Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Leave then (Score 1) 880

by JimFive (#49351955) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill
The expression "You're right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose" is apt here.

Property value is a proxy for "fitness for purpose". It is possible for your neighbor to use es property in a way that makes your property less useful to you. Your neighbor in that situation is infringing on your right to use your property as you see fit. Resolving these types of conflicts between personal rights is one of the purposes of government. Most local governments use zoning and permitting to set equitable standards for land use to prevent those disputes up front.

Comment: Re:Leave then (Score 1) 880

by JimFive (#49351239) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill
You say, "Nonsense," and then proceed to agree with me.

The view, the sound, the smell, the risk, increased traffic, etc. Those are the externalities I was talking about. It is clear in your example that the smelting plant next to you affects the value of your property. It affects its value to you, or you wouldn't move, and it presumably affects its value to potential buyers. Therefore, the smelting plant has reduced the value of your property, that is a sign that the smelting plant is imposing a hidden cost on you and your neighbors. That is an externality.

To put it within your stated moral framework. You aren't telling them what they can do with their land. You are telling them that whatever they do can't affect the commons in such a way that it is detrimental to their neighbors. (For the purposes of this argument, the commons includes visual scenery, the air and intangibles such as danger, if you have a better word, feel free to propose it)

Comment: Re:Leave then (Score 1) 880

by JimFive (#49350849) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill
And if they could keep all of the externalities on their land then you would be correct. However, the mere fact that you wouldn't like it indicates that they CAN'T keep the externalities on their land. If they could, you wouldn't care. So, since they can't keep the sight, sounds, smells, pollutants, etc. confined within their property, society has created zones to separate unseemly activities from residential and retail neighborhoods. The fact that commons are involved means that society has a say.

Comment: Re: Okay... (Score 1) 162

by JimFive (#49320475) Attached to: How Space Can Expand Faster Than the Speed of Light

A. Nothing can go faster than the snail.

Not quite: Nothing on the balloon can go faster than the snail.

B. The balloon goes faster than the snail.

Not necessarily. Imagine that the balloon has equally spaced marks, for convenience we'll say there are 40(*) marks around the equator of the balloon and they are 10 mm apart. The snail takes 1 second to go 10 mm. However every second the balloon is expanded such that the distance between each mark increases by 1 mm. The snail is moving 10mm/second and the balloon is expanding 1mm/(10mm*sec).

Now, how long will it take the snail to get halfway around the balloon?
What, if anything, is moving faster than the snail?

(*)Note, I didn't do the math on this so it's possible the snail can make it halfway around, if so you can increase the initial circumference of the balloon until the snail can't get around it because inflation happens at a faster rate than the snail can move.

Comment: Re:But they help also (Score 1) 366

by JimFive (#49303807) Attached to: Uber Shut Down In Multiple Countries Following Raids

struck off as a cab driver, but still be allowed to drive friends and family around? Surely you're either safe enough to use the public roads, or you're not, and the commercial relationships you have with the people inside make no difference?

Surely if your kitchen is safe enough to cook for your friends and family then you should be able to run a restaurant in your house without all those nasty licensing and inspection rules.

Getting into a car with your brother, who you know to be an awful driver, is your choice. Getting into a car with some stranger based only on es willingness to get paid to take you somewhere is a different kind of choice. Having that willingness to get paid backed up by some stricter enforcement of driving rules and vehicle safety inspections is a good thing.

There is a range of "good enough" and personal transportation is allowed to be at the lower end of that range while commercial transportation is required to be higher up the range.

Comment: Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 239

by JimFive (#49267171) Attached to: FAA Says Ad-Bearing YouTube Drone Videos Constitute "Commercial Use"
Not according to FAA Regulations.
According to the FAA a pilot cannot receive any compensation for flying without a Commercial license. They are very strict on their definition of compensation, including the accumulation of flight hours as compensation. They do allow cost sharing, up to even shares, as long as the pilot was going to make the flight anyway.

So, according to the FAA, his "intent" to earn anything is evidence of commercial flight, there is no requirement that he expect to make a profit. It wouldn't surprise me if the FAA declared that the kudos of internet commentators was enough compensation to make it a commercial flight.

Comment: Re:I can't find the commercial speech section (Score 1) 239

by JimFive (#49267011) Attached to: FAA Says Ad-Bearing YouTube Drone Videos Constitute "Commercial Use"
Not as far as FAA regulations are concerned. Without a Commercial license you cannot receive any compensation for flying with, possibly, two exceptions.

1. A passenger can pay up to 50% of the flight costs as long as the pilot was flying there anyway. (That is, the pilot cannot fly his friend somewhere and hang around the airport to bring his friend back, the pilot has to have his own reason for making the trip. The FAA has ruled that even if you aren't paid at all getting "flying time" can be considered compensation)

2. Flight costs can be paid for by an organization as part of a benefit fund raising event.

Comment: Re:Correlation (Score 1) 283

I think you are misinterpreting the summary. They aren't saying that increasing greenhouse emissions cause economic growth. They are saying that usually economic growth leads to more buying which leads to more production which leads to more energy use which leads to increased emissions. BUT WAIT...That didn't happen this time. So, in effect, you are agreeing with the summary.

Comment: Re:What global economy are we referring to? (Score 1) 283

I'm not sure there is really an absolute correllation between economic growth and greenhouse gas emmissions. An increase in stock value does not increase global emmissions per se.

Well, it's good that economic growth is measured by production per GDP not stock value, isn't it?

[Crash programs] fail because they are based on the theory that, with nine women pregnant, you can get a baby a month. -- Wernher von Braun