Not necessarily. When looked at in isolation, they may accept the risk. Given that the likelihood of a CAT5 in the Northeast is absurdly low given history, the equation may well come out to simply accepting the risk when bounced against the costs of mitigation. But most likely they've already mitigated the risk of any "total destruction" event by having a backup datacenter regardless of this one extreme "what if" scenario generated by global warming panic.
A patent isn't an unchecked monopoly, by definition since it has a built-in limit. We also have FRAND rules in place to prevent abuse of the patent monopoly in standards as Samsung is trying to do now.
But if you just patent it, built it, and sell it, the government has no business complaining about anticompetitive practices, since that is the procedure the government itself put in place. One of Google's lawyers was saying that if an invention gets really popular it should be subject to FRAND rules even if the patent holder never submitted it for a standard. That is wrong. The patented tech being popular and selling well is supposed to be the reward for the invention.
Would you rather a few fat cats to get away, or do you want the entire economy to implode?
The economy wouldn't have imploded, but it would have taken a bigger short-term hit. But by softening the hit, we've prevented a truly healthy rebound. The market needed to correct, but we didn't allow it to do so, and we incurred tremendous debt in the process. We got screwed twice just so politicians can get reelected.
A government grant of monopoly. Then they expire, and the monopoly is over. If the government does not like such monopolies, then it should stop issuing patents.
Regulation is not primarily about infringment on individual freedom and trade, it is about limiting the effect an error, a fraud, or a failure have on innocent bystanders.
Theoretically, I agree. But regulation in our system is not set up that way. For example, the triggering factor to the subprime collapse was government regulation meant to force lenders to give morgtages to people who would normally be rejected due to their financial situation (hence, "subprime"). This regulation was enforced for a social reason, a utopian ideal that everybody whould be a homeowner even if they can't afford it. It was not meant to prevent fraud. In fact, it encouraged fraud as banks found a way to profit on it. We have other regulations that prop up prices for industries such as farming. A lot of states have regulations with origins in religion (e.g., no liquor sales on Sunday). Regulation of cigarettes is a good one, pure nanny state, interfering with the free association between a consumer of a product and its producer.
Randian thinking requires that you privatize the profits and privatize the risk. Freedom means freedom to fail. The problem these days is that often the profits are privatized, but risk is socialized. What allowed this to happen is a powerful government, a government powerful enough to hand out favors to those who can buy thim. If the government did not have this much power, it could not hand out such favors to the rich and socialize their risk onto the rest of us.
And courts upholding contracts and a police enforcing the court decisions are the judictive and the executive branch of those laws and regulations.
According to even hard-core libertarians, this is one legitimate function of government. The libertarian ideal of free entities making contracts with each other, without interference from the government, can't exist without a legal system to enforce those contracts. This is libertarianism, not anarchy.
And when ripping off the customers, those in charge would be held accountable. Thus they have disincentive for fraud. Freedom stops at fraud, in which case you are infringing on the freedom of others.
But under our system the frauds get bailouts if their political connections are good enough.
Not really. Those in charge get to skate with their money. They're free to try it again with another company.
What they need in this case is piercing of the corporate veil. Those who started this, and cost other companies so many millions of dollars in this bad-faith fraud, need to be held personally accountable.
The problem with our current system is that the government creates an environment for the corporate raiders to prosper (deregulation, protectionism, laws favoring large corporations against smaller ones), gives them incentive to do underhanded tricks (forcing them to loan to subprime borrowers), and then bails them out when they fail. They don't suffer the consequences of their actions because of an overly-powerful government.
On a smaller scale, you don't have to worry about taking a mortgage you knew you couldn't afford, betting everything on the value of the house rising, because the government is going to come in and crack down on the banks, providing mortgage relief. You can easily go bankrupt, leaving the lenders to suck it up for your poor life choices.
IOW, the recent cratering was decidedly non-Randian in nature.
The two parties own our political process. They make it difficult for anyone but them to get on the ballot. They even have "straight ticket" checkboxes on ballots so you don't have to go through the trouble of voting for individuals based on their qualifications, but simply vote for every Democrat or Republican on the ballot.
But in the end, you can vote for whoever you want to vote for in the general election.
The biggest reason for the party registration is that most states don't allow you to vote in a party's primary unless you're registered to a party, and a person registered for one party can't vote in another party's primary (vote for the weakest candidate). Yes, that's another way the two parties have owned our system: The government actually runs and pays for their primary elections when it should be their own business who they put up for election, and entirely with their own money.
trademark law, copyright law, intellectual property: it is such an absurd, useless pox on civilization.
Despite corporations seeing it as "property" it has a useful purpose, to keep the consumer from getting ripped off. Otherwise, you could by an expensive Snap-On tool, only to find out it's a cheap pot metal knock-off legally using the Snap-On name. The way it is now, Snap-On will go after the offender in order to protect its name, which protects us, the consumer.
Consider this: they have no other name for it. "Aero" is still "Aero",
I guess Aero was a different enough name from the Aqua (OS X) Microsoft was copying. What I don't get is losing the name Metro. As far as I remember, the store chain doesn't have its own operating system or user interface. Trademark only works on related products.
They didn't name a product. It was an internal code name and the system was never publicly marketed as such. Sagan learned about the internal ongoings at Apple (probably from a Sagan fan at Apple) and got offended and worried that it *might* eventually be used publicly. Since it was never used in commerce, and you can't sue on what only may happen, Sagan had no case, Apple didn't have to comply with the C&D.
Then they change it to BHA (Butt Head Astronomer) due to Sagan being, well, a butt head. Sagan sues. Too bad for him and good for free speech that just making fun of someone isn't libel. If it were, the South Park creators would owe billions and billions of dollars.
I still don't agree with your characterisations, I find them misleading and dishonest. You consistently over-reach what the evidence says to push forward an extremely biased view. It still looks to me like Gore is refusing to debate the science with Lomborg.
You before: Context matters, context matters, you are taking things out of context so you're dishonest.
Me: Here's a quote with perfect context provided.
You now: "It still looks to me like Gore is refusing to debate the science with Lomborg."
Now, when context is very important, you ignore context.
It's not clear that he understood (or even cares) what position Lomborg stands for.
Lomborg (who is, BTW, an extreme leftist by American standards) had been hounding Gore for quite a long time before this incident, trying to get Gore to debate him on the political issue. He was at the time one of Gore's most prominent and well-known opponents. Gore knew who he was and what he stood for. There's even more context for you.
Yet, you accuse anyone who believes in that AGW is happening of being dishonest.
Talk about dishonesty, I didn't say that. I said their treatment of skeptics in ways I showed is dishonest.
or how great electric cars are.
I posted that on an extremely conservative forum. There were a few automatic negative reactions due to the stigma the left has attached to these cars; as South Park put it, the issue with them polluting the land with toxic "smug." But once I stated logical reasons for how one would be beneficial in *my* case, all were in agreement on the principle. Those who drove a lot in a day or had to haul things, did mention, quite factually, that the current electrics wouldn't work for them.
It was just a matter of having people willing to actually listen to the facts laid out and honestly reevaluate their posiitons based on them. Apparently, that is an ability missing in certain liberals on this forum.
Additionally, if you were better at communicating your ideas, fewer people would think you're an idiot.
When shown you're dishonest and closed-minded, lash out with personal attacks. Well done. Now where did I put that can of Troll-B-Gone?
If you made your widget in Nebraska and the widget is never sold, and never even leaves Nebraska, the federal government will claim the power to control your printing because your widget "could" impact interstate commerce. You making the widget means you don't have to buy one that was engaged in interstate commerce (even if you never intended to buy), so the printing is itself interstate commerce.
The warped thinking of a Supreme Court that wants to put current ideology before actual constitutional principles.
A liberal education is supposed to produce a well-rounded individual who has had exposure to a broad range of disciplines. Algebra is basic to the math discipline in a college education.
So, yes, algebra should remain in a liberal arts curriculum. If it is a stumbling block to someone getting a degree, then it appears that person should be stumbling. If he can't grasp basic algebra, then he doesn't deserve a degree.
That seems dishonest because the quote explicitly contradicts your conjecture.
It is perfectly in context and reflects the facts. Gore believes the time for talking and debate is over, the time for action (actions he wants) is now. He believes any delay will produce irreparable harm.
Once again, it sounds like he's talking about the scientific issues, and not the political ones. Not one of the three quote you provided supports your claim.
As you like to point out, context is important.
Al Gore stated that in response to Bjorn Lomborg, who agrees that AGW is happening, but was at the time challenging Gore on the POLITICAL priorities. This was part of Gore's tirade meant to shut up the political opposition. Al Gore does not want debate on the politics. He spits out the "science is settled" phrases whenever anybody disagrees, politically or scientifically.
Quite clearly, yes and yes.
You have the context. Quite clearly in context and completely honest.
That's possible, though I doubt it.
You just did, above. You didn't know the context of Gore's tirade against Lomborg, yet you automatically assumed dishonesty. But the context shows the political, the attempt to stifle dissenting views even where the science is agreed.
Of course, you realise that statement appears hypocritical because you are essentially accusing everyone you disagree with of being intellectually dishonest, bad people because they believe everyone they disagree with is intellectually dishonest, bad people.
No, it is not. Pointing out dishonest behavior is not dishonest. Claiming dishonesty simply because of a disagreement on the science or politics is dishonest.
I have been viciously attacked for opposing hybrid cars, since it is automatically assumed I must hate the environment, be part of the Big Oil conspiracy. Yet I don't like them because they are overly-complex kludge stopgaps that still use gasoline. I like pure electric cars.
I have been viciously attacked for opposing Obamacare. I must be a conservative nutjob in the pay the insurance companies. Yet I like the idea of universal coverage, but believe it can't be instituted using the power of the federal government because of constitutional limitations. Unlike most people, I don't believe that what I want has the power to override the Constitution. Amend the Constitution, or do it using an inter-state agreement, and my basic conceptual opposition disappears.
In neither case could the liberals even comprehend the possibility that I could have a rational argument against their beloved causes. Dishonesty, or at least me being an idiot, must be the cause for the disagreement.
Furthermore, the quote you cite is actually: "If you look at the peer reviewed scientific literature, the debate is over." The full context directly contradicts the interpretation you have repeated over and over, thus proving my point again because you have deliberately removed context from the quote to change its meaning for propaganda purposes.
Nothing out of context there. He says the debate is over, period. No contrary arguments allowed, no research that strays from his conclusions allowed. He calls such attempts "bullshit."
So what do you think about his quote, "it's not a matter of theory"? I believe such thinking doesn't belong in the debate, but that's the way Gore thinks. Is my stating that out of context? Dishonest?
So why do you do it?
I don't. A key feature of the AGW crowd, and indeed many liberals (new fascist liberals, not classical liberals), is that anyone who honestly disagrees must be a bad person, dishonest, with ill intent. Thus you will view any contrary statement I make through that lens.
They are good at their jobs, none of this crap about getting away with less because they're women. They can give better than they take, don't try a wry comment with innuendo unless you want it thrown back in your face with the whole office laughing. Nobody guy would think of genuinely sexually harassing them since they're equal members of the gang.
Unfortunately it's hard to weed out the not-cool chicks during interviews.
"the debate is over" "the science is settled" [all contrary arguments are] "bullshit".
Honest and rational, from the leader of your side. "The debate is over" not only applies to those who question the science, but also those who question the political prorities. The Debate Is Over. The High Priest Al Gore has ruled. Honest and rational discussion that contravenes the Scriptures is heresy and will not be tolerated.
Libertarians are using deception and fraud to prevent a proper discussion of the issue,
I notice "proper." In the eyes of the AGW proponents, the only proper discussion is agreement not only on the science, but on the political priorities (who gets our money, which of our freedoms are curtailed). By your definition, nobody can honestly disagree -- it all must be self-serving deception and fraud since "the debate is over."
In effect, it's morally evil by libertarian standards and everyone else's as well.
Libertarians are using freedom of speech to try to prevent the use of force against others (confiscation of possession, enrichment of others through that confiscation, controlling of individual behavior). This is a very libertarian ideal.
Apple switched from 680x0 to PowerPC in 1994, switched to a completely new operating system in 2002 (when OS X was first preinstalled), and switched processor architectures again in 2006. Apple included compatibility technologies to alleviate the transitions (Classic, Rosetta), but those were all eventually dropped after Apple considered the transition complete, usually a few years.
Microsoft switched from Windows 9x to NT, the final drop of 9x being in 2001. Since then, NT all the way, and you can still run most 9x software, and even DOS software, natively.
I wasn't talking about hurricane strength or frequency, but about the consequences of failing to maintain the infrastructure.
You were talking about them as a harbinger of things to come, but such things already came worse than today.
roups like the Heartland Institute are attacking the science (science that they actually believe is true) for the sole reason of preventing an honest discussion of solutions.
That's already being done. You can't even raise a question these days without being attacked as a heretic. Even if you agree with AGW, attempts to say political priorities are wrong are met with derision, as what happened to Lomborg when he said we shouldn't divert money from health and education to ostensibly address AGW.
His Holiness Al Gore has already stated "the debate is over." To him, it's "not a matter of theory," and any skepticism is "bullshit" (those are quotes of his). There can be no more questioning. The Truth has been delivered by the Prophet (PBUH).
The goal appears to be to force everyone else to accept the libertarian do-nothing solution
The goal is to prevent massive increases in government power, massive intrusions on the rights of the people, massive damage to our economy, and massive forced confiscations of wealth to be given those who can figure out a way to hitch a ride on the AGW gravy train.
We have foreign governments saying they are owed trillions (about a gazillion times their GDP), claiming redistribution is the key to the solution. We have crony capitalism right here at home with Obama blowing half a billion of our dollars on the "renewable" energy schemes of his campaign bundlers, when the government beancounters said that investment shouldn't be made. The only thing renewable here is the corruption of the AGW politicians.
. Katrina and New Orleans is the template for things to come.
They were yelling this is what global warming does! Expect more and more stronger hurricanes like this, the damage will be incredible in the coming years! Yeah, that didn't happen.
There exist inconvenient truths such as that we were having more CAT 3 and higher hurricanes 150 years ago than we are now. America's deadliest natural disaster ever was the 1900 Galveston hurricane which wiped out the town except for a few buildings (and it wasn't below sea level like New Orleans). The body situation was so bad they had to resort to mass funeral pyres.
The NOAA even had to come out and say there was no evidence of any change in hurricane frequency or strength that can be associated with any global warming.
It's pretty much the whole reason libertarian groups are funding anti-climate change campaigns.
Libertarians don't like the massive increase in the size and power of government, and subsequent decrease in the freedom of the people, that would result if many of the ostensible solutions were enacted.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily. When looked at in isolation, they may accept the risk. Given that the likelihood of a CAT5 in the Northeast is absurdly low given history, the equation may well come out to simply accepting the risk when bounced against the costs of mitigation. But most likely they've already mitigated the risk of any "total destruction" event by having a backup datacenter regardless of this one extreme "what if" scenario generated by global warming panic.
A patent isn't an unchecked monopoly, by definition since it has a built-in limit. We also have FRAND rules in place to prevent abuse of the patent monopoly in standards as Samsung is trying to do now.
But if you just patent it, built it, and sell it, the government has no business complaining about anticompetitive practices, since that is the procedure the government itself put in place. One of Google's lawyers was saying that if an invention gets really popular it should be subject to FRAND rules even if the patent holder never submitted it for a standard. That is wrong. The patented tech being popular and selling well is supposed to be the reward for the invention.
The economy wouldn't have imploded, but it would have taken a bigger short-term hit. But by softening the hit, we've prevented a truly healthy rebound. The market needed to correct, but we didn't allow it to do so, and we incurred tremendous debt in the process. We got screwed twice just so politicians can get reelected.
Ford has quite a few design patents, and has successfully taken legal action against those who they thought were infringing on them.
A government grant of monopoly. Then they expire, and the monopoly is over. If the government does not like such monopolies, then it should stop issuing patents.
Theoretically, I agree. But regulation in our system is not set up that way. For example, the triggering factor to the subprime collapse was government regulation meant to force lenders to give morgtages to people who would normally be rejected due to their financial situation (hence, "subprime"). This regulation was enforced for a social reason, a utopian ideal that everybody whould be a homeowner even if they can't afford it. It was not meant to prevent fraud. In fact, it encouraged fraud as banks found a way to profit on it. We have other regulations that prop up prices for industries such as farming. A lot of states have regulations with origins in religion (e.g., no liquor sales on Sunday). Regulation of cigarettes is a good one, pure nanny state, interfering with the free association between a consumer of a product and its producer.
Randian thinking requires that you privatize the profits and privatize the risk. Freedom means freedom to fail. The problem these days is that often the profits are privatized, but risk is socialized. What allowed this to happen is a powerful government, a government powerful enough to hand out favors to those who can buy thim. If the government did not have this much power, it could not hand out such favors to the rich and socialize their risk onto the rest of us.
According to even hard-core libertarians, this is one legitimate function of government. The libertarian ideal of free entities making contracts with each other, without interference from the government, can't exist without a legal system to enforce those contracts. This is libertarianism, not anarchy.
And when ripping off the customers, those in charge would be held accountable. Thus they have disincentive for fraud. Freedom stops at fraud, in which case you are infringing on the freedom of others.
But under our system the frauds get bailouts if their political connections are good enough.
Not really. Those in charge get to skate with their money. They're free to try it again with another company.
What they need in this case is piercing of the corporate veil. Those who started this, and cost other companies so many millions of dollars in this bad-faith fraud, need to be held personally accountable.
The problem with our current system is that the government creates an environment for the corporate raiders to prosper (deregulation, protectionism, laws favoring large corporations against smaller ones), gives them incentive to do underhanded tricks (forcing them to loan to subprime borrowers), and then bails them out when they fail. They don't suffer the consequences of their actions because of an overly-powerful government.
On a smaller scale, you don't have to worry about taking a mortgage you knew you couldn't afford, betting everything on the value of the house rising, because the government is going to come in and crack down on the banks, providing mortgage relief. You can easily go bankrupt, leaving the lenders to suck it up for your poor life choices.
IOW, the recent cratering was decidedly non-Randian in nature.
The two parties own our political process. They make it difficult for anyone but them to get on the ballot. They even have "straight ticket" checkboxes on ballots so you don't have to go through the trouble of voting for individuals based on their qualifications, but simply vote for every Democrat or Republican on the ballot.
But in the end, you can vote for whoever you want to vote for in the general election.
The biggest reason for the party registration is that most states don't allow you to vote in a party's primary unless you're registered to a party, and a person registered for one party can't vote in another party's primary (vote for the weakest candidate). Yes, that's another way the two parties have owned our system: The government actually runs and pays for their primary elections when it should be their own business who they put up for election, and entirely with their own money.
Despite corporations seeing it as "property" it has a useful purpose, to keep the consumer from getting ripped off. Otherwise, you could by an expensive Snap-On tool, only to find out it's a cheap pot metal knock-off legally using the Snap-On name. The way it is now, Snap-On will go after the offender in order to protect its name, which protects us, the consumer.
I guess Aero was a different enough name from the Aqua (OS X) Microsoft was copying. What I don't get is losing the name Metro. As far as I remember, the store chain doesn't have its own operating system or user interface. Trademark only works on related products.
They didn't name a product. It was an internal code name and the system was never publicly marketed as such. Sagan learned about the internal ongoings at Apple (probably from a Sagan fan at Apple) and got offended and worried that it *might* eventually be used publicly. Since it was never used in commerce, and you can't sue on what only may happen, Sagan had no case, Apple didn't have to comply with the C&D.
Then they change it to BHA (Butt Head Astronomer) due to Sagan being, well, a butt head. Sagan sues. Too bad for him and good for free speech that just making fun of someone isn't libel. If it were, the South Park creators would owe billions and billions of dollars.
You before: Context matters, context matters, you are taking things out of context so you're dishonest.
Me: Here's a quote with perfect context provided.
You now: "It still looks to me like Gore is refusing to debate the science with Lomborg."
Now, when context is very important, you ignore context.
Lomborg (who is, BTW, an extreme leftist by American standards) had been hounding Gore for quite a long time before this incident, trying to get Gore to debate him on the political issue. He was at the time one of Gore's most prominent and well-known opponents. Gore knew who he was and what he stood for. There's even more context for you.
Talk about dishonesty, I didn't say that. I said their treatment of skeptics in ways I showed is dishonest.
I posted that on an extremely conservative forum. There were a few automatic negative reactions due to the stigma the left has attached to these cars; as South Park put it, the issue with them polluting the land with toxic "smug." But once I stated logical reasons for how one would be beneficial in *my* case, all were in agreement on the principle. Those who drove a lot in a day or had to haul things, did mention, quite factually, that the current electrics wouldn't work for them.
It was just a matter of having people willing to actually listen to the facts laid out and honestly reevaluate their posiitons based on them. Apparently, that is an ability missing in certain liberals on this forum.
When shown you're dishonest and closed-minded, lash out with personal attacks. Well done. Now where did I put that can of Troll-B-Gone?
If you made your widget in Nebraska and the widget is never sold, and never even leaves Nebraska, the federal government will claim the power to control your printing because your widget "could" impact interstate commerce. You making the widget means you don't have to buy one that was engaged in interstate commerce (even if you never intended to buy), so the printing is itself interstate commerce.
The warped thinking of a Supreme Court that wants to put current ideology before actual constitutional principles.
A liberal education is supposed to produce a well-rounded individual who has had exposure to a broad range of disciplines. Algebra is basic to the math discipline in a college education.
So, yes, algebra should remain in a liberal arts curriculum. If it is a stumbling block to someone getting a degree, then it appears that person should be stumbling. If he can't grasp basic algebra, then he doesn't deserve a degree.
It is perfectly in context and reflects the facts. Gore believes the time for talking and debate is over, the time for action (actions he wants) is now. He believes any delay will produce irreparable harm.
As you like to point out, context is important.
Al Gore stated that in response to Bjorn Lomborg, who agrees that AGW is happening, but was at the time challenging Gore on the POLITICAL priorities. This was part of Gore's tirade meant to shut up the political opposition. Al Gore does not want debate on the politics. He spits out the "science is settled" phrases whenever anybody disagrees, politically or scientifically.
You have the context. Quite clearly in context and completely honest.
You just did, above. You didn't know the context of Gore's tirade against Lomborg, yet you automatically assumed dishonesty. But the context shows the political, the attempt to stifle dissenting views even where the science is agreed.
No, it is not. Pointing out dishonest behavior is not dishonest. Claiming dishonesty simply because of a disagreement on the science or politics is dishonest.
I have been viciously attacked for opposing hybrid cars, since it is automatically assumed I must hate the environment, be part of the Big Oil conspiracy. Yet I don't like them because they are overly-complex kludge stopgaps that still use gasoline. I like pure electric cars.
I have been viciously attacked for opposing Obamacare. I must be a conservative nutjob in the pay the insurance companies. Yet I like the idea of universal coverage, but believe it can't be instituted using the power of the federal government because of constitutional limitations. Unlike most people, I don't believe that what I want has the power to override the Constitution. Amend the Constitution, or do it using an inter-state agreement, and my basic conceptual opposition disappears.
In neither case could the liberals even comprehend the possibility that I could have a rational argument against their beloved causes. Dishonesty, or at least me being an idiot, must be the cause for the disagreement.
Nothing out of context there. He says the debate is over, period. No contrary arguments allowed, no research that strays from his conclusions allowed. He calls such attempts "bullshit."
So what do you think about his quote, "it's not a matter of theory"? I believe such thinking doesn't belong in the debate, but that's the way Gore thinks. Is my stating that out of context? Dishonest?
I don't. A key feature of the AGW crowd, and indeed many liberals (new fascist liberals, not classical liberals), is that anyone who honestly disagrees must be a bad person, dishonest, with ill intent. Thus you will view any contrary statement I make through that lens.
They are good at their jobs, none of this crap about getting away with less because they're women. They can give better than they take, don't try a wry comment with innuendo unless you want it thrown back in your face with the whole office laughing. Nobody guy would think of genuinely sexually harassing them since they're equal members of the gang.
Unfortunately it's hard to weed out the not-cool chicks during interviews.
"the debate is over" "the science is settled" [all contrary arguments are] "bullshit".
Honest and rational, from the leader of your side. "The debate is over" not only applies to those who question the science, but also those who question the political prorities. The Debate Is Over. The High Priest Al Gore has ruled. Honest and rational discussion that contravenes the Scriptures is heresy and will not be tolerated.
I notice "proper." In the eyes of the AGW proponents, the only proper discussion is agreement not only on the science, but on the political priorities (who gets our money, which of our freedoms are curtailed). By your definition, nobody can honestly disagree -- it all must be self-serving deception and fraud since "the debate is over."
Libertarians are using freedom of speech to try to prevent the use of force against others (confiscation of possession, enrichment of others through that confiscation, controlling of individual behavior). This is a very libertarian ideal.
Apple switched from 680x0 to PowerPC in 1994, switched to a completely new operating system in 2002 (when OS X was first preinstalled), and switched processor architectures again in 2006. Apple included compatibility technologies to alleviate the transitions (Classic, Rosetta), but those were all eventually dropped after Apple considered the transition complete, usually a few years.
Microsoft switched from Windows 9x to NT, the final drop of 9x being in 2001. Since then, NT all the way, and you can still run most 9x software, and even DOS software, natively.
You were talking about them as a harbinger of things to come, but such things already came worse than today.
That's already being done. You can't even raise a question these days without being attacked as a heretic. Even if you agree with AGW, attempts to say political priorities are wrong are met with derision, as what happened to Lomborg when he said we shouldn't divert money from health and education to ostensibly address AGW.
His Holiness Al Gore has already stated "the debate is over." To him, it's "not a matter of theory," and any skepticism is "bullshit" (those are quotes of his). There can be no more questioning. The Truth has been delivered by the Prophet (PBUH).
The goal is to prevent massive increases in government power, massive intrusions on the rights of the people, massive damage to our economy, and massive forced confiscations of wealth to be given those who can figure out a way to hitch a ride on the AGW gravy train.
We have foreign governments saying they are owed trillions (about a gazillion times their GDP), claiming redistribution is the key to the solution. We have crony capitalism right here at home with Obama blowing half a billion of our dollars on the "renewable" energy schemes of his campaign bundlers, when the government beancounters said that investment shouldn't be made. The only thing renewable here is the corruption of the AGW politicians.
They were yelling this is what global warming does! Expect more and more stronger hurricanes like this, the damage will be incredible in the coming years! Yeah, that didn't happen.
There exist inconvenient truths such as that we were having more CAT 3 and higher hurricanes 150 years ago than we are now. America's deadliest natural disaster ever was the 1900 Galveston hurricane which wiped out the town except for a few buildings (and it wasn't below sea level like New Orleans). The body situation was so bad they had to resort to mass funeral pyres.
The NOAA even had to come out and say there was no evidence of any change in hurricane frequency or strength that can be associated with any global warming.
Libertarians don't like the massive increase in the size and power of government, and subsequent decrease in the freedom of the people, that would result if many of the ostensible solutions were enacted.