Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
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).
That's what the Koch Bros and other lobby groups rely on. Not that them giving you $100k is crucial, but that they can give that $100k to someone else instead and negate your "legit" funds, possibly at a 10-100x return in a "crazy primary voter" targeted ad blitz. The $100k doesn't need to break the general election, only risk knocking you out of the primary.
That's the oddest way to state such things. Those mean, ole Koch brothers are getting away with spending one or two orders of magnitude less than their opposition because they're rich. We're also ignoring that a lot of their money goings into weird games which just don't get them anywhere. There's a better way to put this. Their money is spent just as terribly as their oppositions' money, but the ideas that they frequently back, such as liberty, personal responsibility, and less government meddling resonate with a lot of people these days.
Few of the top third, you mean. Rich people rarely seem to consider themselves rich - they often complain about how hard they've got it and they always seem to want more. But by any sane standard the top third are extremely rich - whether you compare them to the bottom third or to the top third 50 years ago.
I don't consider you capable of deciding who is rich. And why shouldn't the rich or anyone else for that matter not want more. Your sane "standards" aren't feeding anyone.
They certainly have far far more than their fair share of the worlds resources.
Well, they can't possibly have more than three times their fair share just due to the size of the wedge.
What about the bottom third
Well, what about them?
When I look at statistics I'm tempted to draw similar conclusions but unfortunately technological development does not equal socio-economic development.
The socio-economic development happened. Technology development appears to be one of the drivers of that.
Giving technology to societies which are not prepared for it (illiterate, no tech knowledge) can easily distort societies, while statistically it looks they're being helped. There are many examples which point out Asia / Africa growing 'too fast'.
The developed world had the exact, same problems. It got better in the same way that these societies are improving now.
Well, I'm not jythie. Good to know I didn't use something wrong.
Except you corrected a reply of mine to jythie.
I'm not making any expectations of empire building. I'm just pointing out which one is the norm, and which is the exception, when viewed beyond "modern" history (which IMNSHO is a myopic view)
If we're going to play that game, how about the several billions years before empires? Or most of the age of the universe when there wasn't even an Earth or Sun? Norms change.
And that ignores that empires aren't necessarily worse off for their inhabitants either. Since neither you or I have any "expectations", I really don't see any point to continuing an argument that doesn't make sense in the first place.
One sufficiently motivated guy with the right access can cause all sorts of problems.
So what? I don't see the point of arguing something can't be perfect. Should we just no longer allow flying because of your concern?
Sorry but the OP states it's over budget and overdue. Well if you look at the original budget & deadline yes this is correct, however, subsequently the scope of the project has been massively increased which consequently increased the budget and time scale. Its not due to fly until 2018 and has still cost less than the Hubble.
There are several things to note here. First, the cost of Hubble included six Space Shuttle launches and 24 years of operation. Second, The JWST (James Webb Space Telescope) is eight years behind schedule. Third, massive increase in scope of a federal project is a common ploy for siphoning more funds. Maybe nothing untoward happened with the changing of JWST's scope, but it's an easy thing for a bribe to arrange. And the project went on for five more years as a result of this changing of scope.
It's not just the *use*, it's also the production of the concrete itself which tends to get lumped in with the end product in environmental impact calculations.
I know. That's why I posted. It's just not that much CO2 being produced by that much concrete.
Production of concrete is responsible for approximately 5% of ALL mankind's CO2 emissions of which about half comes from the chemical process itself and almost as much from the fuel burnt to provide power for process, with the bulk of the contribution coming from the cement use which produces approx 850-900kg of CO2 per 1000kg of cement.
Notice that you could offset about half of that emissions just by putting out all coal fires. Concrete is generally a very high value product for the amount of carbon dioxide produced and this case appears no different. I don't see the point of the complaint.
And much longer.
They want to protect 400 km of shoreline. You'll need 400 km of protection whether you use a wall or artificial island.
That the proposal is just bare concrete seems completely inexplicable to me; not only is concrete ugly as sin, it's also hugely unfriendly to the environment in terms of CO2 production.
I don't buy your claim of "hugely". The problem here is that while it's a substantial pile of concrete and while that concrete will generate a lot of CO2 as it solidifies, there is a vast amount of atmosphere. It's just not significant even if you do buy fully into catastrophic AGW.
Now, consider also the pollution from an unprotected coastline getting hit by a tsunami. Even if you ignore the various chemicals and debris washed into the ocean by the tsunami, there is a considerable amount of CO2 generated in rebuilding what was washed away. And how many tons of CO2 pollution is a human life worth? I think inhibiting a large tsunami or two would more than pay for the project in terms of CO2 emissions.
It's centuries of contrary vs millennia of confirming history.
No, it's not. First, jythie was speaking of modern history and just getting that wrong. Second, why expect a return to so-called "empire building" (which incidentally, didn't affect most people)?
Before the few centuries of the modern age, empire building has been the norm for thousands of years. Any "leap forward" did only benefit almost exclusively the few elites.
This is just another variation of "but this time is different". What makes it different from the last few centuries?