teachers don't "fix" roll call. that is likely the easiest way to get fired. misplacing children doesn't fly at any level.Originally Posted by RandBlade
teachers don't "fix" roll call. that is likely the easiest way to get fired. misplacing children doesn't fly at any level.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I'd love to see a source for this. Every teacher in every class when I was in school took a roll call.
1) Saying that drinking tap water is equivalent to drinking bottled water is ridiculous, especially in UK. While the water itself may or may not be okay to start with (I do not know) but it has to go through the piping which at least in some areas of London is extremely old as evidenced by the fact in many homes hot and cold water come out from separate taps which means they have not changed the piping since before they invented mixers. Regardless of the reason just tasting the lukewarm sludge should tell you that it is not the same.
2) While it is true refrigeration is not obligatory component of bottled water it is an option, furthermore people do not necessarily even have access to tap water. When walking on a hot summer day I sometimes want to drink a nice 0.5ml cool water bottle. I do not want to go looking for a tap nor do i want to buy a 1.5 litter bottle and throw it away once I drank my fill (Not sure why that is considered more environment friendly btw)
3) Seat-belt example is pretty poor as it is poorly enforced at least over here, i regularly drive to the nearest store without fastening my seat-belt I have never been stopped, when buying new cars with an annoying beep when the seat-belt is not fastened, the garage provides with lock from a seat-belt so you can trick the car in to thinking that it is fastened.
4) I am not a great fan of plastic bottles or other packages, I would prefer that water be in glass bottles and some is unfortunately it is not available from most smaller outlets. although I am not sure glass bottles are more environment friendly but I find tat water tastes better from glass bottle and yes I know it may be just in my head.
Well, I'd like to see the issue of plastic bottled waste addressed in its entirey, not in half measures, so I suppose we agree on that point.
What's wrong with providing water and soft drinks in bio-degradable cartons? Its initiatives like that I'd prefer to see governments spending their green budgets on. Lead with alternative solutions, rather than bans.
Plastic is just so fucking bad for the environment and the ecosystem it's not funny.
I think there is a place for bottled water to exist, most definitely. Hosting parties in a park would be annoying without any bottled water. Is everyone supposed to bring one in advance? Do I recycle finished gallons of milk, and fill the carton with water and bring it for everyone?
If i'm some place and don't have a cup is my most practical alternative to only use the water fountain.
Perhaps for many of these problems people will get in the habit of always having one of those nice durable water bottles on hand, the ones athletes have, and clothes will adapt for that to be a new norm, providing some storage department. That will replace most needs for a bottled water. But still there'd definitely be a convienience to it.
It's definitely a waste, and I think waste is a negative externality, a short sighted valuing of a product. It's like hunting deer you need to restrict it or the population will go extinct, but no individual hunter cares in the short term.
Um I live in a brand new home and we have hot and cold taps. It's not due to old plumbing but because we expect that, its our cultural standard.
Waityou don't have these?
Not even these?
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
hmm my bad, you mean you guys actually intentionally retain and continue pollute your new homes with an inefficient outdated system? Tell me that the shower at least works differently
I'm lost...by taps, you guys are saying that homes had 2 seperate faucets?
how is this related to old piping? My hot and cold water runs through different pipes after the water heater, the faucet and showers control the pressure when they combine at that junction.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Of course it only mixes there.
It depends a lot from country to country, we do not have chlorine at all in our tap water, and it actually is as good as bottled water. I know at least one brand that comes from the same source as tap water in Utrecht.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Actually nevermind, shows how little attention I pay to plumbing, we have mixer taps installed (like your second picture, single faucet but 2 tap handles). I know a lot of homes with 2 faucets though.
I am confused too, I only know very old places that have two seperated faucets:
He probably thinks that if the faucet are old school, the pipes are old too.how is this related to old piping? My hot and cold water runs through different pipes after the water heater, the faucet and showers control the pressure when they combine at that junction.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
I'm quoting your post, EJ, because it's comprehensive (and addresses others' posts).
That's a product-packaging issue. Single-use items and disposable packaging costs more for the consumer, but they don't care since they're buying "convenience". The producers and vendors don't care, because they can actually make more money by selling this "convenience". It's even used as a marketing tool to convince consumers they're reducing waste. Single-use juice boxes or yogurt cups (that also use single-use plastic straws or spoons) are a good example of the tail wagging the dog.
Certain plastic components can leech into the liquid (or food, if heated in microwave). Plastics have been sold (marketed) as safe for decades now, and only recently come under scrutiny for its leeching properties. Think baby bottles, nipples, pacifiers, water bottles....even those little tripods that used to come on top of delivery pizzas.....You can use PET and glass. Glass is perfectly recyclable, but it is quite heavy, so you need more transport energy. PET light, but not perfectily recyclable. But you can still avoid most of the problems using PET.
Over here, general use garbage cans dominate public spaces. That means garbage is a mixed bad of waste disposal--- paper, plastic, aluminum, glass, food, even disposable diapers. It's picked by trucks, and trucked to municipal waste depositories. Some actually do the dirty business of sorting and trucking to 2nd level recycling centers, but many simply bury it in landfills or burn it in incinerators. It depends on the municipality, county, or state, and how they handle their garbage and waste disposal.Over here almost all bottles are recycled. So there is room of improvement there.
Areas that don't incorporate waste disposal or water quality into their zoning or tax structures are usually rural. Unfortunately for them, their drinking water comes from personal wells, which is in close proximity to their septic tanks....or has become contaminated by industrial waste chemicals.
I think it might be more effective to tax the use of water itself. Whether it's tankers of water for filling swimming pools or agricultural crop irrigation, or people trying to grow grass in Florida or Arizona, or any grass golf course or sports arena. It's the water that's precious.100% agreement on this
That doesn't work in the US, especially not in our rural areas. Those of us living in areas between urban/suburban/rural areas can attest to the roadside dumping that happens when "privatization" of garbage, and its costs, run smack into "public" waste disposal.I don't like it when you pay the garbage tax with the product. People wont care for what they pay, they just look at the whole price. Tax the garbage collection per liter, it works easy (you just pay for each liter you want to have collected). People will reduce the ammount of waste as they feel the costs directly.
Agreed, but it's crazy to compare Switzerland to the US. We still have "general purpose" landfills in many states. The only special federal category we have is for "institutional human medical or biohazard waste". But we can still put disposable diapers, sharps (used syringes), medications, light industrial waste, paints, batteries, plastics, or pretty much anything, in a landfill.General purpose landfills for unprocessed waste are forbidden in Switzerland since 2000, waste is usually incinerated and than the leftover is further processed. The heat is also used for energy production.
There are much better things you can do with waste than put it in a landfill.
We have definite need for improvement.
You can do the German approach then, add a deposit on all packaging. If people throw it away, they pay. As I said I prefer the cost on the garbage side.
You have the same problem with tap water. The water goes through pipes, modern ones are plastics. If you want to be really sure, you need to use glass bottles.Certain plastic components can leech into the liquid (or food, if heated in microwave). Plastics have been sold (marketed) as safe for decades now, and only recently come under scrutiny for its leeching properties. Think baby bottles, nipples, pacifiers, water bottles....even those little tripods that used to come on top of delivery pizzas.....
That depends extremely on where you live. Especially in the US:I think it might be more effective to tax the use of water itself. Whether it's tankers of water for filling swimming pools or agricultural crop irrigation, or people trying to grow grass in Florida or Arizona, or any grass golf course or sports arena. It's the water that's precious.
Exactly the same was said here. But in the end it works well.That doesn't work in the US, especially not in our rural areas. Those of us living in areas between urban/suburban/rural areas can attest to the roadside dumping that happens when "privatization" of garbage, and its costs, run smack into "public" waste disposal.
We simply don't want to waste space on waste.Agreed, but it's crazy to compare Switzerland to the US. We still have "general purpose" landfills in many states. The only special federal category we have is for "institutional human medical or biohazard waste". But we can still put disposable diapers, sharps (used syringes), medications, light industrial waste, paints, batteries, plastics, or pretty much anything, in a landfill.
We have definite need for improvement.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital...tal_punishment
Hope is the denial of reality
When the UK's most prominent political blogger Guido Fawkes set up a restore the death penalty petition on the governments site it received just over 22k votes from a country of 62mn - a counter-petition received 50% more. That after it was pushed by some in the media and talked about by the rest of it. The threshold to have Parliamentary time to debate the issue is just 100,000 signatures. I've signed a couple that have passed that threshold and quite a few in total have, but the death penalty simply didn't come anywhere close.
It is one thing to (when prompted) answer a forced choice from a pollster, its another to actually care. Plus even in the forced choice prompted questions then it depends upon what you ask.
There have been several polls on the topic and all of them suggest that at least 40-50% of Brits want to bring back the death penalty. Just because they can't be bothered to sign a pointless petition doesn't change that fact.
Hope is the denial of reality
Polls are easily manipulated and throw up loads of crazy stuff people don't care about if you ask. A petition would have led to a debate in Parliament and actually got it discussed there for first time in decades got scant interest: when first posited those who thought the country passionately wanted it back from these silly polls thought it'd surge past 100k.
You want polling evidence? IPSOS-MORI polls each month and publishes an Issues Index that asks (unprompted) what the issues facing the UK are and has done the same consistently for 50 years. The Death Penalty simply doesn't feature as what people answer with.
There isn't evidence to show a groundswell of support for the reintroduction of the Death Penalty.
Right. Polls whose conclusions you disagree with are all wrong, and all wrong in the same direction. A far more ambiguous survey, which doesn't actually gauge popular support for the policy, but that does seem to arrive at the conclusion you already arrived at is reliable. I fail to see how people having multiple priorities, especially at a time when the economy is a far more important issue than crime, says anything about popular support for the death penalty.
Hope is the denial of reality
Leading polling questions get results, its not exactly news. And you can slice that data in many ways to spin it for or against too.
Crime does feature and people are allowed to mention as many issues as they want. When provided an opportunity to get this or any issue they want debated in Parliament very few took it for this (50% more signing the counter), when provided an opportunity to name issues they don't. Please provide any evidence people in the UK actually want the death penalty restored.
Indeed polls are almost always wrong in the same direction. This is a known here that ideas always get more support in the polls as they at the referendum. That's why the annalists are always extremely surprised if it goes the other way around like it was with the minaret ban.
A simple way to get more "yes" is to define the question very vague. As soon it gets more concrete, you will lose votes.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Why are you assuming the poll questions were asked in a leading manner, and conducted by unprofessional organizations?
Hope is the denial of reality
See earthJoker's post. By prompting you're already somewhat leading.
Guess we shouldn't be asking people who they'd vote for either.
Hope is the denial of reality
if you ask that, it is indeed useless unless you also ask if they are going to vote, yes.
And the relevance of this to a leading question is? I don't think you people have any clue what you're talking about. A leading question on the death penalty would be something like, "Studies have shown that the death penalty deters crime. Do you support the death penalty?" Or "Given what you've been hearing in the news about little white girl being raped and murdered, do you support the death penalty?" Asking "Do you support the reintroduction of the death penalty" is in no way a leading question.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm not saying it's a leading question, I just doubt many brits really care about it.
Of course you can ask, you just shouldn't believe in any polls. Only the vote is the real deal.Guess we shouldn't be asking people who they'd vote for either.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Yes it is.
Who will you vote for, or even are you going to vote are both leading questions too. Not leading in the most extreme Sir Humphrey way but polls that merely ask are you going to vote/who for are horribly inaccurate. Polling companies have spent decades building scientific models that take far more than mere random samples in order to develop accurate voting polling models. This on something they get public attention for tested against reality that can make or break reputations many times a decade. The companies adjust, slice, dice and twist their data through a complex model before publishing a figure for voting intentions that can be very different to what the respondents actually said.
Mere issue polls are much simpler in comparison.
I see what you mean. But the wicket becomes sticky when the consumer is 'punished' for living in certain regions that don't have comprehensive waste management, or even recycling options.
If we really wanted to be sure, all our older metal pipes that deliver potable water -- with its lead solder -- would be replaced with modern non-leeching industrial grade plastic pipes. There's a huge infrastructural switch-over cost. Who's responsible, who should pay?You have the same problem with tap water. The water goes through pipes, modern ones are plastics. If you want to be really sure, you need to use glass bottles.
Slum landlords don't want to pay. Poor renters can't afford to pay. Municipalities and Tax payers taxes are caught in the crosshairs.
Ah, but you live in a space-confined nation, where every citizen understands the impacts of waste disposal, energy extraction, water purity, and public safety. Many US citizens still consider our vast land as....either an energy extraction field-for-all, or a dumping ground.That depends extremely on where you live. Especially in the US:
Exactly the same was said here. But in the end it works well.
We simply don't want to waste space on waste.
As a PA resident, I know this debate has been going on for generations. It just changes names every time a new technology comes around. We've gone from mining to manufacturing, and back again. The steel belt rusted for decades, but was 'revived' by recent natural gas fracking. Even though it promises energy independence and employment opportunities....it's still fraught with pollution, particularly aquifer pollution, and risks not comprehensibly priced.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
