Yea. Sounds like you failed econ 101.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The free market only works when costs of fixing an issue are lower than costs of ignoring it.
IE "Zero transaction costs"
Also me buying a more efficient charger is a lot less cost effective than Samsung and the rest of the industry buying their efficient chargers
IE "Non-increasing returns to scale"
Also that I want to save money on my electric bill. We all know the stupid's "rolling coal" will not be doing that. I assume you may be one of them
IE "Rational buyers"
Also that there is no environmental damage or other externalities, such as power grid transmission congestion or general environmental damage, or ffs global warming
IE "No externalities"
Sounds like you should understand what a "free market" is and does.
I would never purchase said car. But others, most likely the stupid, would be willing to. That is their problem. Conversely if I was the paranoid type and thought that bad people were out to get me. I may want that feature. IE if the car had been tampered with it may be of value to me to not let the vehicle start at,all. If a fool buys a product with features they do not want or need, they are the fool not the producer.
I am not a fan of Apple by any means but "If you can't open it, do you really own it?" Is a nonsense question. In my time I have been in possession of several devices that if I tried to open them, they would self destruct. That was the intent, and that intent was fair and a very valuable feature. Apple is fair to build in this feature, and it could be very valuable to the right crowd. BUT the problem is that that the sheeple are buying IPhones without any clue about their functionality. That is a problem with the sheeple not with Apple.
"You can't have it both ways. And you don't get to whine if people stop buying your products because they can't trust you anymore."
No but we get to call you stupid if you think that any of the competing products is not just as, if not more compromised. A) The US has the reach to compromise ANY manufacturer in the world. and B) You add the any local nations government to the list.
But American you get snooped on the US, buy Chinese you get snooped on by the US and the Chinese, buy EU get snooped on by the US, Chinese, and the EU.
Which do you prefer?
$1000 says they have. Do you really think people are posting articles about truly secret stuff? No. There are reasons why various Russian services have stopped using computers for various sensitive materials.
"Spying is not about having backdoors in hardware you produce in your own country. It's about getting those into foreign countries, foreign hardware, and about defeating encryptions that you're NOT already in control of."
And you think they are not doing that as well? lol. They are doing their job and hitting every nail. Even the American made ones.
No. No one is hiding anything. Assume EVERYTHING you eat that is not labled GMO-Free is GMO in some way shape or form. If you want to be paranoid that's your own purview. If you want food that is organic look for the organic label. If you want kosher look for the kosher label, If you want GMO-Free look for the GMO-Free label. The government is not in the business of enforcing your religious standards.
Factually incorrect. There have been boatloads of research into the safety of various GMO products. The hippies have been pouring over the studies for a long long time trying and trying to find anything they can use. They have failed. That is the best evidence possible.
No its still bundling. Just smaller bundling. If I want GOT and Hannibal and I can have two services. One provides GOT and The Black List while the other provides Hannibal and The Black List I still have a imperfect bundle situation. "a la carte" is if I had one services that provides all three but I can pick which ones I pay for.
The United States Supreme Court has offered the following guidelines to distinguish employees from independent contractors:
1. The extent to which services are integral to the employer's business. Greater integration favors an employee-employer relationship.
2. The permanence of the relationship. More established relationships favor employee status.
3. The amount of investment in equipment. More investment suggests an independent contractor relationship.
4. The degree of control by the principal. More control favors employee-employer status.
5. The amount of financial risk. More opportunity for profit or loss favors an independent contractor relationship.
6. The amount of initiative, judgment or foresight in open-market competition with others required for the success of the claimed independent enterprise. Entrepreneurial and distinctive work favors an independent contractor relationship.
Hitting ONE out of 6 is very unlikely to qualify uber drivers as employees (#1). Particularly in the face of very strong counter bullets (#2 , #3, #4)
this is something for the courts to decide. I am very pro employee and contractor protection, but the legal distinction is not arbitrary. Your instance that YOU absolutely know for sure shows great hubris.
I am semi neutral on the gun control issue but your argument is exceptionally weak. The reason why you don’t see major political issues on those other areas is because society as a whole welcomed common sense laws on those issues many many years ago. lead paint? Check. Cross walks for kids? Check. Removal of many exceptionally toxic chemicals from every day cleaners ? check. Mandatory locks on guns etc? No check.
There is no need to write special code to detect an emissions test.
Just because you are not creative enough to think of a valid reason does not mean the rest of the world is unable to.
not-a-secret decision to not install a urea injection system.
they don't work by themselves and never talk to others
These are teams they talk mostly internally. The drive mode switching team could very plausibly have no idea what a urea injection system is, let alone being aware of a design decision.
Plus there appears to be evidence that the engineers were WELL aware of the problem because when it first came up they engaged in all sorts of delaying tactics.
I have no idea if they did or did not. Nor do I care. I am just pointing out that it is in fact VERY easy to hide critical actions like this in large organizations with very specialized teams.
No “they” didn’t. One team wrote code to detect an emissions test. One team wrote code for a new emissions heavy efficiency high mode. One team wrote code to switch between emissions tests. One dude with a beard added if( TRUE === emissionsTest ) { mode = MODE_X43_Y;} Thats all it took.
Woordward was famous for the precise reason you are full of shit. He was one of the few who did get access to some level of secret information. The RARITY is why it was a BIG DEAL. As you've jumped the boat on name calling. Clearly you are not a security professional nor do you even interact with them. Child you are talking about things you just do not understand.
Just because you walk onto the field in the all star MLB game does not mean you actually are competent enough to truly be there. .
At best when this situation arises the news agencies are children playing in a professional league of a game they do not even understand or know that is going on.
If anyone gives confidential, secret, top secret etc they are personally responsible for that information being COMPLETELY breached.
Doing so could still be considered a worthwhile whistle blow, but you go into the situation knowing that you are personally, morally and legally responsible for exposing the whole worth to the information. Denying this a child's lie.
" My main point was this: if the press deals with top secret information all the time (and very definitely get away with it), why are THEY not facing charges and prison time, along with the Washington insiders who leak to them?"
No they dont. and No they dont. Above I let you pretend that News agencies get exposed to top secret information often. That is simply not true (luckily) The average reporter in their lifetime will never get access top secret information. A more valid estimate would be something like maybe 2 or 3 a decade. They do get ahold of information which is considered secret and confidential a bit more than that.
Also when the authorities do find about this heads do, and should roll. Some do unfortunately get away with it, but it is not, nor should that be the standard.
I have news for you. They get given leaks at a somewhat frequent rate. But to use your own term.. They are NOT HANDLED. Just because there is not a damn media shit storm about the data, does not mean that our adversaries did not get ahold of the information. Shit I could wave hello to the security professionals that run the operations at the Times, AP and several other organizations, and they simple are not qualified to setup such an environment which could handle that kind of information. They would gladly tell you themselves that their operations are not hardened to handle it.
Sorry for the re-post. I responded to my own parent post.
News agencies are not qualified to handle any kind of sensitive information. They do not have the training, they do not have the equipment, they do not have the personnel they do not have the resources. You think just because OMGZ he gave them an encrypted file OMGZ. That the data was secure? Not a chance in hell. The moment that those files were compromised, almost ALL hostile nations had FULL access to the contents.
You are absolutely morally and legally responsible if you give crazy old grandma a gun and let here loose in a shopping mall. WHEN NOT IF things go terrible it IS YOUR FAULT. THE MEDIA IS NOT, I REPEAT NOT QUALIFIED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM TO DO ANYTHING WITH INFORMATION EVEN CLOSE TO SECRET.
News agencies are not qualified to handle any kind of sensitive information. They do not have the training, they do not have the equipment, they do not have the personnel they do not have the resources. You think just because OMGZ he gave them an encrypted file OMGZ. That the data was secure? Not a chance in hell. The moment that those files were compromised, almost ALL hostile nations had FULL access to the contents.
You are absolutely morally and legally responsible if you give crazy old grandma a gun and let here loose in a shopping mall. WHEN NOT IF things go terrible it IS YOUR FAULT. THE MEDIA IS NOT, I REPEAT NOT QUALIFIED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM TO DO ANYTHING WITH INFORMATION EVEN CLOSE TO SECRET.
"Luckily for the world, your paranoid fantasies do not match reality. Disclosing to a reliable media source is the time-honored way of responsibly reporting government malfeasance. In your fantasy world where a responsible press does not exist then there is no way for the press to act as a check on the government because only "stupid fools" would trust the press."
Have you learned nothing from this whole situation. Everything you do is being watched and monitored. Are you being willfully ignorant or just enjoy your childlike innocence ? The US intelligence services without a question monitor all major media channels both internal and foreign......and guess what? So do the Russians and Chinese and to the best of their ability any and every other nation on this planet. We are not the only ones in this game and its beyond pathetic to think its that one sided that only the US has the resources to monitor these things.
Dont be silly and try and twist my words into pretending they support you. We both know that is a fabrication and I have no intention but to speak my honest opinion. Yes in the face of crimes a patriots blood will be spilled. But that is exactly what is NOT happening. Manning nor Snowden really revealed anything to the common man. Everyone who did not have their head up their own ass assumed/knew these programs were already in place. Many people are just behaving all upset kind like a "40 year old man who its all huffy because someone told him Santa Clause is not real". Anyone and everyone should have already known better. If you were surprised...the joke is on you.
"If you were a soldier and you witnessed flagrant war crimes and violations of the Constitution by your superiors, what would you do? Would you uphold your oath [about.com] to support and defend the Constitution by "stupidly and foolishly" "
If there was something meaningful to fight I would gladly do so at all personal cost. But again that is not at all what has happened here. You hear that silence on the issue? Did you notice the lack of people storming the streets in protest? You notice the lack of change on this issue? You notice the complacency of the American population? You notice the Supreme court signing off on these actions? All these realities are the sound of society stomping down on you, you on the fringe. As final proof of this, I dare you and any one else to try and take real action against these polices. Try and steal more these kind of documents and release them. You will find yourself in a box without any hope of society freeing you. You and I both know this is true and this is the final proof of our society supporting these policies.
Interesting point. But giving those documents to the media is tantamount to giving it to the world any fool would know that. You would have to be mind numbingly stupid to not know that all hostile nations would instantly have access to the full list of documents if you give them to ANY media source. But even given that you could still have the opinion that it was worth it. And it is fair to have that opinion.
But that opinion surmounts to a "its worth it to toss the baby out with the bath water" . The question becomes is it really that bad? Are the intelligence services really that corrupt that it is better to completely negate any secrecy these agencies have, than so allow them to continue their operation? That is a judgement call we all have to make.
My personal answer is no, and that any one who acts on that is too far gone and that they need criminally punished. And that is the judgment call we as a society have made.
There will always be someone on the fringe yelling that we have torch this place and start anew. Laws are in place so that, that fringe element is not allowed to run amok.
Glad to see someone "from the other side" engaging in honest discourse. I'll start out with saying I do not have all the answers but the general situation is that even as a collective we do not have the exact answers the cost of inaction is estimated to be VASTLY larger than the cost of action. (A ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure)
1)
1a) I am unaware of any studies about the optimum planetary temperature. But there are several other points which would likely entierly negate any benafitfrom "re calibrating"
1aa)Massive calibration costs. Society has spent many hundreds of years with the climate relatively stable. The costs of adjusting to a slightly different (even slightly more optimal) situation. New Orleans is a prime example, as stupid as it may have been to build a city with much of its land subject to such major fluds, moving the whole city now is not exactly a cheap prospect. Multiply this by millions to to get an estimate of how much it would cost to adapt to significant sea level changes.
1ab) Who's to say the the optimum is not lower?
1ac) The best counter point is that the best science aviliable suggests that it will not be a "modest change" It will be a fright train and we have no idea where it will stop.
1b) There are two main ideas for reducing global warming. Cap and trade, and a carbon fee. There are ways to combine these and other methods to best optimize for the "unknown" exact amount. Any way most in the environmentalist camp... I guess I would consider myself in it situation....would be happy with the LOWEST POSSIBLE ESTIMATE. The estimates are so very high and dire that even adapting to the lowest possible estimate (while having some valid research behind it) would be a massive step and a place most would be happy to start with
1c) Yes people will die. If we find 1b) and apply it, a free marketer would estimate the correct number of people would die.
1d) This is more a political issue. But if you were to take bare minimum reasonable actions, it is reasonable to assume that everyone who "puts in" by "cutting emissions" would get more back via cost savings to make it worth while for everyone.
2) The cost of taxing or capping and trading on the oil production itself would be low ish if we it directly at the resource production level. The costs would be spread out into the industry as a whole as economics dictate. The overhead of taxation really is not that huge. And from the estimates I have seen for the cost per KG of carbon (in environmental damage) would far far outweigh the overhead.
3) Yes a global agreement could be a problem. But..... As much as we talk about global warming as a GLOBAL problem. It is also a local problem. The effects of these emissions are much more intense in the immediate area.
Economists have studied this rather intensively. Just to give a taste if you are in the relative vicinity of a major carbon source. Your walls need to be painted more often, your car breaks down quicker and you are less healthy. Economists have put a lot of effort into modeling this and they do have values for this.
If you account for these local costs, each individual nation should already be taking MASSIVE steps to curb pollution.
In short the details you want, while theoretically important, only would become relevant in a much more ideal situation. If we took the bare minimum steps to meet and deal with the bare minimum estimates from economists and climate change experts the effect of the details would by stunningly minor in comparison to what has already been achieved.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea. Sounds like you failed econ 101. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The free market only works when costs of fixing an issue are lower than costs of ignoring it. IE "Zero transaction costs" Also me buying a more efficient charger is a lot less cost effective than Samsung and the rest of the industry buying their efficient chargers IE "Non-increasing returns to scale" Also that I want to save money on my electric bill. We all know the stupid's "rolling coal" will not be doing that. I assume you may be one of them IE "Rational buyers" Also that there is no environmental damage or other externalities, such as power grid transmission congestion or general environmental damage, or ffs global warming IE "No externalities" Sounds like you should understand what a "free market" is and does.
I would never purchase said car. But others, most likely the stupid, would be willing to. That is their problem. Conversely if I was the paranoid type and thought that bad people were out to get me. I may want that feature. IE if the car had been tampered with it may be of value to me to not let the vehicle start at,all. If a fool buys a product with features they do not want or need, they are the fool not the producer.
I am not a fan of Apple by any means but "If you can't open it, do you really own it?" Is a nonsense question. In my time I have been in possession of several devices that if I tried to open them, they would self destruct. That was the intent, and that intent was fair and a very valuable feature. Apple is fair to build in this feature, and it could be very valuable to the right crowd. BUT the problem is that that the sheeple are buying IPhones without any clue about their functionality. That is a problem with the sheeple not with Apple.
"You can't have it both ways. And you don't get to whine if people stop buying your products because they can't trust you anymore." No but we get to call you stupid if you think that any of the competing products is not just as, if not more compromised. A) The US has the reach to compromise ANY manufacturer in the world. and B) You add the any local nations government to the list. But American you get snooped on the US, buy Chinese you get snooped on by the US and the Chinese, buy EU get snooped on by the US, Chinese, and the EU. Which do you prefer?
$1000 says they have. Do you really think people are posting articles about truly secret stuff? No. There are reasons why various Russian services have stopped using computers for various sensitive materials.
"Spying is not about having backdoors in hardware you produce in your own country. It's about getting those into foreign countries, foreign hardware, and about defeating encryptions that you're NOT already in control of." And you think they are not doing that as well? lol. They are doing their job and hitting every nail. Even the American made ones.
Good for you. IF someone wants to be a anti-gmo SJW they are free to pay more for food labeled GMO free. Thats fine and fair.
No. No one is hiding anything. Assume EVERYTHING you eat that is not labled GMO-Free is GMO in some way shape or form. If you want to be paranoid that's your own purview. If you want food that is organic look for the organic label. If you want kosher look for the kosher label, If you want GMO-Free look for the GMO-Free label. The government is not in the business of enforcing your religious standards.
Factually incorrect. There have been boatloads of research into the safety of various GMO products. The hippies have been pouring over the studies for a long long time trying and trying to find anything they can use. They have failed. That is the best evidence possible.
nt....
No its still bundling. Just smaller bundling. If I want GOT and Hannibal and I can have two services. One provides GOT and The Black List while the other provides Hannibal and The Black List I still have a imperfect bundle situation. "a la carte" is if I had one services that provides all three but I can pick which ones I pay for.
1. The extent to which services are integral to the employer's business. Greater integration favors an employee-employer relationship.
2. The permanence of the relationship. More established relationships favor employee status.
3. The amount of investment in equipment. More investment suggests an independent contractor relationship.
4. The degree of control by the principal. More control favors employee-employer status.
5. The amount of financial risk. More opportunity for profit or loss favors an independent contractor relationship.
6. The amount of initiative, judgment or foresight in open-market competition with others required for the success of the claimed independent enterprise. Entrepreneurial and distinctive work favors an independent contractor relationship.
Hitting ONE out of 6 is very unlikely to qualify uber drivers as employees (#1). Particularly in the face of very strong counter bullets (#2 , #3, #4)
this is something for the courts to decide. I am very pro employee and contractor protection, but the legal distinction is not arbitrary. Your instance that YOU absolutely know for sure shows great hubris.
I am semi neutral on the gun control issue but your argument is exceptionally weak. The reason why you don’t see major political issues on those other areas is because society as a whole welcomed common sense laws on those issues many many years ago. lead paint? Check. Cross walks for kids? Check. Removal of many exceptionally toxic chemicals from every day cleaners ? check. Mandatory locks on guns etc? No check.
Just because you are not creative enough to think of a valid reason does not mean the rest of the world is unable to.
not-a-secret decision to not install a urea injection system. they don't work by themselves and never talk to others
These are teams they talk mostly internally. The drive mode switching team could very plausibly have no idea what a urea injection system is, let alone being aware of a design decision.
Plus there appears to be evidence that the engineers were WELL aware of the problem because when it first came up they engaged in all sorts of delaying tactics.
I have no idea if they did or did not. Nor do I care. I am just pointing out that it is in fact VERY easy to hide critical actions like this in large organizations with very specialized teams.
No “they” didn’t. One team wrote code to detect an emissions test. One team wrote code for a new emissions heavy efficiency high mode. One team wrote code to switch between emissions tests. One dude with a beard added if( TRUE === emissionsTest ) { mode = MODE_X43_Y ;} Thats all it took.
Woordward was famous for the precise reason you are full of shit. He was one of the few who did get access to some level of secret information. The RARITY is why it was a BIG DEAL. As you've jumped the boat on name calling. Clearly you are not a security professional nor do you even interact with them. Child you are talking about things you just do not understand.
Just because you walk onto the field in the all star MLB game does not mean you actually are competent enough to truly be there. .
At best when this situation arises the news agencies are children playing in a professional league of a game they do not even understand or know that is going on.
If anyone gives confidential, secret, top secret etc they are personally responsible for that information being COMPLETELY breached.
Doing so could still be considered a worthwhile whistle blow, but you go into the situation knowing that you are personally, morally and legally responsible for exposing the whole worth to the information. Denying this a child's lie.
" My main point was this: if the press deals with top secret information all the time (and very definitely get away with it), why are THEY not facing charges and prison time, along with the Washington insiders who leak to them?"
No they dont. and No they dont. Above I let you pretend that News agencies get exposed to top secret information often. That is simply not true (luckily) The average reporter in their lifetime will never get access top secret information. A more valid estimate would be something like maybe 2 or 3 a decade. They do get ahold of information which is considered secret and confidential a bit more than that.
Also when the authorities do find about this heads do, and should roll. Some do unfortunately get away with it, but it is not, nor should that be the standard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby#Sentencing
I have news for you. They get given leaks at a somewhat frequent rate. But to use your own term.. They are NOT HANDLED. Just because there is not a damn media shit storm about the data, does not mean that our adversaries did not get ahold of the information. Shit I could wave hello to the security professionals that run the operations at the Times, AP and several other organizations, and they simple are not qualified to setup such an environment which could handle that kind of information. They would gladly tell you themselves that their operations are not hardened to handle it.
Sorry for the re-post. I responded to my own parent post. News agencies are not qualified to handle any kind of sensitive information. They do not have the training, they do not have the equipment, they do not have the personnel they do not have the resources. You think just because OMGZ he gave them an encrypted file OMGZ. That the data was secure? Not a chance in hell. The moment that those files were compromised, almost ALL hostile nations had FULL access to the contents. You are absolutely morally and legally responsible if you give crazy old grandma a gun and let here loose in a shopping mall. WHEN NOT IF things go terrible it IS YOUR FAULT. THE MEDIA IS NOT, I REPEAT NOT QUALIFIED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM TO DO ANYTHING WITH INFORMATION EVEN CLOSE TO SECRET.
You are absolutely morally and legally responsible if you give crazy old grandma a gun and let here loose in a shopping mall. WHEN NOT IF things go terrible it IS YOUR FAULT. THE MEDIA IS NOT, I REPEAT NOT QUALIFIED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM TO DO ANYTHING WITH INFORMATION EVEN CLOSE TO SECRET.
"Luckily for the world, your paranoid fantasies do not match reality. Disclosing to a reliable media source is the time-honored way of responsibly reporting government malfeasance. In your fantasy world where a responsible press does not exist then there is no way for the press to act as a check on the government because only "stupid fools" would trust the press."
Have you learned nothing from this whole situation. Everything you do is being watched and monitored. Are you being willfully ignorant or just enjoy your childlike innocence ? The US intelligence services without a question monitor all major media channels both internal and foreign......and guess what? So do the Russians and Chinese and to the best of their ability any and every other nation on this planet. We are not the only ones in this game and its beyond pathetic to think its that one sided that only the US has the resources to monitor these things.
Dont be silly and try and twist my words into pretending they support you. We both know that is a fabrication and I have no intention but to speak my honest opinion. Yes in the face of crimes a patriots blood will be spilled. But that is exactly what is NOT happening. Manning nor Snowden really revealed anything to the common man. Everyone who did not have their head up their own ass assumed/knew these programs were already in place. Many people are just behaving all upset kind like a "40 year old man who its all huffy because someone told him Santa Clause is not real". Anyone and everyone should have already known better. If you were surprised...the joke is on you.
"If you were a soldier and you witnessed flagrant war crimes and violations of the Constitution by your superiors, what would you do? Would you uphold your oath [about.com] to support and defend the Constitution by "stupidly and foolishly" "
If there was something meaningful to fight I would gladly do so at all personal cost. But again that is not at all what has happened here. You hear that silence on the issue? Did you notice the lack of people storming the streets in protest? You notice the lack of change on this issue? You notice the complacency of the American population? You notice the Supreme court signing off on these actions? All these realities are the sound of society stomping down on you, you on the fringe. As final proof of this, I dare you and any one else to try and take real action against these polices. Try and steal more these kind of documents and release them. You will find yourself in a box without any hope of society freeing you. You and I both know this is true and this is the final proof of our society supporting these policies.
Its like sticking a group of children in a room full of knives and blaming the children when someone gets hurt.
But that opinion surmounts to a "its worth it to toss the baby out with the bath water" . The question becomes is it really that bad? Are the intelligence services really that corrupt that it is better to completely negate any secrecy these agencies have, than so allow them to continue their operation? That is a judgement call we all have to make.
My personal answer is no, and that any one who acts on that is too far gone and that they need criminally punished. And that is the judgment call we as a society have made.
There will always be someone on the fringe yelling that we have torch this place and start anew. Laws are in place so that, that fringe element is not allowed to run amok.
Additionally I am providing verifiable facts and points.
It does not appear as if you are doing any of those. Go back to your box troll child.
Glad to see someone "from the other side" engaging in honest discourse. I'll start out with saying I do not have all the answers but the general situation is that even as a collective we do not have the exact answers the cost of inaction is estimated to be VASTLY larger than the cost of action. (A ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure)
1)
1a) I am unaware of any studies about the optimum planetary temperature. But there are several other points which would likely entierly negate any benafitfrom "re calibrating"
1aa)Massive calibration costs. Society has spent many hundreds of years with the climate relatively stable. The costs of adjusting to a slightly different (even slightly more optimal) situation. New Orleans is a prime example, as stupid as it may have been to build a city with much of its land subject to such major fluds, moving the whole city now is not exactly a cheap prospect. Multiply this by millions to to get an estimate of how much it would cost to adapt to significant sea level changes.
1ab) Who's to say the the optimum is not lower?
1ac) The best counter point is that the best science aviliable suggests that it will not be a "modest change" It will be a fright train and we have no idea where it will stop.
1b) There are two main ideas for reducing global warming. Cap and trade, and a carbon fee. There are ways to combine these and other methods to best optimize for the "unknown" exact amount. Any way most in the environmentalist camp... I guess I would consider myself in it situation....would be happy with the LOWEST POSSIBLE ESTIMATE. The estimates are so very high and dire that even adapting to the lowest possible estimate (while having some valid research behind it) would be a massive step and a place most would be happy to start with
1c) Yes people will die. If we find 1b) and apply it, a free marketer would estimate the correct number of people would die.
1d) This is more a political issue. But if you were to take bare minimum reasonable actions, it is reasonable to assume that everyone who "puts in" by "cutting emissions" would get more back via cost savings to make it worth while for everyone.
2) The cost of taxing or capping and trading on the oil production itself would be low ish if we it directly at the resource production level. The costs would be spread out into the industry as a whole as economics dictate. The overhead of taxation really is not that huge. And from the estimates I have seen for the cost per KG of carbon (in environmental damage) would far far outweigh the overhead.
3) Yes a global agreement could be a problem. But..... As much as we talk about global warming as a GLOBAL problem. It is also a local problem. The effects of these emissions are much more intense in the immediate area.
Economists have studied this rather intensively. Just to give a taste if you are in the relative vicinity of a major carbon source. Your walls need to be painted more often, your car breaks down quicker and you are less healthy. Economists have put a lot of effort into modeling this and they do have values for this.
If you account for these local costs, each individual nation should already be taking MASSIVE steps to curb pollution.
In short the details you want, while theoretically important, only would become relevant in a much more ideal situation. If we took the bare minimum steps to meet and deal with the bare minimum estimates from economists and climate change experts the effect of the details would by stunningly minor in comparison to what has already been achieved.