I do not know how the SDI was sold and what it was meant to do; others may know that. I only can specifically comment on what it didn't achieve. Many posters, as I see, are quite convinced that USSR was developing its own SDI, and I only indicate that it wasn't so.
When they tried, it brought their creaky economy crashing down
Your theory is fine, and your friends are entitled to their own views; however USSR never "tried" to make its own Star Wars hardware. USSR's ABM efforts were identical to USA's work and resulted in the ABM-limiting treaty that stood for decades, until Bush tore it up. The reason is that USSR's scientists did some calculations on a napkin and concluded, correctly, that it's impossible to build such a system at this time that would actually work (1000's US's missiles flying in and 100% intercept.) It's still impossible, decades later. Given the number of missiles that both camps had, the system indeed had to have very impressive reliability, or else it would be complete waste of money. So USSR never built one. After Reagan announced his SDI USSR just sent more money to shipyards and built a bunch more of nuclear submarines, that's it. After Bush's démarche Putin also did the same - ordered a bunch of warheads that make zigs and zags at reentry speed.
And if you are interested in why the USSR fell, it's not even because of economy. It was bad, but there was no hunger yet. It might have been, though, if the USSR was allowed to rot some more. But it never happened, and "the people" in the street were as surprised with these developments as anyone in the West. The real reason is that when Gorbachev wanted to liberalize economy he accidentally liberalized the political life, and there were plenty of opportunists waiting and ready to insert themselves into the corridors of power. That's what they did, and that's where all the independent republics got their leaders from. Russia got Yeltsin, and that was not even the worst outcome. Gorbachev saw it happening but wasn't ready to defend the old way. For that he was briefly detained, and the conspirators tried to involve the army to put the toothpaste back; it did not work. So that's how it happened, and I did not even need to talk to anyone to offer you this overview.
I went through two Nokia phones, and though the batteries were replaceable they cost almost as much as a new phone, so I never replaced the battery in either of them. Currently I have a Sanyo phone, and it also has a replaceable battery - but the battery is still good for a week in standby mode, and when it dies I am far more likely to just buy a new phone, given the prices and all.
we have an near endless supply of oxygen and water and dirt that is suitable to growing food.
There are scenarios in which a serious impact changes the weather so much that all fertile, arable soil will be under water or snow for many years. You can't grow anything in caves without artificial light. But the power grid is destroyed. So what do we do then? Most of the population will be dead long before the winter ends. In the USA, for example, cities like SF and LA will be mostly dead within a month or two from lack of food and water (specifically LA.) Armed gangs will take control of whatever little food is left in stores; the majority of the population will quickly starve to death unless more food can be delivered - and in case of an impact with global consequences "everyone for himself" will be the only law remaining.
There is a well known advice: "Don't sell what you can make; make what you can sell." Your advice (sell this, sell that) is counter to that. A software guy (even if not very familiar with dlopen()) can not sell stuff that is in the domain of slick salesdroids with shiny powerpoints. Your average geek can't just barge into a large company, run to the CEO and sell him on his support scheme. A software guy can only write a program, make a demo download, and sell the software on the web. He can't sell support, and it's also obvious that he can't provide that support either (just think about what it takes.) And if he is willing to sell consulting services, he'd be better off just working as a hired consultant, his code or anyone's else.
There is one more important aspect. With software you write it once (ignoring maintenance for the moment) and sell it forever (or for some time.) In other words, you invest resources, and then you gather the profit. During the investing you work hard. During the gathering of gains you sit back and just watch your download counter on the Web site. A product is yours to sell (or license), it is a tangible good, it is something that you possess.
On the other hand, software as a service is not a product - it is a continuous performance, day after day. If you stop working you die from hunger and lose your house, so to say. There is no investment in a typical support house, but there is day to day activity that brings revenue. IMO this is a poor way to make money, but there are enough people who think otherwise.
However your offer combines the WORST parts of both worlds. The poor guy has to write a software first (to make an investment), but then he is not to enjoy the fruits of his labor but to switch to another business model - which does not require an investment to start with! I can open a company and support GIMP, for all I care - I don't need to write GIMP!
Find me a businessman who writes a program, open-sources it, and then supports it - and I will show you an idiot.
The value of the code is probably 90% to 99% of the value of the whole system, if we are talking about a small PC-like device. For example, you want to make a machine that automatically launches fireworks. You only need a single RS-232 interface to talk to the trigger box. The rest of the investment is in the software that defines when to launch, what to launch, and gives you the tools to compose the scenario and maybe even preview that. You can see that the software is the major part of the design, and opening it up would immediately make his business investment (time & knowledge) diluted among the copycats.
Humans make contracts - and rent rooms - for several thousand years, and during most of that time there was only very limited access to contract law, regulatory agencies or a judicial system. In 33 A.D., for example, if one money changer in the Temple cheats on another then they would have to resolve it amongst themselves, most likely; the king would not see them (there was no single king at the moment,) the priests would fine both, and mediation hadn't been invented yet - guilds started showing up only in middle ages, IIRC.
(because a rental company has bought up all the property in a particular area)
What weird area would that be, I wonder?
but in practical terms a landlord will be in a relative position of power in any such negotiation.
I don't know why you think so. If I talk to a salesman I don't consider him above me. I have a business offer, that's all. I'm not afraid of him. If he says no, it's his right, just as it is my right to say no. If we don't agree I will walk away, big deal.
It is often much easier for him go without a tenant than it is for you to go without somewhere to live.
Do not betray the fact that you never worked as a landlord. The ones that I know would laugh at this statement of yours. They spend 30% of their time sending reports to their bosses on how many units are rented and what are the prospects. If the number drops below a certain number they get kicked out - not that it's hard to find a replacement landlord these days... it's a largely unskilled job. Besides, you are free to return to him later and accept his offer, but he is not able to find you a week later and accept your offer. The renter has a tactical advantage.
You are just as free to try and renegotiate terms with the government.
I understand that you only restate your previous position, but your phrase is worth quoting:-)
Of course you do have another form of recourse with regard to government -- you do have a say in who makes up the government and what policies it pursues.
Huh? What country are you talking about here? Not the USA - the country of Compassionate Conservatives and Democrats Determined To Stop The War, I suppose? (I don't know what happens in.nz where you appear to be from; it could be a True Democracy for all I know.)
a government [...] still provides you with some means to renegotiate.
I would like to know some of them that still work. Soap, ballot and jury boxes have been tried to no effect. The last box is scary, and is not likely to help either. Got other ideas?
A government isn't inherently evil anymore than a landlord is.
A government has more control over you, including control that you personally haven't permitted the government to have - since you haven't signed any papers to that effect after you were born. Contracts with landlords are signed by you, and should be to mutual benefit of both parties, and they can be dissolved when they are no longer interesting. You can't dissolve a "contract" with your government, and this gives the government more chances to affect your life against your wishes.
Unless you left it on a beach at low tide, and returned to pick it up a day or two later. Or you lost it in a forest. Or you just don't know where you lost it.
feel free to get property in a location not controlled by that government
This may work in an abstract, theoretical discussion - but in practical terms it is not even nearly as feasible as walking into a next house for rent, probably just next door.
No wait, the other way around: if you want to rent property that the landlord owns, you accept the terms he's offering, or look elsewhere.
That is simply incorrect. You and the landlord are equals, and you have as much right to change the contract as he has. You may not know it, but that's how it is. If the landlord wants your money he will accept your changes; you may for example opt out of some services, like clubhouse access or gym or parking or TV. Similarly, if you don't like his contract you will walk away. Deals between private parties can be anything they like, as long as it is not illegal. None of that is true when you deal with the government - you aren't signing any contracts with the government, and you have no practical offer (unless you emigrate.)
Modern CPUs are far more power-efficient than old P3 designs, and they save power very well. P3M was, at best, capable of SpeedStep 2.1, which was a binary "fast-slow" mode. The current SpeedStep is at rev. 3.2 and can smoothly change both the clock frequency and the core voltage.
If you prefer old computers to have fun with, nobody is going to force you. For business use, however, buying an old computer is rarely a great idea; you want a computer that has been tested with modern OSes, has all the drivers, and can run all the necessary software. For example, I had an old desktop box that was so slow it could not show large pictures in MS Word documents (they are lazily rendered.) I replaced the box with a modern one, and everything is fine.
By that logic you should buy a standard desktop because it costs even less, and does even more. What you missed is portability, weight and instant-on, as if none of that has any value.
Yes, there are laptops, and I have a small Sony Vaio TX-750P. It is overdesigned for what I am using it for; the screen is brittle, and the fan runs whenever you move a mouse. And it costs about $2,300 though you can get it for somewhat less than that.
This laptop is so fragile, and so expensive, I would not even consider using it on the road. It won't survive the travel. If Palm's device is more rugged I'd get one easily. All I need is access to email and Web, and ability to read text files (ebooks) and occasionally type simple documents. Instant-on is far more important to me than the ability to run MS Word, since the laptop is too small for any serious wordprocessing. As result, I don't need a "faster CPU" because laptops are never as fast as desktops (except gaming laptops, which is something else completely.)
And to comment on your question why people keep designing mini-notebooks - because they are cool, and they are even useful if you know what to do with them. Every day they become more and more useful because more and more services are available over the network; gone are the days when you had to run your own sales database (FoxPro, for example) on each laptop - now you just connect to server. Wireless and Internet make the mini-notebooks useful and practical; a few years ago that was not the case, and it killed several of such designs.
Why do the majority of artists still look to "get signed" if life is so much rosier without the record labels?
Artists are not always rebels. You, as an artist, have a choice:
Sign on the dotted line and be promoted and sold, become famous.
Do not sign, and have your career either self-destruct (usually for better of us all) or have its knees broken by the hired critics and privately owned media networks.
You still can become famous, but you'd better be very good at what you do, and know it. Most artists, however, are unsure in their own skills (some - with a good reason) and for them it makes plenty of sense to hire a promoter (the RIAA) - it costs some, but also brings some cash in, and makes the musicians better known - the fame is what many of them want the most. RIAA lets the musicians to work fast, and to live fast by plugging them into the existing entertainment conveyor. If you and me decide to perform a musical piece, how many phone calls do you think it will take to arrange even for a lowliest venue, which nobody will ever learn about? RIAA is a convenient tool for many.
There are many problems with your position, but let's mention only one: what makes you think that the green power should be (or is) more expensive?
The investment into the hardware (wind farms here) is not any more challenging than constructing a huge gas- or coal-burning plant, with its high pressure steam pipes and turbines. And once you build the farm you just sit back and sell the power, since it requires no effort from you to keep it supplied with coal or gas. But this service is sold as more expensive, only on the say-so of the seller. I refuse to believe such a seller. If the price were to be lower than the non-green electrons then there would be no reason for me to look into the horse's mouth.
But I am not surprised that you, and another poster, declared that you would pay. The marketing people at my power company calculated correctly that there would be a certain %% of people of idealistic persuasion that would pay more for the same service, no questions asked. You are a living proof of that.
But you say "it's not the same service!" - it is, on my end. Same voltage, same frequency, same current - then it is the same service. You know how the test on being a duck works, right?
And if you say "but it's different on the other end" I say that I have no way to verify that, not even close, with each and every power producer privatized and saying nothing. Even if a power company opens a part of their books to me, how can I tell anything about what they are doing without hiring a professional accounting team?
But there is a solution, of course, and other posters already mentioned what it is. Make water, air and other natural resources private and owned overnight by the whole population of the country. Any factory needs to purchase "pollution credits" from us, and these monies go directly to the pockets of us, owners of the air and the water. Even car owners can be subject to that fee, and if everyone drives equally then what I pay would be compensated by what others pay to me. If I have a larger car I'd have to pay more.
This is the market-compatible way to fix the problem. However the catch is that once the government starts charging the pollution tax it will be likely used for the government needs, such as wars, and not necessarily for distribution back to citizens who, after all, own the resource. It's not hopeless, though, because there are examples of, for example, oil profits paid back to the citizens who live on the territory.
Until clean and green, renewable energy sources become cheaper (to everyone!) the market will be choosing the dirty energy. It does not even matter what lowly home consumers choose, since a great deal of energy is consumed by the industry - any industry, from aluminum plants to food transportation trucks to newspaper delivery people. The industry burns most of the country's energy for you and me, so that we can have our food in restaurants, and our goods in stores, and our streets illuminated at night, and our telephones working, and so on. The industry bosses are not only inclined to buy the cheapest - they are required by law to buy the cheapest, or else the shareholders will fire such a boss. To get the support for green energy from the industry you must make the green energy cheaper than the alternatives.
The keyfob never leaves my pocket or my bag. One of my bags has an internal strap for keys, and I connect the keyring to it (usually when I travel.) Only if the battery in the fob is dead then you have to use a mechanical key (inside the keyfob) to open the door, and then you shove the fob into a slot on the dashboard. The slot then provides power to the fob and the car starts.
But in general - yes, you can damage your electronic key, or lose it just as easily as a mechanical key. The solutions to that are identical - call your home and have someone bring a spare key, then order a replacement key or fob.
And on subject of relative reliability of mechanical keys vs. electronic ones, I lived in cold climate for many years, and frozen door locks are something you prepare for - when ice prevents you from shoving the key in. There are pocket heaters, key-sized, that you can use to melt the ice just enough to insert the key. I'd rather use a wireless interface than a mechanical key; at least the power lock is inside the door, free from ice and well oiled, so the only concern that you may have left is that the door is ice-bound to the chassis of the car:-) that happened to my friend after he washed a car (indoors) and then went home at about 0 degrees outside. When he arrived home he couldn't open any door:-)
Had a keyfob die while not at home (or at the dealer, go figure). No way to open the car without setting off the alarm.
I guess the alarm works as advertised. No keyfob - no silent entry. How else the car can recognize you?
My car has no alarm; I leave no valuables there, and the car won't go anywhere without a keyfob, and the keyfob will work even if the battery in it is dead.
And that is because ST was never centered around guns and warfare. ST:TNG especially was as pacifist as it could possibly be, and the weapons were the plot devices of last resort, and even then they were "set on stun" so that nobody's feelings are harmed. Most of the conflicts, or challenges, or battles were won by ingenuity and tactics and science rather than by application of a larger BFG that the opponent had.
think 'buy this product now, it uses less energy, is cheaper to use/maintain/recycle/etc.
The power producer that I buy electricity from sends these enticements, and they are worded like this:
"Buy green power, it only costs you xx% more - sign here, and we will charge you accordingly."
Now, who in his right mind will sign there to pay more for the same service as before? If you accept the true market rules you will buy from the lowest priced seller.
(The Mercedes folks got me scratching my head. I guess they're in hock up the ass to buy their car so they have to scrimp everywhere else.)
I used to own a Mercedes until two years ago; it is cheap to buy, but you'd be lucky to get as high as 12 mpg. The fuel tank is large. So if you own a 20th century car your fuel expenses quickly exceed the cost of the car, and because of that everyday savings on the fuel really help.
Of course, my current car does 55 mpg, so I buy gas rarely, and without checking the price. I have a Costco store nearby, and it has a large gas station, but I never go there.
I understand - God can't make a copy of himself. Then He is not omnipotent as we define that word. I don't need to know why, but your explanation looks like God's Makers made it so that "there cannot be two" in this "metaphysical room". I wonder what happens in other metaphysical rooms, but probably our local God doesn't know that either.
But I checked the other answers to the original question, and found that they answer it by redefining words. That's a non-answer in my book. But that's the only way people can still use the word.
You can't take the parts of the Bible you like and ignore the rest.
You must be kidding - the whole religion is based on selective quoting.
God cannot make a mistake unless he wants to make one.
In other words, God knew all the time that Eve will fail because He intentionally built her this way, fallible. Then why all the fuss? She performed as designed.
But if God did not know how she will perform, then He is not omniscient, regardless of his creative intent.
Is God omniscient or not? If He is then He indeed set her up, giving her no choice in the matter, and likely intentionally building her to succumb to the sin, unless God is not omnipotent either.
Slashdot Mirror
I do not know how the SDI was sold and what it was meant to do; others may know that. I only can specifically comment on what it didn't achieve. Many posters, as I see, are quite convinced that USSR was developing its own SDI, and I only indicate that it wasn't so.
Your theory is fine, and your friends are entitled to their own views; however USSR never "tried" to make its own Star Wars hardware. USSR's ABM efforts were identical to USA's work and resulted in the ABM-limiting treaty that stood for decades, until Bush tore it up. The reason is that USSR's scientists did some calculations on a napkin and concluded, correctly, that it's impossible to build such a system at this time that would actually work (1000's US's missiles flying in and 100% intercept.) It's still impossible, decades later. Given the number of missiles that both camps had, the system indeed had to have very impressive reliability, or else it would be complete waste of money. So USSR never built one. After Reagan announced his SDI USSR just sent more money to shipyards and built a bunch more of nuclear submarines, that's it. After Bush's démarche Putin also did the same - ordered a bunch of warheads that make zigs and zags at reentry speed.
And if you are interested in why the USSR fell, it's not even because of economy. It was bad, but there was no hunger yet. It might have been, though, if the USSR was allowed to rot some more. But it never happened, and "the people" in the street were as surprised with these developments as anyone in the West. The real reason is that when Gorbachev wanted to liberalize economy he accidentally liberalized the political life, and there were plenty of opportunists waiting and ready to insert themselves into the corridors of power. That's what they did, and that's where all the independent republics got their leaders from. Russia got Yeltsin, and that was not even the worst outcome. Gorbachev saw it happening but wasn't ready to defend the old way. For that he was briefly detained, and the conspirators tried to involve the army to put the toothpaste back; it did not work. So that's how it happened, and I did not even need to talk to anyone to offer you this overview.
I went through two Nokia phones, and though the batteries were replaceable they cost almost as much as a new phone, so I never replaced the battery in either of them. Currently I have a Sanyo phone, and it also has a replaceable battery - but the battery is still good for a week in standby mode, and when it dies I am far more likely to just buy a new phone, given the prices and all.
There are scenarios in which a serious impact changes the weather so much that all fertile, arable soil will be under water or snow for many years. You can't grow anything in caves without artificial light. But the power grid is destroyed. So what do we do then? Most of the population will be dead long before the winter ends. In the USA, for example, cities like SF and LA will be mostly dead within a month or two from lack of food and water (specifically LA.) Armed gangs will take control of whatever little food is left in stores; the majority of the population will quickly starve to death unless more food can be delivered - and in case of an impact with global consequences "everyone for himself" will be the only law remaining.
There is one more important aspect. With software you write it once (ignoring maintenance for the moment) and sell it forever (or for some time.) In other words, you invest resources, and then you gather the profit. During the investing you work hard. During the gathering of gains you sit back and just watch your download counter on the Web site. A product is yours to sell (or license), it is a tangible good, it is something that you possess.
On the other hand, software as a service is not a product - it is a continuous performance, day after day. If you stop working you die from hunger and lose your house, so to say. There is no investment in a typical support house, but there is day to day activity that brings revenue. IMO this is a poor way to make money, but there are enough people who think otherwise.
However your offer combines the WORST parts of both worlds. The poor guy has to write a software first (to make an investment), but then he is not to enjoy the fruits of his labor but to switch to another business model - which does not require an investment to start with! I can open a company and support GIMP, for all I care - I don't need to write GIMP!
Find me a businessman who writes a program, open-sources it, and then supports it - and I will show you an idiot.
The value of the code is probably 90% to 99% of the value of the whole system, if we are talking about a small PC-like device. For example, you want to make a machine that automatically launches fireworks. You only need a single RS-232 interface to talk to the trigger box. The rest of the investment is in the software that defines when to launch, what to launch, and gives you the tools to compose the scenario and maybe even preview that. You can see that the software is the major part of the design, and opening it up would immediately make his business investment (time & knowledge) diluted among the copycats.
Humans make contracts - and rent rooms - for several thousand years, and during most of that time there was only very limited access to contract law, regulatory agencies or a judicial system. In 33 A.D., for example, if one money changer in the Temple cheats on another then they would have to resolve it amongst themselves, most likely; the king would not see them (there was no single king at the moment,) the priests would fine both, and mediation hadn't been invented yet - guilds started showing up only in middle ages, IIRC.
What weird area would that be, I wonder?
but in practical terms a landlord will be in a relative position of power in any such negotiation.
I don't know why you think so. If I talk to a salesman I don't consider him above me. I have a business offer, that's all. I'm not afraid of him. If he says no, it's his right, just as it is my right to say no. If we don't agree I will walk away, big deal.
It is often much easier for him go without a tenant than it is for you to go without somewhere to live.
Do not betray the fact that you never worked as a landlord. The ones that I know would laugh at this statement of yours. They spend 30% of their time sending reports to their bosses on how many units are rented and what are the prospects. If the number drops below a certain number they get kicked out - not that it's hard to find a replacement landlord these days... it's a largely unskilled job. Besides, you are free to return to him later and accept his offer, but he is not able to find you a week later and accept your offer. The renter has a tactical advantage.
You are just as free to try and renegotiate terms with the government.
I understand that you only restate your previous position, but your phrase is worth quoting :-)
Of course you do have another form of recourse with regard to government -- you do have a say in who makes up the government and what policies it pursues.
Huh? What country are you talking about here? Not the USA - the country of Compassionate Conservatives and Democrats Determined To Stop The War, I suppose? (I don't know what happens in .nz where you appear to be from; it could be a True Democracy for all I know.)
a government [...] still provides you with some means to renegotiate.
I would like to know some of them that still work. Soap, ballot and jury boxes have been tried to no effect. The last box is scary, and is not likely to help either. Got other ideas?
A government isn't inherently evil anymore than a landlord is.
A government has more control over you, including control that you personally haven't permitted the government to have - since you haven't signed any papers to that effect after you were born. Contracts with landlords are signed by you, and should be to mutual benefit of both parties, and they can be dissolved when they are no longer interesting. You can't dissolve a "contract" with your government, and this gives the government more chances to affect your life against your wishes.
Unless you left it on a beach at low tide, and returned to pick it up a day or two later. Or you lost it in a forest. Or you just don't know where you lost it.
Unfortunately, the condensate with molar mass of 46.07 g/mol will be immediately drank.
This may work in an abstract, theoretical discussion - but in practical terms it is not even nearly as feasible as walking into a next house for rent, probably just next door.
No wait, the other way around: if you want to rent property that the landlord owns, you accept the terms he's offering, or look elsewhere.
That is simply incorrect. You and the landlord are equals, and you have as much right to change the contract as he has. You may not know it, but that's how it is. If the landlord wants your money he will accept your changes; you may for example opt out of some services, like clubhouse access or gym or parking or TV. Similarly, if you don't like his contract you will walk away. Deals between private parties can be anything they like, as long as it is not illegal. None of that is true when you deal with the government - you aren't signing any contracts with the government, and you have no practical offer (unless you emigrate.)
If you prefer old computers to have fun with, nobody is going to force you. For business use, however, buying an old computer is rarely a great idea; you want a computer that has been tested with modern OSes, has all the drivers, and can run all the necessary software. For example, I had an old desktop box that was so slow it could not show large pictures in MS Word documents (they are lazily rendered.) I replaced the box with a modern one, and everything is fine.
You did notice that these are obsolete, refurbished computers that are probably no longer supported?
By that logic you should buy a standard desktop because it costs even less, and does even more. What you missed is portability, weight and instant-on, as if none of that has any value.
This laptop is so fragile, and so expensive, I would not even consider using it on the road. It won't survive the travel. If Palm's device is more rugged I'd get one easily. All I need is access to email and Web, and ability to read text files (ebooks) and occasionally type simple documents. Instant-on is far more important to me than the ability to run MS Word, since the laptop is too small for any serious wordprocessing. As result, I don't need a "faster CPU" because laptops are never as fast as desktops (except gaming laptops, which is something else completely.)
And to comment on your question why people keep designing mini-notebooks - because they are cool, and they are even useful if you know what to do with them. Every day they become more and more useful because more and more services are available over the network; gone are the days when you had to run your own sales database (FoxPro, for example) on each laptop - now you just connect to server. Wireless and Internet make the mini-notebooks useful and practical; a few years ago that was not the case, and it killed several of such designs.
Artists are not always rebels. You, as an artist, have a choice:
You still can become famous, but you'd better be very good at what you do, and know it. Most artists, however, are unsure in their own skills (some - with a good reason) and for them it makes plenty of sense to hire a promoter (the RIAA) - it costs some, but also brings some cash in, and makes the musicians better known - the fame is what many of them want the most. RIAA lets the musicians to work fast, and to live fast by plugging them into the existing entertainment conveyor. If you and me decide to perform a musical piece, how many phone calls do you think it will take to arrange even for a lowliest venue, which nobody will ever learn about? RIAA is a convenient tool for many.
The investment into the hardware (wind farms here) is not any more challenging than constructing a huge gas- or coal-burning plant, with its high pressure steam pipes and turbines. And once you build the farm you just sit back and sell the power, since it requires no effort from you to keep it supplied with coal or gas. But this service is sold as more expensive, only on the say-so of the seller. I refuse to believe such a seller. If the price were to be lower than the non-green electrons then there would be no reason for me to look into the horse's mouth.
But I am not surprised that you, and another poster, declared that you would pay. The marketing people at my power company calculated correctly that there would be a certain %% of people of idealistic persuasion that would pay more for the same service, no questions asked. You are a living proof of that.
But you say "it's not the same service!" - it is, on my end. Same voltage, same frequency, same current - then it is the same service. You know how the test on being a duck works, right?
And if you say "but it's different on the other end" I say that I have no way to verify that, not even close, with each and every power producer privatized and saying nothing. Even if a power company opens a part of their books to me, how can I tell anything about what they are doing without hiring a professional accounting team?
But there is a solution, of course, and other posters already mentioned what it is. Make water, air and other natural resources private and owned overnight by the whole population of the country. Any factory needs to purchase "pollution credits" from us, and these monies go directly to the pockets of us, owners of the air and the water. Even car owners can be subject to that fee, and if everyone drives equally then what I pay would be compensated by what others pay to me. If I have a larger car I'd have to pay more.
This is the market-compatible way to fix the problem. However the catch is that once the government starts charging the pollution tax it will be likely used for the government needs, such as wars, and not necessarily for distribution back to citizens who, after all, own the resource. It's not hopeless, though, because there are examples of, for example, oil profits paid back to the citizens who live on the territory.
Until clean and green, renewable energy sources become cheaper (to everyone!) the market will be choosing the dirty energy. It does not even matter what lowly home consumers choose, since a great deal of energy is consumed by the industry - any industry, from aluminum plants to food transportation trucks to newspaper delivery people. The industry burns most of the country's energy for you and me, so that we can have our food in restaurants, and our goods in stores, and our streets illuminated at night, and our telephones working, and so on. The industry bosses are not only inclined to buy the cheapest - they are required by law to buy the cheapest, or else the shareholders will fire such a boss. To get the support for green energy from the industry you must make the green energy cheaper than the alternatives.
But in general - yes, you can damage your electronic key, or lose it just as easily as a mechanical key. The solutions to that are identical - call your home and have someone bring a spare key, then order a replacement key or fob.
And on subject of relative reliability of mechanical keys vs. electronic ones, I lived in cold climate for many years, and frozen door locks are something you prepare for - when ice prevents you from shoving the key in. There are pocket heaters, key-sized, that you can use to melt the ice just enough to insert the key. I'd rather use a wireless interface than a mechanical key; at least the power lock is inside the door, free from ice and well oiled, so the only concern that you may have left is that the door is ice-bound to the chassis of the car :-) that happened to my friend after he washed a car (indoors) and then went home at about 0 degrees outside. When he arrived home he couldn't open any door :-)
I guess the alarm works as advertised. No keyfob - no silent entry. How else the car can recognize you?
My car has no alarm; I leave no valuables there, and the car won't go anywhere without a keyfob, and the keyfob will work even if the battery in it is dead.
And that is because ST was never centered around guns and warfare. ST:TNG especially was as pacifist as it could possibly be, and the weapons were the plot devices of last resort, and even then they were "set on stun" so that nobody's feelings are harmed. Most of the conflicts, or challenges, or battles were won by ingenuity and tactics and science rather than by application of a larger BFG that the opponent had.
The power producer that I buy electricity from sends these enticements, and they are worded like this:
"Buy green power, it only costs you xx% more - sign here, and we will charge you accordingly."
Now, who in his right mind will sign there to pay more for the same service as before? If you accept the true market rules you will buy from the lowest priced seller.
I used to own a Mercedes until two years ago; it is cheap to buy, but you'd be lucky to get as high as 12 mpg. The fuel tank is large. So if you own a 20th century car your fuel expenses quickly exceed the cost of the car, and because of that everyday savings on the fuel really help.
Of course, my current car does 55 mpg, so I buy gas rarely, and without checking the price. I have a Costco store nearby, and it has a large gas station, but I never go there.
Oh, now I understand, thanks! I'll be in the next room if you need me :-)
But I checked the other answers to the original question, and found that they answer it by redefining words. That's a non-answer in my book. But that's the only way people can still use the word.
You must be kidding - the whole religion is based on selective quoting.
God cannot make a mistake unless he wants to make one.
In other words, God knew all the time that Eve will fail because He intentionally built her this way, fallible. Then why all the fuss? She performed as designed.
But if God did not know how she will perform, then He is not omniscient, regardless of his creative intent.
Is God omniscient or not? If He is then He indeed set her up, giving her no choice in the matter, and likely intentionally building her to succumb to the sin, unless God is not omnipotent either.