Travis In Austin
-
Posts
12522 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Travis In Austin
-
-
That means it will probably require zero drinking, and zero tolerance.
I've never seen a car that drinks so this is nonsense.
What the heck are you talking about?
Dave
The NTSB report on automated automobiles suggests that more training and higher standard for licensure will be required, somethin akin to a CDL. When ever that happens the std for alcohol usually becomes tighter, an .08 to an .04, or even zero tolerence, meaning no detectible amount, like for minors in Texas.
They could even require interlock devices where you blow before you can start ignition.
Automation will require less physical ability, But more mental ability. You will never see a lifting of drunk driving laws with the advent of automation, certainly not before a level 4 automation.
They preformed lengthy demonstration on San Diego I-15 and we are nowhere. I had an MB with active cruise control which was really neet, and could be set to scare ya to death, but I haven't seen anything else.
We are at zero percent implementation now, it would take 10 years to achieve maybe 25 percent participation. You could bump that way up with tax incentives, like they did with Hybrids. Because of such inherent safety you could eliminate need for insurance and make that another benefit.
Regardless of how soon, they will be privately owned. We don't believe in shared or community ownership here Texas, or anywhere else.,
You have to get Exxon to sigh on so they don't lobby to kill bill because of hybrids. Automakers will be all for it, a subsidized vehicle, can't ask for anything better than that.
Did I understand these were going to go to the poor and elderly also? They could all be Uber drivers, gainfully employed in order to collect social security or welfare.
It will be interesting to see what they can offer and at what cost on the horizon.
-
Just adding up what I can on wikipedia, deaths from police per year:Are the police doing something new?
2012 321
2013 320
2014 593
Why was last year nearly twice as many?
Unfortunately, the data is unreliable because it isn't uniform and reporting isn't mandatory.
Even it the data was reliable, it would only tell half the story. It assumes that the police are not are not facing a growing number of public who are willing to threaten deadly force against law enforcement.
Here is just one article about the data, I have dozens more.
-
The vast majority of Americans believe it too, across all political spectrums.No problem with your solution. But what is it, and what science is it based on?
IF human science is so vast it can not only control the weather but also geologic forces, and this involves massive reductions in carbon dioxide emissions...all assumptions without validation by available research, I suggested several means of achieving this with proven means.
Those sounding the alarm loudest are simply suggesting taxing the hell out of us and voluntary cleanups of existing generation plants that isn't going to happen. I don't know if it will help or not, but I've no problem paying for cleaner air one way or the other.
I do have problems with the US and other agencies proposing voluntary caps and heavy taxes which have no clear likelihood of making a difference...assuming we puny humans can do so at all with any degree of certainty.
Rome isn't burning, and just saying it is doesn't create heat. If there are dreams and visions they are in the minds of those who follow in blind faith without evidence.
If the majority of the world has recognized this as you say, then a clear, global, and mandatory action plan is imminent. I look forward to it and the clear, concise steps and readily measureable effects that science provides to support it.
Otherwise, it's BS.
Dave
NASA believes it, NOAA believes it, Based on science. 90 plus percent of the peer reviewed studies on AGW find that warming has occurred and it is man made.
The ocean is warming, because it is the heat buffer, and is more acidic in terms of pH due to CO2.
The clear step is to reduce carbon emissions. The measurement is CO2 in atmosphere.
Levels are not all voluntary, coal burning plants pay a huge carbon tax NOW for not having most efficient scrubbers.
There are some people today, I have met them, believe smoking is not harmful because they are 80 and still smoking; don't believe seatbelts are safer; and there are also some who believe we never actually went to the moon. There will always be people outside the mainstream, for whatever reason.
How soon and how much the impact will be I guess all is up to debate. I think technology and the environment might converge and be synergistic for a change on this automated vehicle concept. Electric or hybrids that are fully automated seems to be a win-win.
Travis
-
1
-
-
As regards other uses, don't forget unmanned cars.
We're in violent agreement here. Other than collectors and aficionado who will keep their Mustangs...but have to summon an automated carrier to get them to a place where it's legal to drive them...I don't think many people will "own" a car or truck within 20 years...maybe sooner.
They'll simply be part of the infrastructure, summoned when needed, dismissed when not. It won't be just groceries, it will be all consumer goods. That first edition of Pink Floyd one of us throwbacks order will show up in a couple of days by a variety of efficient vehicle transfers and that new roll of OLED for the HT will arrive within hours.
Mark was the one who initially said it here in a sig line, but there are times when I am not sure he really gets it: "Pay attention. The fundamental things are changing."
Dave
Won't own a car in twenty years or sooner? That presupposes that Ford, GM, Toyota pack up and go away quietly, well maybe one sticks around to make automated vehicles. Do you think Exxon/Mobil is going to sit around quietly.
We have had automated car technology for 15 years, it was demonstrated on I 15 in San Diego in '97. The NTSB designates 4 levels of vehicle automation. They indicate that a special license will probably be required for added training necessary to operate an automated vehicle. That means it will probably require zero drinking, and zero tolerance.
Ever wonder why all the hype about automation in the 90s and it fizzled out. It was backed by DOT not by automakers. In order for it to be viable it has to be subsidized. Either a tax break for buying automated vehicles, or a penalty for not having them. Remember clunkers for cash?
I think private vehicle ownership is probably safe in this country for at least 50 years.
-
Dave, just think what that will do to the DWI/DUI lawyers.
They will switch over to representing police officers in shooting cases, or oil and gas.
-
I didn't say they obtained their values or sense of value in B school. Let's please be careful. I said they learn "bad values" there (new ones, overriding their old ones). My argument has been that our society is suffering under the horrendous values of capitalism writ large. That in fact, the extreme profit seeking of the past 30 years is creating misery where none belongs in such a wealthy nation.People don't learn values in graduate business schools, law schools, medical schools, high schools or even primary schools for that matter. A person's sense of values, their moral compass if you will, is established long before graduate school, probably before middle school even.
How did this new viscous profit seeking arise? It arose in the nation's premier business schools where the arts of "financialization" were invented, along with the distorted values needed to implement them.
What distorted values you ask? How about "too big to fail," for a start? That's the embrace of a very powerful and very socially evil value system which seeks to cover private losses with public funds. A reverse Robin Hood. That was held as a value of all the largest WS operators. Let's find a few others, lest you think I was overstating my case.
How about the securitization and sale of known defective loan bundles under the cover of caveat emptor? How's that for values? The invention of the mortgage securitization system was that of the "quants" coming out of Harvard B school. The values here are that real economic activity is unimportant in comparison to synthetic economic activity, as long as the profitability is huge, and the action stays one step ahead of the SEC. It's a combination of theft with obfuscating the activity to prevent SEC scrutiny. We might as well cover another bad value, which was capturing the regulatory body to prevent over sight while crimes were being committed.
These B school big brains plunged the world into suffering not seen since 1930 while chasing higher profits. That they are not all in prison right now is a poor reflection on the VALUES of our justice department, who chose to spit in the public face, and declare that these people were above the law. More bad values compounding here, this time from our law schools. They lied. They cheated. They stole. They bribed. And then held the entire nation hostage by threatening us all with even deeper disaster unless we paid them off. What kind of values are those?
Our financial system in the 2000s was stocked with the best and brightest of these quants directly out of the premier B schools. Yes, they arrived to school with normal and typical American values, but left with new dangerous and evil values that directly plunged the world into a near disaster. Are you unaware or unsympathetic to the millions who lost their jobs and were booted to the street from their homes because of what these brilliant new titans of Wall Street "valued?"
I guess I am now wondering where you have been living for the past 10 years? Not in America, I presume.
A massive criminal conspiracy operated on WS for two dozen years and brought the country to near death. It was run not by some gun toting gangsters, but diploma toting Big Brains, with despicable values learned from our nation's premier institutions. And, they're still free to continue wreaking havoc on the economy. THAT'S what's not fair.
Oh I can assure you I have been living here, but I don't limit myself to a ten year window. Where I am at is with Howard Zinn. The values you describe were present in the 1500s when The Prince was written, and they were present during the founding and development of our Nation. What has occurred over the last ten or twenty years didn't start then, it has always been. I know that your values, from reading your posts over the last ten years, are nearly identical to mine, and my reaction to the results are the same as yours.
However, I think it unwise to believe that what we are seeing now is the result of of business or law schools. Carnegie and Morgan never went to business or law school, although Mellon was a lawyer and judge, none of them learned what they in fact created. Have you been to Hearst Castle, the summer "cottages" in Newport, Jekyll Island? Zinn discusses how that wealth was created, the CEO's of today are mere amateurs compared to those guys.
Kenneth Law had a PhD in economics from the University of Houston, grew up in MO where he received his undergraduate and masters degree. He didn't learn his "values" from business or law school. It is like saying people from Scotland have been taught bad values. Congress has the power to change bad values, the Sherman Act, Taft-Hartley. Congress is us. We are to blame for whatever ills we perceive from Wall Street, corporate america, or whatever else.
You don't learn values in graduate school, and you certainly don't learn bad business practices there either. Schools, of whatever kind, are not to blame. CEO's come from every type of educational background and schooling. The answer is not the education of CEO's, and to direct efforts in that regard, in my view, is a waste of time for those that really want to change things.
Travis
-
Why would you think that? Border patrol agents have been using lethal force against rock throwers for years.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-border-shooting-20141019-story.html#page=1
"Border Patrol agents fired their weapons in 960 encounters over the last eight years, according to Border Patrol records. Including Arevalo, 30 people were killed, with at least 10 of those in incidents alleged to involve rock-throwing and eight on the Mexican side of the border."
The border patrol has just been ordered to pay a man 500,000 for shooting a man. However, the border patrol agent didn't appear to have credibility and may have taken a bribe in another case.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-lawsuit-border-patrol-shooting-excessive-force-28895701
-
Jeff Buckley, the day before he is to start recording his second album he goes for a swim and drowns in a tributary of the Mississippi.
-
I don't think they teach "bad" at Penn, McCombs, Harvard Business School, or elsewhere, but they DO do a lot of case study analysis.
Our CEO corps comes out of these prestigious B-schools. That's not too arguable. Our current CEO culture has a set of values that can be assessed in aggregate by examining the state of business. It's not therefore a stretch to correlate the teaching of those schools, with the results we see in the business community. Fair?
Not fair, and the assumptions which flow from that faulty premise defy logic.
People don't learn values in graduate business schools, law schools, medical schools, high schools or even primary schools for that matter. A person's sense of values, their moral compass if you will, is established long before graduate school, probably before middle school even.
I don't pretend to know why people do what they do, but you don't need to go to business school to be a bad person, unethical or greedy. I don't know if it is because of our economic system or if we are hard wired this way because of DNA or our creator. A since of self-preservation seems to hard wired in us, and when it comes to self-preservation people do the stupidest crazy things.
People have done far worse things to their fellow man that lie, cheat and steel to get money. The studies of the psychology of the buyer by Robert Cialdini which led to his six influences is pretty spot on in what motivates buyers.
Are people basically good, or bad? I don't know, that is a question better to Hobbes (Levithan, basically evil), Locke (blank slate) and Rousseau (social contract, basically good). The world's great thinkers and philosophers have been thinking about this for a long, long, time.
But I do know this, it does not take much, at all, for people to be evil, for almost no money at all. Most people are aware of the following two psychological studies, but for some reason they so easily forget their implications. I think this is we don't want to think what we are capable of.
Stanley Morgan's electrocution study. Research subjects believed that were zapping somebody in an adjacent room that they could not see, but could hear screaming. Some refused to keep going, some were hesitant but only need to be told by an "authority" figure that they need to keep going, and they did. Sixty-five percent (65%) of the subjects went up to the maximum of 450 volts shocking their fellow man, or so they thought, by just being told they needed to do it. Throw money in the equation and how hard is it to get a CFO to cook the books of Enron?
Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment. Two equal size groups of students were selected as "guards" or "prisoners" and put in a simulated prison at Stanford. Anyone could quit at anytime. The guards began to abuse the prisoners. Troublemakers were put in solitary confinement, made to sleep on floor etc. The experiment had to be ended early because of the treatment by the guards. None of the guard's reported any of the abuse of their fellow guards.
The Prince, when viewed as satire, which I think it was, points out all the human failings which prevent a monarch from being good, and because of human failings, the compromise of a republic is necessary. I think you can look at those perceived failings of a monarch and apply them to the potential of a CEO. Some monarchs might be truly good, just as some CEO's might be good, but human nature does not allow for most monarchs to be good, nor CEO's to be good, thus, there has to be a system of accountability, of oversight.
What is surprising to me is that we have to learn these lessons, over and over again. The term regulation is tossed around as an evil word, yet it assures our safety, our health, and helps assure our pursuit of happiness. We deregulate and problems happen.
I have not run across David Korten before, I am going read his works to see if they goes beyond the generalities and offer suggestions for realistic change. A "values based" operating system is certainly admirable, and I would love that to be the reality, but there has to be a mechanism to accomplish that, putting aside for the moment the deeper questions of what values and who's? If he has realistic suggestions for solutions I will probably be his biggest fan, if not it is just fiction or philosophy, and there is plenty of that already on this subject.
Travis
-
1
-
-
If any one is interested in where the standard came from and how it came about you can go to this link to the landmark case, Graham v. Conner. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_6571
There is a link to the full written opinion, along with recordings of the oral arguments. Graham was reaffirmed in Plumhoff v. Rikard last year.
You cannot understand how police shootings are reviewed and why cases are indicted or not unless you read, as a start, Graham.
-
1
-
-
This is what I mainly do now, represent peace officers involved in critical incidents (police shootings), from responding to the scene of the shooting, through their administrative and criminal reviews, and in rare occasions, their criminal trials.
Work isn't as much fun to talk about as tubes, wire, music, global warming, and the myriad of other subjects to chose from on here.
What little I know of the facts I would say that this wouldn't fly in Austin or Houston. They would be terminated, but probably not indicted here.
The standard this case will be reviewed under is the "objective reasonableness" test.
What happened on the other case up there with the woman in the hospital parking lot?
Travis
-
They have to go to Wharton Business School to actually learn how to do bad.
Man don't you know it. Excellent observation.
I don't think they teach "bad" at Penn, McCombs, Harvard Business School, or elsewhere, but they DO do a lot of case study analysis. They look at cases like Polaroid, Dr. Pepper, Kodak, Southwest Airlines, Braniff and they look at Whole Foods. What they teach now is completely different than 30 years ago In the past it was graduate level finance, and management theory, and then pretty much all management practicums, cases studies, etc. Now, the first year is typically very structured, you get finance, economics, statistics, MARKETING, and global business background. They give flexibility in what area people want to specialize in, start ups, finance, real estate, etc. Somewhere along the line they throw in ethics. They don't teach bad, but they do teach you how to create more demand for what you are selling and they do show that marketing is what keeps you alive and competitive after your intellectual property runs out, and that is is possible to completely rethink ways to retail products.
I highly recommend Brainwashed - Tricks Companies Use to Manipulate Our Minds and Persuade Us to Buy by Martin Lindstrom. He covers grocery stores and explains why things are located where they are, flowers up front for example, why they cook samples in the store (it really isn't so much to sell you on what they are cooking, it is to get food aromas in the aisles), why they give in store wine samples. Where things are on the shelves, and a million other things including why there is music, how the music is selected, and what the proven market research shows about having background music. Marketing, retailing and merchandising are where it is at if you want to complete in the food business.
Here is a link to a Forbes article on the Texas grocery chain, HEB, and how they use neuromarketing (I guess subliminal is a dirty word after it was discovered it was being used at movie theaters). http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdooley/2014/01/28/h-e-b/
The article references Cialdini's book "Influence" which came out when I was in school and refers to his six principles of persuasion (influences). Googling "Robert Cialdini" will get you to all of the back ground you want. I highly recommend that book as well for anyone that sells a product, or service, or even themselves as part of getting a job. These influences work, they are proven to work. Knowing about them ahead of time helps you in negotiating, purchasing, and a lot of other real life situations.
Here is another blog article, this one about Whole Foods, by Lindstrom where he is pitching his book. http://www.fastcompany.com/1779611/how-whole-foods-primes-you-shop
Here is a brief quote from the article, which shows color and the brain help make your decision for you, and the markets know this, and they can manipulate your purchasing decision with it:
Speaking of fruit, you may think a banana is just a banana, but it's not. Dole and other banana growers have turned the creation of a banana into a science, in part to manipulate perceptions of freshness. In fact, they've issued a banana guide to greengrocers, illustrating the various color stages a banana can attain during its life cycle. Each color represents the sales potential for the banana in question. For example, sales records show that bananas with Pantone color 13-0858 (otherwise known as Vibrant Yellow) are less likely to sell than bananas with Pantone color 12-0752 (also called Buttercup), which is one grade warmer, visually, and seems to imply a riper, fresher fruit. Companies like Dole have analyzed the sales effects of all varieties of color and, as a result, plant their crops under conditions most ideal to creating the right 'color.' And as for apples? Believe it or not, my research found that while it may look fresh, the average apple you see in the supermarket is actually 14 months old.
It is "bad" that a grocery store intentionally use means to get subconsciously buy things you don't really need? To buy more than you need? I don't know the answer to that question. I do know, that after reading the book when I went into stores, specifically HEB and Whole Foods I was aware of what was going on, I am not sure that I avoided what they were selling, but it least it was a conscious decision.
Of course everyone knows that this is not just limited to grocery stores, it is in everything now, they have to do it to remain viable. They, whoever is trying to influence you to make a decision one way or the other, use the Six Influences on you whether it is in your role as a food buyer, car buyer, and even as a voter.
Displaying fruit of a certain color works, and they know it works. It isn't lying or misrepresentation, is it bad?
Is putting putting something in bread to make it taste better bad? I guess it all depends on what it is, sour dough starter or rye, not so much, yoga mat, probably so.
The two answers to this seem pretty clear to me. Transparency and awareness. I think GMO's should be labeled (transparency), that ingredients and nutritional information (in the information age) can be published on a web site, and there is a corresponding duty for consumers to make themselves aware. Maybe only 10 people go to the website, it doesn't matter, if the information is there and it is honest, what else can you do. Although having the nutritional information (fat grams) readily available at a McDonalds pretty much killed my desire for Big Macs and Quarter Pounders.
Fourteen month old apple or fries. Hmmmmm. "Two super size fries please."
-
LOL No. You're are thinking of communes. Different concept.So in Utopia the food is free, but we all have to eat together as I recall, in food halls. Hmmmmm? Do they serve cheese burgers?
It might work.
The people came to the food bank, picked up their groceries and went home to prepare and eat them with their own family. No food halls.
A summarization from Wikipedia, it has been 30 years years since I read Utopia, but this was in line with my recollection:
Meals are taken in community dining halls and the job of feeding the population is given to a different household in turn. Although all are fed the same, Raphael explains that the old and the administrators are given the best of the food. Travel on the island is only permitted with an internal passport and any people found without a passport are, on a first occasion, returned in disgrace, but after a second offence they are placed in slavery. In addition, there are no lawyers and the law is made deliberately simple, as all should understand it and not leave people in any doubt of what is right and wrong.
When it is my turn to "feed the population" I'm serving cheese burgers and Texas BBQ, with Oldtimer's hot sauce. Mallet, as an "administrator" I will set aside the best for you. WHat is considered "old" in Utopia? I guess I will have to learn to garden, as there are no lawyers.
Is there vinyl in Utopia?
-
Welcome, welcome. What part of the UK are you in?
I love my Cornwall IIs, if I don't have room or corners to work with it is my favorite speaker. Extremely versatile.
Looking forward to seeing photos.
Cheers,
Travis
-
MarkJeff
I no longer need this.
Mark
I've always wanted one of those.
Jeff
Here. Take this one. I really am not using it.
Mark
Thanks, Jeff.
I need one of those.
Jeff
So do I, but I might be willing to part with it.
Mark
How much do you want?
...
You will not find too, too many situations where everyone doesn't need what they have.
Jeff, do you have any more vinyl laying around that you are not using?
-
But you are negating the fact that food banks would not be possible without the overall supply demand curve.
Doesn't a food bank work because demand is artificially limited?
What are the economics of the supply? I would expect that our food bank gets money from city, from private contributors, from food drives all the time, bring 2 cans of food to get into concert, by a card at grocery store at check out. The food bank competes with other charities for supply.
What are the economics of charitable giving? The is an economic one, slight decrease in income tax liability, makes you feel good, ego, being listed as donor or having a Dell or Gates foundation.
What economic forces come into play for a panhandler, a local church, is their an economic model that explains charitable giving?
-
The responses indicate most feel things are going to simply go on as they have for the previous 5k years or so and don't seem to comprehend the complete change of everything in the 20th century or the constantly increasing speed of technological advance of the present. I find it odd that so few seem to comprehend that the 20th century brought about changes completely miraculous and of no correspondence to anything in any timeline our science can comprehend.
Everything is changing at rates accelerating so fast we are incapable of really processing it. Our assumptions are almost certainly badly flawed as what is happening is not subject to anything we've known in the past.
Dave
Moore's Law, advancement in technology is exponential.
Since graduating from law school, this is what happened the first two years. Fax machine became widely used among law firms, cell phones, laptop computer became feasible. My phone is more powerful thenthat laptop was, and in fact, more powerful and faster than the computers on Appolo 13.
-
I think the CFC were replaced with HCFC. And the latest study reveals that HCFC is equally undesirable. The net might not be positive, and it might take 35 more years to know.
- yes the real answer was the gradual elimination of the wide use of CFC's , they were the ozone problem and that is now however under control -Are you saying the Montreal Protocol "fixed" the ozone problem?
My understanding was that HCFCs were banned by an amendment but it turned out that they don't deplete ozone but they are a more potent green house gas, so last year's amendment was to get rid of similar chemicals beyond what wad previously banned.
But, I ain't no scientist. I just remember this from growing up in the middle of it and being a subscriber to Science and Scientific American. SA is not as technical. Science is the most prestigious peer reviewed journal in the United States, and I frequently misunderstand or cannot begin to comprehend articles therein.
To sum up, thousand points of light, stay the course, and the hole is smaller.
-
dwi, good stuff. I appreciate your knowledge on the ozone problems from a few decades ago. Most Americans are not privy to the details of the science nor would most understand it. I know I wouldn't. So people like me rely on what we see and hear in the more mainstream formats. For example, high profile individuals such as Al Gore gives a speech and charges money for it. He gets to the speech in a private jet and gas guzzling SUV and then leaves the same way. It is also fairly common knowledge that he has at least one very large home (mansion?) with a carbon footprint that far exceeds 95% of Americans' homes. I won't even speak about the rumors (because they are rumors) that he is either the owner or major shareholder in some sort of scheme (for lack of a better term) to profit from carbon credits.
As far as the scientists that support global warming. I'm torn. As you said, these studies are both privately and publicly funded. A scientists continued research and funding (including salary) in a given subject could be subject to the results of the studies he is commissioned to provide. I want to trust them. I do. But it seems that the political minds are made up and therefore the science needs to fall in line with it or else. Scientists aren't dumb (!) and no words are required when certain results are necessary to support the expectations. Therefore, we end up with 3,600 peer reviewed studies that say 'yup, global warming is man made.'
You said above that peer review means that something is science. Well 400 of those studies that are peer reviewed deny global warming is man made. So while a minority disagree, it indicates to me that this is still not completely settled. And until it is, I will continue to be skeptical. Probably because I have learned not to trust government. Or those that appear to be in a position to profit from promoting a position.
I don't know if you've read the whole thread or skimmed. So I will be brief so as not to repeat myself in case you already read it. I have nothing against being a good steward of the Earth. I think we have no choice as humans because this is it, it's the only one we have and there isn't another for Trillions of miles, if at all. So take care of what gives you life. What I am skeptical of is the idea that there are those that would enforce draconian measures on a populace for no other reason but for personal or political gain.
You might say, "well either way someone is going to profit but we still need to do it." And I suppose I would counter with DO WHAT? Mankind does not have a viable alternative energy source (except maybe nuclear) that we could fall back on without putting us back in the stone age. And I don't know your political leanings but I can already tell you those on the left would fight tooth and nail against nuclear.
So what is the answer? How do we move forward as a species without hekilling the planet when a powerful segment of the population will not allow us to use the most advanced form of energy we have developed in order to do so? It seems as if we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Well said.
People like Al Gore are the problem from that side of the debate. They are great at rasing money for a documentary, but they can't walk the walk. They are like the folks you mentioned that say they don't want nuke but they don't want carbon. Unrealistic, you can't have it both ways. There are people on the other side of the debate, oil and coal, that do the same. Why MP was successful is they were able to identify problem, show risk and danger, and a reasonable solution over time to for business and consumers to adjust. What is way different about Ozone is we could see it. Firsy by ground detection, radio telescopes. People didn't believe it, said it could be a lot of things. Then we put a satellite up there to specifically look for hole. Low rez, took forever to download compared to now. They got those images in a report and it scared everybody. It took 20 years to get from the identification of the cause of the problem to signing on to a solution.
They have been seriously looking at global warming/cclimate change for over 20 years. They will never be able to take a photo, other than ice caps, that shows problem. All they can do is show graphs, and both sides can debate them.
There wasn't unanimity on ozone either, there rarely is in science. Einstein didn't agree with Newton on everthing, and Al was eventually proved right. The other thing aboutscience is that it is building blocks. They constantly say, upon each new discovery, that they have stood on the shoulders of giants to get to where they are.
I think it is other way on the science, the science becomes pretty well settled, and policy makers/legislators try and bend the science to their theory.
The surgeon general slapped warning labels on cigarettes in the 70s and there were legislators, from tobacco states, trying to argue that the science wasn't settled using studies funded by tobacco. They do what they are supposed to do, protect their constituents.
Oscarear can tell you how well settled the science was, there was no question. But when billions are involved you do whatever you can.
I agree we need to make this last. I do not see being able to colonize anytime before this next century, if ever. I guess we will see if we can get to Mars.
-
So in Utopia the food is free, but we all have to eat together as I recall, in food halls. Hmmmmm? Do they serve cheese burgers?
It might work.
-
My style changes with the situation, who I amdealing with on the other side. Are they new, have we dealt on things before, what is their style? Gender makes a difference in how I may approach something. I have dealt with the same types you have dealt with. On some things it is just, NO, NO, NO there really is no negotiations but I try to be optomistic because I have worked out things I never thought could get worked out.
My closest friend is superb at it, a niche practice of getting things worked out. He doesnt go to trial, if he can't work it out he sends them to someone else to try.
I wish I was better at it, that is for sure.
-
1
-
-
Are you saying the Montreal Protocol "fixed" the ozone problem?
I don't think I did, did I?
I wouldn't think it would have fixed it, it has only been 25 years and I would think it would take a lot longer than that. I know that the size of the hole has shrunk and that we now monitor it in real time from a NOAA bird.
I have attached a pdf from the Montreal Protocol listing what they SAY it has achieved. I don't think they say they have fixed it, but they claim that it is first UN treaty to have universal ratification, some 20 years after the US was one of the first signers. They claim that is has resulted in a reduction of skin cancer and cataracts to a significant degree.
I know that Reagan, despite being urged to oppose it, helped negotiate it and, as in many things, the UK followed.
Here is an article from the NY Times about the history of it, I had forgotten that Reagan had skin cancer. A close aide said he thinks he supported it because he liked the outdoors. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/science/the-montreal-protocol-a-little-treaty-that-could.html?_r=0
The article has a nice photo of the Gipper walking in cowboy boots with Maggie at Camp David. The article concludes by saying:
"Durwood Zaelke, who heads a Washington advocacy group called the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development that is pushing for the treaty amendment, told me he drew a simple lesson from all this: Durwood Zaelke, who heads a Washington advocacy group called the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development that is pushing for the treaty amendment, told me he drew a simple lesson from all this: However overwhelming global warming may seem at times, we are not powerless in the face of it.."
Which was my point, it is obviously a world problem (if global warming is real, and if it is a problem). That doesn't mean that we cannot be the leader in addressing the issue and that others will follow. The MP apparently has had some impact on global warming, and I believe we adopted the amendment mentioned in the 2013 article.
I remember Molina and Rowland being all over the news about the discovery, they said something had to be done, and had to be done quick. That was mid 70s when I was in high school and our chemistry teacher was all freaked out by this study. I remember people switching to spray bottles from aerosols because of "the environment." I am sure you can appreciate the culture of those times in California. Twenty years later the MP was a reality and a guy from Mexico City who wanted a PhD from Cal and ends of going to teach at UC Irving and wins the Nobel Prize in chemistry with his mentor.
So now the world works on Kyoto and it's outgrowth. Two administrations ago we were in, the last administration withdrew us, and now we are back in. We can be a leader, or not. These world size problems tend to require that everyone acknowledge there is a problem, and then get together to fix it, which I think is the biggest lesson. The use of common sense approach to phase out the bad, bring in the new, and then to bring on as many as you can works. It is kind of everyone has to be in, or nobody is in. Special interests lost in that debate, science won out.
Someone said here earlier, follow the money. Despite what some people think, university research in the United States is both privately and publicly funded. It is typically pretty solid. Look where the money is on the side scientists that say there is a problem, and look on the side where people say it is't a problem. It was the same with tobacco, it was the same with ozone, and it is true here.
People can wake up on the morning and see what they see, make conclusions from local weather patterns and form an opinion that there is no warming, and it has no consequence. They are not in the mainstream if that poll in Scientific American is accurate. Or then can read one of the studies, or the studies on the studies, and make up their own mind instead of watching CNN, Fox, NBC or whatever.
This thread started with a link to an article by a debunked skeptic who doesn't accept asbestos as being in the least bit harmful, evolution, or second hand smoke. He is what we refer to as a prostitute. The question was raised, "is the hype over?" Yes, but not in the sense that Steven meant it. The hype is over, America has chosen science over politics and propoganda and 70% plus of the entire political spectrum have chosen to believe the science. We are back in on Kyoto, the EPA is setting standards. Right now TODAY, coal burning power plants that don't use certain scrubbing pay a carbon tax. There were 4,000 peer reviewed studies that Dr. Green's peer reviewed study looked and, and over 90 percent of them say there is global warming, and it is man made.
Peer review, as you know, means something is science. It is a big deal. It is what distinguishes science from opinion based on assumptions.
There is apparently 400 or so peer reviewed studies that say there is no global warming, or not man made, in comparison to the 3,600 out there that say otherwise, but no one will cite or mention one.
The warming doesn't really matter to me. What I worry about is the ocean, and the CO2 in the ocean. That is manmade, there is no question about it, and it had dropped the pH of the ocean by 30%. That has to stop and people don't even understand why. They need to understand where 50% of our oxygen comes from.
When you see a study that says that sea algae is dying off due to pH it is too late. It will take 50 years to adjust it back.
T
-
1
-
-
I visited the San Onofre plant several times in my early career. Always in the winter.
It is in a beautiful region!Yes it is indeed.
-
it comes down to what Americans are willing to do today to address a problem that will largely affect their grandchildren.
Well, not really. How can anyone describe this as a problem for "Americans?" Either individually, or collectively, this is a wild claim. The climate change problem is a result of a global system of organization in place for a thousand years or more. The world is organized as a "for profit resource." That's not a decision of mine or fellow Americans, or the legislators, or the other people around the globe.
Americans can do nothing about this. Nor can Germans or Chinese. 7 billion people are involved in profiting from the resource as their reason for being. Oh sure, I'm going to collect cans, turn my thermostat down and change that!
Global Warming, or it's cousin Global Cooling, is not so much a scientific discovery as a philosophical one: "Profit is incompatible with sustainable civilization." Think about it. Embedded in the very concept of profit is the contradiction of sustainability. It is self cancelling.
But sure, push it down and blame it on the citizens for not making a decision. As I pointed out earlier, 1/3 of the world is food insecure. Well, of course! That's exactly how you extract a profit. You take from the bottom and push it up to the top. Where else would the excess to form a profit come from if not the bottom?
This is not a problem for science to solve. It's certainly not a problem for politicians to solve. How do you grab the entire world, shake it, and revise it's goals?
By being a leader, by setting the example, like we have always done. We did it on Ozone depletion by being the leader in science, and then one of the first to sign the Montreal Protocol, and now in the monitoring of it. We have half the population of China but put out twice as much Co2. The top ten countries put out 70% of the CO2.
When it started raining sulphuric acid in the northern states and people's car paint started peeling off and the level of mercury in our kid's tuna fish sandwiches got to a level that people stop buying it we passed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and created the EPA despite other countries continuing to burn coal without scrubbers.
Then, when we insisted that others follow suit in the way of trade agreements and other means, we could say that "we are doing it, and so should you."
I am guessing we emit way more CO2 than China per capita because they are using more nuclear generation. It takes 10 or 15 years to get a plant online, I think we need to get 10 up and running and the first one should be in Humboldt Bay (not really, but to say we can lower things with nuclear power is certainly true, but it takes a long time to do it). Maybe Terrapower and Bill Gates can get things moving faster on that, hopefully so.
This plant used to provide Southern California Edison with 20% of its power, emission free. It is going to take 4 Billion, and twenty years to decommission it. A nuclear storage facility is in the process of getting the permits from the State to be able to store the 4,000 tons of waste that is currently stored there.
It is in a beautiful region!
Global Warming. Is the hype coming to an end?
in Lounge
Posted
That is besides the point, this country is pretty solidly built on private ownership of property, anythink else is a taking. I dont doubt the technology exists, I saw it operate in San Diego. It was big news there and then went away.
What is the cost of the car, who gets them? Who builds them? Who pays for the training to operate one. Are they going to need infastructure built in the roadways?
Perhaps I am not understanding what you envision. Lets say we have ourautomated car. The ones in SD could turn on their own because of markers on the sides of the road and sensors in the road. The cars are buildt and ready to ggo, do individuals purchase the vehicles, if so that is private ownership. Does the government buy them and make them available to everyone? is that full time use or do you schedule a car to arrive at your house automatically? What if the demand exceeds availability? Are non-automated vehicles allowed on same highway during the transition. If not, it is a government taking and they have to pay cost of vehicle.
What is cost of vehicle, cost to upgrade existing vehicle?
Will a consumer be able to sue the manufacturer if the car malfunctions and injury or death occurs?
Travis