You were not advocating on making 'green energy' profitable
but i am advocating making green energy profitable
Don't tell me what I am advocating, but here let me tell you I am advocating exactly what you said I was. Pure genius.
whatever dipshit. keep trying to impress me and falling flat on your face why don't you.
miners don't pay for the minerals they mine, the pay for the license to mine it, so whether they find nothing or strike paydirt they still pay the same for the license. they don't purchase the resources they find in advance.
Using your argument no one can own gold, copper, diamond, or anything else that grew naturally and someone else harvested
there you go with your bullshit presumption again, and again you are full of shit.
care to have another poke since i can't even be fucked arguing with all the rest of your garbage?
don't make the mistake of mixing environment with economy... politicians and businesses will never give a shit about the environment
and don't presume to tell me what i was advocating... that makes you look more like an idiot when i tell you how wrong you are
i was indeed advocating making green technologies (not just energy, which is a small subset of green technology) more profitable by making dirty technologies less profitable, and my argument has little to do with the housing bubble, which was caused by artificially low interest rates by the federal reserve in combination with mortgages underwritten by the government. an emissions trading scheme is more analogous to a commodity market (such as gold or silver).
the problem with your argument is that green energy companies (energy being the main subject of your argument, not mine) do not find themselves on a level playing field, because dirty energy companies have a huge advantage; natural resources. at the moment, the major cost of coal mining is getting it out of the ground (the cost of mining licenses are a pittance compared to their worth). there is no penalty to mining companies for depletion of natural resources (they don't "buy" what they use) and no penalty for many environmental effects (such as dust, pollution, huge holes in the ground, etc).
on the other hand, while green technology companies are taking advantage of freely available resources, they aren't depleting a finite resource.
maybe look at it this way; a dirty energy mining company comes into your farm with their mining license and starts digging a huge hole in the ground and building coal handing facilities and a power station, and another green energy company comes and builds a solar power station... which one are you going to be more pissed off with? obviously you may not be happy with having power stations of any sort built on your property, but it's pretty obvious that physical removal of your land (digging a big hole and making a profit from what comes out) would be more ethically questionable.
imposing a cost for using a finite resource, where the owner of the resource is the government representing the people (there's nothing anti-free market here, unless you have a problem with the government "owning" land), the cost being imposed wither directly by tax or by credit to greener tech, will level the playing field more so that green energy companies have an incentive to put in the R&D efforts that were required to make dirty energy profitable in the first place.
a level playing field would be like comparing a coal power station with a solar power station where the solar power station gradually reduced the amount of sunlight on the world.
also, there should be a cost for health effects, because if a dirty energy company chugs out pollution that effects the health of those around it and a green tech company doesn't, the lower health effects by the green energy company should have intrinsic (not just moral) value.
there is no reason why pollution can't be traded like any commodity, including the resources that are burnt to make the pollution. this would not result in any kind of "bubble"... you've been watching too much CNN
i don't know whether you're misunderstanding my point or you're just stupid
i wasn't advocating forcing anything, simply making it more profitable to go green
companies can continue to chug out smog, but it will cost them. there's nothing about this that seems unfair; if someone came along and started chugging out smog into your backyard wouldn't you be pissed off if they could just do it freely without any form of penalties whatsoever? there are penalties for exceeding certain limits, but all that does is force companies to operate at or near those limits (not to reduce further than necessary)
If a company can make green energy work they would be mega Rick, but it is not ready as the original poster stated.
the original poster is clearly not an expert on green technologies
even in coal power stations at the moment there are technologies that can markedly reduce emissions... no we're not talking any kind of wonder technologies like fueling cars with water, more along the lines of improved dust removal and chemical filtration, but companies won't spend the money on it unless they have to (why would they)... there must be a financial incentive to spend money
any company that develops a green technology isn't automatically going to become "super rich" regardless of how much government support they get, because they have to sell it, and if their green tech is more expensive than the dirty tech, consumers won't buy into it regardless of how environmentally friendly it is (same goes for electric cars, etc).
rich people would be immortal by throwing wealth to end death
ummm.... as far as i know they do. i think you'll find that much of the philanthropic contributions by rich people are in medical fields, and if you analyze it further you may find that there is correlation between the targeted fields of research and the family medical histories of the contributors. i don't know whether there is, and i don't care... rich people will spend money on whatever they want, and not everyone wants to live forever. very subjective.
forcing people to live beneath thier means which always heralds suffering and death
what the hell are you talking about here? everyone should live within their means. how can you live "beneath your means", which would seem to imply that you're bringing in more money than you're spending (which has never killed anyone). what can be more dangerous is living beyond your means (spending more money than you make).
it's a bit hard to analyze an argument that barely makes any sense, but if you can clarify things a bit i might be able to have a better go
maybe we should just shut down all the coal power stations then
the ground is full of carbon already, so adding more isn't going to have as much of an effect as nuclear waste which would be much much more of a problem if leaked into the water table. there are obviously other chemicals that we have to be careful of, but i think carbon capture and storage has much better health benefits than simply allowing the products to vent to the atmosphere
i'm also pretty sure that the depth they are talking about pumping to for carbon capture is pretty deep
i only care about the environment in as much as it affects me directly (same as most people)
companies will never care about the environment
my argument wasn't really about environmental benefits... it was about getting rid of dirty industry in favor of newer green tech (for better jobs), and if that has some small and gradual environmental benefit then so be it
not that environmental benefits aren't worth trying to achieve, but it won't factor into political or business objectives
as long as man exists and global population continues to skyrocket, nothing we do will really have a big improvement on the environment. have a look at the youtube video linked below about the real future threat, which isn't pollution or war; it's growth
humanity is a global virus, which be continue to be the case regardless of how many trees we plant. the only way to prevent a virus from spreading is to kill it
the problem with the republican party is that there isn't really "a" republican party... there are the sheep candidates that follow whatever the latest news is on CNN (Romney) and there are the libertarians like Ron Paul that would have had a run for the presidency if the republican primary vote was actually fair (as in whole electorates in favor of paul not being excluded).
obama won on the idiot vote (everyone on welfare wants more welfare so they will always vote for the guy promising more welfare).
if you want progress, you MUST make dirty technology more expensive than green technology... that is the ONLY way, and that has not happened
it won't happen organically... that is an ignorant farce and shows a lack of understanding of how businesses think
if we don't artificially make dirty tech more expensive, then it will only happen when dirty tech becomes naturally more expensive (when oil and other resources become more scarce... hence more expensive)
the problem is if you wait for depletion to drive up the cost, it's already too late
government intervention in economics is generally a bad idea, but making pollution into a commodity may not require a lot of government intervention
in Australia we have a carbon "tax", but after about 2015 it will evolve into an emissions trading scheme, which will hand more control over to the free market without eliminating it altogether
when companies can either make or save money by going green, they will be more likely to do it
placing faith in corporate or human ethics and morals is simply foolish
humans have been, are, and will always be driven by greed and self-interest.... the key is to make going green valuable
i think the whole emphasis of "clean coal" is about cleaner disposal of harmful combustion products
maybe think of it like this....
nuclear is seen as being a "clean" energy source (of sorts), but how would you like it if they just dumped the radioactive spent fuel rods in your local dump like ordinary rubbish? you wouldn't, but nuclear is only "clean" because of the huge efforts in dealing with the radioactive waste (storing it in underground facilities)
clean coal is analogous to nuclear in that instead of dumping the combustion products into the atmosphere, proponents talk about pumping it deep into the ground
many have bitched that it will cost jobs yadayadayada.... but those same people bitched about the gst when it was introduced
at least a carbon tax puts some vague environmental consideration into the corporate balance sheet, which is better than none at all
i would rather see old dirty industries go overseas where it's cheaper to operate, which will make room for new cleaner industries. it will take years, but it would take even longer if the status quo of dirty industry dominance was allowed to perpetuate
those who think that humanity's effect on the environment is negligible and that we should make no attempt to do something about it are just stupid
at least corporations are responsible to their customers... piss the customer off too much and the share price drops and you lose
on the other hand, governments are responsible to nobody and all over the world they are going crazy with power (but particularly in the united states)
google should just give the stuff away anyway and just not collect the data... even if merely to close the window of opportunity for microsoft
the problem for google is that if microsoft gets its grubby hands on the opportunity, they will lock the education system into the microsoft ecosystem and they will have the contract for eternity
laws can always be amended, and money can be made by other means... i'm sure there are some smart cookies at google that could come up with a revenue stream in such a system that doesn't violate such law (if enacted)
What's mission critical about "the 911 Call Center"? Maybe the US government thinks mass telemarketing to try to convince intelligent folk that the WTC towers "collapsed" is mission critical, but as far as i'm concerned there is nothing more mission critical than the server hosting a web page with a photo of my stretched open ass hole having six sigma availability.
I guess Windows 8 is comparable to a "crappy ass" version of any software... fortunately the rest of us don't use "crappy ass Solaris", we use the normal version, which isn't crappy at all.
Slashdot Mirror
well fuck me drunk over a bar stool sideways
you forgot unimatrix zero and endor... this is slashdot after all
but i thought he wrote linux to help stallman launch his toe cheese eating revolution?
you telling me i been chowing down for nothing?
you're confusing australia with america
You were not advocating on making 'green energy' profitable
but i am advocating making green energy profitable
Don't tell me what I am advocating, but here let me tell you I am advocating exactly what you said I was. Pure genius.
whatever dipshit. keep trying to impress me and falling flat on your face why don't you.
miners don't pay for the minerals they mine, the pay for the license to mine it, so whether they find nothing or strike paydirt they still pay the same for the license. they don't purchase the resources they find in advance.
Using your argument no one can own gold, copper, diamond, or anything else that grew naturally and someone else harvested
there you go with your bullshit presumption again, and again you are full of shit.
care to have another poke since i can't even be fucked arguing with all the rest of your garbage?
don't make the mistake of mixing environment with economy... politicians and businesses will never give a shit about the environment
and don't presume to tell me what i was advocating... that makes you look more like an idiot when i tell you how wrong you are
i was indeed advocating making green technologies (not just energy, which is a small subset of green technology) more profitable by making dirty technologies less profitable, and my argument has little to do with the housing bubble, which was caused by artificially low interest rates by the federal reserve in combination with mortgages underwritten by the government. an emissions trading scheme is more analogous to a commodity market (such as gold or silver).
the problem with your argument is that green energy companies (energy being the main subject of your argument, not mine) do not find themselves on a level playing field, because dirty energy companies have a huge advantage; natural resources. at the moment, the major cost of coal mining is getting it out of the ground (the cost of mining licenses are a pittance compared to their worth). there is no penalty to mining companies for depletion of natural resources (they don't "buy" what they use) and no penalty for many environmental effects (such as dust, pollution, huge holes in the ground, etc).
on the other hand, while green technology companies are taking advantage of freely available resources, they aren't depleting a finite resource.
maybe look at it this way; a dirty energy mining company comes into your farm with their mining license and starts digging a huge hole in the ground and building coal handing facilities and a power station, and another green energy company comes and builds a solar power station... which one are you going to be more pissed off with? obviously you may not be happy with having power stations of any sort built on your property, but it's pretty obvious that physical removal of your land (digging a big hole and making a profit from what comes out) would be more ethically questionable.
imposing a cost for using a finite resource, where the owner of the resource is the government representing the people (there's nothing anti-free market here, unless you have a problem with the government "owning" land), the cost being imposed wither directly by tax or by credit to greener tech, will level the playing field more so that green energy companies have an incentive to put in the R&D efforts that were required to make dirty energy profitable in the first place.
a level playing field would be like comparing a coal power station with a solar power station where the solar power station gradually reduced the amount of sunlight on the world.
also, there should be a cost for health effects, because if a dirty energy company chugs out pollution that effects the health of those around it and a green tech company doesn't, the lower health effects by the green energy company should have intrinsic (not just moral) value.
there is no reason why pollution can't be traded like any commodity, including the resources that are burnt to make the pollution. this would not result in any kind of "bubble"... you've been watching too much CNN
i'm pretty sure there are lots of dangerous chemicals in the ground already (where do you think we get the mercury from in the first place?)
i don't know whether you're misunderstanding my point or you're just stupid
i wasn't advocating forcing anything, simply making it more profitable to go green
companies can continue to chug out smog, but it will cost them. there's nothing about this that seems unfair; if someone came along and started chugging out smog into your backyard wouldn't you be pissed off if they could just do it freely without any form of penalties whatsoever? there are penalties for exceeding certain limits, but all that does is force companies to operate at or near those limits (not to reduce further than necessary)
If a company can make green energy work they would be mega Rick, but it is not ready as the original poster stated.
the original poster is clearly not an expert on green technologies
even in coal power stations at the moment there are technologies that can markedly reduce emissions... no we're not talking any kind of wonder technologies like fueling cars with water, more along the lines of improved dust removal and chemical filtration, but companies won't spend the money on it unless they have to (why would they)... there must be a financial incentive to spend money
any company that develops a green technology isn't automatically going to become "super rich" regardless of how much government support they get, because they have to sell it, and if their green tech is more expensive than the dirty tech, consumers won't buy into it regardless of how environmentally friendly it is (same goes for electric cars, etc).
rich people would be immortal by throwing wealth to end death
ummm.... as far as i know they do. i think you'll find that much of the philanthropic contributions by rich people are in medical fields, and if you analyze it further you may find that there is correlation between the targeted fields of research and the family medical histories of the contributors. i don't know whether there is, and i don't care... rich people will spend money on whatever they want, and not everyone wants to live forever. very subjective.
forcing people to live beneath thier means which always heralds suffering and death
what the hell are you talking about here? everyone should live within their means. how can you live "beneath your means", which would seem to imply that you're bringing in more money than you're spending (which has never killed anyone). what can be more dangerous is living beyond your means (spending more money than you make).
it's a bit hard to analyze an argument that barely makes any sense, but if you can clarify things a bit i might be able to have a better go
maybe we should just shut down all the coal power stations then
the ground is full of carbon already, so adding more isn't going to have as much of an effect as nuclear waste which would be much much more of a problem if leaked into the water table. there are obviously other chemicals that we have to be careful of, but i think carbon capture and storage has much better health benefits than simply allowing the products to vent to the atmosphere
i'm also pretty sure that the depth they are talking about pumping to for carbon capture is pretty deep
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
i only care about the environment in as much as it affects me directly (same as most people)
companies will never care about the environment
my argument wasn't really about environmental benefits... it was about getting rid of dirty industry in favor of newer green tech (for better jobs), and if that has some small and gradual environmental benefit then so be it
not that environmental benefits aren't worth trying to achieve, but it won't factor into political or business objectives
as long as man exists and global population continues to skyrocket, nothing we do will really have a big improvement on the environment. have a look at the youtube video linked below about the real future threat, which isn't pollution or war; it's growth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOMWzjrRiBg
humanity is a global virus, which be continue to be the case regardless of how many trees we plant. the only way to prevent a virus from spreading is to kill it
don't be daft... i'm human, and humans put self-interest first... always
i don't dive a fuck if china pollutes itself out of existence, as long as air near me is clean
i want new tech companies in my country to make new tech jobs more available
who ever said i was an environmentalist?
the problem with the republican party is that there isn't really "a" republican party... there are the sheep candidates that follow whatever the latest news is on CNN (Romney) and there are the libertarians like Ron Paul that would have had a run for the presidency if the republican primary vote was actually fair (as in whole electorates in favor of paul not being excluded).
obama won on the idiot vote (everyone on welfare wants more welfare so they will always vote for the guy promising more welfare).
if you want progress, you MUST make dirty technology more expensive than green technology... that is the ONLY way, and that has not happened
it won't happen organically... that is an ignorant farce and shows a lack of understanding of how businesses think
if we don't artificially make dirty tech more expensive, then it will only happen when dirty tech becomes naturally more expensive (when oil and other resources become more scarce... hence more expensive)
the problem is if you wait for depletion to drive up the cost, it's already too late
government intervention in economics is generally a bad idea, but making pollution into a commodity may not require a lot of government intervention
in Australia we have a carbon "tax", but after about 2015 it will evolve into an emissions trading scheme, which will hand more control over to the free market without eliminating it altogether
when companies can either make or save money by going green, they will be more likely to do it
placing faith in corporate or human ethics and morals is simply foolish
humans have been, are, and will always be driven by greed and self-interest.... the key is to make going green valuable
i think the whole emphasis of "clean coal" is about cleaner disposal of harmful combustion products
maybe think of it like this....
nuclear is seen as being a "clean" energy source (of sorts), but how would you like it if they just dumped the radioactive spent fuel rods in your local dump like ordinary rubbish? you wouldn't, but nuclear is only "clean" because of the huge efforts in dealing with the radioactive waste (storing it in underground facilities)
clean coal is analogous to nuclear in that instead of dumping the combustion products into the atmosphere, proponents talk about pumping it deep into the ground
in the corporate world, penalties always get passed onto the customer, and windfalls always get passed onto the shareholder
net effect: gas gets more expensive, stock price of oil companies increases
in australia we now have a carbon tax
many have bitched that it will cost jobs yadayadayada.... but those same people bitched about the gst when it was introduced
at least a carbon tax puts some vague environmental consideration into the corporate balance sheet, which is better than none at all
i would rather see old dirty industries go overseas where it's cheaper to operate, which will make room for new cleaner industries. it will take years, but it would take even longer if the status quo of dirty industry dominance was allowed to perpetuate
those who think that humanity's effect on the environment is negligible and that we should make no attempt to do something about it are just stupid
at least my contribution had some degree (however small) of dry nerd humor attached to it
you're just a whiney bitch
i don't force her to be a tomboy. i said "luckily" in the context of this thread.... douchebag
web 2.0 was about using the internet to make money
web 3.0 is the new web created by those who are fed up with the web 2.0 bullshit and now use p2p and torrent clients to avoid web 2.0
i don't think that there has been any attempts by groklaw to hide bias against corporate interests
groklaw is informative, but it also helps to serve the interests of the little foss developers
for example, groklaw played a part in the demise of sco
at least corporations are responsible to their customers... piss the customer off too much and the share price drops and you lose
on the other hand, governments are responsible to nobody and all over the world they are going crazy with power (but particularly in the united states)
google should just give the stuff away anyway and just not collect the data... even if merely to close the window of opportunity for microsoft
the problem for google is that if microsoft gets its grubby hands on the opportunity, they will lock the education system into the microsoft ecosystem and they will have the contract for eternity
laws can always be amended, and money can be made by other means... i'm sure there are some smart cookies at google that could come up with a revenue stream in such a system that doesn't violate such law (if enacted)
that's why mission critical servers should be headless with ssh access only
What's mission critical about "the 911 Call Center"? Maybe the US government thinks mass telemarketing to try to convince intelligent folk that the WTC towers "collapsed" is mission critical, but as far as i'm concerned there is nothing more mission critical than the server hosting a web page with a photo of my stretched open ass hole having six sigma availability.
I guess Windows 8 is comparable to a "crappy ass" version of any software... fortunately the rest of us don't use "crappy ass Solaris", we use the normal version, which isn't crappy at all.