Since it requires no manpower (or womanpower) on the part of the oil company now, I'm not sure where you see a labor savings in this.
A = A.
The part about 'requires no manpower' is the labor savings. The part about not having to have someone on staff available to swipe your card or take your cash is the labor savings. I have not seen any unattended open-for-business gas stations, but the various pay-at-the-pump devices do reduce the need for staff and overall expenses.
I'm not denying the usefulness of pay-at-the-pump. I like it and prefer stations that have it. My point is, the gas station is giving you a cherry and calling it a pie.
Swiping my card at the pump is quicker then walking into the station and handing to an employee, but the overall affect is minimal. As the customer, most of my time is spent dispensing fuel. While faster and more convenient payment methods do benefit me, they benefit the company more. I would get more use from faster and more convenient ways of getting me my gas.
I'm not cheated or getting less for my money by using pay-at-the-pump, but I recognize this is something the companies do to benefit them. My convenience is happy side affect.
It saves some labor for me, though.
I'm just trying to point out a different way of looking at these things. There was a time you could pull into a gas station and have someone attend to delivering the gas and the monetary transaction. Now (unless you're in New Jersey) you're pumping the gas AND completing payment on your own. How has that change saved you labor? (I'm not knocking it--I prefer to get and out of the station quickly. I'll pump it myself and pay-at-the-pump to avoid waiting for an attendant or standing in line at the cashier, but I don't pretend I'm saving labor while doing all the work. =)
I've been using a Speedpass for my cars' gas for about 5 years now (Esso has 'em in Canada), and let me tell you, it's damn convenient. It's even faster than debit.
Not to be a party poopper, but things like speed pass and card swipers at the pump are damn convenient...for the gas station and the oil companies.
Think about it, what does this speed up? What part of the process is facilitated? Them getting the money out of your pocket. Let's them get your money faster at less cost with less man-power.
As the customer, the part of the process you should look at is the delivery of the product. Where are the advances in getting the gas into your car? What the oil companies doing to make it easier for you to get your side of the transaction?
Most of my time at the station is spent standing by my car pumping gas. I say, forget the speed pass, and bring back the latches on the handles that auto-shut-off when the tank is full, so I don't have to stand out in the cold while the gas is pumping. That would be a lot more convenient than taking the fastest part of the transaction and making it a little bit faster.
Hey, it's our constitutional right to complain about the products we have willingly purchased without any forethought of consequences.
Damn skippy! What's next? I can't complain about the president if I didn't bother voting? I can't bitch about jar-jar after getting TPM from kazaa?
As an American, it is my right--nay, my duty! to come to/., for which I neither subscribe nor view adds, and complain that my warez copy of photoshop won't make fake money.
Say what you want about me, but I will not sit here while you bad-mouth the United States of America!
The MPAA sends out *free* copies of their films, one of said *free* copies makes it onto the Internet where the general public can consume for free. Now the MPAA is upset?
Yes. And while the/. is doing the big 'we told you so' over unauthorized copying clearly starting with MPAA members, the MPAA is doing a little 'we told you so' of their own.
The MPAA powers-that-be don't want 'screener' copies sent out to academy voters, and this has actually been the subject of a couple court cases. The makers of small independent films--the makers of films that usually get limited release and not all voters can go see on their own, and the sort of artists the/. crowd usually supports--fought for the right to send tapes to the voters.
So, yes, one of the *free* copies of their films the MPAA didn't want to send out makes it onto the Internet, like they said it would, and now they are upset.
On another note, if these guys were working harder to make their movies better, the voters would go out to see the movies on their own (without expecting free copies) and they wouldn't be in this situation.
Um...the guys you want to work harder ARE the voters. Do you read every publication/attend every conference/review every new application/whatever analogy applies to your profession? If every movie opened on 3000 screens, this might not be an issue. But joe filmmaker shouldn't be shut out of the shot at some recognition from his peers just because not every member of the academy lives in New York or LA or across the street from one of the five little art houses he actually got to show his film.
Yes, 99.99% of the academy awards is Hollywood big shots jerking each other off about friggin' great they all are. Stop providing screeners to the voters and you're one step closer to ending that 0.01% that attempts to recognize the independent artist.
Re:My favorite character was the
on
Oryx and Crake
·
· Score: 1
When it's hungry it doesn't bother rooting through rubbish, it just bites a higher mammal, waits until they drop dead, and then starts gnawing.
And if anybody ever made one, could you ever be sure that there were none in the wild?
Nature already has, and they are already in the wild--"prey they merely injure are brought down shortly by the deadly bacteria in their mouths."
Thus, there is no strongest plastic key; they will all be destroyed in short order.
And it isn't that the point of this key activity (really, it's too lame to be called a game. I know there's been flames at some recent Ask/. questions, but this story proves you could take a dump on a Frisbee and get it posted. But I digress.)
The breaking of keys is designed to re-enforce the irrelevence of the individual; only the corporations matter. In the long run, no one wins, but the masses are so distracted by the spectacle, they don't notice or don't care.
In the end, I doubt this thing will even last long enough to warrant a dupe. At least pogs were big enough for a picture of Alf.
If you're going to build straw man arguments, at least put some effort into making it less obvious.
Actually, I do not think my argument is straw man. Maybe I misspoke by saying 'west coast' when I should say 'areas on the west coast affected by major earthquakes.'
Yes, an earthquake warning for San Jose will not directly affect San Diego. However, there will eventually be a prediction for a big quake in San Diego...and LA...and SLO...and so on.
All these areas (I'm not sure about San Diego, but...) are prone to earthquakes and will eventually see a big one. If these predictions have long-term depressing economic effects, then eventually most (all?) of California will be depressed.
In addition, extreme migration of economic activity away from areas directly affected by earthquake predictions may affect other earthquake-prone areas.
Reliable warning comes out for San Jose. Businesses flee, people leave town, cats and dogs living together--long-term downside. Although Orange County is not covered in the prediction and will not be shaken by the coming quake, folks living and working in that area may see how San Jose has become a west coast Detroit after the prediction and earthquake. Knowing such a prediction will be made for their area, and a similar economic downturn is likely to follow, many will get out of town preemptively.
After seeing what has happened in many mill towns, I would not move to or put a lot of investment in an area that depends on a single company or industry.
If reliable earthquake predictions had the economic effect you say they might, areas not yet facing such a prediction but with the likelihood of such a prediction coming would face economic hardship, although likely not to the degree of the areas covered by the predictions.
By the way, nice forensic style. What are you, about twelve?
Besides, Ad Hominem attacks are so much more declasse than straw man. Do you have any actual support that more reliable predictions of earthquakes will have the economic effects you suppose? The fact that I am twelve does not make your position any more sensible.
Well... YEAH! That's exactly my point: don't build, don't buy, don't hire, don't insure. It'd be like putting the earthquake region in an economic deep freeze.
Well...yeah...BUT! On day 62 or 63, when the after-shocks have died down, you start building. And now you can build more because no resources are wasted repairing damage from day 60.
Reliable earthquake predictions will affect local economies. And if you are the contractor out of work for 60 days while everyone waits it out, there will be a short-term downside.
But building will resume, and everything scheduled to be built, bought, hired, or insured will still be built, bought, hired, or insured. And not all industries will be put on hold by the prediction.
There will be no deep freeze, no depression. (At least, not on caused by an earthquake prediction.)
Yeah, I've said in other posts in this thread I saw no probably downside. What of our poor contractor? Well, I guess he could get off his butt and spend the next 60 days working to re-enforce buildings and check on earthquake-proofing--work that would not otherwise exist without the prediction. Guess there isn't a downside after all.
Yeah? But what about the people and business who suddenly have pay for this extra work? Well, it's cheaper and better to pay a little upfront in preparation than pay a lot on the backend in repairs. Sounds good to me. But then again, with my public school education, I was looking forward to staying home and watching 'Ren and Stimpy.'
But if people know for a fact that at latitude x, longitude y, there will be a seismic event that will result in some foreseeable amount of damage, people are going to avoid that area, and it won't be economically pretty.
But. They. Don't.
We know hurricanes are coming. We know earthquakes are coming. We know tornados are coming. People don't abandon the affected areas.
Yes, these events often have an economic affect, but the original parent of this 'downside' thread supposed people would make a long-term decision to avoid living, working, and investing in the affected areas. The facts just do not support that suggestion.
Some weeks of tourism money may get lost. Some resources are spent reparing damage. Folks get hurt and die. But all these things happen when we are suprised by such disasters.
Better predictive technology will not make these things worse. A lot folks are going to avoid San Jose on the day an earthquake hit. A lot of folks are going to avoid Miami on a day a hurricane hits.
The days before and the days after will see life as usual. There is no evidence to support thinking otherwise. And the economy of the area will not be hurt to a greater degree than if an unpredicted disaster hit.
If you know that you're going to kick it in 90 days...
Apples and Oranges. This isn't some mystic oracle. I'm addressing the issue of knowing when and where and with what energy an earthquake will hit.
If a prediction is made a 7-point-something earthquake is coming to San Fran in the next 90 days, and people have relatively high confidence in that prediction, some people will leave their day-to-day lives. They will quit their jobs and do all the things they always meant to get around to. Or they will just sit at home, smoke pot, and watch 'Ren and Stimpy' all day.
But most people will go along living like they always have. They may stash away a couple bottles of water or some canned food. They may check the conditions of buildings to predict the likely hood of withstanding the quake.
But no one will get a candygram from the grim reaper saying 'you will die in 90 days.' Some folks may see an earthquake prediction as the same as such a candygram; most folks won't.
In either case, I don't see any probable change in behavior as a detriment to the area. I don't see the downside.
The folks that lose the shirt and tie and drive across country or move up to the mountains--good for them, and why did take the threat of an earthquake for them to do what they really wanted anyway? The folks who drop out and stay at home--good for them, and they probably won't be missed much anyway. The folks who just keep on living, maybe a little more prepared than before--good for them too.
The idea that the economy of an area will be drastically affected for the worse does not compute in my head. Folks who don't want to live or work in an area affected by earthquake aren't in LA and San Fran now. Better predictive technology will at least let them know when it is safe to visit.
You can't seem to grasp the fact than people live, work, and build business in places that get hit by hurricanes with more certainty, more frequency, and more damage so let use another analogy.
Planes crash. And they usually hurt when they do. What if we could predict, with certainty, which passanger planes would crash?
Would this be the end of the airline industry? No. Would this be the end of that airline? No. You wouldn't see too many folks lining up for that particular flight, but wouldn't you feel better about the other flights?
In the analogy, no airline is a single plane, like no location is a single day. On Day X a really, really bad quake will hit San Fran. Any one in the area on Day X runs the risk of getting hurt or even getting killed.
Okay, so maybe no one will start new construction on Day X, or decide Day X is a good time to shop for a new house. (Although, you may decide Day X is a good time to see which areas and buildings held up in the quake and which ones didn't.)
But life will go in San Fran on all the Days != X. Plus, the damage caused on Day X may be lessened by preparations made possible by a reliable prediction.
Are you going to buy or insure a burning building?
Just to respond to that specific point. No, I would not buy or insure a burning building.
But many people do just that. Again, back to the example of hurricanes on the east coast of the US of A. They are a good model because they don't have the uncertainly associated with earthquakes. Hurricanes come every year. The same areas get hit, and the same areas flood. Anyone would lives/works in an interior section of Florida, whose tax and insurance bills go to subsidize the yahoos who insist on living on borrowed land can attest to that fact.
With The Big One, it may be a question of when in the next thousand or even ten thousand years. With the Florida coast and the next killer hurricane, the area of uncertainly is a little smaller--if not this year, then almost certainly next.
I ain't saying it's right. I ain't saying someone who got washed out by Hugo and rebuilt should get any insurance payout or disaster relief checks when they get washed out the next time. But geese shit, rabbits hump, and people build homes where they really shouldn't. Stronger hurricanes aren't going to change that; better earthquake predictions aren't going to change that.
No one would want to buy a home, build a business, or write insurance when it's known that an earthquake is on its way.
Riiiight. No one will buy a home, build a business, or write insurance anywhere on the west coast. But they do. But we know The Big One is on its way. But we don't know when.
But if we did know when, wouldn't that give a chance to evacuate the people to a safe place and make sure the buildings were properly fortified? Wouldn't that predictive power make the earthquake less powerful, not more? Wouldn't that predictive power make buying a home or starting a business in that area more secure?
Yes, I think it would. Support? East coast, USA. Hurricanes hit every single year. Kill more people than earthquakes in California; cause more property damage. Folks aren't leaving those areas; businesses aren't closing their doors.
Why would you suppose folks on the west coast are going to have some sort of epiphany in regards to earthquakes the folks on the east coast haven't had in regards to hurricanes?
BTW, nice style. What are you, about 8? How does it feel to have your argument ripped to shreds by someone who is about twelve. =)
(BTW, I'm not saying catering to earthquake-groupies could be a huge business, anymore than the major airlines made it big by flying folks around to see eclipses. But there is a business there, if you could reliably supply the product, that is, the earthquake.)
think the kind of people who panic over the infinitesimal chance of getting a bad burger are going to suddenly develop a spine when it comes to an earthquake?
Yes. Because they do. No, it doesn't make sense.
There's an enormous difference between "maybe" there'll be an earthquake and "definitely."
There is no maybe about earthquakes and California. There will be an 8.0+ quake in the San Fran area. It'll make the 7.2 during the '89 World Series look like a minor tremor. It will happen "definitely." The only question is when. Could be next year; could be in a thousand years.
You may say the large uncertainly in timing allows people of psychologically avoid the certainly of the event, and you'd probably be right. But that does not validate the proposition that people or businesses will avoid the west coast when earthquake predictions become more reliable and the certainly of a quake becomes more immediate.
Let go back to the east coast. In fact that's a better example. In the US of A, areas subject to frequent earthquakes have construction designed to withstand those forces. Witness the fact that a 6.something quake hits California and half a dozen people die; a 6.something quake hits Iran or Turkey and tens of thousands of people die.
Hurricanes kill more people each year than earthquakes in the US of A. And we already have a predictor of hurricanes decades ahead of any technology for predicting earthquakes. It's called a calander.
There's a flippin' Hurricane Season! They came the same time of year, every year. They hit the same group of locations, year after year. The exact dates and locations and storm intensities change, but all that variation is in a very narrow window compared to the uncertainly in predicting earthquakes.
So here we have a natural disaster. Causes more property damage and more deaths than earthquakes. Hurricanes not only follow a yearly pattern, but we can see them coming. We can literally see them coming days in advance with radar and weather satellites. If earthquake predictions will scare of folks, then certainly the areas of the east coast subject to this yearly barrage of hurricanes are abandoned wastelands and uninhabited wilderness.
But they are not. Every year people die and houses are washed away. And every year people rebuild. There ya go. Q.E.D. Better earthquake predictions will not lead to a decline in population or business investment in the affected areas. Better earthquake predictions do not have a downside. (Unless, as I said previously, you like chaos and destruction. Then better earthquake predictions seriously suck.)
(unless you just hate shit like this because it ruins the surprise.)
If this turns out to be true, it would be a disaster for the economy in an area.
Bzzzt. Wrong. Thank you for playing. Not only would more accurate and more precise prediction of earthquakes reduce loss in the affected areas, it could potentially create a whole new tourist trade.
Have you ever felt the effects of an earthquake? I have, and it's pretty cool. The earth quakes. It's better than any roller coaster ever made. And I was in a mild 6.2.
Death and disaster is not cool. But what if predictions were good enough that could be sure to be in a safe area to 'view' the quake and not in the subway or driving across a bridge? Folks fly around the world to see eclipses. Don't you think folks would hop on a plane for a reasonably sure shot at being in a quake?
Sure, if you like big surprises and chaos and destruction, better quake predictions are a buzz kill. But other than that, what is the downside?
Would you rather have a report today saying you're going to get cancer in 6 months, or a report in a year saying you just died of cancer?
Would you hang around or invest in a place where there's a big quake known to be coming in the next few months?
Apparently the answer is Yes. California--with the earthquakes, fires, mud slides, Bonos and Schwarzeneggers --is the most populous state in the union. So people do hang around despite imminent doom.
And it's not just the nuts on the west coast. Idiots from Florida to the Carolinas continue to build houses in the ocean. Sure it looks like dry land today, but wait until the next hurricane comes through. Just like the California quakes it's a question of 'when' not 'if'.
So how can better predictions be bad for the local economy? Is there going to be a mass exodus? "Oh no! There's going to be an earthquake, let's all move to South Dakota!" If it hasn't happened yet, I doubt it's going to happen. And I'm sure SD prefers to be left alone anyway.
So rather than scaring off residents and business, maybe better predictions will help reduce damage and injury, which might help reduce insurance rates and costs of doing business in diaster-prone areas.
So if this turns out to be true, not only would it not be a disaster to the economy, it would be a huge asset.
Although it helps you prepare, life can't be normal after that.
Have you watched the news lately? Do you know the supreme executive of the state is 'Hercules in New York'? I would guess a life most of us would consider normal is not something most Californians need to worry about.
Yes, that would be unusual. I hear all the time about kids shooting each other with their parents' guns. I hardly ever hear about those parents taking responsibility--for their kids or their guns.
lol, You're funny. "Hey...if they weren't breaking and entering and commiting a crime on my private property, we'd have no problem."
Since you've unloaded your weapon once in this persons direction and have proceeded to start reloading, at what point do you determine if the person is indeed breaking and entering and committing a crime?
I'll think of you and your poor family and laugh next time I hear a story of some nut, in his rights and quite justified, shooting and killing an intruder who turns out to be a son or daughter playing hooky and sneaking into the house.
Though it is many, MANY times more likely your children will shoot each other or a friend than you will ever point a gun at an intruder.
So are you prepared to take responsibility for your actions? When it turns out you were mistaken, or you miss the thief and hit an innocent by-stander, can their family shoot you and send your estate a bill for the bullets?
Your response to the aggressive driver scenario show just how screwed up your priorities are. A reckless driver is a serious threat, not just to my car but to my life. So if I'm out on the road and someone threatens my life with their 2000 pounds of metal and plastic, I should do nothing. But if I'm a store owner and someone walk off with a pack of gum I should empty my glock in their general direction?
Let me know where you do business and I'll be sure to avoid the area.
worst character ever
on
Oryx and Crake
·
· Score: 2, Funny
That team was also working on a line of bathroom towels that would behave in much the same way, but they hadn't yet solved the marine-life fundamentals: when algae got wet it swelled up and began to grow, and the test subjects so far had not liked the sight of their towels from the night before puffing up like rectangular marshmallows and inching across the bathroom floor.
He is right to the point, it doesn't really matter what the RIAA, MPAA and their cronies do, they surely can't stop us, it might have worked in the past, but now we control the information paths and they can't do anything except scare those who haven't got access to the sources of information that we do.
It doesn't really matter what the RIAA, MPAA, et al do, because changing means of producing and distributing music and movies are relatively minor advances in terms of overall effects on society.
Changes in industry and materials have the potential to dwarf any changes in entertainment. "Playing movies off handhelds, that's not really that big of a deal."
The buzz was to start the CD at the second roar of the MGM lion, but that depends on how long it takes for your player to get going. A jukebox or cd-rom generally take longer to get up to speed than a stand-alone single-disk player.
Now-a-days, the word is to pause the CD at 0:00 and start with the third roar.
Slashdot Mirror
Netscape 4 basically ended the browser wars. That was the point many users switched to IE, and they never switched back.
Yes, it was that bad.
Yes.
A = A.
The part about 'requires no manpower' is the labor savings. The part about not having to have someone on staff available to swipe your card or take your cash is the labor savings. I have not seen any unattended open-for-business gas stations, but the various pay-at-the-pump devices do reduce the need for staff and overall expenses.
I'm not denying the usefulness of pay-at-the-pump. I like it and prefer stations that have it. My point is, the gas station is giving you a cherry and calling it a pie.
Swiping my card at the pump is quicker then walking into the station and handing to an employee, but the overall affect is minimal. As the customer, most of my time is spent dispensing fuel. While faster and more convenient payment methods do benefit me, they benefit the company more. I would get more use from faster and more convenient ways of getting me my gas.
I'm not cheated or getting less for my money by using pay-at-the-pump, but I recognize this is something the companies do to benefit them. My convenience is happy side affect.
It saves some labor for me, though.
I'm just trying to point out a different way of looking at these things. There was a time you could pull into a gas station and have someone attend to delivering the gas and the monetary transaction. Now (unless you're in New Jersey) you're pumping the gas AND completing payment on your own. How has that change saved you labor? (I'm not knocking it--I prefer to get and out of the station quickly. I'll pump it myself and pay-at-the-pump to avoid waiting for an attendant or standing in line at the cashier, but I don't pretend I'm saving labor while doing all the work. =)
There ya go. I did not know that.
Not to be a party poopper, but things like speed pass and card swipers at the pump are damn convenient...for the gas station and the oil companies.
Think about it, what does this speed up? What part of the process is facilitated? Them getting the money out of your pocket. Let's them get your money faster at less cost with less man-power.
As the customer, the part of the process you should look at is the delivery of the product. Where are the advances in getting the gas into your car? What the oil companies doing to make it easier for you to get your side of the transaction?
Most of my time at the station is spent standing by my car pumping gas. I say, forget the speed pass, and bring back the latches on the handles that auto-shut-off when the tank is full, so I don't have to stand out in the cold while the gas is pumping. That would be a lot more convenient than taking the fastest part of the transaction and making it a little bit faster.
Damn skippy! What's next? I can't complain about the president if I didn't bother voting? I can't bitch about jar-jar after getting TPM from kazaa?
As an American, it is my right--nay, my duty! to come to /., for which I neither subscribe nor view adds, and complain that my warez copy of photoshop won't make fake money.
Say what you want about me, but I will not sit here while you bad-mouth the United States of America!
Yes. And while the /. is doing the big 'we told you so' over unauthorized copying clearly starting with MPAA members, the MPAA is doing a little 'we told you so' of their own.
The MPAA powers-that-be don't want 'screener' copies sent out to academy voters, and this has actually been the subject of a couple court cases. The makers of small independent films--the makers of films that usually get limited release and not all voters can go see on their own, and the sort of artists the /. crowd usually supports--fought for the right to send tapes to the voters.
So, yes, one of the *free* copies of their films the MPAA didn't want to send out makes it onto the Internet, like they said it would, and now they are upset.
On another note, if these guys were working harder to make their movies better, the voters would go out to see the movies on their own (without expecting free copies) and they wouldn't be in this situation.
Um...the guys you want to work harder ARE the voters. Do you read every publication/attend every conference/review every new application/whatever analogy applies to your profession? If every movie opened on 3000 screens, this might not be an issue. But joe filmmaker shouldn't be shut out of the shot at some recognition from his peers just because not every member of the academy lives in New York or LA or across the street from one of the five little art houses he actually got to show his film.
Yes, 99.99% of the academy awards is Hollywood big shots jerking each other off about friggin' great they all are. Stop providing screeners to the voters and you're one step closer to ending that 0.01% that attempts to recognize the independent artist.
And if anybody ever made one, could you ever be sure that there were none in the wild?
Nature already has, and they are already in the wild--"prey they merely injure are brought down shortly by the deadly bacteria in their mouths."
Not if they're in the USA, and those purposes are not approved by the FDA, and they want to continue to practice medicine legally.
And it isn't that the point of this key activity (really, it's too lame to be called a game. I know there's been flames at some recent Ask /. questions, but this story proves you could take a dump on a Frisbee and get it posted. But I digress.)
The breaking of keys is designed to re-enforce the irrelevence of the individual; only the corporations matter. In the long run, no one wins, but the masses are so distracted by the spectacle, they don't notice or don't care.
In the end, I doubt this thing will even last long enough to warrant a dupe. At least pogs were big enough for a picture of Alf.
Actually, I do not think my argument is straw man. Maybe I misspoke by saying 'west coast' when I should say 'areas on the west coast affected by major earthquakes.'
Yes, an earthquake warning for San Jose will not directly affect San Diego. However, there will eventually be a prediction for a big quake in San Diego...and LA...and SLO...and so on.
All these areas (I'm not sure about San Diego, but...) are prone to earthquakes and will eventually see a big one. If these predictions have long-term depressing economic effects, then eventually most (all?) of California will be depressed.
In addition, extreme migration of economic activity away from areas directly affected by earthquake predictions may affect other earthquake-prone areas.
Reliable warning comes out for San Jose. Businesses flee, people leave town, cats and dogs living together--long-term downside. Although Orange County is not covered in the prediction and will not be shaken by the coming quake, folks living and working in that area may see how San Jose has become a west coast Detroit after the prediction and earthquake. Knowing such a prediction will be made for their area, and a similar economic downturn is likely to follow, many will get out of town preemptively.
After seeing what has happened in many mill towns, I would not move to or put a lot of investment in an area that depends on a single company or industry.
If reliable earthquake predictions had the economic effect you say they might, areas not yet facing such a prediction but with the likelihood of such a prediction coming would face economic hardship, although likely not to the degree of the areas covered by the predictions.
By the way, nice forensic style. What are you, about twelve?
Besides, Ad Hominem attacks are so much more declasse than straw man. Do you have any actual support that more reliable predictions of earthquakes will have the economic effects you suppose? The fact that I am twelve does not make your position any more sensible.
Well...yeah...BUT! On day 62 or 63, when the after-shocks have died down, you start building. And now you can build more because no resources are wasted repairing damage from day 60.
Reliable earthquake predictions will affect local economies. And if you are the contractor out of work for 60 days while everyone waits it out, there will be a short-term downside.
But building will resume, and everything scheduled to be built, bought, hired, or insured will still be built, bought, hired, or insured. And not all industries will be put on hold by the prediction.
There will be no deep freeze, no depression. (At least, not on caused by an earthquake prediction.)
Yeah, I've said in other posts in this thread I saw no probably downside. What of our poor contractor? Well, I guess he could get off his butt and spend the next 60 days working to re-enforce buildings and check on earthquake-proofing--work that would not otherwise exist without the prediction. Guess there isn't a downside after all.
Yeah? But what about the people and business who suddenly have pay for this extra work? Well, it's cheaper and better to pay a little upfront in preparation than pay a lot on the backend in repairs. Sounds good to me. But then again, with my public school education, I was looking forward to staying home and watching 'Ren and Stimpy.'
But. They. Don't.
We know hurricanes are coming. We know earthquakes are coming. We know tornados are coming. People don't abandon the affected areas.
Yes, these events often have an economic affect, but the original parent of this 'downside' thread supposed people would make a long-term decision to avoid living, working, and investing in the affected areas. The facts just do not support that suggestion.
Some weeks of tourism money may get lost. Some resources are spent reparing damage. Folks get hurt and die. But all these things happen when we are suprised by such disasters.
Better predictive technology will not make these things worse. A lot folks are going to avoid San Jose on the day an earthquake hit. A lot of folks are going to avoid Miami on a day a hurricane hits.
The days before and the days after will see life as usual. There is no evidence to support thinking otherwise. And the economy of the area will not be hurt to a greater degree than if an unpredicted disaster hit.
Apples and Oranges. This isn't some mystic oracle. I'm addressing the issue of knowing when and where and with what energy an earthquake will hit.
If a prediction is made a 7-point-something earthquake is coming to San Fran in the next 90 days, and people have relatively high confidence in that prediction, some people will leave their day-to-day lives. They will quit their jobs and do all the things they always meant to get around to. Or they will just sit at home, smoke pot, and watch 'Ren and Stimpy' all day.
But most people will go along living like they always have. They may stash away a couple bottles of water or some canned food. They may check the conditions of buildings to predict the likely hood of withstanding the quake.
But no one will get a candygram from the grim reaper saying 'you will die in 90 days.' Some folks may see an earthquake prediction as the same as such a candygram; most folks won't.
In either case, I don't see any probable change in behavior as a detriment to the area. I don't see the downside.
The folks that lose the shirt and tie and drive across country or move up to the mountains--good for them, and why did take the threat of an earthquake for them to do what they really wanted anyway? The folks who drop out and stay at home--good for them, and they probably won't be missed much anyway. The folks who just keep on living, maybe a little more prepared than before--good for them too.
The idea that the economy of an area will be drastically affected for the worse does not compute in my head. Folks who don't want to live or work in an area affected by earthquake aren't in LA and San Fran now. Better predictive technology will at least let them know when it is safe to visit.
You can't seem to grasp the fact than people live, work, and build business in places that get hit by hurricanes with more certainty, more frequency, and more damage so let use another analogy.
Planes crash. And they usually hurt when they do. What if we could predict, with certainty, which passanger planes would crash?
Would this be the end of the airline industry? No. Would this be the end of that airline? No. You wouldn't see too many folks lining up for that particular flight, but wouldn't you feel better about the other flights?
In the analogy, no airline is a single plane, like no location is a single day. On Day X a really, really bad quake will hit San Fran. Any one in the area on Day X runs the risk of getting hurt or even getting killed.
Okay, so maybe no one will start new construction on Day X, or decide Day X is a good time to shop for a new house. (Although, you may decide Day X is a good time to see which areas and buildings held up in the quake and which ones didn't.)
But life will go in San Fran on all the Days != X. Plus, the damage caused on Day X may be lessened by preparations made possible by a reliable prediction.
So where is the downside?
Just to respond to that specific point. No, I would not buy or insure a burning building.
But many people do just that. Again, back to the example of hurricanes on the east coast of the US of A. They are a good model because they don't have the uncertainly associated with earthquakes. Hurricanes come every year. The same areas get hit, and the same areas flood. Anyone would lives/works in an interior section of Florida, whose tax and insurance bills go to subsidize the yahoos who insist on living on borrowed land can attest to that fact.
With The Big One, it may be a question of when in the next thousand or even ten thousand years. With the Florida coast and the next killer hurricane, the area of uncertainly is a little smaller--if not this year, then almost certainly next.
I ain't saying it's right. I ain't saying someone who got washed out by Hugo and rebuilt should get any insurance payout or disaster relief checks when they get washed out the next time. But geese shit, rabbits hump, and people build homes where they really shouldn't. Stronger hurricanes aren't going to change that; better earthquake predictions aren't going to change that.
Riiiight. No one will buy a home, build a business, or write insurance anywhere on the west coast. But they do. But we know The Big One is on its way. But we don't know when.
But if we did know when, wouldn't that give a chance to evacuate the people to a safe place and make sure the buildings were properly fortified? Wouldn't that predictive power make the earthquake less powerful, not more? Wouldn't that predictive power make buying a home or starting a business in that area more secure?
Yes, I think it would. Support? East coast, USA. Hurricanes hit every single year. Kill more people than earthquakes in California; cause more property damage. Folks aren't leaving those areas; businesses aren't closing their doors.
Why would you suppose folks on the west coast are going to have some sort of epiphany in regards to earthquakes the folks on the east coast haven't had in regards to hurricanes?
BTW, nice style. What are you, about 8? How does it feel to have your argument ripped to shreds by someone who is about twelve. =)
(BTW, I'm not saying catering to earthquake-groupies could be a huge business, anymore than the major airlines made it big by flying folks around to see eclipses. But there is a business there, if you could reliably supply the product, that is, the earthquake.)
Yes. Because they do. No, it doesn't make sense.
There's an enormous difference between "maybe" there'll be an earthquake and "definitely."
There is no maybe about earthquakes and California. There will be an 8.0+ quake in the San Fran area. It'll make the 7.2 during the '89 World Series look like a minor tremor. It will happen "definitely." The only question is when. Could be next year; could be in a thousand years.
You may say the large uncertainly in timing allows people of psychologically avoid the certainly of the event, and you'd probably be right. But that does not validate the proposition that people or businesses will avoid the west coast when earthquake predictions become more reliable and the certainly of a quake becomes more immediate.
Let go back to the east coast. In fact that's a better example. In the US of A, areas subject to frequent earthquakes have construction designed to withstand those forces. Witness the fact that a 6.something quake hits California and half a dozen people die; a 6.something quake hits Iran or Turkey and tens of thousands of people die.
Hurricanes kill more people each year than earthquakes in the US of A. And we already have a predictor of hurricanes decades ahead of any technology for predicting earthquakes. It's called a calander.
There's a flippin' Hurricane Season! They came the same time of year, every year. They hit the same group of locations, year after year. The exact dates and locations and storm intensities change, but all that variation is in a very narrow window compared to the uncertainly in predicting earthquakes.
So here we have a natural disaster. Causes more property damage and more deaths than earthquakes. Hurricanes not only follow a yearly pattern, but we can see them coming. We can literally see them coming days in advance with radar and weather satellites. If earthquake predictions will scare of folks, then certainly the areas of the east coast subject to this yearly barrage of hurricanes are abandoned wastelands and uninhabited wilderness.
But they are not. Every year people die and houses are washed away. And every year people rebuild. There ya go. Q.E.D. Better earthquake predictions will not lead to a decline in population or business investment in the affected areas. Better earthquake predictions do not have a downside. (Unless, as I said previously, you like chaos and destruction. Then better earthquake predictions seriously suck.)
If this turns out to be true, it would be a disaster for the economy in an area.
Bzzzt. Wrong. Thank you for playing. Not only would more accurate and more precise prediction of earthquakes reduce loss in the affected areas, it could potentially create a whole new tourist trade.
Have you ever felt the effects of an earthquake? I have, and it's pretty cool. The earth quakes. It's better than any roller coaster ever made. And I was in a mild 6.2.
Death and disaster is not cool. But what if predictions were good enough that could be sure to be in a safe area to 'view' the quake and not in the subway or driving across a bridge? Folks fly around the world to see eclipses. Don't you think folks would hop on a plane for a reasonably sure shot at being in a quake?
Sure, if you like big surprises and chaos and destruction, better quake predictions are a buzz kill. But other than that, what is the downside? Would you rather have a report today saying you're going to get cancer in 6 months, or a report in a year saying you just died of cancer?
Who mods this stuff?
Would you hang around or invest in a place where there's a big quake known to be coming in the next few months?
Apparently the answer is Yes. California--with the earthquakes, fires, mud slides, Bonos and Schwarzeneggers --is the most populous state in the union. So people do hang around despite imminent doom.
And it's not just the nuts on the west coast. Idiots from Florida to the Carolinas continue to build houses in the ocean. Sure it looks like dry land today, but wait until the next hurricane comes through. Just like the California quakes it's a question of 'when' not 'if'.
So how can better predictions be bad for the local economy? Is there going to be a mass exodus? "Oh no! There's going to be an earthquake, let's all move to South Dakota!" If it hasn't happened yet, I doubt it's going to happen. And I'm sure SD prefers to be left alone anyway.
So rather than scaring off residents and business, maybe better predictions will help reduce damage and injury, which might help reduce insurance rates and costs of doing business in diaster-prone areas.
So if this turns out to be true, not only would it not be a disaster to the economy, it would be a huge asset.
Although it helps you prepare, life can't be normal after that.
Have you watched the news lately? Do you know the supreme executive of the state is 'Hercules in New York'? I would guess a life most of us would consider normal is not something most Californians need to worry about.
Yes, that would be unusual. I hear all the time about kids shooting each other with their parents' guns. I hardly ever hear about those parents taking responsibility--for their kids or their guns.
lol, You're funny. "Hey...if they weren't breaking and entering and commiting a crime on my private property, we'd have no problem."
Since you've unloaded your weapon once in this persons direction and have proceeded to start reloading, at what point do you determine if the person is indeed breaking and entering and committing a crime?
I'll think of you and your poor family and laugh next time I hear a story of some nut, in his rights and quite justified, shooting and killing an intruder who turns out to be a son or daughter playing hooky and sneaking into the house.
Though it is many, MANY times more likely your children will shoot each other or a friend than you will ever point a gun at an intruder.
So are you prepared to take responsibility for your actions? When it turns out you were mistaken, or you miss the thief and hit an innocent by-stander, can their family shoot you and send your estate a bill for the bullets?
Your response to the aggressive driver scenario show just how screwed up your priorities are. A reckless driver is a serious threat, not just to my car but to my life. So if I'm out on the road and someone threatens my life with their 2000 pounds of metal and plastic, I should do nothing. But if I'm a store owner and someone walk off with a pack of gum I should empty my glock in their general direction?
Let me know where you do business and I'll be sure to avoid the area.
I think you completely missed his point.
It doesn't really matter what the RIAA, MPAA, et al do, because changing means of producing and distributing music and movies are relatively minor advances in terms of overall effects on society.
Changes in industry and materials have the potential to dwarf any changes in entertainment. "Playing movies off handhelds, that's not really that big of a deal."
The buzz was to start the CD at the second roar of the MGM lion, but that depends on how long it takes for your player to get going. A jukebox or cd-rom generally take longer to get up to speed than a stand-alone single-disk player.
Now-a-days, the word is to pause the CD at 0:00 and start with the third roar.