2,801

(31 replies, posted in Politics)

And how does that solve anything?  Specifically:

1: How does the infrastructure rebuild if there's no capital to rebuild it?
2: How does anarchy prevent a new class of rich from simply replicating the old class?
3: How does anarchy have any hope of protecting larger security concerns?
4: How does anarchy occur in every place in the world simultaneously?
5: How does anarchy solve natural resource issues which inherently have wealth?


More to come later.

2,802

(31 replies, posted in Politics)

So... your solution to economic problems is... destroy everything because you're resentful of people who are economically successful?

2,803

(2 replies, posted in Politics)

Oogah!  Zarf smash logic!

2,804

(9 replies, posted in Universal News)

Weasel!

2,805

(65 replies, posted in Universal News)

1. Luster
2. Adrius Avangion
3. Skoe
4. IC death
5. undeath
6. BC Cougar
7. matthang
8. Tryme
9. Zarf

2,806

(12 replies, posted in General)

Pancakes and maple syrup!

2,807

(25 replies, posted in Politics)

Time to spark a little debate in here!  The space thread obviously didn't do the job... let's try again.


Illegal immigration in the US.  I don't need to give background information to most of you, so I'll skip it.  However, some notes about the debate as a whole:

1: Aside from some fringe groups, the vast majority of Americans want to see some sort of security on the Mexican border, if for no other reason than to prevent the drug trade.  The only reason I see that the border has not been secured yet is that the issue of border control has become a political bargaining chip to force the other side to accept their policy option.


2: In terms of the debate of deportation/enforcement of immigration policies vs. allowing illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, there's an interesting argument which I want to point out.  Those in favor of allowing illegal immigrants some path to citizenship, many have cited that illegal immigrants provide important jobs which are generally too crappy for most Americans to want.

Now, I would generally agree with this.  The United Farm Workers organization made an interesting advertisement to illustrate this point: they offered job applications to people willing to work one of the hundreds of thousands of jobs illegal immigrants hold, doing farm work in triple-digit temperatures for minimum wage and no benefits.  They only received a few dozen actual applications, for good reason.


However, that being said, I must pose a question to this argument.  I would argue that the reason why illegal immigrants would work these jobs is only partially based upon personal willingness to accept what would otherwise be considered crappy work.  Being illegal immigrants, these workers are unable to organize, politically lobby, or make any sort of individual bargaining with their employer, simply because if they do, the employer could report them to the government, and hire other illegal immigrants.  Simply put, the illegal immigrant, on an individual level, has very little bargaining power.


What if they were placed in some legal status that allowed them to work, though?  The bargaining tools that employers had against illegal immigrants will diminish, easily.  Assuming there is a border control along with any move toward legalized status, less new illegal immigrants would be able to enter the country, limiting the amount of cheap labor which farms could use to cycle out disgruntled employees, further diminishing their bargaining power.


My solution, then?


Nothing.


That's right.  Perhaps increase counter-narcotics work on the border.  But in terms of dealing with immigrants within the border, it seems like the immigration debacle has become somewhat of a balancing act, similar to the China-US-Taiwan issue: If you tilt the lever to one side or the other, shit hits the fan, but if you perpetually keep the status quo, the damage is limited.

Alternatively, perhaps some guest worker program could exist, but only if it created new labor rules as well (wage restrictions in certain categories, perhaps?).




Thoughts?  tongue

2,808

(12 replies, posted in General)

Hot dog... and ketchup!

2,809

(24 replies, posted in Politics)

Holy crap!  yikes

2,810

(7 replies, posted in Community)

For your mini-modship!  tongue

2,811

(4 replies, posted in General)

Someone knows nothing about football.  The final is called the Super Bowl, and it happened like 5 months ago.




(That was fun)

2,812

(130 replies, posted in Universal News)

Didn't think so... but eh, who can tell for sure?  tongue

2,813

(130 replies, posted in Universal News)

This thread went downhill fast.

2,814

(13 replies, posted in Politics)

> tavius wrote:

> If the U.S shows an unwillingness to reform it's spending habits and even looks like it's prepared to go into excessive printing mode or defaulting on its debt, those short term budgetary concerns may turn into something alot more severe. So far the economic recovery hasn't yet been backed with significant job growth so deficits may well be the norm for some time to come. The U.S is going to need the rest of the world (i.e China) to be prepared to keep ponying up for them T-bills.


That's not a unique reason to cut NASA's budget.  I could make the same case for cutting health care, military spending, or thousands of other programs.


> TBH I think the whole America needs more kids to choose to become engineers/scientists thing is overrated at least in terms of projected economic benefit. If it were true that future U.S economic dominance will rely on a spike of enrollment interest in eng/tech degrees brought about by a more aggressive NASA then you have to concede that the war is already lost given that China and India are -yearly- graduating hundreds of thousands of graduates in these fields. Numbers that the U.S can't hope to match even with a resurgent NASA and under the best of circumstances.


One simple reason why this is wrong: Death is a check against hegemony in the field.  The US was able to get a big math/science edge coming into the 80's.  However, they eventually began to retire, and that knowledge accumulated was lost.  Eventually, the Chinese and Indian tech specialists will be retiring, removing the advantage the nation gained now, allowing the US to step forward in the future.


> Even now plenty of the U.S grads who do come out with engineering degrees are opting to go into finance or on to med/law school instead. It's all just a part of the local market supply/demand. Companies like Microsoft, Intel...etc are doing alot if not most of their tech research overseas now in Asia and it's not because there's a drastic shortage of domestic tech-savvy people, they do it because it's cheaper.

The U.S might actually be better off focusing on areas like legal services, finance, higher education, media (the "soft" stuff) where it seems it may have a comparative advantage in the long run.


From a purely economic standpoint, I would 100% agree with you.  However, even most economists, though being strong advocates of comparative advantage, recognize the need for nations to protect some industries which present national security benefits.  If there is ever a field that should be recognized as exactly that, it's technology development, at least in this era.  Your position would easily result in the US military having few people conducting any military research, surrendering its position in the world without a fight.


> Maybe space tech and exploration is something that's meant for another country to do for now, as long as they're willing to let you piggyback on their rockets. ATM it's a risk to devote too much funding into something like this given that there is really no driving economic need to go casting about into space as of yet. Asteroid deflection maybe... sounds like a job for the UN or some world body though seems everyone has a stake in this really.


1: Asteroid deflection would require many technologies which would be considered national secrets.  In some cases, nuclear weapons would be necessary.  Propulsion systems with military applications could also be used in the deflection technology.  Letting the space technology be used internationally would allow more nations to access technology that would destabilize politics on our planet.
2: The UN takes even longer to come to conclusions than Congress.  If you put too much debate into asteroid deflection, the circumstances of the deflection change due to the time allotted.  The result?  The original debate becomes meaningless.
3: There's a free rider problem as well.  If nations see that everyone has a stake in the program, they can stall the program unless favorable circumstances, such as reduced funding demands or veto power, take place.  That becomes quite problematic.
4: There's one more circumstance which can be particularly problematic.  Assume an asteroid is headed toward Earth.  It's too close to Earth to be pushed away from the planet.  Its composition prevents us from shattering the asteroid.  It's too small to create a K-T event, but it is currently poised to hit the Atlantic Ocean, which would send huge tidal waves across large populated sectors of the world, including Europe and the East coast of the US.  However, a ship can bump the asteroid to where it instead hits a coastal nation in South America, saving millions of people in the process.

Would it be a good idea?  Yes.  Would the targeted nation ever agree to the proposal?  No.

Just a little thought experiment with the last one.  smile

2,815

(130 replies, posted in Universal News)

Horray!  big_smile

2,816

(130 replies, posted in Universal News)

LOL smile

And no, Rin, I haven't.  smile

2,817

(130 replies, posted in Universal News)

Perhaps AdriusAvagnon if he promised to give up his DarkAvagnon ways?  (EDIT: Intending AA for the list of 20 people for the game... the list that's not a mod list!) tongue

2,818

(130 replies, posted in Universal News)

Known name: Zarf BeebleBrix

Experience: 5 years, 2 times tutor

Activity: Active in forums regularly.  Usually only active in chat when something warrants it, like being part of an IC family, arguing with the mods, etc. tongue

Reason you want to be mod: First, let me specify that I don't think I would be the best pick if the mods are looking solely for full mods.  My place in IC is mainly looking through the forums, and I'm relatively noobish in the game.  That being said, I'd like to be a forum mod because the forum I most often frequent (politics) requires a unique hand in moderating it.  I've stated the position for a long time that politics is different from other forums, due to the nature of its posters and its content.  Forum posters there are more than willing to spend two hours arguing with you because you censored something they said, because their fights are fights of principle.

What major change will you make: I once proposed writing a Politics forum Constitution to modify the way we interpreted etiquette in the Politics community.  While I've been really busy over the past couple months, I will once again be able to resume that project.  As a forum moderator, I would hope to modify the way the Politics community interprets the rules.

Specifically, I would possibly like to see rule changes that incorporate more of the conventionally understood logical fallacies of debate, at least for a period of time.  Now, this would be an extremely difficult task, inviting people to fight you in chat.  However, if people want to have real debates, as opposed to simply fighting with one another, an understanding needs to be reached with regards to the way in which communication is done.

2,819

(13 replies, posted in Politics)

Remember, as I stated before, space exploration has economic benefits, mainly as a driving mechanism to get kids going into science and technology fields, allowing further technological innovation.  By sacrificing NASA, you sacrifice long term economic success in exchange for short term budgetary concerns.

2,820

(13 replies, posted in Politics)

NASA's basically been getting the shit end of budgets probably ever since the Cold War ended, but it seems recently that the program is reaching critical mass.

The space shuttle is retired.  Now personally, I think the space shuttle program indicated a large shift in NASA priorities, focusing on capitalizing what was discovered about space during the early years by creating efficient commercialization of orbital space.  However, that's a side issue.  I'll get to the issue of the importance of the space shuttle later...

Bush's plan for NASA was to replace the space shuttle with the Constellation program, a series of rockets set that would be modeled both for orbital use similar to the space shuttle and as a springboard for further exploration, including a return to the moon.


However...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/06/14/2010-06-14_nasa_halts_constellation_program_to_put_man_back_on_the_moon.html


Okay, so the Constellation program's shot.  NASA indicates that, instead, it is relying on private companies to cover the role the space shuttle filled.  So with no space shuttle and no Constellation, NASA is pretty much grounded without the help of private companies or Russian aircraft.


So what exactly is NASA doing?


http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/07/06/2739931/mission-is-to-reach-out-to-muslim-world-nasa-chief-says



In a June 30 interview  on June 30 with Al Jazeera, Charles Bolden said that "When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- (President Obama) charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science."





These priorities seem like a big cop-out.  NASA was created with one primary goal above all others: to explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations, and boldly go where no one has gone before.  Looking at the priorities, you should probably be able to tell that the third priority is obviously pretty much just focused on short term terrestrial goals, rather than the long term goals of NASA.  The first goal is possibly related to space exploration, except that there generally hasn't been competitive exploration since the end of the Cold War (perhaps an Iranian space program could restart competitiveness, but if it does, we wouldn't be ready without a successor ship anyway).

A moment about the second priority.  Yes, it's a good long term goal.  But it ignores history.  Why do people go to college in any specific program?  Largely, we look to role models of one form or another, which inspire us.  During the Kennedy administration, there was a big increase in science and math enrollment.  We were inspired... largely because NASA was opening up a new field of exploration.  For the first time in a long period, we were exploring.  The act of space exploration, then, could be thought to be the best driving force toward math and science.




Anyway... so let's look at where we want NASA (or, for the purposes of a private v. public debate, the space industry) to achieve.  Now, there will be a mix of the public v. private debate in here.

1: Orbital Space Support

This is what the Space Shuttle did.  It supported the International Space Station, which did research projects in orbit.  The shuttle maintained and launched NASA satellites for unmanned missions.  It was also a shipping system for materials into space.

Where is the most effective future for this program?  In regards to this program, I actually agree with Obama.  Private space programs are growing greatly, and low earth orbit is becoming within the reach of businesses.  With the space shuttle phased out and NASA contracts increased we could easily imagine that the private sector could take this role on.

Another reason to outsource this portion of space is that this program is relatively lackluster.  There's no big milestones, great discoveries, and very few nationally proclaimed heroes from this level of space travel.  It may be a new frontier, but by now, going into low earth orbit is like the 200,000th person to come to move to the American colonies.  Nice, but not heroic.  I explained why this is important earlier: When we create national heroes in a field of study, we encourage kids to enter those fields.  Although the space shuttle had a role, the amount of heroes popping up was relatively small.

2: Deep space exploration

This is a long term goal.  Mars has been a major candidate for exploration for a long time, but it would require a huge resource dedication.  A more likely short term candidate would be an asteroid that passes near Earth.  In short, it's what we would expect space exploration to entail.

This is where NASA is definitely needed, as an independently functioning agency.  Space exploration is what creates the heroes that inspire kids to enter math and science, in an effort to spearhead science and technology.  A private company being the first to achieve a big exploration gain would undercut the national pride gains that could be achieved through space exploration.

In addition, space exploration just isn't profitable right now.  Since current law prohibits parties from claiming extraterrestrial property, a company couldn't claim an asteroid.  Nor could they profit from the exploration itself without massive subsidization.  Only a national government could actually get the exploration level achieved, at least for now.

3: Near Earth Object Detection+Deflection

This is an odd role for NASA, which the ordinary person may laugh about.  However, life on Earth is constantly at risk of being eliminated in an instant if an undetected asteroid of sufficient size were to ever hit Earth.  Congress has recognized this threat, giving some (though not sufficient) funding for NASA to conduct asteroid searches, mandating that 99% of Near Earth Objects be discovered and tracked by the end of 2010.

If it was ever discovered that an asteroid was going to impact Earth, the pressure would surely come on each nation's space programs to stop the asteroid.  Russia has already recognized this need, and actually began talks about sending an unmanned spacecraft to test a non-nuclear asteroid deflection method (there's controversy because a deflection method on a harmless asteroid always has the risk of creating unpredictable orbits that could send the rocks returning to Earth.  As such, it's questionable if Russia will actually carry out the test).

Because of this, asteroid detection is probably NASA's most important role.  If an imminent asteroid threat was ever discovered, we would need a centralized, capable space program to evaluate the size of the threat, and develop a strategy in fighting the asteroid.

For this effort, we would need a space program that has a functioning deep space program (manned if possible, but unmanned is fine).  The modern theories for asteroid deflection include nuclear detonations, non-explosive impacts, and about a dozen or so ideas that would take some research to develop.  Space travel at this distance are out of reach of the private sector.  We need NASA for this.


Now where is NASA today?  It looks like, in an effort to modernize space travel by privatizing mundane tasks, NASA is losing everything that makes it a special part of the United States, representing the pinnacle of science and technology, and a herald of a new era.

2,821

(31 replies, posted in Politics)

How did this thread become a health care debate?

2,822

(43 replies, posted in Community)

Congrats, Flint!  Now go defend human technological advance against the misguided perceptions of forum posters (i.e. me)!  tongue

2,823

(31 replies, posted in Politics)

> ☭ Fokker wrote:

> Zarf's argument might be right... ...but tbh some people really should just be locked away. This is a conveniently timed example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/10505263.stm

> Before the attacks began Moat's Facebook status was changed to read: "Just got out of jail, I've lost
> everything, my business, my property and to top it all off my lass has gone off with someone else.
>
> "Watch and see what happens."

Image obsessed weirdo, and not in the good way either... ...it's always the ugly ones isn't it?
__________




You know... it's funny how the exact article you posted proves my point.  The man was in prison.  When he comes back, he's lost all his investment in society (business, land, wife), largely due to his separation from the world.

The person he became may be a lowlife who you think should be locked up.  However, your criminal's own admission creates an indication, which we should examine, that the system may be the cause of repeat crime.


__________

RE Beating the snot out of the convicted:

What about the innocent?




Um... they shouldn't get the shit beaten out of them?  Was there some point in this argument which I may have missed?

2,824

(13 replies, posted in General)

A ton of advice here.  It's late here, so I'll test things out in the morning.

2,825

(13 replies, posted in General)

I don't have the restore software on hand.

I'll try the micro housecall thing...