Yeah, well, the dirty little secret in the business is that fish ladders don't really work, and never have. Same with turbines. Fish don't survive them in any appreciable numbers. Leaving the river in place, makes a small plant even smaller, so not much future in that.

Of course you could make an "artificial" pump only station without even caring about fish, but then there's the problem of placing it somewhere. There's not a lot of places that are suitable.

We did exactly that with our large northern rivers. Developed half of them, and left the other half. When it comes to the south, there's only one that's worth the bother, the rest we are trying to restore. As I mentioned in a previous reply, we get 94% of our energy from 10% of the plants. The rest are basically a nuisance. Tear them up for the fish.

Yes of course it can "work", in the sense that it can deliver electricity. No-one is questioning that. However, they destroy a lot more waterway than what they deliver electricity, so since we actually want fish (to eat), on the whole, small scale hydro is a net loss and that's why we're decommissioning them.

As a comparison there are about 2000 hydro electric power stations in Sweden, 10% (200) of those produce 94% of the energy... So there's clearly room for clearing out a lot of small plants without affecting production at all basically. (And then there are 2000 decomissioned power stations, many of which still have the dams intact, so tearing those out is at the top of the agenda).

In Sweden at the moment (where we have about 50% hydro, give or take), we're busy tearing down all the small dams and generation facilities in the south, since what puny amounts of power they generate doesn't outweigh the loss of fish habitat and migration routes.

Truth be told, small scale anything sucks (with the possible exception of solar panels on your roof for AC and possibly charging your electric vehicle.) Wind and hydro electrics in particular work better the bigger they are. And when it comes to hydro electrics it's better to royally screw up a large river or two and get your moneys worth of electricity and to hell with the fishies, than piss about and destroy every little stream with not much to show for it. And no fish whatsoever, anywhere.

Because the voting process should be as much as possible kept apart from the judicial system. (And especially for a country that puts out warrants for arrests because of unpaid parking tickets and the like. And often does so in error to boot).

The whole idea of "social death" and the like is a very dangerous thing, especially in a country that locks up so many people as the US. In Sweden you can actually vote in prison, and that's as it should be. If you have enough of your population in prison that they become a political factor, then maybe it's time to look at your laws?

For a country that prides itself on its "checks and balances" letting the law enforcement and judicial system have a direct effect on the voting public is a glaring oversight. The police only gets a say if ballot stuffing and the like is suspected. For everything else it's "hands off".

Nope, I don't buy that (having no particular dog in the race). Voting based on the candidates/parties stance on gun control (whether for or against) is actually highly rational in a two party system like the US where the voters don't really have a choice anyway. Many of the questions affecting society and the economy are very complex and difficult to get a grip on in the first place. When you add to that that the powers that be don't actually present a choice between two different outlooks, but will actually pretty much do the same thing when in power anyway, as their options (given the current system and economic/political climate) are severely limited, it becomes highly rational to let your vote be decided by a single issue where the alternatives actually are clear and in stark opposition, and that you feel actually will have an effect on your personal situation (whether you're afraid of other people having guns or the only hobby you can squeeze in to forget the daily grind is a let of a few at your local range).

So, I don't see tribalism as much as rational behaviour in the face of an impossible situation. Doing the best you can with the limited information and scant possibility to change matters, in either case.

The reason Sadam was embargoed, as the story goes, is that he did the one thing that is forbidden, namely convert his oil fund to Euros. Iraq was selling oil for Euros by 2002. This severely threatens the petro dollar, which in turn threatens the whole US economy and the dollar as the world reserve currency. It's noteworthy that when Iraq came back on the oil market, the dollar was restored. They didn't sell one drop of oil for Euros.

Now, I don't really have a dog in the race, but it's a compelling theory. Google it and you'll find it expounded upon in great detail.

Executions have never really worked as a deterrent, and they don't in the US today. The most thorough research where pairs of counties all over the US were compared, a slight (non significant) brutalising effect were all that could be shown. (I.e. the death penalty tends if anything to lead to worse crime, not less.)

But sure, those were where executions weren't public. In the bad old days in England when pick-pockets were hanged for their crimes, who were busy working the audience of the hangings? Pick-pockets...

For those of us for which deterrence works, prison and social condemnation has already maxed out our unwillingness to commit crime. For the rest, the chair is as abstract, and useless a deterrent, a punishment as a long prison sentence.

What? Are you going to force anaesthesiologists to perform executions? How? By threatening them with the death penalty if they don't do it?

Nope. If you consistenly could find your car at the top of the hill for no extra effort, that would be great. And should be included in the efficiency (why not?).

It's not as if a heat pump has to put the heat back into the ground/air/water after you're done heating your house, like you would have to with the car if you ever drove it down the hill, so not a good car analogy, but points for trying.

Who said that the taxpayers funded the network? It was funded by those that chose to connect. If not enough people connect, then no fibre for the area. In my case it was the local district heating company that also lay fibre when they dug up the streets anyway. Cheap and effective.

But, sure, we have (had) people who aren't "interested" in high-speed (aka "only speed") access. Like I'm sure was the case with electrification and city water and sewage treatment. They've mostly come crawling back with their tail between their legs when/if they get the chance to get connected. So I have no fundamental problem with taxpayers footing some of the bill. Much like I don't have a problem when I have to pay for railways I don't personally use, roads I don't travel on, schools I (no longer) send my kids to, etc. etc.

One reason we Swedes manage to stay competitive is undoubtedly our infrastructure, which internet connectivity is a recent part of.

Fun fact: The buildout of fibre connectivity is faster in rural areas, where many communities band together in co-ops to get fibre as it's seen as one way to get young people to stay, instead of moving to the city. So they're fighting hard not only for schools, and groceries these days, but mostly for fibre.

That's how we do it in most of "socialist" Sweden. I.e. I have an "open city network" fibre to my house. ISPs are free to sell service on that fibre/network (for a small access fee that pays for the network infrastructure, now less than 10% of my montly fee). So I have a choice of eight different ISPs and pay about $40/month for 100/100Mbps + IP telephony (no subscription fee, but charged calls). I also get cable TV over the same fibre from a different company but that's extra, about $25 for the channels I get.

That's how you'd actually want it organised to enable a free market.

Yes, but that was long before chips were ever fielded, in the eighties and nineties. And the setting wasn't credit card fraud but debit card ATM "ghost" or "phantom" withdrawals.

Now, in the US the government said to the banks, "it's your problem, you fix it". In the UK the banks managed to say to the government "It's the customer's defrauding us, we'll nail them". Yes, it was a hard time being a customer in the UK, actually being convicted of attempted fraud for reporting a phantom withdrawal, but it didn't have anything to do with PINs. You used pins at your ATMs as well, and you still do. Using a PIN for a normal transaction would't change your liability laws one iota. You'd still be in the clear (as we by and large are in Europe today as well).

P.S. Cambridge security researcher Ross Anderson has written quite a bit on this subject, he got the policeman that was convicted cleared of the charges on appeal.

OTOH, what these networks have actually learned can be eye opening.