Re:We don't use oil for Electricity
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 1
You should be stockpiling guns and ammo.
While you don't exactly fail to understand, I think you under-appreciate. You might last a few years longer, on average.
Re:Excellent review of the book
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 1
"Can so!"
"Can NOT!"
Can SO!"
Your point may well be true. Perhaps we can leverage technology to meet demand. But is this a wise bet? If you're wrong, the consequences are potentially catastrophic. If you're right, but we've invested in alternative energy, have we really lost anything besides depriving the oil barons of a few billion? It's mere pocket change, really.
Of course, being a PhD in the field, you're not at all influenced by the scarcity of research dollars.
Re:Something good may yet come out of this
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 1
Maybe, unless you think that taxing gas is the most accurate way to apportion the cost of maintaining and administering the transportation system. User pays, eh? Good enough for mass transit patrons, good enough for drivers and shippers.
Now some will argue that the taxes are too low, as they don't cover all the related costs, but all of those studies have included environmental impact costs that are wildly subjective at best.
I don't have actual figures, but I bet if you added up the costs of maintaining and administering a transportation system, you would find that petrol taxes in the US do not cover costs. Indeed, the transportation system is subsidized by income tax, fed and state.
I appreciate your points. However, other countries have done it. If we'd gone through with it back in the 70s then I bet dollars to donuts that the pain would be over.
The construction industry would now have the benefit of a larger pool of suppliers.
American producers would have the benefit of a more homogenous market.
(Sessile. Awesome word choice. I had to look it up.)
They will charge you, and if you can't pay, they will go after your assets.
Of course, even if you have insurance, there's no guarantee the insurance company will pay, or pay the full amount. Both the hospital admin and the insurance company know that you won't have the time nor desire to go through the complex bills and contract minutae, much less enjoy hiring a lawyer and spending time at trial or preparing for trial.
I've lived under both kinds of systems. Give me national health any day. Here in the US, the insurance companies are playing us like violins.
You'll be charged and if you can't pay, they'll come after your assets. Tends to put upward pressure on borrowing rates because people default on loans when they can't pay their medical bills.
But it's ok 'cause you can pay the higher interest rates with the money you save not subsidizing national health. Works beautifully for financial institutions. They get the dough instead of the tax man.
Too true! It's a law of nature that you will relate routine events in your child's life as either humorous and insightful anecdotes or monumental epics.
I, like a lot of people, have a modest house and a plain vanilla car. My kids go to excellent schools, my biggest expense next to my mortgage. I don't need for anything and value things that are practically free, eg, good books, movies, 8-ball, scotch. I just want to at least provide my kids with the education I've promised them.
I suspect I'm not particularly rare. I just want some guarantee that my modest contributions to society will be justifiably rewarded and not ignored because economic models were determined to be natural or even divine.
And although I'm not an economist, I do know a little of science and I assert evolutionary arguments come out on the side of protecting one's tribe. (Check out Stephen Pinker's 'How the Mind Works')
Could be, but what if the net gain is concentrated among the elite (at least in the outsourcing country) at the expense of the middle and working classes? Good enough for some, huh?
Born and raised in the US, I lived for nearly a decade over seas as an adult. It's incredible the amount of hand-wringing, finger pointing, whining and moaning that emanates from the US whenever it gets some of it's own medicine.
Global organizations, especially those dominated by first-world countries (or soon to be first-world countries like China), are notorious for using the facade of free trade as a mask for the pursuit of their own selfish interests.
This particular case has nothing more to do with internationalism that the US trying to encourage sales of DDT to South American countries. This is a free trade issue. Or would you claim that any nation's trade policy promoting powdered baby formula over mother's milk is an unfair trade practice targeted at America.
<flamebait>
The argument of any participant who uses the term 'the bottom line' is automatically suspect.
</flamebait>
More seriously, you've made no argument what so ever. Here's a simple test. Replace references to your side with the other side, and/or vice versa, and if the result isn't implausible, then chances are you're just spouting propaganda and not truly engaging in debate.
Lastly, you can argue over semantics all you like. But the point remains. The US was engaged in the development of Kyoto, but then walked out. It's immaterial to the original post's argument if this was technically a 'withdrawal'. The US often gets its panties in bunch and pretends to take the moral high ground; then, much like the rich neighborhood kid who takes his ball home when he thinks he's been hard done by, disengages from the dialog.
The difference is that no one is trying to, nor likely will in the near future, make a buck off the Gnu label in any fashion except that enhances Gnu. (It's unimportant for the purposes of my point, whether Gnu or it's icons are trademarked.)
We all know that RMS is very protective of the GPL and all things Gnu, and so he should be! He and thousands of volunteers have worked very hard in creating great, unfettered software.
You wouldn't want someone selling baby-seal clubs with a Gnu label stamped on it. Or cigarettes. Or really crappy software. Or body-armor-piercing bullets. Or gamma hydroxybutyrate. Or stripped car parts. Or surveillance devices.
If gnu.org had the sort of visibility with the general public that Mozilla does, and people ready to make a cheap buck at the expense of their reputation, then I guarantee you gnu.org would be taking a different stance on this issue.
In fact, in the long run it is probably a good thing that Mozilla is protecting the Firefox trademarks. Unethical businessmen, of which their are so few, could co-opt any OSS brand as a tactic to undermine the OSS and Free software movement(s) by purposefully distributing faulty products.
The difference is that no one is trying to, or likely will in the near future, try to make a buck off the Gnu label. (It's umimportant for the purposes of my point whether it's trademarked or not.)
We all know that RMS is very protective of the GPL and all things Gnu, and so he should be! He and thousands of volunteers have worked very hard in creating great, unfettered software.
You wouldn't want someone selling baby-seal clubs with a Gnu label attached to it.
If gnu.org had the sort of visibility with the general public that Mozilla does, and people ready to make a cheap buck at the expense of their reputation, then I guarantee you gnu.org would be taking a whole different stance on this issue.
I think I hear what you're saying. In a world where people are rounded up off the streets and jailed/tortured/killed, for no other reason than they belong to the wrong ethnic group or political party; where children are malnourished; where fundamental human rights are blatantly squashed with impunity, it seems inconsequential what browser I use to surf the web, or if I can read your word doc on my Linux box.
In general, we Americans and Europeans don't suffer from such rights abuses. However, as computing becomes pervasive, we shouldn't be allowing software to dictate terms to us. Rather, the software should be used as we wish. We should be free to use software at our discretion, not forced to use a particular program or OS because some powerful company introduced an artificial scarcity.
It's a rights issue. Perhaps not as visceral as rights issues in some regions of the world, but still a rights issue full promise and consequence.
Slashdot Mirror
While you don't exactly fail to understand, I think you under-appreciate. You might last a few years longer, on average.
"Can so!"
"Can NOT!"
Can SO!"
Your point may well be true. Perhaps we can leverage technology to meet demand. But is this a wise bet? If you're wrong, the consequences are potentially catastrophic. If you're right, but we've invested in alternative energy, have we really lost anything besides depriving the oil barons of a few billion? It's mere pocket change, really.
Of course, being a PhD in the field, you're not at all influenced by the scarcity of research dollars.
Maybe, unless you think that taxing gas is the most accurate way to apportion the cost of maintaining and administering the transportation system. User pays, eh? Good enough for mass transit patrons, good enough for drivers and shippers.
I don't have actual figures, but I bet if you added up the costs of maintaining and administering a transportation system, you would find that petrol taxes in the US do not cover costs. Indeed, the transportation system is subsidized by income tax, fed and state.
I appreciate your points. However, other countries have done it. If we'd gone through with it back in the 70s then I bet dollars to donuts that the pain would be over.
The construction industry would now have the benefit of a larger pool of suppliers. American producers would have the benefit of a more homogenous market.
(Sessile. Awesome word choice. I had to look it up.)
The Reagan administration conspired with powerful interests with incentive not to adopt best practices to kill the move to metric.
What a waste. Thanks, Republicans. Just another example of your lot dropping the ball.
Thanks for the thoughtful post!
They will charge you, and if you can't pay, they will go after your assets.
Of course, even if you have insurance, there's no guarantee the insurance company will pay, or pay the full amount. Both the hospital admin and the insurance company know that you won't have the time nor desire to go through the complex bills and contract minutae, much less enjoy hiring a lawyer and spending time at trial or preparing for trial.
I've lived under both kinds of systems. Give me national health any day. Here in the US, the insurance companies are playing us like violins.
You'll be charged and if you can't pay, they'll come after your assets. Tends to put upward pressure on borrowing rates because people default on loans when they can't pay their medical bills.
But it's ok 'cause you can pay the higher interest rates with the money you save not subsidizing national health. Works beautifully for financial institutions. They get the dough instead of the tax man.
Did ya get up on the grumpy side of the bed this morning? Forget the refill on your happy pill script?
Too true! It's a law of nature that you will relate routine events in your child's life as either humorous and insightful anecdotes or monumental epics.
Rock on, Moms and Dads!
Thanks for you thoughtful reply.
I, like a lot of people, have a modest house and a plain vanilla car. My kids go to excellent schools, my biggest expense next to my mortgage. I don't need for anything and value things that are practically free, eg, good books, movies, 8-ball, scotch. I just want to at least provide my kids with the education I've promised them.
I suspect I'm not particularly rare. I just want some guarantee that my modest contributions to society will be justifiably rewarded and not ignored because economic models were determined to be natural or even divine.
And although I'm not an economist, I do know a little of science and I assert evolutionary arguments come out on the side of protecting one's tribe. (Check out Stephen Pinker's 'How the Mind Works')
In theory, yes. And believe me, I hope you're right in practice as well. I really, really do.
"Trust me, I'm a doctor^H^H^H^H^H^Heconomist."
This is off-topic, but it's been my experience that the code monkeys often do more project management than their managers acknowledge.
Could be, but what if the net gain is concentrated among the elite (at least in the outsourcing country) at the expense of the middle and working classes? Good enough for some, huh?
At the latest, since Ronald Reagan made the association between free markets, representative democracy, and morality.
Spot on!
Born and raised in the US, I lived for nearly a decade over seas as an adult. It's incredible the amount of hand-wringing, finger pointing, whining and moaning that emanates from the US whenever it gets some of it's own medicine.
Thanks for making the point.
Global organizations, especially those dominated by first-world countries (or soon to be first-world countries like China), are notorious for using the facade of free trade as a mask for the pursuit of their own selfish interests.
This particular case has nothing more to do with internationalism that the US trying to encourage sales of DDT to South American countries. This is a free trade issue. Or would you claim that any nation's trade policy promoting powdered baby formula over mother's milk is an unfair trade practice targeted at America.
Come on, really, raise the bar.
<flamebait> The argument of any participant who uses the term 'the bottom line' is automatically suspect. </flamebait>
More seriously, you've made no argument what so ever. Here's a simple test. Replace references to your side with the other side, and/or vice versa, and if the result isn't implausible, then chances are you're just spouting propaganda and not truly engaging in debate.
Lastly, you can argue over semantics all you like. But the point remains. The US was engaged in the development of Kyoto, but then walked out. It's immaterial to the original post's argument if this was technically a 'withdrawal'. The US often gets its panties in bunch and pretends to take the moral high ground; then, much like the rich neighborhood kid who takes his ball home when he thinks he's been hard done by, disengages from the dialog.
lol!! Thanks, you made my morning.
You should revisit 'Lord of the Flies'.
The asteroids blanc are real killers as well.
The difference is that no one is trying to, nor likely will in the near future, make a buck off the Gnu label in any fashion except that enhances Gnu. (It's unimportant for the purposes of my point, whether Gnu or it's icons are trademarked.)
We all know that RMS is very protective of the GPL and all things Gnu, and so he should be! He and thousands of volunteers have worked very hard in creating great, unfettered software.
You wouldn't want someone selling baby-seal clubs with a Gnu label stamped on it. Or cigarettes. Or really crappy software. Or body-armor-piercing bullets. Or gamma hydroxybutyrate. Or stripped car parts. Or surveillance devices.
If gnu.org had the sort of visibility with the general public that Mozilla does, and people ready to make a cheap buck at the expense of their reputation, then I guarantee you gnu.org would be taking a different stance on this issue.
In fact, in the long run it is probably a good thing that Mozilla is protecting the Firefox trademarks. Unethical businessmen, of which their are so few, could co-opt any OSS brand as a tactic to undermine the OSS and Free software movement(s) by purposefully distributing faulty products.
The difference is that no one is trying to, or likely will in the near future, try to make a buck off the Gnu label. (It's umimportant for the purposes of my point whether it's trademarked or not.)
We all know that RMS is very protective of the GPL and all things Gnu, and so he should be! He and thousands of volunteers have worked very hard in creating great, unfettered software.
You wouldn't want someone selling baby-seal clubs with a Gnu label attached to it.
If gnu.org had the sort of visibility with the general public that Mozilla does, and people ready to make a cheap buck at the expense of their reputation, then I guarantee you gnu.org would be taking a whole different stance on this issue.
Mod up! +1 Insightful
I think I hear what you're saying. In a world where people are rounded up off the streets and jailed/tortured/killed, for no other reason than they belong to the wrong ethnic group or political party; where children are malnourished; where fundamental human rights are blatantly squashed with impunity, it seems inconsequential what browser I use to surf the web, or if I can read your word doc on my Linux box.
In general, we Americans and Europeans don't suffer from such rights abuses. However, as computing becomes pervasive, we shouldn't be allowing software to dictate terms to us. Rather, the software should be used as we wish. We should be free to use software at our discretion, not forced to use a particular program or OS because some powerful company introduced an artificial scarcity.
It's a rights issue. Perhaps not as visceral as rights issues in some regions of the world, but still a rights issue full promise and consequence.