Filthy, barbaric Christians and Muslims are killing good, honest Humans right here on this planet, and all you can think about is water being found billions of miles away? Get some priorities!
Why have a bunch of good honest Christians and decent Muslims killing a bunch of barbarians on just the earth, when there is a whole universe to conquer? Now that we know that water is everywhere, its a good sign when we travel to the edge of the universe, we will be able to be baptised again as we refocus our zeal to continue the slaughter of the pagans anew!
Hilarious! A conservative advocating "human progress"! You made my day! Merry Festivus!
Yes, that's right. It is conservatives that of late have taken the torch of extending freedom around the globe. We are the ones that stood up against the Soviet Union while the modern liberal cried for accommodation. We are the ones that have tried to put in democratic regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and we are the ones who have supported the development of economic freedom as the basis for political freedom by spreading free trade throughout the globe. Thanks to conservatives and conservative ideas, the whole of eastern europe is politically freer, china is economically freer and on its way to being politically freer, and while we were at it, George Bush saved 10 million lives in Africa from AIDs and Malaria.
Right off the wheel, you can't say liberals are in favor of advancing human progress because you now argue quite often that animals have more rights than people. A conservative would never stop a power plant from being built to save a particular endangered frog, but liberals do it all the time and in doing so raise the price of power for everyone (including the poor).
After that, what freedom does liberalism advocate? The only thing I can think of is the dubious right of allow gaying people to call their living arrangements the same name as a hetero family does. But other than that, you argue against the right of religious practice publicly and then condemn its practice in private, argue against free speech, the right to own private property and the right to keep and bear arms. What human rights are liberals actually in favor of? I'm drawing a blank.
The list goes on and on... and you sir are full of shit.
Um, what was that point you were making about how conservatives make ad hominem attacks? The fact of the matter is that you do it as much or as more as people you do... you people are always violent, always starting social civil wars, and are just a cancer on society. Any institution that anyone has that you can't control or warp, you seek to destroy. You are the enemies of civilization and there will not be human progress until you are eliminated.
I don't buy into the liberal media at all. Twenty years ago, you could say that there was the liberal media, but there's plenty of conservative radio stations, tv stations and even newspapers and publishers out there. It sells.
And that's the point. Why is it that conservative media is selling, and liberal media is not? I mean, the NYT, Washpost, are all taking a beating, liberal tv news is taking a beating, but, conservative leaning media, does not. Ann Coulter can make millions of dollars and the NYT selling her books, but Nancy Pelosi, the first woman speaker of the house, can't sell crap. Even Barrack OBama's book, as well as it sold, doesn't top conservative best sellers.
For other clever labeling see the following..
Please, as if the left wing doesn't use labelling, issue framing or name calling. You just don't like it when people frame issues in ways that you disagree with.
The list goes on and on... and you sir are full of shit.
New York Times, losing money. Wall Street Journal, making money. Yep, how is that full of shit?
I used to subscribe to papers, but I cancelled them all because they are all liberal rags. I don't need people preaching to me all the time, so I just said see ya later. I can't count how many right leaning people have cancelled the NYT, Washpost, etc, or just don't even buy them. I guess that strategy to move left and pick up the liberal masses has a problem. Liberals don't want to pay for much, not even their own workers, and so, liberal papers are failing. On the other hand, if I do reasonably well, I will probably pony up the extra money and subscribe to the Wall Street Journal. The web site is excellent, the writing is good, and i hear things about industry leaders and doers, rather than the progressives who seem to want to tear it all down.
Moral character....And if you *weren't* joking, well...you should be banned from giving advice for the rest of your life.
Only a fool would think that working hard for a company is a moral issue, when there is scant evidence that companies have any morals themselves. I've averaged 50 billable hours a week for the year straight, and you know what I get come January? At my primary client my job is off to India so that the company can meet its earnings targets, and, my consultant firm doesn't have more work, so I'm going to get whacked and thus they are asking me to not have any time off in December so that I will be able to finish another project in time for them to can me at year end.
So, I've a less than friendly view of the corporate world. The notion of loyalty to a company is just lie, a slogan designed to get you to throw your life away so that someone else can cash in on you, and then replace you like so much of a part. I'm not questioning their right to do it, it's their business. But, if they argue the right to shaft you, and do, then, certainly, who cares if you shaft them. They are in it for themselves, and why can't you be too?
If our man can slack for a year and write the Great American novel, then, let him do it.
I've talked to a lot of people from the middle east and the terrorists like Dubai too. Let's not forget that before Atta and his buddies knocked down the WTC, they took a trip to Vegas and partied it up a bit. Every culture likes a party and the middle east is no exception.
To make matters even more interesting, Dubai is the Switzerland of the middle east and wants to be the next Switzerland of the world. In Dubai, secrecy of transactions is becoming the norm, there's no transparency and very little regulation. So yeah, a terrorist might hate westerners in Dubai, but he's not going to screw with it as Dubai is where he gets paid.
Well, if you are really bold, you could take a full time job and just not show up sometimes. Sooner or later, you will get fired, but, if you can keep the balls up in the air you might be able to make it work for a year or two, and, you'll make a lot more money. Let's face it, there's plenty of people that simply do not do anything except show up, so, it might not be too hard to give output comparable them..
It's one thing to say that you should not spend too much time making optimizations in business applications because they seemingly don't care. However, that is not a license to do things that result in O(n^2) or even O(c^n) performance hits. If I have had a nickel for every time I've seen a double loop to compare lists, or, the effective double loop, like, have an invariant select inside... it goes on and on and there's a lot of stupid programmers out there and the laws of physics are pretty much on the side of the smart programmers for now. Stupid programmers can make programs too slow and too big to run, without even really thinking about it, because they can't, or they don't.
Regardless of where you trace that line at which a set of cells earns the right to be called human, one does make the decision of life or death over it, as a society, and as a consequence, we do assert the right to kill. Is it really so different then, for the left wing to declare that a similar exclusion based on other attributes is an invalid choice? You choose to kill based upon a count of cells. Others might choose based on economic system, religion, culture or even race? What's the difference? We are all rationalizing killing. I mean, you might think that a fetus is a mass of cells that a mother should terminate, and that's fine, but why then get so worked up about someone else wanting to blow away a bunch of muslims. Maybe they are just a mass of cells to them? Maybe, to some people, 8 cells of an American is more valuable than 40 trillion of an Iranian, and vice versa. You might claim that it violates some basic and universal law, but, if you are trying to build a secular society, there is actually no such thing.
The one claim to genius that religion genuinely has is that, by defining humanity by something that cannot be detected (possession of a soul), we are obligated to assume that anything that might be human or could be human is entitled to basic rights. Take that soul out of the equation, and there's really no logical basis for arguing the moral superiority of your definition of humanity, versus anyone elses. You say a fetus isn't human, and off to the toilet with it, and someone else can say a muslim isn't human... what makes one better?
Saying we're going to be poorer at the end is ridiculous.
You aren't facing facts. Energy is wealth, the more you have, the richer you are. The less you have, the poorer you are. Since you are saying now that people have to use less energy, they will be poorer. All efficiency is, for the average joe, is spending more money to get what you already got, when the resource was cheaper, and all global warming solutions do, is force the average joe to spend more, to keep some of the lifestyle that he has. That's making someone poorer.
It's pretty simple really. If you can't travel like you used to, you are poorer. If you can't run the heat like you used to, you are poorer. If it costs more to go some place, you are poorer. If you have to pay higher tax to light a fire, you are poorer.
Another thing that's lost in the debate of global warming action is who benefits and who loses in global warming. Right now, coastal states dominate the world economy and as they stand to lose the most, the debate is skewed towards them. But why should someone in Kansas care about someone in New York City, or, for that matter Malaysia. What if global warming made the weather better in some places? Why do they get screwed out of the coming bounty of GW, just so cities on the coast can stay on top. Of course the whole GW thing is labelled "we", because the coasts that want everyone else on the world to cut back on their lifestyle to save their sorry port towns, don't want us to know that GW might actually be good for us. I mean, if I'm a programmer in Kansas, isn't it a good thing if Mumbai India goes 100 feet under water when Greenland melts?
Everyone here seems to have this blame the victim for getting hacked, but, why should we have to do this security stuff at all? Why can't we just execute the criminals. Everything is all about put up shields, pay tons of money for security, and its as if the criminals have more of a right to our systems than we do. Enough already. This guy shouldn't have to pay any money at all, regardless of whether he had the shields up, or not. People ought to be able to have a relative sense of security about themselves, and if we have to behead 50,000 convicted hackers and identity thieves and hang their bloated corpses off of bridges as an example to others, then, lets get on with it.
Death to hackers, that's the best security policy that any country could have.
That's my point. Most scientists, I agree, once they lock in on a problem throw politics out the window and go where it leads. But these are the more rank and file that do the real work of science. In the public eye, you have a lot of scientists that are the climate equivalent of Teller. You have guys like Hansen lobbying for something like a Kyoto, or a solution to a problem, and you have economists, some of them whom won the Nobel prize, arguing for carbon caps, and at the end, what those people aren't saying is that a) the public will be poorer at the end, and b) many of them who are invested in that technology comes to mind. Those are political actions, not scientific ones.
And, like it or not, the general public now thinks Al Gore is a scientist, which I think is laughable to any scientist, regardless of political persuasion. They see people like him, with tons of stock and tons of money in all of this green movement stuff, and they think it might all be a racket. Given that this country has gone through plenty of rackets already, I think some skepticism about the green racket is warranted. That's what I'm saying.
But will not have less of something. We will use less of something, which is called efficiency.
Efficiency is something the markets can already address. If it is more efficient, it costs less, and therefor, you have more resources for other stuff. Global warming technologies are not efficient, unless you invent artificial costs. Believe me, I want alternative energy companies to succeed because I own stock in some, but right now they simply can't compete. They are less efficient.
Any scientist that has any sense of reality who argues that carbon taxes and combatting global warming will result in an improved standard of living for people is lying. That's pretty much the point. It's something that it has to be done but the public is being fed a lie by the academic community. Solving global warming is going to make people radically poorer, lead to more unemployment and even death at the margins, because, any imposed energy reduction beyond what the markets can provide is in fact a force rationing and impoverishment. Whenever you reduce someone's economic freedom, you make them instantly poorer.
Travel will get worse. We are looking at a regime where cars are going to get worse, and more expensive. There is no battery even conceptually on the horizon that approaches the energy density of a gallon of gasoline. You can knock gasoline as much as you want, but you really can't get much better than a carbon hydrogen bond for energy storage. Gasoline also stores reasonably well, is liquid at human temperature ranges, can be piped. There is no battery that can beat gasoline. IT just doesn't exist. For that reason, simple physics, something has to give in the design of the car and its usually a mix of acceleration, range, or weight, and usually all of them, and with a higher price.
As a result, cars will be more expensive, travel less distance, and not as quickly, comfortably, or as safely. They just can't because the energy density isn't there. It's funny that people hail the increasing expense of the car as a victory of a sorts. It's not.. its a reduction in options for people that need to travel. Wheras with $5,000 cars and gasoline at $1 a gallon, some people could work, and now, with $25,000 cars and $5 a gallon, they won't, or are limited to where the rails run.
Outlet energy and home energy use will get worse. Any increase in energy costs at the wall outlet is going to translate into some hardship somewhere. Everyone hails fluorescent lighting and LED lighting, but incandescent lighting doesn't give me headaches and emits on a pretty broad spectrum, feels warm and inviting. LED lighting is clinical and depressing and fluorescent lighting is a headache making terror. And of course its all going to cost more to operate, leading to cities to have less lights outside and an increase in crime or laws and curfews to combat it.
Conservationists say that homes should be heated at 68 rather than 72, or air conditioning should not be used during the summer. That's obviously worse.
I mean, everyone looks at the 1.6 gallon toilets, versus the older water wasters, and says, look at how good the 1.6 gallon toilets can flush, using less water. But, they don't flush perfectly, and, one has to ask the question, how good could a 4 gallon of water per flush toilet flush. I would bet that with today's technology, I would never even need to clean the bowl. That would be what richer is.
Instead, we're spending more money just to do what we do now, and that's poverty. We're spending more on travel, heating, and lighting, and, with CO2 caps, we're going to spend even -more-, and the most that we can do is spend more to have the same level of service that we have today. Consequently, we won't be investing in new things, just hanging on, and, as gradually more people lose their grip and let go, they will realize what I've realized. Environmentalism makes you poorer.
It just does. If scientists want to tell the truth, then tell it. But pretending that the new e
Whenever you have less of something, that means you are poorer. By definition, global climate regulation reduces the available energy to people, impoverishing them. If Global warming proponents seriously wanted to manage CO2 in the atmosphere, they would be bigger proponents of nuclear power, and they don't. So f--- them. IF global warming is not so urgent that we can wait for windmills and solar panels to get better, rather than just switch to nuclear now, then, what's the hurry to do anything about it at all?
"Indeed, following some of the events we could see a reduction, but following others there was an increase in cloud formation. We did not find any patterns in the way the clouds changedâ, Kristjansson explains.
Don't think that ever happened? No Target and Walmart never had a problem with selling certain games that had swastikas on the boxes and asked that in order to sell the product they had to change the box art.
I know, there's people out there that just can't enough of the Fuhrer... you know, you watch the History Channel, all too many times, hoping that maybe, one time the Germans will take Moscow in December 1941, breakout of Stalingrad in Jan 1942 or break through at Kursk in 1943. But, they didn't and they lost and thank god for that.
But... for you, there's still the swastika, a symbol that has been awaiting rehabilitation in the home of symbols put out to pasture for misdeeds... and, he's sadly trying to get out and redeem himself. Finally, the sad little swastika makes his escape, and its up to you to lead the swastika to his redemption, and become a new symbol for cheer of all mankind, not the dreaded old symbol of, well, the evilest people that ever lived except for maybe the mongols.
Bugs didn't always come out on top. In a rather dark Bugs, Elmer Fudd takes on the visage of a viking hunter, who finally does get the rabbit after he invokes the elements against him. At the very end, as the curtain calls, Bugs does look up and say something like "isn't opera tragic...", but, he was dead in the show!
I prefer FireFox and Chrome... but, before we go ballyhoing the current patch, we should note that right now, at least for me, the FireFox update is busy banging on the patch site, and getting nothing. At least when Redmond rolls out a patch, they seem to make bandwidth available for it to actually be rolled out.
How about suing for common sense? Is it the blender manufacturers fault that you dropped the spoon into it while it was on? (no blendtec rebuttals please)
The common sense is that a home video game system will get bumped around and moved around. You'll have people reaching it and moving it to make it easier to change disks. You'll have someone tripping over a cord and yanking the console. The family room is a pretty hectic place at times and something that by definition is going to have kids getting their hands on it ought to be robust.
This may not be a "defect" per se, but it is a shoddy engineering call, for sure.
Instead, its a financial meltdown by a suddenly emergent AI. Why destroy the planet when it is so much easier to just starve humanity to death!
In all seriousness though, the usual anti-globalism doomsayers are not the only one. A careful reading of the insurance industries actuarial newsletters will show a growing skepticism of computer modelling. It's kinda funny but remember the big brouhaha over Mann's Hockey Stick was that he used some software, I think, that was also used for Wall Street trading models. What if he just royally screwed up?
. Standard operation would not involve moving the item while it was on
Why not? I could do that with any cartridge based system. So... I would say that there is a market expectation that you should be able to move a console around.... regardless of the move to optical drives...
You really think it would be more efficient if every single country had its own car manufacturing plant? Have you not heard of economy of scale?
Why does every country have to have the same kind of car? Why not have cars that reflect the customs and traditions of each country and become a part of that nation's cultural expression? You know, why not have cars that are also art?
Slashdot Mirror
Filthy, barbaric Christians and Muslims are killing good, honest Humans right here on this planet, and all you can think about is water being found billions of miles away? Get some priorities!
Why have a bunch of good honest Christians and decent Muslims killing a bunch of barbarians on just the earth, when there is a whole universe to conquer? Now that we know that water is everywhere, its a good sign when we travel to the edge of the universe, we will be able to be baptised again as we refocus our zeal to continue the slaughter of the pagans anew!
Hilarious! A conservative advocating "human progress"! You made my day! Merry Festivus!
Yes, that's right. It is conservatives that of late have taken the torch of extending freedom around the globe. We are the ones that stood up against the Soviet Union while the modern liberal cried for accommodation. We are the ones that have tried to put in democratic regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and we are the ones who have supported the development of economic freedom as the basis for political freedom by spreading free trade throughout the globe. Thanks to conservatives and conservative ideas, the whole of eastern europe is politically freer, china is economically freer and on its way to being politically freer, and while we were at it, George Bush saved 10 million lives in Africa from AIDs and Malaria.
Right off the wheel, you can't say liberals are in favor of advancing human progress because you now argue quite often that animals have more rights than people. A conservative would never stop a power plant from being built to save a particular endangered frog, but liberals do it all the time and in doing so raise the price of power for everyone (including the poor).
After that, what freedom does liberalism advocate? The only thing I can think of is the dubious right of allow gaying people to call their living arrangements the same name as a hetero family does. But other than that, you argue against the right of religious practice publicly and then condemn its practice in private, argue against free speech, the right to own private property and the right to keep and bear arms. What human rights are liberals actually in favor of? I'm drawing a blank.
The list goes on and on... and you sir are full of shit.
Um, what was that point you were making about how conservatives make ad hominem attacks? The fact of the matter is that you do it as much or as more as people you do... you people are always violent, always starting social civil wars, and are just a cancer on society. Any institution that anyone has that you can't control or warp, you seek to destroy. You are the enemies of civilization and there will not be human progress until you are eliminated.
I don't buy into the liberal media at all. Twenty years ago, you could say that there was the liberal media, but there's plenty of conservative radio stations, tv stations and even newspapers and publishers out there. It sells.
And that's the point. Why is it that conservative media is selling, and liberal media is not? I mean, the NYT, Washpost, are all taking a beating, liberal tv news is taking a beating, but, conservative leaning media, does not. Ann Coulter can make millions of dollars and the NYT selling her books, but Nancy Pelosi, the first woman speaker of the house, can't sell crap. Even Barrack OBama's book, as well as it sold,
doesn't top conservative best sellers.
For other clever labeling see the following..
Please, as if the left wing doesn't use labelling, issue framing or name calling. You just don't like it when people frame issues in ways that you disagree with.
The list goes on and on... and you sir are full of shit.
New York Times, losing money. Wall Street Journal, making money. Yep, how is that full of shit?
I used to subscribe to papers, but I cancelled them all because they are all liberal rags. I don't need people preaching to me all the time, so I just said see ya later. I can't count how many right leaning people have cancelled the NYT, Washpost, etc, or just don't even buy them. I guess that strategy to move left and pick up the liberal masses has a problem. Liberals don't want to pay for much, not even their own workers, and so, liberal papers are failing. On the other hand, if I do reasonably well, I will probably pony up the extra money and subscribe to the Wall Street Journal. The web site is excellent, the writing is good, and i hear things about industry leaders and doers, rather than the progressives who seem to want to tear it all down.
Moral character....And if you *weren't* joking, well...you should be banned from giving advice for the rest of your life.
Only a fool would think that working hard for a company is a moral issue, when there is scant evidence that companies have any morals themselves. I've averaged 50 billable hours a week for the year straight, and you know what I get come January? At my primary client my job is off to India so that the company can meet its earnings targets, and, my consultant firm doesn't have more work, so I'm going to get whacked and thus they are asking me to not have any time off in December so that I will be able to finish another project in time for them to can me at year end.
So, I've a less than friendly view of the corporate world. The notion of loyalty to a company is just lie, a slogan designed to get you to throw your life away so that someone else can cash in on you, and then replace you like so much of a part. I'm not questioning their right to do it, it's their business. But, if they argue the right to shaft you, and do, then, certainly, who cares if you shaft them. They are in it for themselves, and why can't you be too?
If our man can slack for a year and write the Great American novel, then, let him do it.
I've talked to a lot of people from the middle east and the terrorists like Dubai too. Let's not forget that before Atta and his buddies knocked down the WTC, they took a trip to Vegas and partied it up a bit. Every culture likes a party and the middle east is no exception.
To make matters even more interesting, Dubai is the Switzerland of the middle east and wants to be the next Switzerland of the world. In Dubai, secrecy of transactions is becoming the norm, there's no transparency and very little regulation. So yeah, a terrorist might hate westerners in Dubai, but he's not going to screw with it as Dubai is where he gets paid.
Well, if you are really bold, you could take a full time job and just not show up sometimes. Sooner or later, you will get fired, but, if you can keep the balls up in the air you might be able to make it work for a year or two, and, you'll make a lot more money. Let's face it, there's plenty of people that simply do not do anything except show up, so, it might not be too hard to give output comparable them..
It's one thing to say that you should not spend too much time making optimizations in business applications because they seemingly don't care. However, that is not a license to do things that result in O(n^2) or even O(c^n) performance hits. If I have had a nickel for every time I've seen a double loop to compare lists, or, the effective double loop, like, have an invariant select inside ... it goes on and on and there's a lot of stupid programmers out there and the laws of physics are pretty much on the side of the smart programmers for now. Stupid programmers can make programs too slow and too big to run, without even really thinking about it, because they can't, or they don't.
Your sig is awesome, first off.
Regardless of where you trace that line at which a set of cells earns the right to be called human, one does make the decision of life or death over it, as a society, and as a consequence, we do assert the right to kill. Is it really so different then, for the left wing to declare that a similar exclusion based on other attributes is an invalid choice? You choose to kill based upon a count of cells. Others might choose based on economic system, religion, culture or even race? What's the difference? We are all rationalizing killing. I mean, you might think that a fetus is a mass of cells that a mother should terminate, and that's fine, but why then get so worked up about someone else wanting to blow away a bunch of muslims. Maybe they are just a mass of cells to them? Maybe, to some people, 8 cells of an American is more valuable than 40 trillion of an Iranian, and vice versa. You might claim that it violates some basic and universal law, but, if you are trying to build a secular society, there is actually no such thing.
The one claim to genius that religion genuinely has is that, by defining humanity by something that cannot be detected (possession of a soul), we are obligated to assume that anything that might be human or could be human is entitled to basic rights. Take that soul out of the equation, and there's really no logical basis for arguing the moral superiority of your definition of humanity, versus anyone elses. You say a fetus isn't human, and off to the toilet with it, and someone else can say a muslim isn't human... what makes one better?
Look at american states where they have it and you can see that they are not utopias of 0% crime.
That's because its not applied enough to be a sufficient deterrant.
You cant just go around killing everyone that threatens you.
Why not? If the real world, if someone breaks into my house, I should be allowed to shoot them and torture them.
Saying we're going to be poorer at the end is ridiculous.
You aren't facing facts. Energy is wealth, the more you have, the richer you are. The less you have, the poorer you are. Since you are saying now that people have to use less energy, they will be poorer. All efficiency is, for the average joe, is spending more money to get what you already got, when the resource was cheaper, and all global warming solutions do, is force the average joe to spend more, to keep some of the lifestyle that he has. That's making someone poorer.
It's pretty simple really. If you can't travel like you used to, you are poorer. If you can't run the heat like you used to, you are poorer. If it costs more to go some place, you are poorer. If you have to pay higher tax to light a fire, you are poorer.
Another thing that's lost in the debate of global warming action is who benefits and who loses in global warming. Right now, coastal states dominate the world economy and as they stand to lose the most, the debate is skewed towards them. But why should someone in Kansas care about someone in New York City, or, for that matter Malaysia. What if global warming made the weather better in some places? Why do they get screwed out of the coming bounty of GW, just so cities on the coast can stay on top. Of course the whole GW thing is labelled "we", because the coasts that want everyone else on the world to cut back on their lifestyle to save their sorry port towns, don't want us to know that GW might actually be good for us. I mean, if I'm a programmer in Kansas, isn't it a good thing if Mumbai India goes 100 feet under water when Greenland melts?
Everyone here seems to have this blame the victim for getting hacked, but, why should we have to do this security stuff at all? Why can't we just execute the criminals. Everything is all about put up shields, pay tons of money for security, and its as if the criminals have more of a right to our systems than we do. Enough already. This guy shouldn't have to pay any money at all, regardless of whether he had the shields up, or not. People ought to be able to have a relative sense of security about themselves, and if we have to behead 50,000 convicted hackers and identity thieves and hang their bloated corpses off of bridges as an example to others, then, lets get on with it.
Death to hackers, that's the best security policy that any country could have.
That's my point. Most scientists, I agree, once they lock in on a problem throw politics out the window and go where it leads. But these are the more rank and file that do the real work of science. In the public eye, you have a lot of scientists that are the climate equivalent of Teller. You have guys like Hansen lobbying for something like a Kyoto, or a solution to a problem, and you have economists, some of them whom won the Nobel prize, arguing for carbon caps, and at the end, what those people aren't saying is that a) the public will be poorer at the end, and b) many of them who are invested in that technology comes to mind. Those are political actions, not scientific ones.
And, like it or not, the general public now thinks Al Gore is a scientist, which I think is laughable to any scientist, regardless of political persuasion. They see people like him, with tons of stock and tons of money in all of this green movement stuff, and they think it might all be a racket. Given that this country has gone through plenty of rackets already, I think some skepticism about the green racket is warranted. That's what I'm saying.
But will not have less of something. We will use less of something, which is called efficiency.
Efficiency is something the markets can already address. If it is more efficient, it costs less, and therefor, you have more resources for other stuff. Global warming technologies are not efficient, unless you invent artificial costs. Believe me, I want alternative energy companies to succeed because I own stock in some, but right now they simply can't compete. They are less efficient.
Any scientist that has any sense of reality who argues that carbon taxes and combatting global warming will result in an improved standard of living for people is lying. That's pretty much the point. It's something that it has to be done but the public is being fed a lie by the academic community. Solving global warming is going to make people radically poorer, lead to more unemployment and even death at the margins, because, any imposed energy reduction beyond what the markets can provide is in fact a force rationing and impoverishment. Whenever you reduce someone's economic freedom, you make them instantly poorer.
Travel will get worse. We are looking at a regime where cars are going to get worse, and more expensive. There is no battery even conceptually on the horizon that approaches the energy density of a gallon of gasoline. You can knock gasoline as much as you want, but you really can't get much better than a carbon hydrogen bond for energy storage. Gasoline also stores reasonably well, is liquid at human temperature ranges, can be piped. There is no battery that can beat gasoline. IT just doesn't exist. For that reason, simple physics, something has to give in the design of the car and its usually a mix of acceleration, range, or weight, and usually all of them, and with a higher price.
As a result, cars will be more expensive, travel less distance, and not as quickly, comfortably, or as safely. They just can't because the energy density isn't there. It's funny that people hail the increasing expense of the car as a victory of a sorts. It's not.. its a reduction in options for people that need to travel. Wheras with $5,000 cars and gasoline at $1 a gallon, some people could work, and now, with $25,000 cars and $5 a gallon, they won't, or are limited to where the rails run.
Outlet energy and home energy use will get worse. Any increase in energy costs at the wall outlet is going to translate into some hardship somewhere. Everyone hails fluorescent lighting and LED lighting, but incandescent lighting doesn't give me headaches and emits on a pretty broad spectrum, feels warm and inviting. LED lighting is clinical and depressing and fluorescent lighting is a headache making terror. And of course its all going to cost more to operate, leading to cities to have less lights outside and an increase in crime or laws and curfews to combat it.
Conservationists say that homes should be heated at 68 rather than 72, or air conditioning should not be used during the summer. That's obviously worse.
I mean, everyone looks at the 1.6 gallon toilets, versus the older water wasters, and says, look at how good the 1.6 gallon toilets can flush, using less water. But, they don't flush perfectly, and, one has to ask the question, how good could a 4 gallon of water per flush toilet flush. I would bet that with today's technology, I would never even need to clean the bowl. That would be what richer is.
Instead, we're spending more money just to do what we do now, and that's poverty. We're spending more on travel, heating, and lighting, and, with CO2 caps, we're going to spend even -more-, and the most that we can do is spend more to have the same level of service that we have today. Consequently, we won't be investing in new things, just hanging on, and, as gradually more people lose their grip and let go, they will realize what I've realized. Environmentalism makes you poorer.
It just does. If scientists want to tell the truth, then tell it. But pretending that the new e
Whenever you have less of something, that means you are poorer. By definition, global climate regulation reduces the available energy to people, impoverishing them. If Global warming proponents seriously wanted to manage CO2 in the atmosphere, they would be bigger proponents of nuclear power, and they don't. So f--- them. IF global warming is not so urgent that we can wait for windmills and solar panels to get better, rather than just switch to nuclear now, then, what's the hurry to do anything about it at all?
Are effected.
"Indeed, following some of the events we could see a reduction, but following others there was an increase in cloud formation. We did not find any patterns in the way the clouds changedâ, Kristjansson explains.
But, the clouds changed following the event...
Don't think that ever happened? No Target and Walmart never had a problem with selling certain games that had swastikas on the boxes and asked that in order to sell the product they had to change the box art.
I know, there's people out there that just can't enough of the Fuhrer... you know, you watch the History Channel, all too many times, hoping that maybe, one time the Germans will take Moscow in December 1941, breakout of Stalingrad in Jan 1942 or break through at Kursk in 1943. But, they didn't and they lost and thank god for that.
But... for you, there's still the swastika, a symbol that has been awaiting rehabilitation in the home of symbols put out to pasture for misdeeds ... and, he's sadly trying to get out and redeem himself. Finally, the sad little swastika makes his escape, and its up to you to lead the swastika to his redemption, and become a new symbol for cheer of all mankind, not the dreaded old symbol of, well, the evilest people that ever lived except for maybe the mongols.
Bugs didn't always come out on top. In a rather dark Bugs, Elmer Fudd takes on the visage of a viking hunter, who finally does get the rabbit after he invokes the elements against him. At the very end, as the curtain calls, Bugs does look up and say something like "isn't opera tragic...", but, he was dead in the show!
I prefer FireFox and Chrome... but, before we go ballyhoing the current patch, we should note that right now, at least for me, the FireFox update is busy banging on the patch site, and getting nothing. At least when Redmond rolls out a patch, they seem to make bandwidth available for it to actually be rolled out.
Well said.
How about suing for common sense? Is it the blender manufacturers fault that you dropped the spoon into it while it was on? (no blendtec rebuttals please)
The common sense is that a home video game system will get bumped around and moved around. You'll have people reaching it and moving it to make it easier to change disks. You'll have someone tripping over a cord and yanking the console. The family room is a pretty hectic place at times and something that by definition is going to have kids getting their hands on it ought to be robust.
This may not be a "defect" per se, but it is a shoddy engineering call, for sure.
Instead, its a financial meltdown by a suddenly emergent AI. Why destroy the planet when it is so much easier to just starve humanity to death!
In all seriousness though, the usual anti-globalism doomsayers are not the only one. A careful reading of the insurance industries actuarial newsletters will show a growing skepticism of computer modelling. It's kinda funny but remember the big brouhaha over Mann's Hockey Stick was that he used some software, I think, that was also used for Wall Street trading models. What if he just royally screwed up?
. Standard operation would not involve moving the item while it was on
Why not? I could do that with any cartridge based system. So... I would say that there is a market expectation that you should be able to move a console around.... regardless of the move to optical drives...
You really think it would be more efficient if every single country had its own car manufacturing plant? Have you not heard of economy of scale?
Why does every country have to have the same kind of car? Why not have cars that reflect the customs and traditions of each country and become a part of that nation's cultural expression? You know, why not have cars that are also art?