This sums up what I was about to post. When a liberal, or Democrat (which is much the same thing) proposes a law, no need to look at what the law actually says, just read what they claim it will do and praise it as a great idea. If anybody points out that what it actually says does not do what they claim it will, call it a great first step. When a conservative, or Republican (which is not necessarily the same thing), proposes a law, no need to look at what the law actually says, or even what they claim it will do, just condemn it as anti-science.
This is actually a very short bill which is amazingly easy to read. It looks to me like it would be hard to twist into something that is a bad thing. If you oppose the law, read it and explain to me how what it plainly says is a bad thing. It reads to me like it does exactly what its sponsors claim it is designed to do, require the EPA to publicly disclose the scientific basis for any regulations they propose and disclose all information necessary to independently evaluate their conclusions. No more basing a regulation on conclusions derived from a source which is, "Sorry, that is proprietary information, but trust us it proves that this regulation is necessary." The law as written does just as much to reveal the science behind regulations to environmentalists as it does to corporations.
OK, you have convinced me to give up Slashdot. I did not check out the beta until today. When I did check it out, I found it unreadable. Unfortunately, those who are trying to convince us to protest beta have made regular slashdot unreadable. I'll come back in a week or so and see if slashdot can be read then.
Did I say someone invented the personal computer? Does something have to be invented by a specific person to be new technology? Are you claiming that the personal computer was no more new technology in the 1980s than the electric car is today? The idea of the personal computer when it arrived in the 1970s was a new idea, previous ideas about computers was that they would always be room or building sized devices. What is new about the idea of the electric car today, that was not part of the idea of the electric car in 1900?
You are correct that you are not going to convince me that electric vehicles are new technology in the same class as Personal Computers were (or even computers were going back to ENIAC) or cell phones were (and maybe still are, it is open to debate in my mind whether cell phones have crossed over into mature technology yet).
Lithium ion in batteries does not make electric vehicles new technology any more than putting rubber tires on wheels made wheels new technology.
You expressed the opinion that what Tesla is selling is a new technology. What Tesla is selling has been around for essentially as long as ICE vehicles, was initially more popular than ICE vehicles. In order for Tesla to succeed they must prove to people that what they are selling is a superior solution to what they are already doing to meet the need. They have developed a strategy that may work, part of that strategy is to convince early adopters that it is new technology, even though it is not. They appear to have succeeded with you, even though you appear to know that it is BS.
They are batteries. Yes, they are a new form of battery, but batteries are not new technology. Batteries appear to be even older than electric motors by a significant number of factors.
Well, yes, of course, they would also need some new technology as well, rather than this 100 year old technology they are working with.
However, they may have finally found the way to win a place in the market for this technology, despite the fact that it is not new.
In other words, those protesting this don't care whether or not dumping the dredge waste posts any danger to the coral reefs, they are protesting it in order to try to stop the opening of a harbor to import coal. They are merely using their complaints about the dumping as a way to dupe people who do not share their agenda into supporting them. And it appears to have worked.
Where exactly am I going to do a quick-charge at lunch when I am on a 300 mile trip? For that matter, I do not really want to take the time for a lunch break on a 300 mile trip. That is not counting the fact that a Tesla costs more than I want to spend on a car.
My reaction is that there is not yet an electric car which is a viable replacement for my ICE car. Let me know when that changes. Key factor, I need to be able to make a 300 mile trip in a day with four people and their luggage in the car. I also need to be able to make a similar trip the following day.
As someone pointed out, cost is one of the components in what makes one option better than another. The fact of the matter is that batteries have not had the energy density necessary to be a good option for something like a car. There is some reason to believe that this may have changed with recent developments. Nevertheless, neither electric vehicles nor batteries are new technology which needs to be given a chance to mature in order to see what their potential is. Both are fully mature technologies. It may be that new advances in both, or changes in the attractiveness of alternatives, will make them a winning option in the future, but all too many people argue that they are a new technology that needs to be given a chance to prove itself.
Sorry, both have been given multiple opportunities to prove themselves. Now those suggesting that things have changed are obligated to demonstrate accomplishment, not just rely on hypothetical performance.
The reason they "languished" was because every time someone tried to make them a viable option, they ran up against the same constraint: batteries are just not a dense enough energy storage medium. People have been trying off and on since automobiles were first developed to make an electric car that can compete with ICE. So far, they have failed to do so. While that may change, that change does NOT make electric cars a new technology that is just now being developed. It is a technology that has been around for over a century and has yet to achieve the breakthrough which will make it take off. Recent developments may change that, but don't give me the "all new technology takes time to develop" line.
The modern ICE car is quite some distance removed from the ICE cars of the 1880s as well and no one tries to pass it off as new technology that just needs a few more years to reach maturity.
The CFPB was created by a law written by Christopher "Countrywide Mortgage" Dodd and Barney "Fannie Mae" Frank, two powerful politicians who were telling us that everything was fine with the banks' real estate practices right up until the bubble burst, while collecting large sums of money from those banks. Yeah, this is all about protecting the consumers./s
I have repeatedly had people tell me that electric cars are "new technology that needs to be given time to mature." They never react well when I point out that electric cars have been around more or less as long as internal combustion engine cars. So, yes, that beginning was warranted.
What is missing is the proxy data from post 1980. Mann used proxy data for temperatures up until 1980, at which point he switched to using thermometer readings. He has, as far as I have been able to locate, never released the data that would allow a comparison of his proxy data to thermometer readings (that is, what the proxy readings would have shown since 1980). My recollection is that you are mistaken and Mann has never released his raw data, but I was unable to confirm or deny that understanding in the amount of time I was willing to spend looking.
Actually, it was Pennsylvania State University that found Mann's research to be scientifically accurate, not the University of Pennsylvania (although you were correct that it was the University where he teaches and that receives income from the funding of his climate research. The interesting thing is that the person who put together the group to investigate him was the President of Pennsylvania State University, the same President who put together the group which initially "investigated" the allegations of sexual misconduct against Sandusky (that found no reason to contact the police about those allegations, even though the law clearly required them to do so).
Except that if the price increase had waited until the demand increase, than there would not have been a supply increase until after the actual need had passed.
Mann's research has been found to be scientifically accurate by an investigative team appointed by the same University President who could not be bothered to investigate allegations of child molestation against Sandusky, a University President who had a vested interest in Mann's research being found to be scientifically accurate to the tune of several million dollars in research grants.
Except that you don't just need to prove that a new drug is safe and effective. You need to prove that it is more effective than existing drugs. Under current regulations, aspirin would not be approved for use.
The erectile dysfunction drugs were all initially being developed for other purposes. It was an accident when the first one, during testing for its original purpose, was discovered to help erectile dysfunction. The others were all the similar drugs under study for the original purpose that the first one was being developed for when the news broke.
So, the fact that drug companies have developed new antibiotics, but haven't made much money is in your mind evidence that market based solutions have failed? And it is evidence that drug companies don't develop them? Maybe the problem is not market based solutions but is rather the government interference in the market?
Slashdot Mirror
This sums up what I was about to post. When a liberal, or Democrat (which is much the same thing) proposes a law, no need to look at what the law actually says, just read what they claim it will do and praise it as a great idea. If anybody points out that what it actually says does not do what they claim it will, call it a great first step. When a conservative, or Republican (which is not necessarily the same thing), proposes a law, no need to look at what the law actually says, or even what they claim it will do, just condemn it as anti-science.
This is actually a very short bill which is amazingly easy to read. It looks to me like it would be hard to twist into something that is a bad thing. If you oppose the law, read it and explain to me how what it plainly says is a bad thing. It reads to me like it does exactly what its sponsors claim it is designed to do, require the EPA to publicly disclose the scientific basis for any regulations they propose and disclose all information necessary to independently evaluate their conclusions. No more basing a regulation on conclusions derived from a source which is, "Sorry, that is proprietary information, but trust us it proves that this regulation is necessary." The law as written does just as much to reveal the science behind regulations to environmentalists as it does to corporations.
OK, you have convinced me to give up Slashdot. I did not check out the beta until today. When I did check it out, I found it unreadable. Unfortunately, those who are trying to convince us to protest beta have made regular slashdot unreadable. I'll come back in a week or so and see if slashdot can be read then.
Did I say someone invented the personal computer? Does something have to be invented by a specific person to be new technology? Are you claiming that the personal computer was no more new technology in the 1980s than the electric car is today? The idea of the personal computer when it arrived in the 1970s was a new idea, previous ideas about computers was that they would always be room or building sized devices. What is new about the idea of the electric car today, that was not part of the idea of the electric car in 1900?
You are correct that you are not going to convince me that electric vehicles are new technology in the same class as Personal Computers were (or even computers were going back to ENIAC) or cell phones were (and maybe still are, it is open to debate in my mind whether cell phones have crossed over into mature technology yet).
Lithium ion in batteries does not make electric vehicles new technology any more than putting rubber tires on wheels made wheels new technology.
You expressed the opinion that what Tesla is selling is a new technology. What Tesla is selling has been around for essentially as long as ICE vehicles, was initially more popular than ICE vehicles. In order for Tesla to succeed they must prove to people that what they are selling is a superior solution to what they are already doing to meet the need. They have developed a strategy that may work, part of that strategy is to convince early adopters that it is new technology, even though it is not. They appear to have succeeded with you, even though you appear to know that it is BS.
I forgot to add, wheels did not become a new technology when we started making rubber tires.
They are batteries. Yes, they are a new form of battery, but batteries are not new technology. Batteries appear to be even older than electric motors by a significant number of factors.
Well, yes, of course, they would also need some new technology as well, rather than this 100 year old technology they are working with. However, they may have finally found the way to win a place in the market for this technology, despite the fact that it is not new.
In other words, those protesting this don't care whether or not dumping the dredge waste posts any danger to the coral reefs, they are protesting it in order to try to stop the opening of a harbor to import coal. They are merely using their complaints about the dumping as a way to dupe people who do not share their agenda into supporting them. And it appears to have worked.
Where exactly am I going to do a quick-charge at lunch when I am on a 300 mile trip? For that matter, I do not really want to take the time for a lunch break on a 300 mile trip. That is not counting the fact that a Tesla costs more than I want to spend on a car.
My reaction is that there is not yet an electric car which is a viable replacement for my ICE car. Let me know when that changes. Key factor, I need to be able to make a 300 mile trip in a day with four people and their luggage in the car. I also need to be able to make a similar trip the following day.
As someone pointed out, cost is one of the components in what makes one option better than another. The fact of the matter is that batteries have not had the energy density necessary to be a good option for something like a car. There is some reason to believe that this may have changed with recent developments. Nevertheless, neither electric vehicles nor batteries are new technology which needs to be given a chance to mature in order to see what their potential is. Both are fully mature technologies. It may be that new advances in both, or changes in the attractiveness of alternatives, will make them a winning option in the future, but all too many people argue that they are a new technology that needs to be given a chance to prove itself. Sorry, both have been given multiple opportunities to prove themselves. Now those suggesting that things have changed are obligated to demonstrate accomplishment, not just rely on hypothetical performance.
The reason they "languished" was because every time someone tried to make them a viable option, they ran up against the same constraint: batteries are just not a dense enough energy storage medium. People have been trying off and on since automobiles were first developed to make an electric car that can compete with ICE. So far, they have failed to do so. While that may change, that change does NOT make electric cars a new technology that is just now being developed. It is a technology that has been around for over a century and has yet to achieve the breakthrough which will make it take off. Recent developments may change that, but don't give me the "all new technology takes time to develop" line.
The modern ICE car is quite some distance removed from the ICE cars of the 1880s as well and no one tries to pass it off as new technology that just needs a few more years to reach maturity.
Maybe the reason the electric car stopped being popular was because batteries are NOT such a good way to power a "portable appliance like a car"?
No, it cannot, but then neither can MS Office.
The CFPB was created by a law written by Christopher "Countrywide Mortgage" Dodd and Barney "Fannie Mae" Frank, two powerful politicians who were telling us that everything was fine with the banks' real estate practices right up until the bubble burst, while collecting large sums of money from those banks. Yeah, this is all about protecting the consumers. /s
I have repeatedly had people tell me that electric cars are "new technology that needs to be given time to mature." They never react well when I point out that electric cars have been around more or less as long as internal combustion engine cars. So, yes, that beginning was warranted.
And/or were unaware that the money was there.
What is missing is the proxy data from post 1980. Mann used proxy data for temperatures up until 1980, at which point he switched to using thermometer readings. He has, as far as I have been able to locate, never released the data that would allow a comparison of his proxy data to thermometer readings (that is, what the proxy readings would have shown since 1980). My recollection is that you are mistaken and Mann has never released his raw data, but I was unable to confirm or deny that understanding in the amount of time I was willing to spend looking.
Actually, it was Pennsylvania State University that found Mann's research to be scientifically accurate, not the University of Pennsylvania (although you were correct that it was the University where he teaches and that receives income from the funding of his climate research. The interesting thing is that the person who put together the group to investigate him was the President of Pennsylvania State University, the same President who put together the group which initially "investigated" the allegations of sexual misconduct against Sandusky (that found no reason to contact the police about those allegations, even though the law clearly required them to do so).
Except that if the price increase had waited until the demand increase, than there would not have been a supply increase until after the actual need had passed.
Mann's research has been found to be scientifically accurate by an investigative team appointed by the same University President who could not be bothered to investigate allegations of child molestation against Sandusky, a University President who had a vested interest in Mann's research being found to be scientifically accurate to the tune of several million dollars in research grants.
Except that you don't just need to prove that a new drug is safe and effective. You need to prove that it is more effective than existing drugs. Under current regulations, aspirin would not be approved for use.
The erectile dysfunction drugs were all initially being developed for other purposes. It was an accident when the first one, during testing for its original purpose, was discovered to help erectile dysfunction. The others were all the similar drugs under study for the original purpose that the first one was being developed for when the news broke.
So, the fact that drug companies have developed new antibiotics, but haven't made much money is in your mind evidence that market based solutions have failed? And it is evidence that drug companies don't develop them? Maybe the problem is not market based solutions but is rather the government interference in the market?