The iPhone is only tied to one carrier in the States. Here in the UK, for example, we have three carriers with it (O2/Tesco Mobile and Orange) and a fourth (Vodafone) will start carrying it in January.
Except that it may be viewed as a one-sided contract, and nullified. A contract usually consists of obligations on both parties (though I suppose you could consider it an obligation to remove the $5).
Similarly, you can't always contractually breach the law of the land (famously, slavery was declared null and void in England for this reason). I suspect that a contract requiring illegal parking would not immunise you from parking tickets, and while private individuals in theory could use Sharia law in the UK amongst themselves, it would likely be unusable in divorce cases.
In this case though, if the host owns the hardware, then you are buying a service from them. To use an Infamous Slashdot Car Analogy; you can rent a car from someone, but that doesn't mean you can lock them out of it.
I wear headphones all the time while walking through the streets of London* and I hate the thought of wearing noise cancelling headphones. I'd much rather hear the truck pulling up to the junction behind me than my music. Noise cancelling would leave me totally unaware of my surroundings, except what's in my line of sight, which is a fairly small part of the picture.
I can't see Google releasing their own hardware; it seems like a Slashdot wet dream. If you look at their current strategy with Chrome (OS) and Android, it seems like their attitude is that if you look after the software, the hardware will look after itself.
It would also be quite outside their core competence. Google have never done any hardware releases for consumers, and there's no reason at all to expect them to be any good at it.
Unless, of course, they're legally incapable of consent. Like, for example in cases of statutory rape.
Consent is not as simple as saying "yeah, sounds good." You have to show that the other person actually understands the course of action and all consequences that may result. I freely acknowledge that legally capable of consent and actually capable of consent do not necessarily overlap.
Vague language is not bowlderisation; this is a problem with medical ethics too. I would also argue that it applies in financial transactions too; many people who are legally competent to give consent may not actually be.
To insert some unscientific anecdotal evidence; I've had my MacBook back in for repairs three times since I got it two years ago. But the issues I've taken it back for (some faint marks on the screen, and two cracked palmrests) I would have (and indeed have in the past) tolerated on a cheaper laptop with a manufacturer without a highstreet presence. My willingness to complain (and therefore register a failure) is raised because there's someone I can walk to and yell at who will fix it quickly and for free.
Perhaps that's what's causing the confusion; I meant the damage caused to the global economy by climate change. Between the diversion of resources to fight climate change and the elimination of resources by climate change there must be some happy medium. I think that a price on carbon emissions is the best way to find it.
Any sudden change to an economy will cause pain; see the collapse in bank lending which trashed the economy recently. Reducing carbon emissions will take resources; efficiency savings really aren't going to cut it. Even if you're wildly optimistic about it, they'll cut our emissions by at most 30%. So we'll need to divert resources from some things to everything carbon reducing from pie-in-the-sky researching fusion or space solar down to the humdrum, like buying an efficient wood-burning stove for every african family to allow them to burn fuel cleanly and effectively and everything in between.
Resources for this will have to come from elsewhere, from the abandoning the silly (driving an SUV in Chelsea) to the heatbreaking (if Africa's resources and resources given to Africa are used to reduce carbon, they can't be used on health, infrastructure and education, which Africa probably needs more than a carbon-neutral lifestyle).
Anyway, that was a bit of a tangent. The fundamental answer to your last question is; it saves us money as long as it's an efficiency saving (e.g. driving a more fuel-efficient car). If it involves extensive capital investment (e.g. using wind power over coal power) then it will cost us money.
I tried to get a job in France (with EdF), Holland (with Shell) and in Germany (with Siemens) but didn't get any. I then found a pretty well paid job in London which gives me the chance to go overseas, so I'm not doing too badly. Will have to try again and harder if Labour win the next election. I've only just graduated and this was a tough year; I'm glad of any opportunity to come my way, and I'm not financially independent enough to go overseas on a wing and a prayer.
Sure, it will be painful. Cancer treatment is also painful. At this juncture, gambling that "adaption" would cost less than mitigation is like gambling that you will recover from cancer without the expense of treatment. What do you really think happens if we continue to warm the earth? Do you really think, like the cancer, that after "a little while" it will "just get better by itself"?
That was, in fact, my point. I favour a carbon tax in some form or other and realistically it will have to be much higher than the current price of a European permit (c. €13/t and falling).
And there are plenty of criticisms of Stern's projections if you bothered to read the wikipedia page I linked to. The discount rate, for example, was 1.4%, which is likely to be less than inflation over that time period. By using such a low value he has inflated future costs over their real value. This favours more drastic action than is necessary to reduce future costs more than they need to be.
In terms of the cost of reducing CO2 emissions being largely unknown; I studied this issue as part of my (undergraduate) Masters degree. My considered opinion, having looked at many research papers on many different means of reducing carbon emissions, is that the experts in the field are largely taking best guesses, which are probably correct on an order-of-magnitude level. But since most methods of, for example, carbon capture and storage have yet to be run on even a pilot scale, we genuinely have little idea what it will actually cost.
However, I think that Stern was right overall, even if his methods were dubious.
I'm just going to repeat that so you don't skim over it and miss the point of my post (again).
I think that Stern was right overall, even if his methods were dubious.
A lot of Brits would jump at the chance to move to the US if they could. I know I would; my costs of living would be lower, my taxes lower and my pay higher.
The food wouldn't be as good, there's no NHS, and I'd have to get used to only having the World Service.
This is the argument of the Stern review conducted by the UK government.
The problem is that the cost of reducing CO2 is largely unknown, as is the damage caused to the global economy. So this trade off between now and later is largely based on which made-up numbers you put into the balance.
One thing is pretty clear; if we want to reduce carbon emissions, we need to put a price on CO2, and it needs to rise fast. And it will be painful. Will it be more painful than the consequences of global warming? Who knows. More importantly, who wants to bet?
Gas-phase combustion is more efficient too, because you can use combined cycle combustion*. Gasification probably reduces that efficiency to moot anyway.
*You burn it in a turbine, getting energy out of it like a jet engine, and then you remove heat from the hot exhaust by raising steam, like a traditional power plant.
But the government tends to ignore its voters for the most part. A private company ignores its customers at its peril. I think this is the key difference; a company owes its survival to you. The government can ride roughshod over you with no serious consequences for it.
If the cheapest provider is over-charging, then new providers will enter the market and under-cut it for more profit. Unless perhaps you're one of the people who think that profit is over-charging, in which case I suggest you read Adam Smith.
Private sector roads aren't that far out, after all the industrial road network of the UK was built privately (as were the canals and the railways; people have short memories here).
Getting rid of government is not the same as shrinking government where government is in sectors which could be better run privately. Getting rid of government entirely is a ridiculous straw-man which adds nothing to the debate.
In the UK the iPhone is no-longer O2 exclusive; Vodafone and Orange will soon have it as well, and there seems to be no reason all carriers couldn't have it, other than Apple's ability to keep pace with demand. Is this not happening in the US?
I've had my own PC for about 9 years now (two different boxes). I got my MacBook last year. I've since moved all actually useful activities to my Mac now (i.e. work, email, web, Skype etc.).
I keep my PC, and keep it up to date, for games. While I would prefer to keep both platforms running, if I had to choose just one I'd opt for Mac in a flash. But that's why Mac owners would tend to have PCs I guess. And I agree that a PC can do everything; it's just that after using the Mac it feels like pulling out my teeth one at a time.
Slashdot Mirror
My thoughts exactly.
It would be great to explore the universe of Revelation Space in a series of films, but I can't help but feel it just couldn't live up to his writing.
The iPhone is only tied to one carrier in the States. Here in the UK, for example, we have three carriers with it (O2/Tesco Mobile and Orange) and a fourth (Vodafone) will start carrying it in January.
I hate Association Football (which, incidentally, is the real name of "European football") and even I think that this is flamebait.
Except that it may be viewed as a one-sided contract, and nullified. A contract usually consists of obligations on both parties (though I suppose you could consider it an obligation to remove the $5).
Similarly, you can't always contractually breach the law of the land (famously, slavery was declared null and void in England for this reason). I suspect that a contract requiring illegal parking would not immunise you from parking tickets, and while private individuals in theory could use Sharia law in the UK amongst themselves, it would likely be unusable in divorce cases.
In this case though, if the host owns the hardware, then you are buying a service from them. To use an Infamous Slashdot Car Analogy; you can rent a car from someone, but that doesn't mean you can lock them out of it.
I wear headphones all the time while walking through the streets of London* and I hate the thought of wearing noise cancelling headphones. I'd much rather hear the truck pulling up to the junction behind me than my music. Noise cancelling would leave me totally unaware of my surroundings, except what's in my line of sight, which is a fairly small part of the picture.
* I'll show you something etc. etc.
No, you judge information based on how thoroughly it's been checked by other people.
I can't see Google releasing their own hardware; it seems like a Slashdot wet dream. If you look at their current strategy with Chrome (OS) and Android, it seems like their attitude is that if you look after the software, the hardware will look after itself.
It would also be quite outside their core competence. Google have never done any hardware releases for consumers, and there's no reason at all to expect them to be any good at it.
It is if you recommended outsourcing everything to the cloud.
Unless, of course, they're legally incapable of consent. Like, for example in cases of statutory rape.
Consent is not as simple as saying "yeah, sounds good." You have to show that the other person actually understands the course of action and all consequences that may result. I freely acknowledge that legally capable of consent and actually capable of consent do not necessarily overlap.
Vague language is not bowlderisation; this is a problem with medical ethics too. I would also argue that it applies in financial transactions too; many people who are legally competent to give consent may not actually be.
To insert some unscientific anecdotal evidence; I've had my MacBook back in for repairs three times since I got it two years ago. But the issues I've taken it back for (some faint marks on the screen, and two cracked palmrests) I would have (and indeed have in the past) tolerated on a cheaper laptop with a manufacturer without a highstreet presence. My willingness to complain (and therefore register a failure) is raised because there's someone I can walk to and yell at who will fix it quickly and for free.
I refer you to the case of Simon Singh v. Assorted Lunatics. What he said was materially true, but he will most likely lose the court case.
Mr Justice Eady has a lot to answer for.
There's more details on the Singh case in the current Private Eye, for any Brits out there.
Perhaps that's what's causing the confusion; I meant the damage caused to the global economy by climate change. Between the diversion of resources to fight climate change and the elimination of resources by climate change there must be some happy medium. I think that a price on carbon emissions is the best way to find it.
Any sudden change to an economy will cause pain; see the collapse in bank lending which trashed the economy recently. Reducing carbon emissions will take resources; efficiency savings really aren't going to cut it. Even if you're wildly optimistic about it, they'll cut our emissions by at most 30%. So we'll need to divert resources from some things to everything carbon reducing from pie-in-the-sky researching fusion or space solar down to the humdrum, like buying an efficient wood-burning stove for every african family to allow them to burn fuel cleanly and effectively and everything in between.
Resources for this will have to come from elsewhere, from the abandoning the silly (driving an SUV in Chelsea) to the heatbreaking (if Africa's resources and resources given to Africa are used to reduce carbon, they can't be used on health, infrastructure and education, which Africa probably needs more than a carbon-neutral lifestyle).
Anyway, that was a bit of a tangent. The fundamental answer to your last question is; it saves us money as long as it's an efficiency saving (e.g. driving a more fuel-efficient car). If it involves extensive capital investment (e.g. using wind power over coal power) then it will cost us money.
I tried to get a job in France (with EdF), Holland (with Shell) and in Germany (with Siemens) but didn't get any. I then found a pretty well paid job in London which gives me the chance to go overseas, so I'm not doing too badly. Will have to try again and harder if Labour win the next election. I've only just graduated and this was a tough year; I'm glad of any opportunity to come my way, and I'm not financially independent enough to go overseas on a wing and a prayer.
Sure, it will be painful. Cancer treatment is also painful. At this juncture, gambling that "adaption" would cost less than mitigation is like gambling that you will recover from cancer without the expense of treatment. What do you really think happens if we continue to warm the earth? Do you really think, like the cancer, that after "a little while" it will "just get better by itself"?
That was, in fact, my point. I favour a carbon tax in some form or other and realistically it will have to be much higher than the current price of a European permit (c. €13/t and falling).
And there are plenty of criticisms of Stern's projections if you bothered to read the wikipedia page I linked to. The discount rate, for example, was 1.4%, which is likely to be less than inflation over that time period. By using such a low value he has inflated future costs over their real value. This favours more drastic action than is necessary to reduce future costs more than they need to be.
In terms of the cost of reducing CO2 emissions being largely unknown; I studied this issue as part of my (undergraduate) Masters degree. My considered opinion, having looked at many research papers on many different means of reducing carbon emissions, is that the experts in the field are largely taking best guesses, which are probably correct on an order-of-magnitude level. But since most methods of, for example, carbon capture and storage have yet to be run on even a pilot scale, we genuinely have little idea what it will actually cost.
However, I think that Stern was right overall, even if his methods were dubious.
I'm just going to repeat that so you don't skim over it and miss the point of my post (again).
I think that Stern was right overall, even if his methods were dubious.
Though I should clarify that right now I'd jump at the chance to move to most other places in Europe.
A lot of Brits would jump at the chance to move to the US if they could. I know I would; my costs of living would be lower, my taxes lower and my pay higher.
The food wouldn't be as good, there's no NHS, and I'd have to get used to only having the World Service.
This is the argument of the Stern review conducted by the UK government.
The problem is that the cost of reducing CO2 is largely unknown, as is the damage caused to the global economy. So this trade off between now and later is largely based on which made-up numbers you put into the balance.
One thing is pretty clear; if we want to reduce carbon emissions, we need to put a price on CO2, and it needs to rise fast. And it will be painful. Will it be more painful than the consequences of global warming? Who knows. More importantly, who wants to bet?
I think I'm going to have to add that I'm British into my sig; people keep thinking I'm a Yank for some reason.
I think if you want to look for a dysfunctional democracy you could do worse than look at my own "green and pleasant land".
they could power their Hummers with liquified kittens
Sir, I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to invest in your startup.
Gas-phase combustion is more efficient too, because you can use combined cycle combustion*. Gasification probably reduces that efficiency to moot anyway.
*You burn it in a turbine, getting energy out of it like a jet engine, and then you remove heat from the hot exhaust by raising steam, like a traditional power plant.
But the government tends to ignore its voters for the most part. A private company ignores its customers at its peril. I think this is the key difference; a company owes its survival to you. The government can ride roughshod over you with no serious consequences for it.
If the cheapest provider is over-charging, then new providers will enter the market and under-cut it for more profit. Unless perhaps you're one of the people who think that profit is over-charging, in which case I suggest you read Adam Smith.
Private sector roads aren't that far out, after all the industrial road network of the UK was built privately (as were the canals and the railways; people have short memories here).
Getting rid of government is not the same as shrinking government where government is in sectors which could be better run privately. Getting rid of government entirely is a ridiculous straw-man which adds nothing to the debate.
In the UK the iPhone is no-longer O2 exclusive; Vodafone and Orange will soon have it as well, and there seems to be no reason all carriers couldn't have it, other than Apple's ability to keep pace with demand. Is this not happening in the US?
I've had my own PC for about 9 years now (two different boxes). I got my MacBook last year. I've since moved all actually useful activities to my Mac now (i.e. work, email, web, Skype etc.).
I keep my PC, and keep it up to date, for games. While I would prefer to keep both platforms running, if I had to choose just one I'd opt for Mac in a flash. But that's why Mac owners would tend to have PCs I guess. And I agree that a PC can do everything; it's just that after using the Mac it feels like pulling out my teeth one at a time.
Wow. This post, while sounding vaguely all-knowing, is actually contentless.
The future is stranger than you can imagine. What will be, will be.
Well, quite. With your talent in making the obvious sound significant, have you ever considered going into astrology?