I'll use Thomas Sowell's example: People like to live by water, on a shore.
There is only X shoreline.
There are two ways to apportion that shoreline.
1) money: let people buy and sell it, or
2) you can divide it up, and give a piece to everyone; of course, this results in uselessly small pieces (and you have to forbid transfers or you end up with #1), complications with inheritance (is it heritable? How do you deal with death? Marriage?)

The problem with #1 is that as the resource is finite, the prices will become very, very high.

San Francisco is a wonderful location but is extraordinarily geographically constrained. Which do you want: a dictatorship that controls everything and allocates places to people according to what they think is fair today, or a "free" market where prices skyrocket to their value and prevent any but the super-wealthy from living there?
You can't have both, as I suspect that the inefficiencies of trying to chart a middle course make it the worst possible choice.

What's so hilarious is that to most of the commenters here, the Koch Brothers exemplify the absolute evil in the system whilst (and simultaneously) George Soros is merely 'doing the right thing' and 'helping people speak truth to power'.

One party is clearly the party of business, and business wields a lot of money. Hell, one whole tv network is dedicated to pushing their views.

The other party has draped themselves in the flag of victimhood, somehow managing to portray themselves as the oppressed when they a) are the majority, b) spent 57%(!) more in the last presidential election. They have a much smaller media network overtly supporting them, but 8-9/10 of general journalists sympathize and vote with this party.

In my view, BOTH parties are corrupt, nepotistic heads of the same beast. The idea that you support one side or the other is a Hobson's choice that keeps us running around the wheel, generating funds.

Next time someone from "the other party" pisses you off, think for a second if they weren't prompted to it by rabble rousers on their side SPECIFICALLY to make you angry. Ask any stage magician or pickpocket: controlling your attention is 90% of the trick.

And the likelihood of such a vote is ABOUT THE SAME as the odds of TX actually voting to join Mexico.

TX would go independent about 1000x more than join Mexico.

Just wait a few production cycles and the new manager will discover that coders can program AIs that do even better than experienced machinists at making designs that reduce scrap, anticipate points of failure, and shorten production lines. Once the properties of the material being used can be reliably modeled, an AI can start with input data from metallurgy, and supplement it with data mined from authorized repair shops that make accurate reports about what broke, when, where and how. That failure data will update the metallurgical models and refresh the designs. At this sort of thing (massive data integration, statistical reasoning, etc.) AIs will probably always have an advantage over humans.

As Ike mentioned in his speech widely remembered for the line 'military-industrial complex':

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

....and the bit people don't seem to remember, nor take as seriously:

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

The pernicious influence of this 'Federal technical complex' has led to an entire generation of scientists who believe that the only credible source of funding must be the federal government.
It is absolutely certain that there are some HUGE projects that need the resources of government, no doubt. But you know what? Not every bloody thing *needs to be researched*, nor does that research need taxpayer dollars.

I know, the idea that research needs to demonstrably benefit the taxpayer to be federally funded sounds like an idea that would come from (shudder) Republicans, but when we're overspending our budget by 30%+ every year to the tune of nearly $1 trillion, we can't afford everything we want, only what we clearly need.

Bennnet? Why not just post under your own name?

...you need to choose your relatives more carefully.

Let's say hypothetically a slashditor (let's call him "Supnezmas"), when not posting duplicate articles from 2 days before, has a major erection for some web commenter (let's call him "Notlesah, Ttenneb").

How could I edit my settings so that worthless shit articles from "Supnezmas" referencing this "Notlesah, Ttenneb" were somehow downrated to oblivion so I don't see them anymore, ever? Is there a filter I can apply?

Can I "foe" an editor based on context?

I'd like to know who the flip is XanC, since you asked the SAME question I did, and I got -1,Troll while you got +5 Insightful?

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Note however that I *entirely* agree with you.
Is there a /. editor trying to build a buddy into a web celebrity?
FWIW, I *still* don't really get why Ze Frank is a weblebrity, either. How does one make a living doing that?

Seriously, your answer to crime is "people should be moral people"?

Wow, no wonder it's working so well.

The people most likely to make it through any kind of collapse are ones who can organize or join a social network that functions despite the new challenges. They would willingly watch the backs of their friends and receive the same benefit from them. They would shut up and work on the projects of the group, even if they suspected a "more optimal" strategy was available.

The first people to starve or die from infections would be the individualists who think that as soon as things get tough, they have to retreat to bunkers with their guns. People with social skills, people who are easy to like, people who are good with kids, people who evoke sympathy from others, people who are hard-working, open and jovial - they would be the ones that are in the best position to benefit from the cooperation that will become necessary when things get tough.

The way I see it, the fact that we can survive without the explicit beneficence of others is probably the biggest luxury of our age. We work for money, trade money for necessities and comforts, and this works fine even in the complete absence of exchanging favors. But this kind of lifestyle is a complete anomaly in human history. Actually, even now, the majority of the Earth's people do not live this way. This kind of informal social reciprocity is what we would need to return to. We would become tribal again. On Slashdot, people are under the illusion that the individualism of late-industrial society can somehow survive its collapse. That would be a fatal mistake. The right strategy is to give up a great deal of our autonomy for the sake of being useful to others. What you're ultimately doing after you subordinate yourself to the group will probably not involve much of what you learned in your jobs and hobbies. A lot of it will involve digging, carrying, sawing, gathering and socializing. Grit and attitude are far more valuable for these necessary things than skill and knowledge. Even complete non-experts with the right work ethic will contribute a great deal to their collective group, because of the sheer amount of extra work that will be necessary in a post-collapse society.

If not, throw them into a wood chipper.

Seriously, if the potential reward for crime is in the $million$, the odds of getting caught are probably low, and the punishment is a handful of years in prison - why would anyone NOT commit such a crime?

Most of the people I know work their lives as wage-slaves for 8+ hours a day, for decades, for a fraction of that (and what they get, a giant chunk goes to taxes).

..."examine historical temperature data going back 500 years"

Because "climate cycles" are never more than 500 years long? Seriously?

I would also point out that the "US" - commonly condemned in such statistics - is probably the least homogenous country in the world. As such, it's probably useful to look at the state by state rankings, both positively and negatively:
(ranked by deaths per 100k)
1. District of Columbia 30.8 http://www.city-data.com/forum...

Are all these faculty members likewise PERSONALLY *completely* divested from fossil fuels - ie no driving, bus riding, train riding, electricity from oil/coal/natgas sources, etc?

Because otherwise they're pretty much hypocrites.