I don't think you've robbed a bank yet, but I don't want to wait until you do so I'm going to go ahead and arrest you.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure they do arrest people for planning to rob a bank even if they never get to go through with it...
- Status
I'm pretty sure they do arrest people for planning to rob a bank even if they never get to go through with it...
I don't think you've robbed a bank yet, but I don't want to wait until you do so I'm going to go ahead and arrest you.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure they do arrest people for planning to rob a bank even if they never get to go through with it...[/QUOTE]
Yeah... you can charge them with Conspiracy.
C
Chazwozel
HOLY FUCKING SHIT! It's like you took this whole concept of environmentalism and broke it down into gray areas that are more than simple black and white logic.
---------- Post added at 10:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 AM ----------
See, now this is something that does need more scrutiny. From what I've read, conditions in that mine were unsafe despite repeated audits saying "we could really use more ventilation shafts in here" and whatnot going back years. Those in charge should be held accountable. But that's more of a worker safety issue, not really an environmental issue.
All I've got left to say on the environmental issue is this - Krisken's right in that it is an extremely complex issue with "real" scientists on both sides of the debate, and it has been hyperpoliticized both by the hardcore statists who want to strangle capitalism and the plutocrats who would dump gallons of pure ebola in a drinking reservoir if it'd turn them a profit and they thought they could do it without going to jail. This is unfortunate because it causes even people who are otherwise reasonable and independent of thought to distrust the motives of those who disagree with them because they could be part of the above two groups. What gets lost in the shuffle are the common sense policies - that we should be doing everything we can to curb emissions of sulphur and mercury and carbon monoxide (known, demonstrable toxins); that nuclear energy is much safer, cleaner and more efficient than fossil fuels for electricity generation; that we could be safely and cleanly burning solid waste for power like denmark does instead of piling it up in huge landfills. But none of these things make any select elite group more powerful or wealthy, so they're not pushed. Make no mistake about any huge debate on the federal level these days - it's never about the problem it claims to address. It's always about deciding who has the power.[/QUOTE]
Oh you mean all that stuff the Obama administration is pushing for? Cool!
---------- Post added at 10:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 AM ----------
This goes back to Krisken's point: $
C
Chazwozel
Anti-environmentalism has the same roots as anti-intellectualism. People are too willfully ignorant about the topics at hand to believe what they're being told The layman doesn't believe the intellectual because of the complexity of the issues the intellectual explains, as well the layman sees the natural world as something "too big to fail". In a sense the layman is correct. The Earth is too big to fail all life on it, but it can fail to sustain humanity. I disagree with Steinman. Where he sees things like improvements towards atmospheric emissions as a waste of money because we only put a small dent into what nature does, I don't believe it's a waste of money to invest in a society that places less strain on the environment. It's really for our own benefit.
I'm hardly a tree hugging hippie, but take the example of "lights out day": I had posted a thread about it as a way to promote the event and was immediately greeted with negative comments about how it wasn't going to impact anything, and folks countering with turning on everything in their house as a protest to the event. And that was just turning out your lights for an hour! I wasn't demanding it; the event wasn't about moving to the woods for a week and shitting on rocks. It was simply turning out your fucking lights for an hour, and people had a fit over it! No. Staunch Anti-environmentalism is far less about being skeptical of what 'the man' tells you and more like a child doing the complete opposite of what their mommy tells them as a pathetic form of rebellion. I can picture Glenn Beck burning Styrofoam in his backyard thinking, "man, I totally got them good. This'll teach them to tell me how I should act." That's what it's all about, folks"
I'm hardly a tree hugging hippie, but take the example of "lights out day": I had posted a thread about it as a way to promote the event and was immediately greeted with negative comments about how it wasn't going to impact anything, and folks countering with turning on everything in their house as a protest to the event. And that was just turning out your lights for an hour! I wasn't demanding it; the event wasn't about moving to the woods for a week and shitting on rocks. It was simply turning out your fucking lights for an hour, and people had a fit over it! No. Staunch Anti-environmentalism is far less about being skeptical of what 'the man' tells you and more like a child doing the complete opposite of what their mommy tells them as a pathetic form of rebellion. I can picture Glenn Beck burning Styrofoam in his backyard thinking, "man, I totally got them good. This'll teach them to tell me how I should act." That's what it's all about, folks"
It seems like "too long, didn't read" has become a hallmark of any science opposition in this country. Many arguments I see (admittedly the intellectually poor sample from FSTDT.com) against Global Warming and Evolution come from the standpoint of "lol, whut? but it's called global waring, so it can't be cold! And if evolution is true, why are there still monkies?" Seriously, five minutes on wikipedia can explain this shit.
Sorry for the minor tangent, but when a twenty year old (me) has a better grip on important scientific concepts than people twice his age it can get mondo frustrating...especially because this arcane, specific knowledge was imparted to me in high school.
Sorry for the minor tangent, but when a twenty year old (me) has a better grip on important scientific concepts than people twice his age it can get mondo frustrating...especially because this arcane, specific knowledge was imparted to me in high school.
C
Chibibar
that part is about what people wish to see or wish to be true. I do like Krisken's sumation of global warming. It all boils down to money. People want to have jobs, companies want to make profit, people want to buy stuff cheap AND have quality (if possible), people want to have clean air, people want to have safe environment etc etc etc
but you can't have it all without spending a lot of money and pretty much change the "culture" of many country to make it happen. It will be a slow slow process or something drastic that cause a total rebuilt (WW III or Mother Nature decides to open a barrel of whoop ass)
More like a couple hundred thousand barrels of whoop ass.
C
Chibibar
More like a couple hundred thousand barrels of whoop ass.
[/QUOTE]Nah. I would imagine a pissed off mother nature can pretty much wiped us out with Tornadoes, Typhoon, earthquakes and floods.
S
Soliloquy
More like a couple hundred thousand barrels of whoop ass.
[/QUOTE]Nah. I would imagine a pissed off mother nature can pretty much wiped us out with Tornadoes, Typhoon, earthquakes and floods.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, there may be a limit to the number of those that she can do over a set period of time. Like, maybe it drains her mana or something.
More like a couple hundred thousand barrels of whoop ass.
[/QUOTE]Nah. I would imagine a pissed off mother nature can pretty much wiped us out with Tornadoes, Typhoon, earthquakes and floods.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, there may be a limit to the number of those that she can do over a set period of time. Like, maybe it drains her mana or something.[/QUOTE]
Eventually she'll draw into her Armageddon and tap two white and two colorless.
More like a couple hundred thousand barrels of whoop ass.
[/QUOTE]Nah. I would imagine a pissed off mother nature can pretty much wiped us out with Tornadoes, Typhoon, earthquakes and floods.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, there may be a limit to the number of those that she can do over a set period of time. Like, maybe it drains her mana or something.[/QUOTE]
Eventually she'll draw into her Armageddon and tap two white and two colorless.[/QUOTE]
And I'll be waiting, Counterspell in hand
More like a couple hundred thousand barrels of whoop ass.
[/QUOTE]Nah. I would imagine a pissed off mother nature can pretty much wiped us out with Tornadoes, Typhoon, earthquakes and floods.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, there may be a limit to the number of those that she can do over a set period of time. Like, maybe it drains her mana or something.[/QUOTE]
Eventually she'll draw into her Armageddon and tap two white and two colorless.[/QUOTE]
And I'll be waiting, Counterspell in hand
[/QUOTE]Sorry. As you can see, all your islands have been turned into swamps.
More like a couple hundred thousand barrels of whoop ass.
[/QUOTE]Nah. I would imagine a pissed off mother nature can pretty much wiped us out with Tornadoes, Typhoon, earthquakes and floods.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, there may be a limit to the number of those that she can do over a set period of time. Like, maybe it drains her mana or something.[/QUOTE]
Eventually she'll draw into her Armageddon and tap two white and two colorless.[/QUOTE]
And I'll be waiting, Counterspell in hand
[/QUOTE]Sorry. As you can see, all your islands have been turned into swamps.[/QUOTE]
How lucky of me, I packed a handful of Dash Hopes just in case something like this should happen.
More like a couple hundred thousand barrels of whoop ass.
[/QUOTE]Nah. I would imagine a pissed off mother nature can pretty much wiped us out with Tornadoes, Typhoon, earthquakes and floods.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, there may be a limit to the number of those that she can do over a set period of time. Like, maybe it drains her mana or something.[/QUOTE]
Eventually she'll draw into her Armageddon and tap two white and two colorless.[/QUOTE]
And I'll be waiting, Counterspell in hand
[/QUOTE]Sorry. As you can see, all your islands have been turned into swamps.[/QUOTE]
How lucky of me, I packed a handful of Dash Hopes just in case something like this should happen.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, as her bazaar of wonders is already out and she used a Dash Hopes, it would be countered.
Ever since i went to Belgium with a guy that played M:tG it's like the game is stalking me... it's D&D i want to play/learn with someone dammit.
5 minutes of thinking would also achieve same.
Honestly, I'm hesitant to respond because of GB's nature of lashing out quite visciously instead of responding constructively. It's a large part of why I tend to steer clear of the politics forum in general. But I came up with a pretty sound argument that I'd like to share:
My argument isn't about just the CO2 levels or the ozone layer or anything like that. It's about finding a balance with nature instead of just taking.
Look at it this way: nature finds a great harmony and there's a use for everything and anything. Minerals in the ground feed the bugs, bugs feed the birds, etc. Even a fallen tree decomposes and creates rich minerals in the earth that continues the cycle. Nature also adapts, such as building an entire ecosystem around a sunken ship. However, it can only adapt so much and our mucking about, destroying forests in the name of "progress" reduces nature's impact to help us. By removing, say, trees around the area that birds can create nests in, they can't live there, so the bug population rises and we have an infestation that previously was stopped by birds and other animals.
I'm not saying we all live in caves, make fires, etc. But there's something to be said about going back to basics a little. For example, in the summers, I don't take transit at all and rely on my bicycle, which I love. In fact, it's a little faster than transit because I don't have to stop at every corner to pick someone up. It's a healthy way of getting outside, getting exercise and getting me to where I need to go. Now, I'm also not saying tha EVERYONE can live this way, either. But suppose more people did? Less cars on the road means less congestion, less air polution, a healthier population, etc. If more people transported themselves like this, there would be a slightly healthier population, meaning a reduced stress on an already stressed healthcare system.
Ditto for, say, electricity. I doubt I could give up my PS3, but just because we can't entirely rely on just wind or solar power doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. Imagine the reduction of emissions if nearly every building had solar panelling and a couple of smaller wind turbines? Imagine the reduction of heating costs if nearly every building with a flat roof had a green roof?
Heck, speaking of green roofs: they can be used to create crops. There's a hotel in Vancouver that produces fruit, herbs & honey worth $16,000 a year from its green roof (read it in National Geographic). There's so much wasted space in cities on those rooftops that could be used for green roofs and suddenly, we have rooftop gardens. Spread that to other parts of the world and local farming becomes a larger, viable option, which cuts the costs of transporting food across seas.
Like I said, I'm not saying that we live in caves, but I am saying that there are viable reasons to "go green" that can reduce costs, create jobs, create a healthier lifestyle for us and still have a similar life to what we live, now. Like I said, it's about creating a balance, rather than just reaping and sowing.
My argument isn't about just the CO2 levels or the ozone layer or anything like that. It's about finding a balance with nature instead of just taking.
Look at it this way: nature finds a great harmony and there's a use for everything and anything. Minerals in the ground feed the bugs, bugs feed the birds, etc. Even a fallen tree decomposes and creates rich minerals in the earth that continues the cycle. Nature also adapts, such as building an entire ecosystem around a sunken ship. However, it can only adapt so much and our mucking about, destroying forests in the name of "progress" reduces nature's impact to help us. By removing, say, trees around the area that birds can create nests in, they can't live there, so the bug population rises and we have an infestation that previously was stopped by birds and other animals.
I'm not saying we all live in caves, make fires, etc. But there's something to be said about going back to basics a little. For example, in the summers, I don't take transit at all and rely on my bicycle, which I love. In fact, it's a little faster than transit because I don't have to stop at every corner to pick someone up. It's a healthy way of getting outside, getting exercise and getting me to where I need to go. Now, I'm also not saying tha EVERYONE can live this way, either. But suppose more people did? Less cars on the road means less congestion, less air polution, a healthier population, etc. If more people transported themselves like this, there would be a slightly healthier population, meaning a reduced stress on an already stressed healthcare system.
Ditto for, say, electricity. I doubt I could give up my PS3, but just because we can't entirely rely on just wind or solar power doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. Imagine the reduction of emissions if nearly every building had solar panelling and a couple of smaller wind turbines? Imagine the reduction of heating costs if nearly every building with a flat roof had a green roof?
Heck, speaking of green roofs: they can be used to create crops. There's a hotel in Vancouver that produces fruit, herbs & honey worth $16,000 a year from its green roof (read it in National Geographic). There's so much wasted space in cities on those rooftops that could be used for green roofs and suddenly, we have rooftop gardens. Spread that to other parts of the world and local farming becomes a larger, viable option, which cuts the costs of transporting food across seas.
Like I said, I'm not saying that we live in caves, but I am saying that there are viable reasons to "go green" that can reduce costs, create jobs, create a healthier lifestyle for us and still have a similar life to what we live, now. Like I said, it's about creating a balance, rather than just reaping and sowing.
GasBandit
Staff member
The problem starts when you start talking like wind and solar are going to DECREASE useage of fossil fuels. They won't. Our hunger for energy as a nation, a culture, hell, a planet, is insatiable. There is infinite demand. And anything we're not drilling or burning, China and India are. And they're half the planet's population. And they're excluded from all environmental treaties.
The other problem is, it's all very nice and good to say "I don't drive, I use mass transit and ride my bike." Well that works very well in heavy urban areas. It doesn't work so well everywhere else. Hell, even Colorado Springs, an exploding population center at 600,000 people and rising, can't keep its bus routes open. When I went home last year to visit, I was surprised to see a big signs posted on the bus stops I used to get to school saying "THIS STOP NO LONGER SERVICED DUE TO FINANCIAL REASONS" posted on them. And no, they don't have a rail system. Not even Denver does. The truth of the matter is it's a very, very small percentage of the country where you can reliably transport yourself in a timely manner without an automobile.
Now, planting trees is good, we should do more of it. Alternative energy research and implementation is good, we should do more of it. The problem never comes from "doing more of what we can do," the problems start to crop up when eco-crusaders start proselytizing what you MUST NOT DO, even if it causes suffering, hardship and ruin. We saved the environment from DDT, and doomed millions upon millions to die of Malaria.
The other problem is, it's all very nice and good to say "I don't drive, I use mass transit and ride my bike." Well that works very well in heavy urban areas. It doesn't work so well everywhere else. Hell, even Colorado Springs, an exploding population center at 600,000 people and rising, can't keep its bus routes open. When I went home last year to visit, I was surprised to see a big signs posted on the bus stops I used to get to school saying "THIS STOP NO LONGER SERVICED DUE TO FINANCIAL REASONS" posted on them. And no, they don't have a rail system. Not even Denver does. The truth of the matter is it's a very, very small percentage of the country where you can reliably transport yourself in a timely manner without an automobile.
Now, planting trees is good, we should do more of it. Alternative energy research and implementation is good, we should do more of it. The problem never comes from "doing more of what we can do," the problems start to crop up when eco-crusaders start proselytizing what you MUST NOT DO, even if it causes suffering, hardship and ruin. We saved the environment from DDT, and doomed millions upon millions to die of Malaria.
Ah, but see, China and India are trying to copy a lot of American's way of life, are they not? If we started doing it more over here in North America, and it became popular, would they not follow suit? Admittedly, maybe too late by that point, given how long it's taken them to start the "everyone owns a car!" policy. BUT, China has also done a great number of tree-planting in comparison to the rest of the world. I don't have a source for that, unfortunately, aside from this website that showed how large a country would be depending on its population per density, use of power, amount of tree-cutting (Canada, sadly, nearly took up the whole planet in that comparison). You say that we have this insatiable hunger for power, which I agree, but technology is growing. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't windows that were also solar panels or at least being worked on. Imagine those tall skyscrapers with windows galore, all sucking in solar energy? As I said, it wouldn't do away with fossil fuels entirely, but surely they would reduce our need for them. Heck, just earlier this year (or was it last year? Anyway...), my old town of Summerside, PEI (admittedly, a small town) was powered entirely for a few hours on just wind power. The capability is there.
I'm sorry to hear that about Coloardo Springs. Certainly, living in a densely populated spot like Toronto helps, especially given that I live relatively close to downtown. Maybe that says more about how widely spaced out society has become? More and more people live further away from where they have to go on a regular basis, partly because of living costs being cheaper, or wanting to live in a residential area for their kids. I think that's why there's a growing promotion for living locally, such as buying foods grown locally, etc. Bringing things back to home. As far as transportation goes, unfortunately, you're right. It doesn't work for everyone. But, again, I'm not talking about everyone doing it, but at least some, to reduce the costs. Then, maybe with those reduced costs, maybe the streets could be narrowed to promote bike lanes. Then, with that reduction in street costs, maybe something like a light transit system could be put in place. As you said, C.S. doesn't have a rail system, but that doesn't mean it couldn't. Believe me, coming from Fredericton, New Brunswick, where our bus system stinks as well, I wonder if a streetcar system (even just one major set that goes from one end of town through to the other) would help.
As far as the DDT and malaria is concerned, you're referring to the lack of food to feed a population...I think? Again, green roofs. A matter of having local harvests done right on rooftops cuts the costs of manufacturers transporting it across borders and brings the food right to the mouths of the local population. Plus, less processed foods means less chemicals that go into the waters or our own bodies. Healthier water, healthier people. Everyone wins, right?
EDIT: Also, I want to say thank you. If you responded more like that than, say, this, I'd likely visit this subforum more.
I'm sorry to hear that about Coloardo Springs. Certainly, living in a densely populated spot like Toronto helps, especially given that I live relatively close to downtown. Maybe that says more about how widely spaced out society has become? More and more people live further away from where they have to go on a regular basis, partly because of living costs being cheaper, or wanting to live in a residential area for their kids. I think that's why there's a growing promotion for living locally, such as buying foods grown locally, etc. Bringing things back to home. As far as transportation goes, unfortunately, you're right. It doesn't work for everyone. But, again, I'm not talking about everyone doing it, but at least some, to reduce the costs. Then, maybe with those reduced costs, maybe the streets could be narrowed to promote bike lanes. Then, with that reduction in street costs, maybe something like a light transit system could be put in place. As you said, C.S. doesn't have a rail system, but that doesn't mean it couldn't. Believe me, coming from Fredericton, New Brunswick, where our bus system stinks as well, I wonder if a streetcar system (even just one major set that goes from one end of town through to the other) would help.
As far as the DDT and malaria is concerned, you're referring to the lack of food to feed a population...I think? Again, green roofs. A matter of having local harvests done right on rooftops cuts the costs of manufacturers transporting it across borders and brings the food right to the mouths of the local population. Plus, less processed foods means less chemicals that go into the waters or our own bodies. Healthier water, healthier people. Everyone wins, right?
EDIT: Also, I want to say thank you. If you responded more like that than, say, this, I'd likely visit this subforum more.
GasBandit
Staff member
Not on your life. They'll do the cheapest, most economical and efficient method of generating power for their money - which is currently burning fossil fuels (and probably some nuclear energy for electricity). They don't want to BE us, they want to BEAT us. Us committing economic suicide will not make them follow us back that way.
That's great. We should do more of that. Currently though, it's not even putting a dent in fossil fuel consumption, and it won't for a long, long time. And no amount of governmental prohibition will change that. What WILL change that is the steady march of scientific and economic progress. When technology DOES really catch up and becomes more economically efficient to go solar and wind than to burn coal and oil, you won't have to legislate it into practice... it will be swept in on its own. But until then, we should not be hamstringing ourselves for the sake of a witch hunt.
No. DDT was extremely effective at killing mosquitoes, the carriers of Malaria. Around 1960, malaria had nearly been wiped out in many developing countries. When DDT was banned because it was accused of making birdy eggshells thin and fragile in 1962, the incidence of malaria skyrocketed. "Approved" control methods have had fair to little success at controlling it. Millions suffered and died in developing countries. In 2006, the WHO did an about face and said "You know what, maybe we SHOULD be using DDT to kill mosquitoes."
EDIT: Also, I want to say thank you. If you responded more like that than, say, this, I'd likely visit this subforum more.
It's always so cute how you think that the world works so well on it's own! Both governments and private enterprises have the same weakness, they're run by people! You ever noticed how much faster technology gets developed during war or other situations where people are forced to do or die?!
Here's a cracked article for you: 7 Incredible Scientific Innovations Held Back by Petty Feuds | Cracked.com
GasBandit
Staff member
It's always so cute how you think that the world works so well on it's own! Both governments and private enterprises have the same weakness, they're run by people![/quote] Which is why the private sector is better than the public sector at innovation and efficiency. The private sector competes with itself, company against company (at least when it is working correctly, which is why we STILL need government. Yes, I said it! Shocked, aren't you?). The public sector, however, obtains monopoly in whatever enterprise it deigns it needs one in, and has no practical constraints when it comes to budgets. For example: The private sector got us UPS and Fed Ex. The public sector got us the US Postal service, which is hemorrhaging money and whose quality of service is practically a national joke.
Yes, the problem with either is that they are run by people. The answer is to introduce competition, so those people have motivation - to survive (at least financially).
Ah yes, the most high and unassailable bastion of scientific thought - Cracked magazine. :lol: Remember when it was just a snarky parody rag, wishing desperately it was MAD magazine?
Your point is a good one, but this is actually a very poor example. FedEx, who is the private delivery market leader, delivered 7 million packages per day on average in the last quarter of standard calendar year 2009 (Oct-Dec). In the same time period, the postal service delivered 610 million per day, on average. Even after stripping out the spam and advertising (48% of their volume), USPS delivered over 300 million units per day. To further complicate matters, FedEx and their competitors rent USPS shipping services for their ground mail, and USPS rents shipping services from FedEx and their competitors for packages.
Your statement, and every variant I've seen of it around the Net, whether you intend to or not, strongly implies that the private delivery companies could take over the services of the USPS if their charter was revoked in light of their failure to balance their budget, but this is impossible to credibly substantiate in light of the absurd volume and infrastructure gap between the USPS and private delivery companies. Even if we were to assume that the private delivery companies would be able to buy USPS assets for pennies on the dollar (unlikely), we simply can't assume that they would be able to implement that infrastructure in such a way as to maintain their profitability and quality of service while also serving the mail demands of the US population, which are almost 100 times larger than any of their current volumes, and likely significantly over 100 for smaller companies like UPS and DHL.
GasBandit
Staff member
Your point is a good one, but this is actually a very poor example. FedEx, who is the private delivery market leader, delivered 7 million packages per day on average in the last quarter of standard calendar year 2009 (Oct-Dec). In the same time period, the postal service delivered 610 million per day, on average. Even after stripping out the spam and advertising (48% of their volume), USPS delivered over 300 million units per day. To further complicate matters, FedEx and their competitors rent USPS shipping services for their ground mail, and USPS rents shipping services from FedEx and their competitors for packages.
Your statement, and every variant I've seen of it around the Net, whether you intend to or not, strongly implies that the private delivery companies could take over the services of the USPS if their charter was revoked in light of their failure to balance their budget, but this is impossible to credibly substantiate in light of the absurd volume and infrastructure gap between the USPS and private delivery companies. Even if we were to assume that the private delivery companies would be able to buy USPS assets for pennies on the dollar (unlikely), we simply can't assume that they would be able to implement that infrastructure in such a way as to maintain their profitability and quality of service while also serving the mail demands of the US population, which are almost 100 times larger than any of their current volumes, and likely significantly over 100 for smaller companies like UPS and DHL.[/QUOTE]
That 610 million units delivered number is not per day, it is for the entire period of Oct-Dec 2009 and it includes all mail, not just packages. (Bottom of page 18 of your link).
Furthermore, according to the top of page 20, those 3 months saw the shipping of 178 million packages, or an average just shy of 2 million packages a day.
Now according to the link you provided for Fedex, at the top of page 26, their average daily package volumes for that same period (Q4 2009) were 3.36 million/day for FedEx express, 3.29 million/day for FedEx Ground, and 68k/day for freight/LTL.
Now, granted, in this same 3 month block, 42 billion standard or first class letters were delivered, which would average out to about 466 million/day. But letters are a different animal than packages, and really (they are lighter, smaller, must be sorted differently, etc), we can't predict how FedEx, UPS, DHL etc would handle them if they had been given the chance to ramp up capabilities like the USPS has for hundreds of years. Nobody in their right might would say that these companies could pick up the slack immediately if the USPS disappeared, but that's not really what the issue is here. The issue is what kind of organization grows up in an atmosphere of competition, versus what kind of organization is created when it grows up in a state-mandated monopoly with no real fear of bankruptcy.
That isn't to say, though, that eventually private enterprise COULDN'T take over the job... there would just have to be a long transition period during which the USPS still operated, but private companies were allowed to start entering the regular mail-carrying business. They'd need years, possibly decades, to ramp their capabilities up to entirely replace the USPS.
It's always so cute how you think that the world works so well on it's own! Both governments and private enterprises have the same weakness, they're run by people![/QUOTE] Which is why the private sector is better than the public sector at innovation and efficiency. The private sector competes with itself, company against company . The public sector, however, obtains monopoly in whatever enterprise it deigns it needs one in, and has no practical constraints when it comes to budgets. For example: The private sector got us UPS and Fed Ex. The public sector got us the US Postal service, which is hemorrhaging money and whose quality of service is practically a national joke.
Yes, the problem with either is that they are run by people. The answer is to introduce competition, so those people have motivation - to survive (at least financially).[/QUOTE]
Yeah, motivation is the main thing... which is why the government managed to get to the moon and make an atom bomb...
But you said they shouldn't even try to force the private sector to use solar/wind until it becomes better then coal/fossil fuels, which imo isn't necessary. As long as solar/wind is good enough for them to still make enough profit to be able to still compete then cutting their profit margin isn't something we should be against.
Actually that might even make them work harder on solar/wind to make it better faster so they could get their bigger profit margin back. See, motivation. And that too is where the cracked article comes in... Edison didn't want to spend money on switching to AC when he invested in DC already... and that held everyone back.
Nah, you like to scream about your approval of the government breaking up AT&T or whoever like every time your stance on the government comes up. So i'm aware you're not an anarchist.
Sure, i could have actually looked for reliable sources on those stories... but where's the fun in that?!
Political debates on internet fori, SERIOUS BUSINESS!!!!!
C
Chibibar
It still boils down to money.
Even Private corporations are formed to make money. Currently the technology of alternate fuel is expensive The government don't want to take on the project of refitting all the pumps, lines, whatever it takes to go to the next generations. I remember back in early 90s CA (I think it was LA that started it) with electric cars. The city did have some charging station and I saw airport have special parking space, what happen with that? lack of money? political? (probably both)
now at 2010 we are trying to revisit a hybrid/electric car (I use a / cause there are some pure electric car out there) now of course producing electricity requires a turbine turning via steam, water, wind something........ I think what is needed is find an "alternative" energy other than electricity, but that is like a whole new invention.
I do believe we should have some "balance" with nature, but alas, there is no profit in that
Even Private corporations are formed to make money. Currently the technology of alternate fuel is expensive
The government don't want to take on the project of refitting all the pumps, lines, whatever it takes to go to the next generations. I remember back in early 90s CA (I think it was LA that started it) with electric cars. The city did have some charging station and I saw airport have special parking space, what happen with that? lack of money? political? (probably both)now at 2010 we are trying to revisit a hybrid/electric car (I use a / cause there are some pure electric car out there) now of course producing electricity requires a turbine turning via steam, water, wind something........ I think what is needed is find an "alternative" energy other than electricity, but that is like a whole new invention.
I do believe we should have some "balance" with nature, but alas, there is no profit in that
C
Chibibar
I remember reading this a while back. I wonder why they (the companies) never really do this. Is it too expensive to drill a hole into the ground?
The very page you point to says, very clearly, "average volume per delivery day", and I said it included everything.
I agree, the legal monopoly simply doesn't serve a purpose anymore, regardless of whether you believe it did or not previously.
Political debates on internet fori, SERIOUS BUSINESS!!!!![/QUOTE]
Oh, okay. Since you're relying on that old adage, I'll just assume everything you say is a lame joke from here on out.
GasBandit
Staff member
Gah, I can't believe I messed that up. I looked right at that like 9 times... and now the 10th time it's there plain as day.
There, we are in agreement.
- Status