Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (Score 1) 316

by khallow (#46796953) Attached to: Beer Price Crisis On the Horizon

And I especially like when the government responds to criticisms by saying they didn't understand this issue when they made their rules and will take comments from the industry and revise their proposed rules as they have done in this case.

They should have asked for that input before making the rule.

I know it is not as fun for the anti-government types, but even the linked to article mentions it at the very bottom of the story:

Would you give a CEO a similar break if they come up with a stupid rule and only reverse it in the face of huge opposition from their employees, customers, or regulators?

So this is already a non issue, they have agreed to revise the rules so there are not the dire consequences the article was using to stir everyone up.

There are plenty of similarly shitty rules that don't get revised even though they are highly unpopular. For example, the EPA was claiming that it could levy fines on other parties without those parties acquiring standing to sue the EPA in court. That got revised only when it was brought into court and ruled unconstitutional.

This story brings attention to the broken decision making process behind the generation of regulation in the US.

Comment: Re:Well considering that.. (Score 2) 282

by khallow (#46796837) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Hungry Students, How Common?

80% of you in the US are competing over 5% of the money in the economy

Looking at the chart, they say 11%.

The problem with this statement is twofold. First, it still ignores significant parts of the economy, such as future income. For example, if you have an income (not net income) of 17,300 (like the mean of the bottom 40%), then you probably have a few tens of thousands of potential net income over your lifetime. That isn't reflected in the net worth figure.

Second, it ignores that most US residents don't compete for wealth. For example, more than a third don't save at all for retirement (36%). So of the 44% who aren't in the 20% wealthiest and happen to save even a little and thus, compete in even the slightest way for wealth, they have 11% of the wealth of the US. That doesn't sound bad to me at all.

Comment: Re:Renewables (Score 1) 431

by khallow (#46796755) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

Desertification is on the menu for much of the world due to AGW. (e.g., all the USA from California to Indiana is expected to desertify.)

I'll just note that we don't have evidence for that claim. We do have plenty of evidence that continued poor agricultural practices (which the US has mostly abandoned) in the US would do much greater harm over corresponding time frames than even the worst predictions of AGW over the next few centuries.

The world population is expected to stabilize at 11 billion. Given sufficient time and stability, technology will allow 11 billion people to have a modern lifestyle, and I hope we have the time. (This solves the poverty issue.)

One of those expectations is that we don't reverse the trend to wealthier societies. Messing with the world's energy infrastructure for poorly thought out purposes is one way we can reverse that and our attempts to stabilize global population.

My biggest fears with AGW is the immense loss of culture and history as the seas swallow and destroy most of the major cities in the world today.

Most culture isn't dependent at all on location. And what is dependent can be moved or rebuilt for small cost over those periods of time. Similarly, history is something that happened. It won't change just because the future is not as you'd like. I find your fears rather trivial, but typical of those who prioritize AGW over much more serious human problems.

Poverty and desertification can destroy cites as well.

Comment: Re:A rising tide (Score 2) 209

by khallow (#46794473) Attached to: California Utility May Replace IT Workers with H-1B Workers

A rising tide doesn't raise all ships, it swamps all but the biggest boats.

At least you've vaguely heard of the saying. The real saying is "A rising tide raises all boats". It basically sums up the general outcome of positive sum games. It amazes me how many people just don't get what a positive sum game is.

And the great irony here is that the largest ships, the developed world countries, are the ones being swamped. That's because they choose not to adapt. It's easier to blame the consequences of actions on the rich or whatever and just keep doing the same stupid things you decided you were going to do.

Also, how does that help you, living a middle class life in a first world country.

Adaptation is cheaper and more effective than ignoring reality. For example, labor got cheaper, but capital didn't. Put some of your effort into acquiring capital rather than just depending on your labor for your well being.

It's OK to think about yourself and your long term well being, You know?

When the supposed solutions result in plunging billions of people into greater poverty, then it dishonors me and mine to not speak against these games. I can adapt for a lot less harm to the rest of the world than the current bout of absurd regulation, protectionism, and hysteria.

Comment: Re:Nothing new - Always had tech jobs (Score 1) 326

by khallow (#46794433) Attached to: Detroit: America's Next Tech Boomtown

What comments like this miss is that the big thing the federal government did that wouldn't have happened in bankruptcy - it guaranteed that GM's and Chrysler's vendors would be paid in full.

Let's not go crazy with the assertions. A regular bankruptcy probably would have resulted in the same thing. Vendors are near the top of the list in bankruptcy court.

Here you are forgetting another key fact about 2008. The credit crisis meant that even healthy companies were unable to raise capital to buy up or rescue these suppliers. Some otherwise healthy Fortune 500 companies experienced severe cash flow problems that threatened their day to day operations.

That's ok. The businesses, not necessarily Fortune 500 without severe cash flow problems would be the ones doing the buying.

Comment: Re:Stop Now (Score 1) 174

by khallow (#46791929) Attached to: Cost Skyrockets For United States' Share of ITER Fusion Project

That's not a prestige project, that's a giant bell jar with really good vacuum pumps.

It started life as a status project. Sure, that's a sunk cost now, but someone burned a lot of money in the past on it which biases it as a model for our attempts to price similar scale projects now.

As for those giant tents, they may be prestige projects, but that doesn't really mean anything.

It means that the sponsor isn't particularly concerned about cost which is a strong bias upward in cost estimates for such projects.

If you're going to build a truly massive vacuum chamber on the cheap, then you can probably build it somewhere like Fall River Pass in Colorado so that you only have to hold off .65 Atmospheres of pressure, although I don't know if there are any suitable pre-existing depressions around there that you can use. Honestly, your plan sounds pretty neat and is probably practical. The problem is that inflatable vacuum chambers are still a pretty novel technology. So, you would be basing one highly experimental project on another highly experimental project.

Those other necessary highly experimental projects would be part of the cost and it wouldn't be just one such project. Some would be at a scale capable of being fit into a large garage.

Even the inflatable vacuum structure is itself another stepping stone to a large ground-based fusor project. The point is that a series of very focused and cost controlled projects can build up quickly and relatively cheaply to a competitive project, but you have to strictly control the design burden on these projects.

Building a project that does a very limited thing, even if it is at a scale which hasn't been attempted before, is far cheaper than building a project that does a number of disparate things at a very high standard of operation and a very large scale of operation in each of these things.

Comment: Re:Nothing new - Always had tech jobs (Score 1) 326

by khallow (#46791817) Attached to: Detroit: America's Next Tech Boomtown

Wouldn't have happened because the supply chain would have imploded.

That is a swamp that needs to be cleaned out. GM will go bankrupt again and we'll be back at this same argument in a few years. I don't see to protecting a few jobs for a short time at the expense of the future.

When a company the size of GM + its supply chain goes under, the jobs go away too and aren't easily replaced.

Except by the next few major auto companies.

Comment: Re:google has no choice, like many others before t (Score 1) 120

Do you know for sure that condition is true? How? Again, I'm honestly asking you.

First, their efforts, such as supporting libertarian think tanks, tea party candidates, or opposing AGW efforts are much more aggressive and costly than merely exploiting tax loop holes, moving wealth into low tax areas, or bribing a few congresscritters.

Some of these efforts are clearly reactionary though not necessarily right wing. Resisting climate change mitigation can be done on other grounds than merely right wing ones. And while restoring the rule of law, individual freedom, and financial responsibility sounds reactionary and conservative, it remains one of the more out there aspects of liberalism.

People don't really want to live in a budget at the national level, respect laws (particularly legal restrictions on law and regulation) that go against their inclinations or ideologies, or observe the freedom of other people to do things with which they disagree. Those sorts of inclinations are ancient. The division of politics into left and right while it may have made lots of sense in past centuries and still does to some limited degree today, just isn't aging well.

Comment: Re:google has no choice, like many others before t (Score 1) 120

by khallow (#46775429) Attached to: Mr. Schmidt Goes To Washington: A Look Inside Google's Lobbying Behemoth

Well the like of the Koch brothers have made it so now

Nonsense.

but you are obviously too indoctrinated by the US media to realise this.

Looks who's talking. Have some billionaires spend a little money and suddenly they own a whole political movement. Does that mean that Soros owns what's usually considered as the left by now?

Comment: Re:google has no choice, like many others before t (Score 1) 120

by khallow (#46775313) Attached to: Mr. Schmidt Goes To Washington: A Look Inside Google's Lobbying Behemoth

So how does that description not fit the Koch brothers?

If they really support libertarianism, then that's one way the description doesn't fit.

Koch is seen as the guy promoting keeping society the way it is (or was) against Soros' attempt to disturb stability through more change.

"Seen" is not the same as "is".

Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.

Working...