The Bear's Key

Maybe it depends who supplied the clerks? Right ideology, answered questions to our liking, desperate for the position, soaks up our "advice"...Check. Check. Check. Check. In!

Oh, I've heard the story before. Not impressed, at least on laissez faire's side. The pulling together of the shattered city deserves recognition, but it just shows that humanity is able to coexist in a mostly peaceful way if given a chance. Meaning, it's hardly something new. And hardly attributable to an economic philosophy. What other variables did they have missing to contribute to a healthy economy? No religious intrusion onto government, especially in covert ways. That should be the number one factor. But let's continue. No industry trampling over citizen rights, or monopolies killing the small business infrastructure. Perhaps that's due to the vigilantes, eh? Or maybe the time span wasn't enough for it. They might've not had special interests overiding citizens' basic rights, interfering in personal affairs, dictating how people should live. There wasn't much of a classified secrecy dividing people from its government. Even though Hong Kong was destroyed, the memories of its people weren't. Surely they knew how to set up business and put recent knowledge to use. Lastly, they were a major port. Of course they'd have business opportunites. What's funny is not too soon after, in the 50s, a major public housing effort was underway, and now probably half of its citizens live in public housing. Yet the city thrives. I'm not against free markets. But you have to understand, it's gotta mean free, not a bastardized, sheeps-clothed, politically implanted version of free. And so each business must follow the same rules as would free citizens: to not trample the rights of others. Except, citizens would have more rights, period. At least under our Constitution. It's not We the Businesses, right? Got it? Excellent! But just to be sure, let's review. Each business must follow the same rules as would free citizens: to not trample the rights of others. I love business, and yet respect that position -- a great many business types do, in fact: owners, participants, entrepreneurs. And we recognize that it can be done badly.....very. A market with no rules is just asking for cheaters to thrive, at society's expense. Or at least in places where greed is promoted by unscrupulous ones in high positions, and/or where a religious establishment strongly influences government and operates in secrecy.

Whoops, thanks! At first it seemed to be talking about only the bailouts. On second glance, obviously not. My bad. Guess I'll have to catch up on economic stimulus news/terminology.

You have a point about dreamt-up cultures. I found another we better steer clear of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire_economics Doh! We already live here. Good thing the ideal "free" market exists nowhere in the world, it'd be Lord of the Flies nation-wide. Plus, we might as well forget colonies on the moon, planets, wherever. Toss out the Constitution, it was also planned.

Only the tenfold increase assumption. Now back to our topic. City floating on the sea could be just 3 years away http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/03/09/floating.cities.seasteading/index.html?iref=mpstoryview Quite awesome.

Anyone notice how for Bush they call it "bailout", and for Obama they call it "economic stimulus"? Is there a difference? Because if not, such journalistic infidelity might -- unwittingly -- lend credibility to the neocon media pundits. And, regardless if the necocon machine has done worse (from even before the 70s to present), one can't travel down similar avenues to right a wrong. To respect Separation of Powers? Hopefully....yet unlikely within any political group (but I'd wager it's f**kloads more likely to occur now than within the previous Bush Administration).

Not the same. They aren't being discriminated by government -- well, except the nudists. And if they wanted to get married, no problem.

Actually, less than 1% of us have extreme purchasing power and lived HIGH on the hog. Many others with nice goodies are just renting (lease), and take 30+ years to pay a mortgage (not including any extra loans down the road, countering what they've already paid off). Granted, a healthy percentage are well off, a great thing. But few have extreme purchasing anything. The measure of success does needs to be more robust. What's defined as success really matters, overall. For example, the promotion of greed as being healthy tends to inflate the justification for shadowy entrepreneurship, which hurts everyone. Let's contemplate some questions, then. Angry at deceit and corruption by Hollywood, lawyers? Upset by excess telemarketing calls? Wondering how peace can ever occur, when the business that's contracted to profit billions of $$$ in a war, must ensure its growth by creating demand (for its product)? Sick of commercials/ads that blatantly lie and misinform to keep profits rolling, to the detriment of those snagged by the hype? Tired of shysters, rip-off artists, peddlers of harmful foods/goods/get-rich-schemes? Our answer might be: it's unwise to (nationally) flash a grin and thumbs-up for the concept of greed. By the neocons cheeleading a system of personal greed laced with a "me, me, me" attitude, they've stuck us to live in a neocon-tainted capitalism. And while selective regulation of industry has been allowed by neocons, those exceptions -- and the complaints against regulation -- seem to be crafted on the formula below. If the regulation helps general busines owners AND the crooked players, it's a great law. If the regulation helps general business yet thwarts the crooked players, it's a bad law. (The first type of rule doesn't interfere with their cheating. And the other weakens their bread-and-butter.) If that's the case, shouldn't other affected nations pitch in? Although, that might open up a can of worms....if other nation's banks would go under in the future, we'd be expected to pitch in (to fend off harm to our banks). Sounds nice, and I'd like to agree, however a better solution was carried out elsewhere previously -- and successfully. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html?em Sweden did not just bail out its financial institutions by having the government take over the bad debts. It extracted pounds of flesh from bank shareholders before writing checks. Banks had to write down losses and issue warrants to the government. That strategy held banks responsible and turned the government into an owner. When distressed assets were sold, the profits flowed to taxpayers, and the government was able to recoup more money later by selling its shares in the companies as well. ............. By the end of the crisis, the Swedish government had seized a vast portion of the banking sector, and the agency had mostly fulfilled its hard-nosed mandate to drain share capital before injecting cash. When markets stabilized, the Swedish state then reaped the benefits by taking the banks public again. More money may yet come into official coffers. The government still owns 19.9 percent of Nordea, a Stockholm bank that was fully nationalized and is now a highly regarded giant in Scandinavia and the Baltic Sea region. The politics of Sweden’s crisis management were similarly tough-minded, though much quieter. . . What do you mean by government employees? If it's the office workers, errand-runners, and military underlings, then I disagree. But if you mean the elected leaders, I partly agree, yet only because it's unfair to those who deserve a raise. A nice remedy, perhaps, might be for us to directly vote for who gets a raise and how much, based on performance. Then each leader has an incentive to do a great job.

It seems an unwise percentage of economics is about betting odds, and not focused enough on real, tangible goods.

The U.S. Supreme Court interprets the law, so would the enforcement of contractual intent fall on them, or to the Presidency who executes the law? Nice. We reserve the right to change the terms of this contract or to modify any features... We reserve the right to correct any errors or omissions in these stipulations... We reserve the right to supplement, revise, or update these terms at any time... We reserve the right to add, modify... We reserve the right to modify this contract without notice. No fine print needed. (in fact, make it huge print) Good point too. But like you said....when applicable.

Part of an open government process should be that every law or action by government is displayed to the citizens beforehand for their inspection, searching out loopholes and unforeseen possibilites. So while they couldn't force the government to iron out any big holes, it'd be an election risk for leaders to ignore the general public -- especially if citizens had also produced a solution.....one that unties the loophole in a productive, down-to-earth, and generally agreeable manner. Then finally, the process should require that any government legislation is under 20 pages and be written in clear language. Thus, if the public were able to rate each one for clarity (1-10), this would allow us to base our votes partly on how well the lawmakers express their intentions to us. Loopholes be gone.

No one is asking you to change your definition, just reclarify and expand the government's definition so as to include people being discriminated against. In the olden days, people didn't say "between a man and woman", and laws didn't either, because it would've seemed comical to mention anything else, and I'm not sure many churches back then would've sanctioned anything outside their views of morality. However, the evolved spirit of marriage is two people loving each other and signing a contract to legally establish whatever obligations and rights that confers by the government.

I haven't seen Obama doing what you say. From bascule's link I do agree with your first quote, and have thought it in Obama and Dems' best interest to openly undo all power that Bush amassed for the Presidency, then ask Congress for legislation to prevent that from ever happening again.

Opening paragraph in Wikipedia That might be incorrect (no citation), but it does say 0.015% of Hydrogen. Ah. That makes the deuterium even less than I calculated. In 11% of the ocean, there's <0.02% deuterium. So basically: less than 0.02% of 11% of E18 tonnes is deuterium. Regardless, you're correct that it's an incredibly large amount, even reduced to those numbers. A crucial variable to the scale of its mining is how efficient this will be. As you deplete one area, it's going to mix with previosuly unmined sections. That will have a dilution effect. As you mine it large-scale, the percentage of deuterium in all water becomes less, translating into more work...to extract less...as time goes on. The only way to avoid this is to section off every area of the ocean. But then ecological instability and harm would become a real issue. There is no free lunch. Maybe a bargain lunch, overpriced lunch or even a donated lunch -- but none free, except.... [hide](actually, dinner or breakfast can be free). /loophole [/hide] Besides, an immense reserve of energy would allow the construction of mega technologies/infrastructures, which are unrealistic in our modern climate of limited energy. The amount of technology built to make use of abundant energy tends to scale with the magnitude of that abundance. Nanotechnology can explode. But their vast numbers and work done requires vast amounts of energy. Although....maybe they can get it by solar conversion, as travel to a fueling station by a microbot would be quite a long distance, and inefficient. Renewable energy has a superior advantage there. Imagine however, several deuterium extraction facilities the size of Manhatten, or larger, in the oceans. Space elevators the world over. Fuel stations dotting the oceans for intercontinental lanes of flying vehicles. Subaquatic high-rise apartment complexes. An opportunistic business infrastructure growing around these. The creation of new governments, ocean boundaries, and subsequently: water-environment nations to organize/balance mass interactions of trade, daily living, and ecological systems. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Niether of us know what it'll be. You keep presenting your tenfold assumption as fact. Even if it doesn't mean you're wrong, our progress in technology/infrastructure has been fairly consistent with regards to depletion of non-renewable energy (percentage-wise). That's bound to change, however. Progress isn't limited to material achievments. Energy sustainability in a wise and logical manner that allows for enjoyment of both greatly advanced technology/infrastructure/living (conditions), and untouched natural resources in equal proportion, is still a long ways to go. That kind of progress is of mindset -- broad, educated and free thinking. It's entirely possible that you're wrong. But not about the 1% making a difference. Rather, your assumtion that it'll only go down by 1% in a million years can be off the mark -- by a lot. Possibly you're right. It's just as possible you're wrong. I'd like to see tests, more as a curiosity than to forecast ecological outcomes -- I'm sure precatutionary tests will be done as the fusion process takes off. It's not about fear, rather it's being practical. Deuterium is too universally scattered in water, to just empty it and not first check what might happen. But in any case, it really doesn't matter. The ability to extract too much is limited by the difficulty of its extraction. And if that process became ultra easy, I'm sure the necessary tests will be performed. I'd like to return to your question from which this path of reasoning extended, below. The concept's interesting, maybe you can start a thread. We'll be able to detect if there's any logictical issues with the premise. Yet no matter the outcome, though, we're sure to learn new things and/or gain city-building insights from such a discussion.

I would hope. Similar thoughts have proven wrong, though. Might your expertise on the subject be good enough for us to rely on that statement? Depleting a widespread component from an ecosystem larger than half the world's surface likely isn't a great idea unless comprehensive analysis/testing were done beforehand. Probably few, if any, major studies will be done until the time arrives, however. But existing studies have revealed a possible tie to circadian systems. Which, might be pretty important (if the study is reliable -- they're from the 70s, apparently not many further investigations since then). http://www.websciences.org/sleepandhealth/richardson.html On a species of fruit fly. http://www.pnas.org/content/70/7/2037.abstract The part that stands out is "The great diversity of D2O effects on biological systems in general", yet I'm unsure if any enough studies have followed this. We'll know more after nuclear fusion's been conquered, making the priority higher to find out. But I'll wager deuterium has a bigger tie to the ecosystem than is readily apprarent. _ In any case, your math still doesn't account for trends of human economics, industrialization, and energy consumption. Plus, see below. And it's not as if we can suck up the deuterium with a giant straw from one port. We'd have to travel the entire ocean, seeking the great depths, watching out for debri, sea life, etc. Thus it's premature to say E18 tonnes available. Which....is not the case anyway. (that's is the amount of water, not deuterium) Even if you could grab up 100% of all the ocean's deuterium: water also consists of Oxygen, so we'll subtract that part (33%?). And of the remaining Hydrogen, deuterium makes up just 0.015% of it by volume or 0.030% by weight. (Source: Wiki). To be honest, it's still a vast amount. Don't forget though, we have yet to learn if substantial removal of deuterium will upset any ecological balance.

One big failure of nuclear power is that we not only have to monitor the facilities in our nation, but also those in developing nations. The costs increase just by that alone. But other variables create even more disadvantages. The developing nations offer no guarantees of safe waste handling. Their citizens lack our rights, the *science* establishment is closer to being a government arm with little checks and balances in place (rather than an organization of scientific methods and public transparency). Yet even more counterproductive is the reality that as we and the big powers construct more nuclear energy facilities, it looks more hypocritical to say which nations get to use the technology and which don't -- preparing a stage for conflict. But if the developing nations and geopolitically unstable areas were to create and expand into green technologies for clean energy, no one would be able invade for those resources. You can't take solar and wind resource from a nation. Thus a major sustenance of war is eliminated. Plus, no other nations have to be concerned of waste handling. No inspections by U.N. of weaponizing capability of green tech. No percieved hypocricy of nations who can use it dicatating those who can't. It's only a matter of time for green tech's explosion. Less secrecy involved, kids (future industry players) are likely to be exploring such facilities way more than nuclear power ones. And the safety issues of radioactive waste handling is going to sharpen the focus on it, raising the question of why bother keep pursuing nuclear energy if green tech is spreading at ever-increasing rates. Agreed. Certain things inherently require a different concentration of balance. We obviously can't go half-and-half with nuke waste. Not that you were suggesting it Is there any reliable science to back this up? From trustable sources, of course -- with the usual peer reviews. I don't really se your posts as off-topic, for the record. And nuclear waste handling, storage issues, and production are very much linked. Obviously if you produce more, then the unsolved storage problems are magnified. That has to be put under consideration as well.

That's the problem. The variables of human economics are being ignored. As well the costs to ecological balance/stability once you've drawn past a certain amount of deuterium from the natural levels in oceans.

Sisyphus is closer on point to what I meant. But here's the rub: nuclear energy is the only kind that needs security detail, possibly also by military, at every level of production and waste storage. Economically, it's not that great an option. Safety-wise, it's far behind the other technologies (and I don't mean coal). The other green technology markets are showing a potential for explosion of growth. I don't feel the slightest urgency to dive into nuclear energy markets. As for the alternate energies being inefficient with space, take another look at the Dynamic Tower. And that's in Dubai, which isn't lacking in regular electricity and has plenty oil to go around. The technology is advancing. China is poised to surpass the world for production of alternate energy, and probably become the leading exporter of green technologies. I'm not going to shed a tear for nuclear energy if it were to fade into the pages of history. Maybe someday we can find a use that doesn't impact us, but for now, that isn't the case. Where's the evidence showing it has no effect in the oceans and desert, by the way?

That's if you believe a functionally endless supply is possible. But never has the supply of energy, compared against the demand for more, ever shown anything remotely close to what you say. The kinds of predictions you hear about near-limitless energy fail the test of reality. Nothing exists to give those predictions credibility. On the other hand, industrial development has always needed to balance supply and demand of energy. This reality's ingrained not only into economics, but in our life and the ecosystem. There's a reason all quests to perpetually satisfying our energy needs (food) hits the roadblocks. We must face that balance is the key. No amount of bio-engineering, nuclear technologies or formulated assumptions is going to magically slip us past the issue of sustainable responsibility.

I'm thinking more like we'd be facing a shortage within 1,000 years or so. With the seemingly *boundless* energy made available, the world's population can move anywhere, the oceans would be full of deuterium mining. The next frontier of living would likely be the oceans, all levels, with the only limit on possibilites being the amount of energy a hydro-metropolis system can extract at once. Sea-farming and exploration, tempearture regulation of underwater dwellings, all manner of submersible watercraft, traffic infrastructure, etc. And we're only talking about Earth underwater. Space projects/infrastructure will require vastly more energy. Presently, we avoid building numerous things due to the energy costs. No longer would it be an issue, and they will proliferate. Study the history of energy use, you'll find that usage keeps pace with new discoveries of energy (at least the non-renewable kinds). Wise budgeting and foresight are here to stay, regardless of the era or its advancements.

Not realistically. Energy is like money, which burns a hole in your pocket if left sitting there. And unlike money, energy doesn't collect interest by sitting there. The vast energies we'd get from the oceans are likely to power a greatly expanded satellite network, moon bases, huge space travel insfrastructure and mining expeditions, and a vast number of things which spring up after energy conservation is *supposedly* no longer an issue.

The ziplock analogy is keen. If Obama were to favor other sources of energy and leave out nuclear, I'd say great. Yet if that's the case, he needs to be upfront about it -- sneaky doesn't work. Using all possibilities of achieving a goal is hardly scientific. In that light.....if Dems and Obama haven't been good cheerleaders of nuclear power, it's a matter of concern over industry, not science. For there is a limit to free market. It ends on the doorstep of citizen rights. We don't want the contamination that industry has failed to eliminate since its beginnings, and we don't want the cost and insane decomposition time put on us.....yet the businesses that chose such a risky investment try to force the consequences of that on us. Plus I can't rely entirely on the science of nuke waste handling. It's been tainted by special interests. Even the Bush team contributed, appointing "scientists" who'd be likely to agree on the safety of nuke waste. And let's do a bit of examining. If nuclear power were so feasible, you'd think nations like Rusia and China would be using it to the fullest. Really, why not? There's no free media to warn citizens, and protest doesn't have much umph without constitutional rights to back it up. Yet reports by the U.S. Department of Energy show a much different picture, at the links below. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Russia/Background.html http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/China/pdf.pdf Pg. 13 Pg. 17 (total energy consumption, 2004) The last has changed quite a bit. "Other renewables" is growing pretty fast now, as we can see in the articles below. http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90780/91344/6496247.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7535839.stm . http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/environment/nuc_waste.pdf Pg 27 (of 41) Start reading at that heading. Pg 25-26 (of 41) Nothing is foolproof it seems, when it comes to nuclear waste. And besides, the flasks are still vulnerable to terror attacks. The company who tested the safety of the nuclear flasks in bascule's YouTube ad was called NUKEM. Their website doesn't exist anymore....however, you can travel to past versions of its website at the links below. 2003 snapshot on archive.org http://web.archive.org/web/20030609231635/http://www.nukem.com/ 2005 http://web.archive.org/web/20051227141652/http://www.nukem.com/

I understand where you're going. Like ecoli mentioned, central planning is fairly limited when it comes to predicting generally unpredictable market forces/tendencies/corrections. However, looking at the overall framework, I'd wager central planning is better suited (than markets) to repair deep/escalating injuries within -- or to apply preventatives. Business can be great in finding the most successful way to operate profitably, but it generally sucks at teamwork with other businesses in developing the infrastructure and optimal variables necessary for the entire market to benefit/flourish. Why? Their mission is to profit, gain advantage over their competitors. You will seldom find a business laboring to ensure that others are given a fair competitive opportunity. If laws weren't in place, the main tendency would be to establish a monopoly. That is the self-destructive nature of a free market which seeks to establish a free-for-all grab bag of incompatibility for its players.

I'm not sure how it'd be done, without more knowledge of fault zones. Unlikely. Each city has major differences: founding purposes, access to resources, environments, modes of trade, zoning laws, physical elevations, material needs, wilderness intermingling, population densities, etc. It seems more feasible to collaborate on what to avoid doing. Or the best designs for basically universal things, like efficiently coordinating a stoplight grid for the least congestion.

It's really funny: the struggle to find a 10,000 year ensured containment of nuclear waste, our concerns of safe transport, the expense and rigors involved with preventing meltdown at facilities, security costs and military standby against terror to protect not just each facility, but the storage of their waste and every instance of its transport to a larger containment unit -- with all that multiplied by the ever increasing number of facilities proposed. And still, nuke energy gets promoted to being just as sensible as the other alternate energy markets growing quickly around the world.