You're trolling/flaming right??? Is it really the case that in parts of the US in cities people don't recycle??? Unbelievable.
I thought the US would be at the forefront of this.
However, you've raised a valid point, in that many people perceive the municipality to be making money out of this unfairly.
The reality bears out something different: sorting the recyclables that come into the transfer station is not something a lot of people want to do as a job, and hence costs money. The extra burden of sorting costs for less lucrative recyclable materials (plastic and paper) that come to transfer stations (and running the scheme) is paid for by the returns on cans and bottles. This makes it easier for the householder, in the sense that usually recyclables can be sorted into just containers, just paper, and general trash; the workers at the transfer facility sort the materials again in more detail into categories useful to manufacturers. It is generally a break-even scenario for councils here in Australia.
If you lightly rinse your containers/bottles/cans before putting them in a recycling bin in your kitchen, you'll find they won't attract insects, and you'll be helping out the poor sorters. Hope to see you recycling soon.
Firstly, let me introduce a new way of thinking about wind: shaving demand. That is to say, the demand for electricity seen and the generator/network side is highly erratic anyway (this is available here in Australia from NEMMCO, the national elec market). So, essential, by adding in variable supply such as wind farms, it is much useful to compare it to the most variable part of the supply chain, the demand side. Whilst variable supply does add a degree of complexity to the supply of electricity, despatch of electricity is set up to respond to the varying demand ultimately seen on the generation side, some of which can be mitigated by the production from wind.
Secondly, gas-fired highly responsive generators have lower capital costs than base load coal (which has high capital costs and low fuel costs). That is to say, it is feasible to pair appropriately place wind farms with a gas generator when it is known that the generator will not be running a lot of the time. Numerous examples exist of this in small scale pairings of micro-wind turbines with diesel gensets, where the fuel savings make the hybrid arrangement viable.
Thirdly, the assertion that wind costs are already high is not accurate, at least in the European and Australian context, where wind power costs approach that of coal, and are actually cheaper than coal for high wind sites (a cost that is coming down with enhanced scale economies).
Finally, everyone is missing the boat on energy efficiency. Energy efficiency promises far more immediate, proven, cost-effective and capital-outlay-reducing potential than any other 'renewable' technology. If your company office or factory has not explored energy efficiency, have an audit done now. Start finding out about how you can reduce energy use in your home.
I'm part of an organisation called Guerilla Energy Efficiency in Sydney, Australia. We are changing all the irresponsibly installed lights we can find (ie incandescents put in by developers in exterior fittings) for light saving globes. The economic efficiency of this action is far higher than installing Solar Panels etc. For more info try http://www.greenfreedom.net/ and follow your nose to Guerilla Energy Efficiency
Good point. You could argue, though, that it was very effective for the 20% now not dead that would have been previously. 100s of people saved counts for something.
But if you look at the general scheme of things, in countries with tighter gun laws there is generally less overall murders, and definitely less involving guns. Look at the stats on Japan, Germany, Australia, UK etc and compare. Just fact: less murders, less other gun-related deaths. Sure, you could argue that the higher numbers in the states are not the product of guns but poor drug policies and/or other reasons... and you could very well be right. However the isolated facts remain: those countries with stable governments and tighter gun laws have less murders, and less gun related deaths.
Totally agree... since I moved to China and music & movies are available, unlimited, free, with extreme variety via ftp servers, I actually now don't care about my (only 40 odd thousand) mp3s. Nor have I watched any of the 24 episodes I downloaded. I've actually started buying ebooks rather than watch the movies!
In actual fact, population density is a factor, but not in the way described by the post above. Death by gunshot suicides are more likely to happen in less densely populated centres of the US.
No matter the method, suicides occur at a higher rate in rural areas than in cities or suburbs, with the rate rising steadily the more rural the community. With homicides, the trend works in reverse, with higher rates in more urban areas.
And, further to your point about population density, Australia is one of the most urbanised countries in the world. Granted they don't have NYC and the Philadelphia stretch, but there are several cities the size of Houston, Orlanda etc
Typically guns are stored out of the reach of children in a responsible environment. This would normally entail some kind of safe or casing, and as purely speculation, this would mean the gun would be out of reach in the event of the homeowner being asleep during a home invasion.
Naturally, the solution security wise would be to keep the gun under the bed, however, that then presents children with access.
I agree that large calibre, most likely intended for hunting and/or pest control use, are not likely to be used in your standard assault and robbery crimes. However, they are likely to be used in suicides and murdersuicides.
And the lack of restrictions in terms of gun purchase above, which was unclear, refers more to the type of weapon that could be purchased.
Oh, and in the UK, non-gun related crime is rising (stabbings, beatings, etc.)
I'd sooner take a beating than shooting. It would be natural to expect that the UK would have a slightly higher crime level in non-gun crime than the US as a proportion of the total, and that any overall rise in crime would therefore be felt in non-gun crime. However, try conducting a Columbine massacre (may they rest in peace
) with a knife.
I can appreciate that as a reasonable human being with clearly above average intelligence, you would assert your right to own a gun and use it responsibly. However, compare your own perspective with the reality of news reports. Have you ever seen a even one case of a home owner successfully defending his/her home ? Vs how many times have you seen crimes or suicides committed using guns.
Accidental deaths incorporates what exactly? As a conservative estimate, Murder-suicide deaths due to firearms in the US in 2005 accounted for 92% of 1200 (1104) deaths in 2005 (Violence Policy Center www.vpc.org).
It's a fact that following tighter gun controls in the UK, gun related deaths fell by 20% (UK Home Office, Criminal Statistics England & Wales, 1998; 3.10. Mar 2000), and that in Australia, where gun control laws are strict, people are 5 times less likely to die from a gunshot than an American. (Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, 2 Jun 1999)
It is not that people in Australia get into less fights or assaults. Bar fights and other grievances happen just as often in Australia as they do in the United States. However, with an increased likelihood of a gun being involved in disputes, a person is five times more likely to die as a result of the fight in the United States than in Australia. As mentioned above, it is much more difficult to stab or beat someone to death compared to firing a handgun, and is more easily prevented by bystanders.
It's perfectly reasonable to assume that provisioning yourself with weapons is the best way to defend yourself against attack, however:
= guns are far more likely to be used for suicide than in self defence.
No chance to defend - The reason for this is that responsible gun owners would not normally store guns within easy reach, whereas attackers will not give notice of impending attacks. Hence it is unlikely that guns can be used to prevent the majority of home invasions.
Availability - Lots of things can be used to commit suicide, granted. However, they are less intuitive and spontaneous than using an available gun, and generally require information gathering. If you're on a diet, a great way to NOT succeed would be to keep Coke in the fridge and chocolate on the shelf. Likewise, the availability of a gun in the home increases the chance of a suicide.
Another issue is that type of guns available in the States has no real restriction : large high calibre and semi-auto weapons are available, whereas these guns are not the defence weapon of choice for the home owner, and are far more likely to be used in a crime.
Further, the swimming pool question raised above is also one of policy. Quoting Australia again, since the introduction of compulsory pool fencing, pool deaths have averaged 60 per year over 1996-2001, and allowing for the greater population in the States, then that would be equivalent to 200 deaths : hence policy is the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Very astute observation
You're trolling/flaming right??? Is it really the case that in parts of the US in cities people don't recycle??? Unbelievable.
I thought the US would be at the forefront of this.
However, you've raised a valid point, in that many people perceive the municipality to be making money out of this unfairly.
The reality bears out something different: sorting the recyclables that come into the transfer station is not something a lot of people want to do as a job, and hence costs money. The extra burden of sorting costs for less lucrative recyclable materials (plastic and paper) that come to transfer stations (and running the scheme) is paid for by the returns on cans and bottles. This makes it easier for the householder, in the sense that usually recyclables can be sorted into just containers, just paper, and general trash; the workers at the transfer facility sort the materials again in more detail into categories useful to manufacturers. It is generally a break-even scenario for councils here in Australia.
If you lightly rinse your containers/bottles/cans before putting them in a recycling bin in your kitchen, you'll find they won't attract insects, and you'll be helping out the poor sorters. Hope to see you recycling soon.
Firstly, let me introduce a new way of thinking about wind: shaving demand. That is to say, the demand for electricity seen and the generator/network side is highly erratic anyway (this is available here in Australia from NEMMCO, the national elec market). So, essential, by adding in variable supply such as wind farms, it is much useful to compare it to the most variable part of the supply chain, the demand side. Whilst variable supply does add a degree of complexity to the supply of electricity, despatch of electricity is set up to respond to the varying demand ultimately seen on the generation side, some of which can be mitigated by the production from wind. Secondly, gas-fired highly responsive generators have lower capital costs than base load coal (which has high capital costs and low fuel costs). That is to say, it is feasible to pair appropriately place wind farms with a gas generator when it is known that the generator will not be running a lot of the time. Numerous examples exist of this in small scale pairings of micro-wind turbines with diesel gensets, where the fuel savings make the hybrid arrangement viable. Thirdly, the assertion that wind costs are already high is not accurate, at least in the European and Australian context, where wind power costs approach that of coal, and are actually cheaper than coal for high wind sites (a cost that is coming down with enhanced scale economies). Finally, everyone is missing the boat on energy efficiency. Energy efficiency promises far more immediate, proven, cost-effective and capital-outlay-reducing potential than any other 'renewable' technology. If your company office or factory has not explored energy efficiency, have an audit done now. Start finding out about how you can reduce energy use in your home.
I'm part of an organisation called Guerilla Energy Efficiency in Sydney, Australia. We are changing all the irresponsibly installed lights we can find (ie incandescents put in by developers in exterior fittings) for light saving globes. The economic efficiency of this action is far higher than installing Solar Panels etc. For more info try http://www.greenfreedom.net/ and follow your nose to Guerilla Energy Efficiency
Good point. You could argue, though, that it was very effective for the 20% now not dead that would have been previously. 100s of people saved counts for something. But if you look at the general scheme of things, in countries with tighter gun laws there is generally less overall murders, and definitely less involving guns. Look at the stats on Japan, Germany, Australia, UK etc and compare. Just fact: less murders, less other gun-related deaths. Sure, you could argue that the higher numbers in the states are not the product of guns but poor drug policies and/or other reasons... and you could very well be right. However the isolated facts remain: those countries with stable governments and tighter gun laws have less murders, and less gun related deaths.
Totally agree... since I moved to China and music & movies are available, unlimited, free, with extreme variety via ftp servers, I actually now don't care about my (only 40 odd thousand) mp3s. Nor have I watched any of the 24 episodes I downloaded. I've actually started buying ebooks rather than watch the movies!
It's getting like that for me on /. :)
HERE HERE!
And, further to your point about population density, Australia is one of the most urbanised countries in the world. Granted they don't have NYC and the Philadelphia stretch, but there are several cities the size of Houston, Orlanda etc
Typically guns are stored out of the reach of children in a responsible environment. This would normally entail some kind of safe or casing, and as purely speculation, this would mean the gun would be out of reach in the event of the homeowner being asleep during a home invasion.
Naturally, the solution security wise would be to keep the gun under the bed, however, that then presents children with access.
And the lack of restrictions in terms of gun purchase above, which was unclear, refers more to the type of weapon that could be purchased.
I'd sooner take a beating than shooting. It would be natural to expect that the UK would have a slightly higher crime level in non-gun crime than the US as a proportion of the total, and that any overall rise in crime would therefore be felt in non-gun crime. However, try conducting a Columbine massacre (may they rest in peace ) with a knife.
I can appreciate that as a reasonable human being with clearly above average intelligence, you would assert your right to own a gun and use it responsibly. However, compare your own perspective with the reality of news reports. Have you ever seen a even one case of a home owner successfully defending his/her home ? Vs how many times have you seen crimes or suicides committed using guns.
Accidental deaths incorporates what exactly? As a conservative estimate, Murder-suicide deaths due to firearms in the US in 2005 accounted for 92% of 1200 (1104) deaths in 2005 (Violence Policy Center www.vpc.org).
It's a fact that following tighter gun controls in the UK, gun related deaths fell by 20% (UK Home Office, Criminal Statistics England & Wales, 1998; 3.10. Mar 2000), and that in Australia, where gun control laws are strict, people are 5 times less likely to die from a gunshot than an American. (Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, 2 Jun 1999)
It is not that people in Australia get into less fights or assaults. Bar fights and other grievances happen just as often in Australia as they do in the United States. However, with an increased likelihood of a gun being involved in disputes, a person is five times more likely to die as a result of the fight in the United States than in Australia. As mentioned above, it is much more difficult to stab or beat someone to death compared to firing a handgun, and is more easily prevented by bystanders.
It's perfectly reasonable to assume that provisioning yourself with weapons is the best way to defend yourself against attack, however:
= guns are far more likely to be used for suicide than in self defence.
No chance to defend - The reason for this is that responsible gun owners would not normally store guns within easy reach, whereas attackers will not give notice of impending attacks. Hence it is unlikely that guns can be used to prevent the majority of home invasions.
Availability - Lots of things can be used to commit suicide, granted. However, they are less intuitive and spontaneous than using an available gun, and generally require information gathering. If you're on a diet, a great way to NOT succeed would be to keep Coke in the fridge and chocolate on the shelf. Likewise, the availability of a gun in the home increases the chance of a suicide.
Another issue is that type of guns available in the States has no real restriction : large high calibre and semi-auto weapons are available, whereas these guns are not the defence weapon of choice for the home owner, and are far more likely to be used in a crime.
Further, the swimming pool question raised above is also one of policy. Quoting Australia again, since the introduction of compulsory pool fencing, pool deaths have averaged 60 per year over 1996-2001, and allowing for the greater population in the States, then that would be equivalent to 200 deaths : hence policy is the issue.