I don't see how regulating the amount of emissions amounts to "complete control", though. We already regulate other polluters - for good reasons - so why not CO2?
So, that means regulating everybody, because everybody emits CO2. If we regulate every activity that causes the emission of CO2, we regulate every activity. Now you may be fine with that idea, but don't try and say that you haven't heard of proposals for complete control of all economic activity, because you just called for it.
Additionally, I don't consider CO2 a pollutant. Please list one other pollutant regulated under the Clean Air Act that the complete absence of would destroy the overwhelming majority of life on this planet.
FCC? Aren't these the people that many slashdotters want to enforce Net Neutrality? So, how do you think that would work out in light of this latest ruling?
You haven't heard about the proposals to regulate back yard barbecues? Or California's banning of new fireplaces in people's homes? Or the fact that if the EPA regulates CO2 under the Clean Air Act the same way it regulates the other gases that come under the Clean Air Act it would mean that shopping malls, even stand alone Walmarts would come under these regulations?
The reason that regular incandescent bulds were "outlawed" was because big companies couldn't make enough money off of them. By forcing ordinary incandescent bulbs (whose patents have all expired) off the market, companies are able to charge more for bulbs that they have patents on. Additionally, they are able to take light bulbs out of the pure commodity market, allowing them to capture more profit. As usual, environmentalism is just an excuse to limit people's choices.
No, I am making a prediction about what life would be like today. You said that the auto industry would not be (present tense) on life support it would be dead and buried. That puts the rest of the statements in the present tense.
Right now, we have nothing that can replace fossil fuels as an energy source within the next 20 years.
In my opinion, it would be more cost effective to address the symptoms of global warming than to try and remake our economies to try and stop it.
The implicit claim that scientists are better qualified than nonscientists to answer ethical questions points to the broader problem with the liberal attitude toward science.
Whether the planet is warming or not is not an "ethical question".
What to do about it is. The AGW scientists aren't just saying AGW is happening, they are saying the only way to stop it is to give the government complete control over all economic activity (and if we don't do it now it will be too late--something they have been saying for over 20 years, if they are right, it is already too late, so why bother).
This is somewhat different. The defenders of the Static Universe did not have Sagans and Sagans of dollars depending on the acceptance of the theory. If we took global warming as a drop-dead-serious problem, it would be the end of the coal industry, and business would be very different for the oil industry (plastics, we still need plastics). The auto industry not be on life support; it would be dead and buried.
And billions more people would be starving. Those that weren't starving would be suffering from communicable diseases or the ravages of war. How exactly would we have transferred from a oil based world economy to one that only used it for plastics? If we weren't using oil and coal for energy, we wouldn't be making plastics either.
That is because of the AGW proponents who would shout as soon as one place was warmer than the year before that it was "proof" of AGW. Or the AGW proponents who claimed that more severe storms were evidence of AGW and the next year claimed that less severe storms were evidence of AGW. There were even AGW proponents who would claim that both warmer than normal tempatures and cooler than normal temperatures were evidence of AGW. There have been AGW proponents exaggerating since at least the early 80s (and no loud voices from other AGW proponents saying that they are exaggerating), and then they are surprised when they have no credibility.
Ok, so how would sales of that be different if a pirated version had been available?
Compare sales and piracy rates of games of the same genre with comparable reviews on a piracy-free platform (PLAYSTATION 3) and a thoroughly pirated platform (Windows PC).
Let's see, according to you (and I have no reason to doubt you), the piracy rate on PS3s is zero, and on Windows PCs it is much greater than zero. Unfortunately, that doesn't tell us anything. PS3s are purchased primarily as gaming platforms, PCs aren't. So how do we compare the rate of sales between PS3s and PCs, we still have no idea how many copies of the game would have sold for PCs if there was no pirating. In fact, the argument could be made that the sales of the game for the PS3 are greater because of the pirating on the PC.
You said that if I don't steal, I won't have DRM. I don't steal but if I buy games I get DRM, so your argument doesn't work.
I suppose what you meant was that if nobody stole software, there wouldn't be DRM. The problem with that is that I don't have control over other people's actions. So, the software publishers have created a system whereby their customer's experience is less enjoyable than that of those who steal the fruits of the publishers' labor. On top of that the publishers spend large amounts of the money they get from their paying customers making the paying customers' experience less enjoyable.
It is all well and good to say that if no one stole software, there would be no DRM. The problem is that DRM inconveniences the paying customer more than it does the pirate.
Wow, you are fucking moron. You don't want DRM, don't fucking steal. Got that? Or is that too fucking difficult for you tiny little brain?
Don't want locks on doors, don't steal. Don't want DRM on games, music and movies? Don't make unauthorized copies and violate the copy rights of the people who own the copy rights and thus a legally granted monopoly on making and distributing copies of a work.
It really is as simple as that. Now, shut the fuck up.
Except that you have it backwards, if I buy the game I get DRM. If I download the game without paying for it I don't get DRM. So, the companies have made it so that if I don't want DRM, I have to steal the product (or not get the software at all, which is the choice I make).
These companies have to realize that those who pirate the games are not their customers and stop punishing their customers for the actions of other people. By following their current behavior they gradually reduce their custoemr base.
Lost sales are impossible to measure accurately because they are a hypothetical scenario: "What if the game couldn't be pirated, what would have happened?"
It's not so hypothetical when you consider video games for the PLAYSTATION 3 console. It just got cracked, and the crack hasn't yet been weaponized for mass infringement.
Ok, so how would sales of that be different if a pirated version had been available? Oh right, we don't know because there wasn't one. So how does the sale of games for the PS3 tell us anyting about the effect of pirated games on other platforms?
Thank you, you hit the point I have as well. The key factor that drove netbook sales was price. As companies started increasing the price point, sales fell. Of course, what the companies that were busy raising the prices of netbooks apparently didn't realize was that the majority of people who haven't already bought a netbook who are potential purchasers of netbooks were waiting for the prices to come down some more. I would love a 7" netbook for $150. For more than $300, I may as well spend the extra money and get a full blown laptop.
Guess what -- this will all get blocked. More fragmentation = less free internet.
Here comes Sharia law that says all internet usage must be in Farsi, and all websites with latin endings will be blocked.
Weak.
No, the sharia will be that all internet usage must be in Arabic since that is the only language the Koran can be in (if it isn't in Arabic, it isn't the Koran according to Muslims).
Without net neutrality regulation, I fear that providers will have far too much power to censor content. In my area, there is only one choice for broadband: Comcast. My provider has already demonstrated a willingness to censor based on protocol and re-direct DNS lookup failures to their own search engine. I don't trust them at all to act in the best interest of the consumer when sites like Hulu and iTunes start directly competing against cable TV offerings for content.
That's right, there is a danger that a private company will censor content on the internet, so let's give the government the power to decide what content ISPs must deliver to end users (and by correllary, what content they may not deliver to end users.
Actually, we don't have to guess at what the broadband carriers would have built had they been entrusted to create the Internet, because they already have done it.
It's called "cable television".
Those of you who are old enough can remember that when the internet was still Darpanet, the big telcos and media companies were telling us how "cable television" was going to revolutionize communications. It was going to be small-d democratic, with tons of opportunities for local programming and public access.
And what did we get? Spike. And fucking infomercials out the ass. And some very expensive programs (with commercials no less) and lots of reruns. For this, they were given the right to public lands and the right to gouge customers. And we got "pay television" where you have to pay to watch the baseball game you used to watch for free. And monopolies. Don't forget monopolies.
The "free market" and "competition" had their shot at the internet, and they gave you cable fucking television.
And why did this happen? Because of government regulations limiting who could build cable services in an area.
CBS News has a very conservative slant whereas CNN is more neutral. As far as news content goes there is a real conflict.
ABC News also seems to be moving towards the right a bit as well. It's a shame that we have no news service dedicated to deep investigations and aiding the liberal causes. Right now America needs to be digging deep and exposing crooks and crooked companies.
The reason that we don't have any news service dedicated to "deep investigation and aiding liberal causes" is because most of the stuff that needs deep investigation is being done by organizations that are trying to aid liberal causes (for example, ACORN). So, any news organization that is dedicated to aiding liberal causes, doesn't want to investigate deeply (they might discover that Goldman Sachs is run by Democrats).
CNN/FOX going out of business due to low ratings is actually GOOD for US Democracy.
Fox News is not going out of business due to low ratings (or any other reason) currently. Fox News actually gets decent ratings and their ratings are steadily improving.
And what happens when you are miles from from that induction power base for several days? The devices that Tesla was envisioning would have still had power.
If the U.S. went into oblivion suddenly, the entire world's technological infrastructure would fail. Not just because of the loss of the U.S., but because of the turmoil and disorder that would result (or have been the cause). 50 years ago, the collapse would have been much less, 50 years from now such a collapse would be much worse (assuming the U.S. maintains its current position of dominance for the next 50 years).
If the U.S. does not maintain its current position of dominance for at least the next 20 years, we will all get to see what a collapse of civilization looks like.
Actually, you can thank Alexander the Great for the loss of the theory of atomism. Aristotle had a competing theory and he was Alexander the Great's tutor. As a result of his political connections, Aristotle's theory won the day.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how regulating the amount of emissions amounts to "complete control", though. We already regulate other polluters - for good reasons - so why not CO2?
So, that means regulating everybody, because everybody emits CO2. If we regulate every activity that causes the emission of CO2, we regulate every activity. Now you may be fine with that idea, but don't try and say that you haven't heard of proposals for complete control of all economic activity, because you just called for it.
Additionally, I don't consider CO2 a pollutant. Please list one other pollutant regulated under the Clean Air Act that the complete absence of would destroy the overwhelming majority of life on this planet.
FCC? Aren't these the people that many slashdotters want to enforce Net Neutrality? So, how do you think that would work out in light of this latest ruling?
You haven't heard about the proposals to regulate back yard barbecues? Or California's banning of new fireplaces in people's homes? Or the fact that if the EPA regulates CO2 under the Clean Air Act the same way it regulates the other gases that come under the Clean Air Act it would mean that shopping malls, even stand alone Walmarts would come under these regulations?
The reason that regular incandescent bulds were "outlawed" was because big companies couldn't make enough money off of them. By forcing ordinary incandescent bulbs (whose patents have all expired) off the market, companies are able to charge more for bulbs that they have patents on. Additionally, they are able to take light bulbs out of the pure commodity market, allowing them to capture more profit. As usual, environmentalism is just an excuse to limit people's choices.
No, I am making a prediction about what life would be like today. You said that the auto industry would not be (present tense) on life support it would be dead and buried. That puts the rest of the statements in the present tense.
Right now, we have nothing that can replace fossil fuels as an energy source within the next 20 years.
In my opinion, it would be more cost effective to address the symptoms of global warming than to try and remake our economies to try and stop it.
If nothing else, I would expect the /. crowd to be at least a little skeptical of *anything* that causes vast sums of money to change hands.
Yeah, like the oil business.
Which gave large amounts of money to the CRU.
The implicit claim that scientists are better qualified than nonscientists to answer ethical questions points to the broader problem with the liberal attitude toward science.
Whether the planet is warming or not is not an "ethical question".
What to do about it is. The AGW scientists aren't just saying AGW is happening, they are saying the only way to stop it is to give the government complete control over all economic activity (and if we don't do it now it will be too late--something they have been saying for over 20 years, if they are right, it is already too late, so why bother).
This is somewhat different. The defenders of the Static Universe did not have Sagans and Sagans of dollars depending on the acceptance of the theory. If we took global warming as a drop-dead-serious problem, it would be the end of the coal industry, and business would be very different for the oil industry (plastics, we still need plastics). The auto industry not be on life support; it would be dead and buried.
And billions more people would be starving. Those that weren't starving would be suffering from communicable diseases or the ravages of war. How exactly would we have transferred from a oil based world economy to one that only used it for plastics? If we weren't using oil and coal for energy, we wouldn't be making plastics either.
That is because of the AGW proponents who would shout as soon as one place was warmer than the year before that it was "proof" of AGW. Or the AGW proponents who claimed that more severe storms were evidence of AGW and the next year claimed that less severe storms were evidence of AGW. There were even AGW proponents who would claim that both warmer than normal tempatures and cooler than normal temperatures were evidence of AGW.
There have been AGW proponents exaggerating since at least the early 80s (and no loud voices from other AGW proponents saying that they are exaggerating), and then they are surprised when they have no credibility.
Ok, so how would sales of that be different if a pirated version had been available?
Compare sales and piracy rates of games of the same genre with comparable reviews on a piracy-free platform (PLAYSTATION 3) and a thoroughly pirated platform (Windows PC).
Let's see, according to you (and I have no reason to doubt you), the piracy rate on PS3s is zero, and on Windows PCs it is much greater than zero. Unfortunately, that doesn't tell us anything. PS3s are purchased primarily as gaming platforms, PCs aren't. So how do we compare the rate of sales between PS3s and PCs, we still have no idea how many copies of the game would have sold for PCs if there was no pirating. In fact, the argument could be made that the sales of the game for the PS3 are greater because of the pirating on the PC.
You said that if I don't steal, I won't have DRM. I don't steal but if I buy games I get DRM, so your argument doesn't work.
I suppose what you meant was that if nobody stole software, there wouldn't be DRM. The problem with that is that I don't have control over other people's actions. So, the software publishers have created a system whereby their customer's experience is less enjoyable than that of those who steal the fruits of the publishers' labor. On top of that the publishers spend large amounts of the money they get from their paying customers making the paying customers' experience less enjoyable.
It is all well and good to say that if no one stole software, there would be no DRM. The problem is that DRM inconveniences the paying customer more than it does the pirate.
Wow, you are fucking moron. You don't want DRM, don't fucking steal. Got that? Or is that too fucking difficult for you tiny little brain?
Don't want locks on doors, don't steal. Don't want DRM on games, music and movies? Don't make unauthorized copies and violate the copy rights of the people who own the copy rights and thus a legally granted monopoly on making and distributing copies of a work.
It really is as simple as that. Now, shut the fuck up.
Except that you have it backwards, if I buy the game I get DRM. If I download the game without paying for it I don't get DRM. So, the companies have made it so that if I don't want DRM, I have to steal the product (or not get the software at all, which is the choice I make).
These companies have to realize that those who pirate the games are not their customers and stop punishing their customers for the actions of other people. By following their current behavior they gradually reduce their custoemr base.
Lost sales are impossible to measure accurately because they are a hypothetical scenario: "What if the game couldn't be pirated, what would have happened?"
It's not so hypothetical when you consider video games for the PLAYSTATION 3 console. It just got cracked, and the crack hasn't yet been weaponized for mass infringement.
Ok, so how would sales of that be different if a pirated version had been available? Oh right, we don't know because there wasn't one. So how does the sale of games for the PS3 tell us anyting about the effect of pirated games on other platforms?
Thank you, you hit the point I have as well. The key factor that drove netbook sales was price. As companies started increasing the price point, sales fell. Of course, what the companies that were busy raising the prices of netbooks apparently didn't realize was that the majority of people who haven't already bought a netbook who are potential purchasers of netbooks were waiting for the prices to come down some more. I would love a 7" netbook for $150. For more than $300, I may as well spend the extra money and get a full blown laptop.
Guess what -- this will all get blocked. More fragmentation = less free internet. Here comes Sharia law that says all internet usage must be in Farsi, and all websites with latin endings will be blocked. Weak.
No, the sharia will be that all internet usage must be in Arabic since that is the only language the Koran can be in (if it isn't in Arabic, it isn't the Koran according to Muslims).
they can't shape what they can't inspect
Sure they can. They'll just throttle any encrypted traffic that isn't on standard ports.
Except that some of that traffic will be from players who are bigger and more powerful than they are.
Without net neutrality regulation, I fear that providers will have far too much power to censor content. In my area, there is only one choice for broadband: Comcast. My provider has already demonstrated a willingness to censor based on protocol and re-direct DNS lookup failures to their own search engine. I don't trust them at all to act in the best interest of the consumer when sites like Hulu and iTunes start directly competing against cable TV offerings for content.
That's right, there is a danger that a private company will censor content on the internet, so let's give the government the power to decide what content ISPs must deliver to end users (and by correllary, what content they may not deliver to end users.
Actually, we don't have to guess at what the broadband carriers would have built had they been entrusted to create the Internet, because they already have done it.
It's called "cable television".
Those of you who are old enough can remember that when the internet was still Darpanet, the big telcos and media companies were telling us how "cable television" was going to revolutionize communications. It was going to be small-d democratic, with tons of opportunities for local programming and public access.
And what did we get? Spike. And fucking infomercials out the ass. And some very expensive programs (with commercials no less) and lots of reruns. For this, they were given the right to public lands and the right to gouge customers. And we got "pay television" where you have to pay to watch the baseball game you used to watch for free. And monopolies. Don't forget monopolies.
The "free market" and "competition" had their shot at the internet, and they gave you cable fucking television.
And why did this happen? Because of government regulations limiting who could build cable services in an area.
CBS News has a very conservative slant whereas CNN is more neutral. As far as news content goes there is a real conflict. ABC News also seems to be moving towards the right a bit as well. It's a shame that we have no news service dedicated to deep investigations and aiding the liberal causes. Right now America needs to be digging deep and exposing crooks and crooked companies.
The reason that we don't have any news service dedicated to "deep investigation and aiding liberal causes" is because most of the stuff that needs deep investigation is being done by organizations that are trying to aid liberal causes (for example, ACORN). So, any news organization that is dedicated to aiding liberal causes, doesn't want to investigate deeply (they might discover that Goldman Sachs is run by Democrats).
The headline is misleading, it should read "CBS and CNN Could Be Making Up News Together."
CNN/FOX going out of business due to low ratings is actually GOOD for US Democracy.
Fox News is not going out of business due to low ratings (or any other reason) currently. Fox News actually gets decent ratings and their ratings are steadily improving.
If they were to do that they would be unable to disguise their real goal: suppressing the ideas of their opposition.
And what happens when you are miles from from that induction power base for several days? The devices that Tesla was envisioning would have still had power.
If the U.S. went into oblivion suddenly, the entire world's technological infrastructure would fail. Not just because of the loss of the U.S., but because of the turmoil and disorder that would result (or have been the cause). 50 years ago, the collapse would have been much less, 50 years from now such a collapse would be much worse (assuming the U.S. maintains its current position of dominance for the next 50 years).
If the U.S. does not maintain its current position of dominance for at least the next 20 years, we will all get to see what a collapse of civilization looks like.
Actually, you can thank Alexander the Great for the loss of the theory of atomism. Aristotle had a competing theory and he was Alexander the Great's tutor. As a result of his political connections, Aristotle's theory won the day.