You are clearly not taking into account the upfront capital costs and bridge maintenance and repairs and changing political situations. Do that, amortise all those costs (real ones, not fake and improbably low ones) and try to answer the same question. A damaged boat doesn't prevent other boats from moving in the ocean and a boat can be used for other purposes if the political climate shuts down one route.
What are you going to move over that bridge that cannot be moved cheaper by a boat and faster by a plane?
Put a train on that maybe? What happens when a multi megaton train filled with oil (what else)? Goes off the rail there? There has to be an economic reason for anything like this, not a political one, because if it is all politics, it will be the most epic bridge to nowhere.
Come up with an economically sound reason first, before coming up with a solution like that.
As they say in Russian (a rough translation): saving those, who are drowning is up to those who are drowning. They also say: while you can hope that a god will help you, you should help yourself.
Basically there are enough people on the African continent to make it possible for those very people to figure out how to solve their own problems. I don't see African solutions to problems in Indonesia related to Avian Flu as an example.
Of-course people have these rights. You, as a person, have the right (meaning that you cannot be oppressed by government) to move out of a country and do your business in such a way as to minimise your taxes. Not having an entitlement to do that does not mean you do not, as a person, have the right (protection against government oppression).
Not being able to afford something does not mean you don't have a right to do it, having the right to do it does not mean you are also supposed to be given an entitlement to afford doing it.
Your lack of understanding of the concept of rights is not unique, most people don't get it.
That lack of global jurisdiction is used by both the rich and the multinational corps to skirt laws and taxation that are unfavorable to them in their home country.
- which is an extremely important right of people, the right not to be enslaved and kept in any particular country against their own will, the right to freedom of association, of private property, liberty and life.
Compassion very often requires that rationality is disregarded and even thrown away. Also ideas of compassion are often used to play the mob and destroy individual human rights. Compassion is a very dangerous emotion that leads to conflicts and wars in real life. Maybe AI and robots should be instructed to follow a Constitution instead, that would define individuals as the highest form of life and individual rights as absolute (right not tone murdered by government, right not to be imprisoned by government, right not to be robbed by government). Then criminal code could be added (authority of justice system to isolate a violent individual to protect against murder, assault, rape, robbery).
Compassion will lead to conflict, class warfare, violence. Constitution and criminal code will lead to some form of peace. Be careful with compassion, it is used to justify most vile acts on this planet.
I haven't tried it. I don't have any particular type of hate for Windows 10 any more than for any other Windows, I don't discriminate, I hate them all equally
Tariffs that are there to prevent free trade shouldn't exist, they are immoral, they raise consumer prices and prevent good deals and hurt the people who are unable to pay more.
Everybody should be against tariffs that prevent free trade.
reduce the country's reliance on nuclear power from 75% to 50% by 2025.
- ok, stupid but doable.
reducing the country's greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030, compared to the level in 1990.
- ok, by itself it does not mean anything, as it doesn't say how that is supposed to be done. But together with the first statement (reducing nuclear power) looks suspiciously contradictory.
The new law aims to eventually halve France's energy consumption by 2050 from the 2012 level.
Ok, unless the goal is to half the population and production by 2050 from the 2012 levels while simultaneously switching to non-nuclear power, that's one thing. But if the goal is also to reduce 'green house gas emissions'...
Explain this to me: half the energy consumption, reduce reliance on nuclear power and at the same time reduce green house emissions.
Unless the real goal there is to reduce population then I have a bridge to sell you.
I also may want a unicorn and a tooth fairy and I can even enact legislation about it but legislation that requires unicorns and tooth fairies to become available to me upon the request by the authorities cannot in fact magically produce unicorns and tooth fairies!
Accidental overdose on 5 knives sticking out of his back and chest. Obviously no foul play. A guy tries to run a startup, the startup has crushed for various reasons, then there is the question of lawsuits for hundreds of millions of dollars in supposed damages to music labels. No foul play...
Governments were under control of 'the people' in the USSR. I prefer corporations and advertising.
Do everybody a favour, Google USSR advertising, look at the examples and then stop talking. We had advertising coming out of wazo and it was all completely state sponsored advertising. It was advertising for some products, events, moral ideology etc. The state was also using propaganda to keep people inline. Our newspaper s, such as 'pravda', 'trud' etc., were all propaganda - false advertising by the state to brainwash the entire population of the country. Alternatives were illegal like any other private endeavour. Go ahead, tell me that governments should be in charge of the economies. I am not going to pretend to listen, but will prove you wrong every time.
Wow, you too are insane.
This story is pure insanity. Advertising is one of basic instincts in animal nature. Women advertise to men, men to women. Without advertising evolution and progress would stop and die.