens are put on the back foot with the state getting the upper hand.
Fist, some of your suggestions would add no value. For example, you would allow “Did you Do it?” and accept the answer "I didn't commit the murder, but I would prefer not to tell you where I was." Both the innocent and guilty (who has an incentive to lie) would offer the same answer – No. So it would be meaningless. Only if the policy had the right to pry deeper would this have any meaning.
Second, under Common Law you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is up to the prosecutor and policy to build a case. With self-incrimination the burden of proof shifts. Now you have to come up with proof of your innocence.
Side note, you bring up McCarthy and the Red Scare as a poor example because it hampers all criminal investigations. The argument is confused. Do I have the 5th amendment right sometimes but not others? The problem with pushing the burden of proof onto citizens (via loyalty tests or whatever) is that it instill a sense of fear. “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed” turns into “everything which is not allowed is forbidden”.
Third, it does erode privacy. You would allow the response “None of your damn business “ to the question “What books are you reading these days?" Why is this valid response? Maybe the victim was bludgeoned to death by a book. Now you have to defend why it is not their dam business while knowing nothing of the case, which would still be secret. And now your refusal can be used against you in court. You are obviously hiding something. Maybe not the murder weapon but maybe porn or Karl Marx’s Das Capital. It presumes that the policy can ask wide ranging questions and that you must answer.
Let me ask you 2 questions. First, where should the burden of proof be placed? Second, how many innocent people should go to jail verses how many guilty people walk? 1 to 1? 1 to 10? In statistics there are Type I Errors (innocence people are convicted of a crime) and Type II Errors (letting the guilty go). If you reduce the Type II errors more guilty people go to jail but also more innocent people go to jail. Personally, I am o.k. stacking the deck to favor Type II errors knowing this reduces Type I errors.
For a good chunk of the corporate world (or any other place that uses locked down computers) Microsoft Office is the standard file format. It is the way people communicate. As long as you can input and output to those file standards your fine. Just hope there is not anything Microsoft specific like VBA.
Not saying its right, just saying that it is the way it is.
I have backpacked a Dutch oven into the backcountry, but only once. Mostly it was a macho thing but it does make a very nice peach cobbler. Something about lugging that oven for 20 miles makes things test better.
I think you are coming up with the maximum distance, not minimum.The minimum space is if management packed everybody into a closet and put a bear outside so the employees won’t mess with the robots.
I would guess a large chunk of the factory floor is given over to inventory – either coming or going so employees would be backed slightly closer. I also assume each employee maintains multiple robots so they are probably not working elbow to elbow.
A electric jet is probably not in the cards. I think you mean electric airplane. Those do exist today, but they tend to be experiential or for the hobby market.
Hey, if he uses electricity during camping he is not a wuss. Lugging 30 pounds of batteries plus a electric blanket fans, lights, bug zapper, phone charger, electric blanket, inverter for laptop 40 miles into the backcountry is not for a wuss. I know I get bogged down when I have to carry a 20 pound Dutch oven in addition to my camping essentials.
Unless, of course, he is not going into the backcountry. Then he is a wuss.
Medical devices like hip replacements. If you are looking to bang out a 1,000 identical parts, then yeah, there are better options.
Aircraft and other high performance parts. Additive manufacturing can make much lighter parts that subtractive manufacturing – or then can make parts that subtractive manufacturing just can’t do.
No, it not looking for a solution. It is just a bit expensive today.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because I like working on the worse case scenarios. So, I think it would kind of depend on the evacuation plan / structural integrity of the ship / hotel.
It’s basically a very top heavy boat. So a 3 meter wave would not pick it up and throw it around but it might be enough to tip it. (which still may be safer than being on-shore)
Or maybe just enough stress to pop out some of the windows in the 21 underwater bedrooms.The structure would survive but how fast can you evacuate the people from below?
Um, no.
As an aside, why? If I am a bank making a loan what do I care about non-monetary gains? I care about if the loan is going to be paid back. If there are non-monetary gains they should be monetized as far as possible. I am a big believer that incentivizing people correct is important. For example, I am a big believer in a carbon tax.
But back to your point specifically. The longer the payback period, the higher the market risk is, the more risky there is drives up the required return. Don’t like my example of monetary risk between nuclear and natural gas? Let’s try a non-monetary gain, reduction in greenhouse gases. What is the chance that Wind or Solar will be able to crack the code and beat nuclear? Not just in terms of price but the whole package - base load, seasonal adjustments, etc. in terms of price and base load in the next 10 years? Zero to nil – they would need to knock coal with its high carbon emissions out of the way first. What about 20 years? I don’t think anybody knows but I am going to pull a 20% chance out of thin air. That is there is a 1 in 5 chance that you will have a ½ paid worthless nuclear power plant. Or maybe 5% - or maybe 50%.
So, the future you go out, the more you discount monetary and non-monetary gains.
That is truish. Fracking has been around for a long time. The specific technique that has led to the recent boom in natural gas was only developed in the 80s. So, no, it was not a major factor in the time period being discussed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Mitchell
We kind of have that today. You can rent wombs and have a 3rd party deliver your baby. IIRC a American couple outsourced their twins to 2 Indians.
And I don’t think that is the limiting factor. It is the cost of raising the kids that is the big deterrent. As we get wealthier we put more resources into fewer kids. (There is a sound evolutionary bias for this – I think it called high / low K (as in care) but I can’t find a link)
Why do you say that?
I agree with the statement but I am going to guess for different reasons.
If I am a banker, you are asking me to underwrite a 30 year loan that is based on the assumption that you will competitively produce electricity for the next 30 years. Trying to figure out what the market for electricity is going to do for 10 is hard. 10 years ago it looked like with high fuel prices that Nuclear would be profitable. Fracking came along and natural gas prices, and the electricity it produces, dropped like a rock. Bye bye profitability projections.
Why is this not a rational response?
Unless you are talking about forced sterilization, free contraception has little impact on population growth. The biggest effect it has is to delay when a woman has their first child, not how many they have.
Wealth is one of the better ways to curb population. When people move from abject poverty to poverty child births go up. When people move from poverty to middle class their child births go down. This effect is magnified if you have educated women in the work force. You hit the replacement rate about when everybody needs a college education and said college education costs about as much as a house.
Of course, to produce wealth you need a vibrant economy, which implies a lot more energy use.
I think you are distorting environmentalist’s views on natural gas and global warming. I don’t know of a single environmentalist who every believed that natural gas did not cause global warming. The argument was always that natural gas was less damaging then coal.
Then add the fact that the time period you are referencing, 2000s, fracking was a new, novel concept, and the amount of gas it produced was low.
One can always refuse a breathalyzer test. In all US states that I know it revokes your license and your refusal can be used in court. In short, it is worse to refuse a breathalyzer then to have a positive breathalyzer.
So it is kind of a useless right. Which is why implied consent is so devious and makes DWI works.
I am not exactly using circular logic here.
On of the reason why DWI laws work is because of implied consent. You get into a car, you consent to getting a breathalyzer. A much lower level of proof than probably cause.
In most car accidents there would be no proof of texting. If I get rear ended on a busy highway there is next to no chance that an eye-wittiness will come forward. And it’s not like a beer bottle in the back seat. The phone would be slipped into a pocket and it would not be obvious that they were texting. So what then?
Do we have a worthless law on the books saying that you can’t text but there is no way to check and enforce it? I am against worthless laws like that. The logical choice would be to have some lower level than probably cause, such as DWI’s implied consent. If you get into an accident you phone is pulled and check.
And as I posted in my OP, I am not sure if I would be o.k. with that.
I think in most states it’s “more legal” for a copy to shoot somebody then a citizen, in the sense that a cop has a wider range of circumstances where they can legally use lethal force.
In my state I have to be in immediate danger before I can start shooting. If I have a drunk guy on my lawn shooting random shots in the air I can’t shoot at him. Cops can.
Now, if you are saying that cops have a tougher legal review after they shoot somebody – I would agree with that. They are professionals, it’s an act that can’t be reversed, and is open for abuse. So it tends to be examined in much closer detail.
In my state – and I think most states – cops are required to investigate all car accidents that cause more than $2,500 (I think that is the number) in damages. So almost any fender bender. Primarily this is to determine fault, create a paper trail for the insurance company (to cut down on insurance fraud), etc.
While at the scene they try to figure out what was the cause. Poor design of signs, wet road, accident, one of the drivers being blind drunk. I am not saying that they are going to start a wiretap or anything, but they will be investigating.
I would tend to agree with you – but let me play the Devil’s Advocate.
Crashing your car is not a crime. Most crashes fall into the fender bender category. In no-fault states they don’t even bother figuring out who cause a multi-car crash.
Driving your car impaired (drunk, texting, whatever) is a crime. Crashing your car while impaired even more so. You pay for everybody’s repair plus jail time.
When a cop shows up to determine cause of the crash, how do they determine if the crash was caused by impaired driving? If a driver is drunk that is semi-obvious. If a person was texting? How then? Subpoena everybody’s phone on the off chance that there might have been texting? (Not sure if that would clear probably cause.). If not, then would the “no texting” law have any real teeth?
US standards say that a convertible has to have pylons, roll bars, or something so when the car flips it does not crush the people inside. In theory, if you have your seatbelts on, you should just hang there. Older cars are grandfathered in.
There was a planned test to dig a harbor (which is kind of like a big hole) in Alaska but it never happened. Ergo all objections are theoretical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chariot_(1958)
(I might have to take that back. I think the USSR did something similar. Made a really pretty lake, if I recall, but they could never keep it stocked with fish. But I can’t find a link so it might be my imagination.)
Replying to my own post – I copied OP link, not Operation Plowshare’s link. Here it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plowshare
I wonder if they will resurrect the idea of “Pan-Atomic Canal”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_canal
Basically, you just need a few atomic devices to carve out a new canal. I assume China has a few laying around and that the who thing would only take a few months to construct.
I don’t think that is true. I can think of a lot of critics that love low brow humor.
What they don’t like is reheated, stale second servings that pander to the audience.
Then add that humor tends to be a bit more subjective. I have gone into films that came highly recommended from critics and friends and I did not laugh – while there were cases that were just the opposite.
As for getting a job – why not? Start a blog and go from there. It is a relatively straight forward process and I know people who have done it, like James Berardinelli. (Now, there is a big difference between straight forward and easy – but it is more about skill then luck.)
If you want a poster child for the right not to incriminate yourself, I would point to Thomas More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More#Trial_and_execution. (Or you can wach the play / movie “A Man for All Seasons”.)
I think he meets all of your conditions.
But I am going to guess you want more. Assume that all men are of good conscious and we will not have any abuse such as torture, fishing expeditions, etc. You are altering the relationship between the citizen and the state in what I believe is a negative way. Citizens are put on the back foot with the state getting the upper hand.
Fist, some of your suggestions would add no value. For example, you would allow “Did you Do it?” and accept the answer "I didn't commit the murder, but I would prefer not to tell you where I was." Both the innocent and guilty (who has an incentive to lie) would offer the same answer – No. So it would be meaningless. Only if the policy had the right to pry deeper would this have any meaning.
Second, under Common Law you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is up to the prosecutor and policy to build a case. With self-incrimination the burden of proof shifts. Now you have to come up with proof of your innocence.
Side note, you bring up McCarthy and the Red Scare as a poor example because it hampers all criminal investigations. The argument is confused. Do I have the 5th amendment right sometimes but not others? The problem with pushing the burden of proof onto citizens (via loyalty tests or whatever) is that it instill a sense of fear. “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed” turns into “everything which is not allowed is forbidden”.
Third, it does erode privacy. You would allow the response “None of your damn business “ to the question “What books are you reading these days?" Why is this valid response? Maybe the victim was bludgeoned to death by a book. Now you have to defend why it is not their dam business while knowing nothing of the case, which would still be secret. And now your refusal can be used against you in court. You are obviously hiding something. Maybe not the murder weapon but maybe porn or Karl Marx’s Das Capital. It presumes that the policy can ask wide ranging questions and that you must answer.
Let me ask you 2 questions. First, where should the burden of proof be placed? Second, how many innocent people should go to jail verses how many guilty people walk? 1 to 1? 1 to 10? In statistics there are Type I Errors (innocence people are convicted of a crime) and Type II Errors (letting the guilty go). If you reduce the Type II errors more guilty people go to jail but also more innocent people go to jail. Personally, I am o.k. stacking the deck to favor Type II errors knowing this reduces Type I errors.
For a good chunk of the corporate world (or any other place that uses locked down computers) Microsoft Office is the standard file format. It is the way people communicate. As long as you can input and output to those file standards your fine. Just hope there is not anything Microsoft specific like VBA.
Not saying its right, just saying that it is the way it is.
I have backpacked a Dutch oven into the backcountry, but only once. Mostly it was a macho thing but it does make a very nice peach cobbler. Something about lugging that oven for 20 miles makes things test better.
I think you are coming up with the maximum distance, not minimum .The minimum space is if management packed everybody into a closet and put a bear outside so the employees won’t mess with the robots.
I would guess a large chunk of the factory floor is given over to inventory – either coming or going so employees would be backed slightly closer. I also assume each employee maintains multiple robots so they are probably not working elbow to elbow.
What about a nuclear battery? I knew a guy who had one of those for his pacemaker. They would last for years.
A electric jet is probably not in the cards. I think you mean electric airplane. Those do exist today, but they tend to be experiential or for the hobby market.
Hey, if he uses electricity during camping he is not a wuss. Lugging 30 pounds of batteries plus a electric blanket fans, lights, bug zapper, phone charger, electric blanket, inverter for laptop 40 miles into the backcountry is not for a wuss. I know I get bogged down when I have to carry a 20 pound Dutch oven in addition to my camping essentials.
Unless, of course, he is not going into the backcountry. Then he is a wuss.
Medical devices like hip replacements. If you are looking to bang out a 1,000 identical parts, then yeah, there are better options.
Aircraft and other high performance parts. Additive manufacturing can make much lighter parts that subtractive manufacturing – or then can make parts that subtractive manufacturing just can’t do.
No, it not looking for a solution. It is just a bit expensive today.