Author Topic: EPA appointee says air is too clean  (Read 631 times)

Offline Baruch

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #75 on: November 14, 2017, 11:33:37 PM »
or we could have automated cars that dont work unless you feed them a gold coin ;-)

That is the general idea.  Don't allow breathing or drinking water freely, make it all a profit center.  This is the mania called capitalism.
שלום

Offline Cavebear

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #76 on: November 15, 2017, 02:52:55 AM »
Yes, the first self-driving cars will be expensive. They will be expensive to repair and replace if they get into accidents. You can trust that the companies who own them are going to protect that asset by assuring that they will not get into many accidents, enough to make running a fleet of cars a net gain for the company and not a net loss. Follow the money.

It IS always good to "follow the money" when trying to understand corporate strategies.  In the case of driverless cars, I ignore the claims of safety and watch how they explain the accidents.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950

Offline SGOS

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #77 on: November 15, 2017, 07:37:19 AM »
Yes, the first self-driving cars will be expensive. They will be expensive to repair and replace if they get into accidents. You can trust that the companies who own them are going to protect that asset by assuring that they will not get into many accidents, enough to make running a fleet of cars a net gain for the company and not a net loss. Follow the money.
You can trust the companies up to a point, but companies are about profit, not about the saleable product.  I worked in the timber industry and was always confounded why they ran the chain faster than workers could keep up.  The faster it went, the more waste that was generated.  Useable wood would get missed and end up falling off the end of chain into the wood chipper to be eventually burned in the teepee burner.  That was years ago.

Why abuse a resource by wasting it?   For that matter, why cut it down faster than it will regenerate?  Why scrape the National Forests down to rock until the supply is exhausted?  It's because there is a huge mill worth millions of dollars, the whole point being to turn those millions into billions.  It's not about putting out a continual supply to meet demand.  It's about profit, as much and as quickly as the original investment can be turned into a maximized gain. 

I intuitively knew that the resource was exhaustible, and the good times would eventually come to an end.  Many disagreed and believed we would never run out.  The Forest Service instituted a "sustained yield" form of management.  Sustained yield, as pointed out in a local newspaper, turned out to be a scam, and outright lie, which was never intended to do sustain a renewable resource.  It had a hidden agenda to sustain a certain quantity of wood fiber to the local mills for as long as the resource lasted until it was gone, and NOTHING more.  This was not an effort to combine management with conservation.  It was the US Government supplying as much resource to the mills as they needed.  And my plant ran 24 hours a day 6 days a week along with others, constantly churning out product and profit until it was gone.

The shut down of the mills happened quickly when the end of the resource finally arrived, mostly unexpected by the work force, but foreseen by the mill owners, who were minding the accounts.  Mills were first sold at pennies on the dollar to the carpet bagger companies who knew the end was near but that a short term profit was still to be had when buying a big mill at a bargain.  It's not about the resources.  It's about the profit/expense columns.  But the mills eventually closed, given away to something called the "Port Authority", whose job was to dismantle and scrap the industry.  Eventually, the two hundred acres of the land where the physical plant stood was broken up into smaller parcels and sold to individual buyers.  The public clear cuts were left to remain a festering bruise on the land scape, and the workers were told to "fuck off and quit whining." 

The previous owners were already engaged at turning the profits toward new investments.  Why not diamond mines in South Africa?  The money there is just as good as profiteering from the National Forests.  It's really not about the product or the service.  Waste it without a second thought if that adds to the bottom line.  If a few cars get smashed in a passenger service, just make sure it results in more profit.  Too much care in running a business without waste is not necessarily good for a capitalistic outcome.

Offline Cavebear

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #78 on: November 15, 2017, 08:05:47 AM »
You can trust the companies up to a point, but companies are about profit, not about the saleable product.  I worked in the timber industry and was always confounded why they ran the chain faster than workers could keep up.  The faster it went, the more waste that was generated.  Useable wood would get missed and end up falling off the end of chain into the wood chipper to be eventually burned in the teepee burner.  That was years ago.

Why abuse a resource by wasting it?   For that matter, why cut it down faster than it will regenerate?  Why scrape the National Forests down to rock until the supply is exhausted?  It's because there is a huge mill worth millions of dollars, the whole point being to turn those millions into billions.  It's not about putting out a continual supply to meet demand.  It's about profit, as much and as quickly as the original investment can be turned into a maximized gain. 

I intuitively knew that the resource was exhaustible, and the good times would eventually come to an end.  Many disagreed and believed we would never run out.  The Forest Service instituted a "sustained yield" form of management.  Sustained yield, as pointed out in a local newspaper, turned out to be a scam, and outright lie, which was never intended to do sustain a renewable resource.  It had a hidden agenda to sustain a certain quantity of wood fiber to the local mills for as long as the resource lasted until it was gone, and NOTHING more.  This was not an effort to combine management with conservation.  It was the US Government supplying as much resource to the mills as they needed.  And my plant ran 24 hours a day 6 days a week along with others, constantly churning out product and profit until it was gone.

The shut down of the mills happened quickly when the end of the resource finally arrived, mostly unexpected by the work force, but foreseen by the mill owners, who were minding the accounts.  Mills were first sold at pennies on the dollar to the carpet bagger companies who knew the end was near but that a short term profit was still to be had when buying a big mill at a bargain.  It's not about the resources.  It's about the profit/expense columns.  But the mills eventually closed, given away to something called the "Port Authority", whose job was to dismantle and scrap the industry.  Eventually, the two hundred acres of the land where the physical plant stood was broken up into smaller parcels and sold to individual buyers.  The public clear cuts were left to remain a festering bruise on the land scape, and the workers were told to "fuck off and quit whining." 

The previous owners were already engaged at turning the profits toward new investments.  Why not diamond mines in South Africa?  The money there is just as good as profiteering from the National Forests.  It's really not about the product or the service.  Waste it without a second thought if that adds to the bottom line.  If a few cars get smashed in a passenger service, just make sure it results in more profit.  Too much care in running a business without waste is not necessarily good for a capitalistic outcome.

I understand, and agree.  One solution would be to limit lumber companies to existing acerage and force them to renewable trees.  Another would be to define all forestable acerage and force companies to bid on site with minimum bidss.  Another would be to forbid importation of trees beyond limited species.

I don't pretend my ideas are sufficient, but a start.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950

Offline Baruch

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #79 on: November 15, 2017, 06:59:40 PM »
It IS always good to "follow the money" when trying to understand corporate strategies.  In the case of driverless cars, I ignore the claims of safety and watch how they explain the accidents.

One of the early ones, was teleoperated there was a human driver, just not in the car.  Another was another vehicle, not the autonomous car.  But eventually we will get statistics on fully autonomous vehicles ... giant trucks on highways will be the first.  Must kill all Teamster union members first.
שלום

Offline Cavebear

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #80 on: November 18, 2017, 12:37:35 AM »
One of the early ones, was teleoperated there was a human driver, just not in the car.  Another was another vehicle, not the autonomous car.  But eventually we will get statistics on fully autonomous vehicles ... giant trucks on highways will be the first.  Must kill all Teamster union members first.

I suspect driverless trucks will be the first commercially viable vehicles, operated within speed limits and not changing lanes often.  Maybe even having their own lane.  It will be gradual...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950

Offline SGOS

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #81 on: November 18, 2017, 02:13:06 AM »
I suspect driverless trucks will be the first commercially viable vehicles, operated within speed limits and not changing lanes often.  Maybe even having their own lane.
Sounds vaguely like a railroad.

Offline Baruch

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #82 on: November 18, 2017, 02:23:30 AM »
I suspect driverless trucks will be the first commercially viable vehicles, operated within speed limits and not changing lanes often.  Maybe even having their own lane.  It will be gradual...

Definitely their own lane.  And if you cut one off, you dumb driver ... terrorism charge from DHS.  The Spice must flow.



Trump is a Guild Navigator ;-)
שלום

Offline Cavebear

Re: EPA appointee says air is too clean
« Reply #83 on: November 18, 2017, 03:02:53 AM »
Definitely their own lane.  And if you cut one off, you dumb driver ... terrorism charge from DHS.  The Spice must flow.



Trump is a Guild Navigator ;-)

EOL
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950