tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post262888176622944537..comments2024-03-18T21:52:45.757-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: What's new in science & tech? David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54810423118789704692017-05-19T15:57:07.688-07:002017-05-19T15:57:07.688-07:00Okay, keep talking here, if you guys like. But I h...Okay, keep talking here, if you guys like. But I have moved...<br /><br />...onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89071688482164761482017-05-19T15:33:49.170-07:002017-05-19T15:33:49.170-07:00oops. I'll post that forward.oops. I'll post that forward.Alfred Differnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11739778518136076552017-05-19T15:29:00.126-07:002017-05-19T15:29:00.126-07:00@Paul SB | (again again) {Le Muppets}
Regarding y...@Paul SB | (again again) {Le Muppets}<br /><br />Regarding your examples, I’m not arguing for a divorce between private and public interests. I’m a fan of antibiotics, planetary space flight, and lots of other things that involve a combination of the two. If you think the government created the value we have received from penicillin, though, you are sadly mistaken. During Act One the government and academia were heavily involved. By the time Act Three was underway, though, it was out among the rest of us and private interests drove the innovations. The real value, of course, is indirect. Many of us are alive and capable of creating other innovations as a result of its discovery and production.<br /><br />This stuff is hard to describe without a common background for us. If you don’t follow the three act stage play analogy I use (I learned it from McCloskey), then it is hard to track the value being created and the point of the slow approach. Act One is easy to see for pretty much everyone because it is so flashy and compact. Act Two is obvious to anyone who has ever innovated because that’s when they feel like their competitors are stealing everything. Others don’t usually notice it unless they appreciate knock-off products and services. Act Three is hard to watch because the stage for it is so huge. Everyone is involved.<br /><br /><i>- Child labor laws, the 40-hour week ...</i><br /><br />Heh. You’ve got things backward. We introduced those after we got rich enough to want to put an end to sacrificing ourselves and our children to our financial interests. Before we got rich enough, we were subsistence living anyway, so anything was better that once-per-decade famines. We came around to the notion that such things were immoral when the memory of famines faded and THEN used government to enforce the social rules. WE moved first… not governments.<br /><br /><i> markets make monopolies that crush free, fair and flat markets </i><br /><br />This will sound like I’m nit picking, but No. People do that. Some people do that. Markets do not. Markets aren’t coordinated enough to do that. Markets are the eco-system in which monopolies can grow, but they also support other kinds of life.<br /><br /><i> obsessing over the idea that people are just jealous …and ….The issue is the damage that some - not all - rich, ruthless business people do to other people. </i><br /><br />It’s not really an obsession. It’s a concern that some are jealous and convince others that it is the morally correct thing to do. Others rationalize re-distribution. Even our host does it to some degree. I get that some ruthless people are harming others, but the harm they do is small compared to the harm the remedy could do. The harm they do isn’t small in the absolute sense, but if you don’t pay attention to the harm the remedy does, you don’t have the right context. Try to recall the harm people thought the markets caused when the Depression occurred. So much misery. Their remedy involved command economies. So MUCH MORE misery ensued and millions died. How about I offer to support the breaking of patents for gougers instead? I’m already inclined to do so regarding companies who hoard patents to stop innovation.Alfred Differnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45357213154841319952017-05-19T15:26:37.714-07:002017-05-19T15:26:37.714-07:00Larry, he specifically stated "alimony" ...Larry, he specifically stated "alimony" - he wants to retroactively abort *cough*murder*cough* his ex-wife, in other words. Oh wait. He was joking. Of course. Right. I've always found that sort of joke... isn't.<br /><br />Rob H. Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76071101182315463782017-05-19T15:22:29.047-07:002017-05-19T15:22:29.047-07:00onward
onwardonward<br /><br />onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-36297583138006621972017-05-19T15:22:18.511-07:002017-05-19T15:22:18.511-07:00“The 'Cyclic' in the 'Cyclic History M...“The 'Cyclic' in the 'Cyclic History Model' refers to the ups & downs of a sinusoidal function (NOT a 'circle') and it has been proven over & over”<br /><br />LIAR! Big fat total and complete-absolute liar. I look you in the eye sir and demand that you show this “proof” — other than some kook’s assertion-rife rant. Spengler? Har! Toynbee and every modern historian calls it utter hogwash.<br /><br />“(1) That the fossil fuel-based economy is irredeemably evil (because CC) even though it has given humanity unprecedented historical prosperity;”<br /><br />Fool. Everyone knows that fossil fuels were our bridge to industrialization. I don’t hate them, I am grateful for the boost! But it is now time to break the habit and move on to the next phase, or this gift will kill us.<br /><br />“(2) That the success of US Space program was only made possible by the exploitation of certain morally-superior minorities [Hidden Figures];”<br /><br />ANECDOTE RESENTMENT! Sure the movie oversimplified to correct an injustice and to inspire girls and minorities into science. Your paranoid reaction is just loopy<br /><br />All the rest is loopy, too. Especially as the US military officer corps flees almost en masse to the Democratic Party.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-12638322108358098982017-05-19T14:35:03.934-07:002017-05-19T14:35:03.934-07:00Robert:
BTW, Locu. Alimony is a conservative arti...Robert:<br /><i><br />BTW, Locu. Alimony is a conservative artifact that doesn't really work in a modern feminist society which sees women as being able to care for themselves and work and have a job. You're hating the very thing that would free you from alimony. <br /></i><br /><br />Well, to be fair, abortion would have freed him from child support, not alimony. They are different things, (though not entirely opposite things).LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17388143410477478752017-05-19T14:34:22.340-07:002017-05-19T14:34:22.340-07:00@LarryHart
I think I've heard of something cal...@LarryHart<br />I think I've heard of something called the 4% rule which basically boils down to, "Since the average investment returns 7% over time, if you only take out 4% of your principal per year there is something approaching a 90+% chance that you'll NEVER run out of retirement to live on."<br /><br />But I'm not a sophisticated investor and could definitely be very wrong on that. Just something I've heard.Berialnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-88539549370579210072017-05-19T14:32:22.133-07:002017-05-19T14:32:22.133-07:00Alfred Differ:
It's not that government never...Alfred Differ:<br /><i><br />It's not that government never works. It's that government isn't the magic unicorn some of you would like to believe. It doesn't do what many of you think it does. It cannot do what many of you would like to believe it can. It CAN do useful things, though, and I can admit that at the risk of annoying my libertarian friends.<br /></i><br /><br />What government does--at least in a functioning democracy--is to manage the commons. Government can do things that fall into that category. It can't do things that fall outside of that category, at least not well.<br /><br />The devil is in the details of what falls into "the commons". In 2017, access to electricity and even internet connectivity would seem to fit, even though the latter would not have seemed so in 1990, nor the former in 1890. Health care, at least certain kinds of health care, would seem to be in the process of <b>becoming</b> so defined.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-50019464932050005282017-05-19T14:24:41.497-07:002017-05-19T14:24:41.497-07:00Alfred Differ:
why do we save and then demand hig...Alfred Differ:<br /><i><br />why do we save and then demand high returns on our savings? Could it be that we lack confidence in our own survival needs? If I worry about paying medical bills or putting food on the table for my family, does that drive a demand for a high rate of return on my savings? If so, a bit more financial security could help trim ‘r’ through competitive market forces.<br /></i><br /><br />That there is an argument for universal health coverage which does not rely on morality or compassion. The former-congressman Joe Walsh approach--that if someone has an expensive malady, he should have saved more money or gotten a job with better health coverage, and that he (the rich bystander) is under no obligation to help--is unsustainable. Everyone <b>can't</b> sock three or four million dollars away in case of emergency, and if they could, it would take way too much value out of circulation. Universal coverage means the tax-supported treasury pays the bills for those who need the service, so that everyone doesn't have to live as if they <b>might</b> be the one needing it.<br /><br />Tangentially, there's something pathological about the super-wealthy needing to wall off more and more of the money for their own selves. I remember a decade or so back when one of the big lotteries had a $500 million jackpot. In my fantasy of winning, I figured I'd do as follows: First, just write off approximately two-thirds of the money as going to federal and state taxes. Never mind figuring out how to shelter it--just pay the damn tax. That leaves me about $150 million after tax. I figured there were five people to whom I would just give $10 million apiece as a gift. That leaves me $100 million. I would not be looking to invest that money for high risk/reward, but rather for principal conservation--metaphorically (or maybe literally) burying it in the back yard. At a generous 50 years to live, I'd ration spending to $2 million a year and be happy as a pig in shit. Why would I need anything more?<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-47966823737298126132017-05-19T13:56:43.357-07:002017-05-19T13:56:43.357-07:00What I find pathetic is Locu's claim of "...What I find pathetic is Locu's claim of "Oh, I'm all for abortion! Retroactive." because he fucked up and married someone who was not suited for him, and now has to pay money to help support that woman. BTW, Locu. Alimony is a conservative artifact that doesn't really work in a modern feminist society which sees women as being able to care for themselves and work and have a job. You're hating the very thing that would free you from alimony. <br /><br />Of course since alimony goes to women, it just goes to show you hate women - thus feminism and alimony (despite being contrary to one another) are to be despised because both are associated with women.<br /><br />My personal suspicion is that you are actually against abortion as well but chose to claim not to be so you could make your crude pathetic little aborted attempt at humor. Well, don't quit your day job. <br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-16934798084933525612017-05-19T13:50:28.728-07:002017-05-19T13:50:28.728-07:00@Locumranch | Sinusoidal function are essentially ...@Locumranch | Sinusoidal function are essentially the same as functions on a circle. Look up the definition of sin(angle) if you don’t believe me. In a circular geometry, the angle between two lines can be larger than 360 degrees. How many degrees does the second hand on a clock sweep out in one minute? Two minutes? 60 minutes? Map the angular parameter to a line and you get a sinusoid.<br /><br />This isn’t mathematical nitpicking. To a bunch of science trained people, a cyclic history theory is worse than nonsense. It is an attractive bit of propaganda with a history of trapping the imaginations of otherwise creative people. It is like the arrival of a flea bearing a nasty parasite. You just KNOW people are going to be coughing up blood soon.<br /><br />You are attached to a particular loathsome ethic that holds us to the great feudal attractor, so I’m going to skip over some of what you said. I don’t have the energy to deal with it right now.<br />Alfred Differnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-71440231381875959632017-05-19T13:35:52.315-07:002017-05-19T13:35:52.315-07:00@matthew | Aw man. I assure you I don't eat ba...@matthew | Aw man. I assure you I don't eat babies. I'm just an old-school liberal that your kind pushed aside about three generations ago.<br /><br />It's not that government never works. It's that government isn't the magic unicorn some of you would like to believe. It doesn't do what many of you think it does. It cannot do what many of you would like to believe it can. It CAN do useful things, though, and I can admit that at the risk of annoying my libertarian friends.Alfred Differnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-51895296973641787722017-05-19T13:31:53.799-07:002017-05-19T13:31:53.799-07:00@Duncan,
I was thinking more along the lines of h...@Duncan,<br /><br />I was thinking more along the lines of how we would game such a system. I’ve heard y’all are nicer people than we are when it comes to defending useful social institutions, so I’m looking at ways some of us would abuse it all. We are a collection of about 10 cultures loosely grouped in a couple of large sets and some of us have axes to grind and wouldn’t mind harming an institution to get at the group they think wronged them.<br /><br />I’ve no doubt the morally correct thing to do is to set up something like your ACC and a big national health system that ensures at least basic needs are met for each citizen. At the risk of losing my libertarian registration card, I’d even be willing to pay into such a system. It would be an extension of my moral obligation to ensure my neighbors don’t starve or die of some other thing I could have taken reasonable steps to avoid. I don’t doubt it is the morally correct thing to do. I doubt that I know how to do it in such a large and heterogeneous system we have. Fortunately, I don’t have to know how. My job as a member of this civilization is to act on what I DO know and trust in the slow evolutionary process that I know will eventually work.<br /><br />I am coming around to an argument for more government intervention, though, and the thought comes from one of Piketty’s* points. It isn’t the one he suggests, but it IS about the mismatch between the rate of return on capital and the growth rate. The fertility rate came down as women began to believe their children would survive to have children of their own. What would drive down the interest rate on capital in an analogous way? Taxing is still a form of punishment for a high savings rate, but why do we save and then demand high returns on our savings? Could it be that we lack confidence in our own survival needs? If I worry about paying medical bills or putting food on the table for my family, does that drive a demand for a high rate of return on my savings? If so, a bit more financial security could help trim ‘r’ through competitive market forces. Hmm. It is an idea that would support your ACC and a UBI.<br /><br />*There are some technical flaws in Piketty's book, but it is still interesting. I'm near the end of part two.Alfred Differnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56910737956530242152017-05-19T13:15:55.306-07:002017-05-19T13:15:55.306-07:00locumranch:
That's what 'conservatism'...locumranch:<br /><i><br />That's what 'conservatism' is, btw, the preservation of the valued metaphorical baby when the time comes to discard the soiled bathwater.<br /></i><br /><br />That's what conservatism should be. You, like most modern conservatives, can't distinguish the baby from the bathwater. You either think "keeping" is a good thing or else that "discarding" is a good thing, and apply the favored verb to baby and bathwater alike.<br /><br /><i><br />A very effective rant overall, especially when delivered by a person who attempts to describe Frequency Units in terms of 'CIRCLES per second'<br /></i><br /><br /><i>Reducto ad absurdum</i>. For the next time <b>you</b> try to parse terms along the lines of "'Civilization' only refers to <b>cities</b>!"<br /><br /><i><br />Stay in school.<br /></i><br /><br />I wish! That's where most of the hot chicks are.<br /><br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13076028387488311312017-05-19T12:53:28.475-07:002017-05-19T12:53:28.475-07:00Yes, indeed. My 'proven conservative past is ...<br /><br />Yes, indeed. My 'proven conservative past is nothing more than the succession of progressive improvements'. That's what 'conservatism' is, btw, the preservation of the valued metaphorical baby when the time comes to discard the soiled bathwater.<br /><br />A very effective rant overall, especially when delivered by a person who attempts to describe Frequency Units in terms of 'CIRCLES per second': Ignorance 'Hertz', don't it?. <br /><br />Stay in school.<br /><br /><br />Bestlocumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-71983679445387989862017-05-19T12:23:44.707-07:002017-05-19T12:23:44.707-07:00loumranch:
Like the unregenerate gambler, the pro...loumranch:<br /><i><br />Like the unregenerate gambler, the progressive depreciates the (proven) conservative past, devalues the apparent successes of present, and throws good after bad in pursuit of an uncertain & unknowable future.<br /><br />Over & over, the progressive emphasises the failures of the past & present. Why, during this week alone, I have heard NPR report the following historical revisions in order to justify aggressive but unproven social reforms:<br /><br />(1) That the fossil fuel-based economy is irredeemably evil (because CC) even though it has given humanity unprecedented historical prosperity;<br /></i><br /><br />Is it worth noting that at one point, the Industrial Revolution was a new way of organizing humanity, and that it depreciated the (proven) conservative past as seen from the early nineteenth century? <br /><br />Your "proven conservative past" is nothing more than the succession of progressive improvements which survived the test of time. You'd have stood athwart history halting each improvement until faced with the obvious success of the best of them, you belatedly claim them as your own.<br /><br />By now, your detested feminism is the (proven) conservative past which you have no problem depreciating to your heart's content.<br /><br />Again, you insist everyone else play by rules you refuse to apply to your own self. When you complain about feminism or global elites or deep state and such, you don't mean that those things have failed to survive. You mean you are dissatisfied with the effects that those things have upon humanity or upon human civilization, and you wish to remedy those effects by rooting out the causes. Yet when progressives attempt the exact same thing for the exact same reason, you complain that (for example) slavery or religious persecution or the Divine Right of Kings must not be questioned because they have proven their value by virtue of the fact that they are the end result of a Darwinian evolutionary process.<br /><br />Physician, heal thyself.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-41848917571826525992017-05-19T12:10:00.577-07:002017-05-19T12:10:00.577-07:00locumranch:
1) The 'Cyclic' in the 'C...locumranch:<br /><i><br />1) The 'Cyclic' in the 'Cyclic History Model' refers to the ups & downs of a sinusoidal function (NOT a 'circle') <br /></i><br /><br />Waitaminute! Aren't you the one who insists that words like "civilization" must be used in the most literal sense to refer to the linguistic root of "city"? Why are you the only one who gets to say that "cyclic" doesn't refer to a circle?<br /><br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-71108113408637430852017-05-19T11:59:41.701-07:002017-05-19T11:59:41.701-07:00Such ingrained ignorance:
(1) The 'Cyclic'...<br /><br />Such ingrained ignorance:<br /><br />(1) The 'Cyclic' in the 'Cyclic History Model' refers to the ups & downs of a sinusoidal function (NOT a 'circle') and it has been proven over & over, whereas Pinker's non-existent 'Linear History Model' is just self-delusion & wishful thinking; and (2) the so-called 'high' US Infant Mortality Rate is a mere definitional artifact because the US defines a premature neonatal death (aka 'a spontaneous abortion') as 'Infant Mortality' while our more enlightened neighbours do not.<br /><br /><br />The progressive is, by definition, a backwards-looking pessimist "who tends to see the worst aspect of things" in temporal setting of both the past & present.<br /><br />By arguing that the past & present are both irreversibly flawed and imperfect, the progressive justifies continuous quality improvement (CQI) under the ill-conceived assumption that the yet-unrealised future will be 'better' because it still possesses the 'grass is greener' Illusion of Perfectibility that only such ephemera can possess.<br /><br />Like the unregenerate gambler, the progressive depreciates the (proven) conservative past, devalues the apparent successes of present, and throws good after bad in pursuit of an uncertain & unknowable future.<br /><br />Over & over, the progressive emphasises the failures of the past & present. Why, during this week alone, I have heard NPR report the following historical revisions in order to justify aggressive but unproven social reforms:<br /><br />(1) That the fossil fuel-based economy is irredeemably evil (because CC) even though it has given humanity unprecedented historical prosperity;<br /><br />(2) That the success of US Space program was only made possible by the exploitation of certain morally-superior minorities [Hidden Figures];<br /><br />(3) That the US Federal Housing Authority, whose (racist) home mortgage policies created our (racist) 'diamond-shaped' middle class society, is irredeemably racist because it was created at a time when racial segregation was the norm;<br /><br />(4) That the Old Confederacy (existence, heroes & history) deserves both erasure & censure because it owed its existence to legal slavery & racism; and<br /><br />(5) That the bad old US Military, which also practiced racial & gender segregation during WW2, is the moral equivalent of the defeated NAZI opposition.<br /><br /><br />Such ignoramuses never learn: When you deny the past & disown the present, you destroy the future.<br /><br /><br />Best<br />locumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-53687234535865260502017-05-19T09:35:42.728-07:002017-05-19T09:35:42.728-07:00Paul SB:
"Common sense is the collection of ...Paul SB:<br /><i><br />"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."<br />- Albert Einstein<br /></i><br /><br />Jeez, I can barely <b>remember</b> age eighteen.<br /><br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-52017127502692472522017-05-19T09:27:05.649-07:002017-05-19T09:27:05.649-07:00Raito,
Thanks for mentioning maternal mortality. ...Raito,<br /><br />Thanks for mentioning maternal mortality. It is something i was thinking of but forgot to bring up. The US also has the highest infant mortality rate in the Free West as well, though both of these are dramatically better than third world nations. Comparing third world apples to first world oranges isn't entirely fair. Socialist Europe has as much to do - likely more - with the alleviation of poverty worldwide as capitalist America.<br /><br />Matthew,<br /><br />I wouldn't go so far as to call this pathological. It's enculturated. Whenever you see such entrained thinking, it's culture, which is to say, it looks like common sense to people who grew up with that culture.<br /><br />"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."<br />- Albert EinsteinPaul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89030767138521196912017-05-19T09:09:03.689-07:002017-05-19T09:09:03.689-07:00Alfred reveals his bias with the statement that Go...Alfred reveals his bias with the statement that Government Never Works, only private enterprise. "It NEVER works at fixing what actually has to be fixed." Utter, pathological bullshit statement, disproved by evidence all around us. Alfred has drank the libertarian idiotic koolaid to the point of not being able to see any argument that does not match his world view. He claims to be a Smithian Liberal, but makes statements such as the above or his oft-repeated "taxation is theft" that show his true pathological bias. matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757867868731829206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-63287134481455310862017-05-19T07:48:45.017-07:002017-05-19T07:48:45.017-07:00Dr. Brin,
Perhaps the cyclical history people jus...Dr. Brin,<br /><br />Perhaps the cyclical history people just don't know enough mathematics to viscerally understand the concept of the local maximum (or minimum).<br /><br />I'd certainly like to think that (your version of) feudalism is just a local minimum that we keep sliding back to. And that if we could just get far enough away from it on the curve, there would be a higher minimum to slide towards. But my more realistic side tells me that keeping us at or near a maximum takes a lot of energy.<br /><br />Alfred Differ,<br /><br />While child mortality is a good topic, try having a look at mother mortality in the first year after birth. US is double Britain's, and several times the rate in other developed nations. And often completely preventable.<br /><br />raitonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1576511927811655922017-05-19T07:12:24.307-07:002017-05-19T07:12:24.307-07:00Darrell,
And now for something completely differe...Darrell,<br /><br />And now for something completely different...<br /><br />"There is also no getting around the fact that VTOL and non-aerodynamic lift flight is energy intensive. It isn't very efficient compared to a ground car, though "as the crow flies" vs having to follow roads may offset that some."<br />- The point about efficiency is well-taken, but when you look at how much time people spend stuck in traffic, you can bet that those who have the money to VTOL will, to spend less time stuck on the roads. Then, of course, there's the conspicuous consumption thing. It will be another symbol of pride, as they glance down their noses at the peons trapped on the highway and snidely remark to their trophy mistresses about how much smarter they and are more manly and how big their beautiful hands are than all those saps down beneath them.<br /><br />But after awhile the cost will come down, the technology will continue to improve, and the population will steadily go up. Then our cities will have traffic like we saw in that tacky (but funny) Bruce Willis movie "The Fifth Element."<br /><br />Mad Librarian,<br /><br />"A flying car might be more useful as a GEV, ground-effect vehicle, where it would not be constrained by roads, but could zip along coastlines and up rivers."<br />- I had that idea when I was a youthful larva, though I was thinking more about snow. Back when it used to snow where I grew up (precipitation has gone down over the decades and they don't get the school-closing blizzards of my youth) I saw ambulances stuck in the snow and police cars spinning out on black ice. A nice GEV would solve that problem. Braking is a problem for GEV's in an urban environment, though. If you could figure out a way to brake as quickly as wheeled vehicles, the snow problem wouldn't be as much of a problem for emergency vehicles.Paul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-72776403006451407022017-05-19T06:24:33.534-07:002017-05-19T06:24:33.534-07:00Capitalism’s grow-or-die imperative stands radical...Capitalism’s grow-or-die imperative stands radically at odds with ecology’s imperative of interdependence and limit. The two imperatives can no longer coexist with each other; nor can any society founded on the myth that they can be reconciled hope to survive. Either we will establish an ecological society or society will go under for everyone, irrespective of his or her status.<br />- Ursula K. Le Guin<br /><br />Anything that grows beyond maturity is obesity or cancer. Either is likely to be fatal. But evolution has consigned over 99% of all species that ever existed to the dustbin of extinction. If the human species follows the path of American-style capitalism, extinction is pretty predictable, regardless of who benefits from it in the short term.<br />Paul SBnoreply@blogger.com