mrocktor

We use ethanol as car fuel extesively in Brazil. With current oil prices, it's economically viable. Sometimes the international market for sugar pushes the price above gasoline (ethanol is derived from sugar cane here), sometimes not. The solution found was the "flex fuel" car - the electronic injection senses the mixture and adjusts the engine. These cars can run on ethanol mixed with gasoline in any proportion, you just buy whatever is cheaper. The interesting thing is that flex fuel cars are a market solution. The governmental program that instituted ethanol powered cars after the oil chrisis of 1979 failed as soon as the market readjusted - despite subsidies, despite forbidding sugar cane growers' exportation of sugar (which had dbecome more profitable). This time around the industry acted first, and the solution actually works (wonder of wonders). mrocktor

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" I love that quote. mrocktor

Aquinas' argument rests on the assumption that the universe has a beginning, that there was a "time" when no motion existed and thus that *something* must have made it all start. Here are a couple of counter arguments: 1- The universe is all there is, so if "the first mover" exists he is part of the universe and must (if you accept Aquinas' argument) himself have been put in motion by some other force. Since nothing else exists, there is an unsurmountable contradiction - one or more of the assumptions must be false. 2- Aquinas' argument assumes that not moving is the "natural state" of things. This is completely baseless. mrocktor

Question: when I "surrender" a colony is there a lead time before i can colonize the planet again? My second colony got 288 slots, third got less than 150

What is shown or not when you spy a planet depends on how many probes you send and your espionage tech level. Research more or send more probes (5 is maximum useful AFAIK) for better intel. More probes also means more risk of detection though. mrocktor

Discussing concretes is limited, but let me try a specific example: 1. Thermal cycling and vibration can cause micro fissures of turbine blades. 2. A flight exposes turbines to thermal cycling and vibration. 3. A flight may cause micro fissures. Now, we know that after each flight micro fissures may exist. We know that *statistically* these fissures tend to take X time to develop into actual cracks that are a safety risk, but that they may develop quickly although this is infrequent. We postulate that an inspection every X/2 is enough for an acceptable level of safety BUT: After each flight, in order to fly again, you are making the positive claim: this aircraft is safe to fly. The positive claim is that there are no micro fissures, since you have exposed the part to the causes of such fissures. And it is NOT practical - though it is possible - to be *sure* of such a claim, before every flight. mrocktor

I think we have a lot of common ground. The thing is that "t" is not a time where the part is guaranteed not to fail, rather it's a time where it is *statistically unlikely* to fail. In order to be *certain*, microscopic analysis would be required - given our current context of knowlege. Myself I see no difference between government ownership and government regulation, in terms of principle. In both cases it's the use of force without provocation as if owning something very dangerous were *intrinsically* a threat. mrocktor

JASKN, I notice you are angry about the way people are responding to you. I'll give you a metaphor: Suppose someone comes to your Math forum, where people discuss advanced calculus and such, and posts a thread about "the invalidity of basic algebra". That is basically what is happening here. I recommend you take the time to cool off, organize your thoughts and succintly state the essence of your issue with objectivity. Many (perhaps most) people here actually *know* what they are talking about, like you *know* that 2+2=4. Personally I suspect your main difficulty is with the fact that to live is the essential choice. Even in your drug addict examples - why does the druggie not simply commit suicide? Because he wants another "high"? Well, guess what - you need to be alive to have a "high". The druggie actually wants to live - he just doesn't know how. mrocktor

Got 298 slots on my first colony... sweetness

Exactly, I was arguing the invalidity of "perfectly safe" as opposed to "acceptable level of risk". I'm going to leave your discussion of passenger/airline and airline/landowner aside becasue I agree with you on that. I was trying to use an analogy where there is life at risk protected by engineering (which is the case with airplanes - which I work with - and nuclear plants - on which the same systems engineering methods are used). I agree with you that epistemologically it *is* possible to be certain about safety. In practice though it's not always *viable* to do so. Statistical treatment of failure is used exactly because inspecting all the relevant components to the level we *know* is needed to be *sure* they will not fail for a "minimum time" is not practical. Imagine running microscopic analysis of all components of every airplane after every flight. So, in practice, we are *not* sure that a given plane will not crash or that a given nuclear plant will not leak - but we are sufficiently confident that that is so. mrocktor

A perfectly designed and operated plant can fail, and it's not arbitrary. Let us say that overheating of the core is our major concern. The temperature of the core must be monitored in order to control it effectively. Temperature sensors can fail though. Usually MTBF is used to measure a component's reliability, it stands for Mean Time Between Failures - a statistical average of how long it takes for this part to fail. Some parts fail with one hour of usage, others fail after years. Let's say the temperature sensor's MTBF is 1000 hours. If we use three of them that gives us a probability of one in a billion that all of them will fail at the same time, for each hour of use. We can use four, six, twenty or a million redundant sensors - the probability of all of them failing will NEVER reach zero. We can choose to implement safeguards of other natures to protect against the fragility of the sensors. Relief valves, fuse plugs (things that melt at a given temperature and interrupt operation). Every solution implemented, however, has a possibility of failure - a *real* possibility not an arbitrary one. In the end it comes down to having enough fail safe capability, enough protections and enough fault containment to make the catastrophe vanishingly improbable. The probability *is not zero*. mrocktor

12 million hah. And I'm happy I found a nice inactive to raid with my 10 light transports mrock

I disagree. They put themselves under an obligation to take all the measures necessary not to violate rights. Period. That is equivalent to saying "I want the risk to be zero, I don't care whether it is more zero or less zero". I have explained that zero is not possible. I'll concretize the issue further: Flying planes is a risk. What would you consider an acceptable risk of death on an airplane flight, per hour of flight time: 1- one in a million 2- one in a billion 3- one in a trillion 4- zero Remember, we are not talking about unavoidable risks (meteor strikes and such) or arbitrarities (being attacked by space aliens) - we are talking about things that are known to happen (bearings sieze, computers burn out...). mrocktor

How about this definition of humility: "Acting as if you are less worthy than you truly are". Most defendants of humility actually try to make humility and respect a package deal. Reject it. mrock

That was very good Felix. mrocktor

Erik, Have not joined yet since I'm just getting my bearings, will do so. Starting fresh would be interesting. Are players randomly seeded through the universe? mrock

I actually agree with this implementation with the following change: "in addition to the safety measures already in place". Whether the plaintiff knows about them or not is immaterial, a business (or a person) is not under obligation to divulge information about their own activities so the fact that the plaintiff may be uninformed cannot be used against the defendant. I still think you are wrong about the principle of the thing though. Unlike the discussion about certainty, in this case it is objectively impossible to be 100% safe. All parts can fail (tubes, sensors, controllers etc.). These parts have known failure rates (typical of systems components) or are designed not to fail during a certain period given a certain usage cycle (structural components). The thing is, failure rates are *averages* and structural tolerances *are statistical*. It is an objective fact that these parts can, and do, fail. What is done is to make sure that no single failure or reasonably probable combination of failures can lead to a catastrophe - however the probability of catastrophe is ALWAYS larger than zero. This coming from an aviation safety engineer (I don't mean this as an appeal to intimidation, just for background on the technical part of the discussion). mrocktor

Nikki Whelan I have no idea if she has two neurons in her brain to put together, but damn does she look good

Started up in universe 3 as well. Some things are anoying: not being able to use the "back" button for one. Is there any way to see players stats (such as points) from the search window? Since only 1-1500 are ranked, how do I get info on the otehr 6000 guys in the universe? Deut usage to look at the galaxy is killing me mrock

As your discussion following this statement shows, the affirmation is not a valid principle. "Endanger" is subjective, and it's unacceptable that a life guiding principle should be so. Also, your affirmation is a negative and as such cannot be used as a guide for positive action. Try wording your sentiment as a positive and see how it turns out. "Man has a right to be safe"? How safe? Based on who's judgment? As has been discussed before (in a thread about prevention of crime, I believe), in a rights respecting government one must have positive evidence that a violation of rights is intended (or likely due to negligence) before the use of force is justified. As David said, if the powerplant is actually threatening people you can call the police - same as if someone walks around pointing a gun at people you can do so. If you do so and no hazard is found, it is only fair that you pay for the inspection. This is a far cry from having "regulations" or the government granting "authorization" for the operation of nuclear plants. You are free until you actually violate or give clear evidence of the intent of violating rights. mrocktor

Private ownership of nuclear weapons is a difficult question for sure, but argumentum ad consequentiam is not the way to answer it. "If it were allowed someone could..." will never provide an acceptable principle to deal with any issue. When the body count gets high enough does pragmatism become valid? No. Principle would dictate that unless there is credible evidence that the person procuring (or owning) a nuke intends to use it in a rights violating way (which includes challenging the government, the government's sole function being the protection of rights a challenge of it necessarily means intent to violate rights) the government should not use force against that person. mrocktor

You can't own reality. If you discover a truth you cannot force people to live by falsehood. Intelectual property applies to the *application* of knowlege not to knowlege itself. I can patent an algorithm that calculates square roots, I can't patent "the square root". I can patent (well, copyright) a song, I can't patent B flat. I can patent a book about evolution, I can't patent the theory of evolution. mrocktor

Why would the owner of such a power plant not try to change the situation? Sell it to someone capable of properly operating it, obtaining investment capital in order to fix it, close down the plant. All of these options are more in the interest of the plant owner than letting the plant cause a catastrophe he will be sued for and, basically, forfeit his life for (whether by death penalty or incredible damages). Now, if the owner is being irrational (it's my father's plant and I won't sell and won't shut down; god commanded me to keep the plant like this etc.) there are still several questions to be answered: 1. People know nuke plants can be risky if mismanaged, some private entity will inspect nuke plants and proclame them safe (this is a business, and the entity is as viable as it's reputation makes it, so it will strive to properly assess safety). The consumer will tend to buy "safe" energy. If he does not, *his* consumer may chose a competitor who does. 2. Someone has to sell fissile material to the problematic plant. Is it in the interest of such a dealer to provide fissile material to a "timebomb"? Hell no, he does not want his name associated to such an event does he? In sum, there is no reason to believe that a plant could be mismanaged to the point of catastrophe under a free market - it goes against the interests of too many people, starting with the owner and including his suppliers, consumers and neighbors (he has to buy transport of goods and people to and from the plant right? who will do it? etc.). mrocktor

The whole of your argument rests on this, and this is incorrect. We observe that the unverse is "in motion", we see no evidence why it should stop or that it could have started. The end. Anything else is arbitrary. The "big bang" itself is arbitrary, when it is defined as "there was nothing, nothing spontaneously exploded and voilá: the universe". mrocktor

He had no choice about being pissed. And I had no choice but to write this. And you to read it. Damn I can't stop typing! Actually I'm determined to submit this post after this phrase, signature and a sarcastic PS. mrocktor PS: see?