They use a "fossil energy ratio" which isn't a straight Joules-out/Joules-in ratio. It's very misleading.
For example, if it cost 0 joules to extract pet diesel from the ground, and refine it, instead of infinity, this ratio would call that "1". Basically the cards are stacked against any fossil fuel using this metric, any nonfossil energy input will throw it over 1 easily.
Maybe you should read your own study, before misquoting the results.
So if I want to run my gas-guzzling beast on something that costs more fossil fuel to produce than it yields, that's OK?
Biodiesel has a double hit, you have to burn fossil fuels to make it, at about 1.4:1 joule loss ratio, then you burn it again and get even more pollution. Don't give me that "coproducts" lie. I'm talking about energy in and out here, not counting byproducts.
There's nothing "favorable" about the conditions on earth. We are here because we evolved and adapted to fit how the earth is. The earth doesn't "evolve".
Environmentalist must be another word for "weak on science".
FTC! Not FCC. The FCC sells our frequencies to corporate interests, while the FTC slaps the most blatent corporate scammers on the wrist with small fines. Get it straight!:)
Sorry, bad form to post two replies, but I didn't read your last line closely enough before replying.
Yes, libertarians are strongly opposed to any war of conquest. Military force should only be used for defense. Note the axiom states coercive, violent force must not be initiated to accomplish an end. Coercive violent force can be used only as a response to coercive violent force. If Iraq attacked the US, fine and dandy, nuke them to hell.
Iraq War I in 1992 involved the initiation of force in the form of the invasion of Kuwait, so a libertarian could respond to that in theory, however most libertarians would avoid entanglement in forign wars, especially if the response could be considered an initiation of force (our relationship with kuwait as an ally wasn't very strong).
And to your last line, if you haven't gotten the point by now, a libertarian wouldn't wield a gun against someone unless first threatened with violent, coercive actions by another party. We are strongly opposed to the government initiating coercion to remove the means of the people to defend themselves from coercion.
As you can see it all boils down to that central axiom. The rest are details. Not every situation fits perfectly, of course, and the axiom leaves some latitude for judgement of particular situations. The libertarian philsophy isn't meant to be a blinding directive like a biblical commandment, it's a rule to guide the choices we all make, and the choices the government should make for freedom to truly exist.
That would imply that libertarians should be opposed to the Bush administration's torture policies (human rights) and opposed to immigration restrictions (individual freedom). I have yet to see libertarians take a strong stand on either issue.
You haven't looked very hard. Libertarians support open borders and free trade. The central axiom of libertarianism is that it is not acceptable to use the initiation of (violent) coercion to accomplish an end. The very core of libertarianism is opposed to torture.
I put violent in parentheses because in general it's clearer cut when there's violence involved, such as compulsory taxes which are payed under threat of imprisonment. Some libertarians extend coercion a little more past purely violent coercion, but that's the core of it.
At some point in history, every activity that is popular today was probably unpopular. If I am to accept your argument, I fail to see how that doesn't lead eventually to a condition of total oppression.
Actually the LPUS has moved away from some of the more extreme rhetoric. I took one version of the world's smallest political quiz, and it actually recommended that I tone it down in order to not scare people off.:)
Libertarianism doesn't require some of the extreme stances that the LPUS candidates have taken in the past. For example, the issue of natural monopolies. It can be viewed as a larger coercion for a natural monopoly to be in private hands.
Once you tame libertarianism by applying sound austrian school economics on top, recognizing that capitalism has some flaws that must be compensated for, it gets a lot more moderate.
To your point, however, there's little need for corporate welfare in the realm of medical research, it's something people are very willing to pay for, and no natural monopolies exist. It would be a better situation than now, where our tax money goes to fatten the patent portfolios of large corporations.
Most people believe libertarianism is pro-corporate, but the opposite is the case. We want to end all the special treatement that corporations get from the government. We want the government to stay out of the private sector completely, not giving handouts to your Pfizers and Halliburtons.
I mean libertarian in philosophy, not necessarily in poll numbers. There's a good sized faction within the Republican party, for example, that is pretty libertarian in philosophy, at least a few percent.
Generally, libertarian candidates get between 3-5% of the vote, depending on the state and the election. Keep in mind that some of the more libertarian among us would rather choose the lesser of two evils, than vote by principle, especially when the race could go either way.
If that's the case, why are only 5-10% Libertarian?
You'd think people would get the idea and stop voting for Democrats and Republicans, but that hasn't happened. The only logical conclusion is that people want fascism. People no longer really want freedom. Freedom brings too many responsibilities.
Would it have made any difference to uptake if it wasn't ?
Yes, I believe so. I know I was using Opera, and primarily switched to Firefox due to license. Of course most end users won't care, but one early user like me plants the seeds for many other users. One example is that our company web site is only tested in Firefox now, and validated by the w3c. If anyone has a problem with it, I make them download Firefox.
Slashdot Mirror
As a libertarian, I'm with you there. One battle at a time, eh?
If you had 1% of your yearly income stolen by mugging every year (Say, $350 if you make 35k), would that be ok?
No.
They use a "fossil energy ratio" which isn't a straight Joules-out/Joules-in ratio. It's very misleading.
For example, if it cost 0 joules to extract pet diesel from the ground, and refine it, instead of infinity, this ratio would call that "1". Basically the cards are stacked against any fossil fuel using this metric, any nonfossil energy input will throw it over 1 easily.
Maybe you should read your own study, before misquoting the results.
I'm talking about modern liberalism (socialism, i.e. the democrats), not classical liberalism, which is now known as libertarianism.
So if I want to run my gas-guzzling beast on something that costs more fossil fuel to produce than it yields, that's OK?
Biodiesel has a double hit, you have to burn fossil fuels to make it, at about 1.4:1 joule loss ratio, then you burn it again and get even more pollution. Don't give me that "coproducts" lie. I'm talking about energy in and out here, not counting byproducts.
Some twisted logic there.
There's nothing "favorable" about the conditions on earth. We are here because we evolved and adapted to fit how the earth is. The earth doesn't "evolve".
Environmentalist must be another word for "weak on science".
and start by decreasing the amount of SUVs on the road.
And how are you going to convince all those millions of people to drive something else?
Oh, that's right, you liberals don't think twice about dictating how other people spend the fruits of their labor.
(I'd never drive an SUV, regardless)
Cut that spamming shit out. It's annoying.
So .. less man-killing polar bears... and more new trade routes.
Hell, I might go set a few gallons of crude oil on fire just to help out the cause!
Nothing seedy?
You mean like not allowing people to register adwords keywords on nearly every keyword, related to their product or not?
Right.
You used to be able to search for "Black people" and get an ad that said "Buy Black People Here!"
It's not that comedic now, but a search for "black people" brings up:
Target.com: Official Site
Find Great Savings Online.
Shop Target.com
www.Target.com
What the hell does target have to do with black people?
And Dear FCC
:)
FTC! Not FCC. The FCC sells our frequencies to corporate interests, while the FTC slaps the most blatent corporate scammers on the wrist with small fines. Get it straight!
It's basically the same in the US. We stole most of the ideas from your court system anyway.
We know what we have, we are being vigilant to protect it from turning into the oppressive shithole most of the rest of the world is.
Sorry, bad form to post two replies, but I didn't read your last line closely enough before replying.
Yes, libertarians are strongly opposed to any war of conquest. Military force should only be used for defense. Note the axiom states coercive, violent force must not be initiated to accomplish an end. Coercive violent force can be used only as a response to coercive violent force. If Iraq attacked the US, fine and dandy, nuke them to hell.
Iraq War I in 1992 involved the initiation of force in the form of the invasion of Kuwait, so a libertarian could respond to that in theory, however most libertarians would avoid entanglement in forign wars, especially if the response could be considered an initiation of force (our relationship with kuwait as an ally wasn't very strong).
And to your last line, if you haven't gotten the point by now, a libertarian wouldn't wield a gun against someone unless first threatened with violent, coercive actions by another party. We are strongly opposed to the government initiating coercion to remove the means of the people to defend themselves from coercion.
As you can see it all boils down to that central axiom. The rest are details. Not every situation fits perfectly, of course, and the axiom leaves some latitude for judgement of particular situations. The libertarian philsophy isn't meant to be a blinding directive like a biblical commandment, it's a rule to guide the choices we all make, and the choices the government should make for freedom to truly exist.
That would imply that libertarians should be opposed to the Bush administration's torture policies (human rights) and opposed to immigration restrictions (individual freedom). I have yet to see libertarians take a strong stand on either issue.
You haven't looked very hard. Libertarians support open borders and free trade. The central axiom of libertarianism is that it is not acceptable to use the initiation of (violent) coercion to accomplish an end. The very core of libertarianism is opposed to torture.
I put violent in parentheses because in general it's clearer cut when there's violence involved, such as compulsory taxes which are payed under threat of imprisonment. Some libertarians extend coercion a little more past purely violent coercion, but that's the core of it.
At some point in history, every activity that is popular today was probably unpopular. If I am to accept your argument, I fail to see how that doesn't lead eventually to a condition of total oppression.
Actually the LPUS has moved away from some of the more extreme rhetoric. I took one version of the world's smallest political quiz, and it actually recommended that I tone it down in order to not scare people off. :)
Libertarianism doesn't require some of the extreme stances that the LPUS candidates have taken in the past. For example, the issue of natural monopolies. It can be viewed as a larger coercion for a natural monopoly to be in private hands.
Once you tame libertarianism by applying sound austrian school economics on top, recognizing that capitalism has some flaws that must be compensated for, it gets a lot more moderate.
To your point, however, there's little need for corporate welfare in the realm of medical research, it's something people are very willing to pay for, and no natural monopolies exist. It would be a better situation than now, where our tax money goes to fatten the patent portfolios of large corporations.
Most people believe libertarianism is pro-corporate, but the opposite is the case. We want to end all the special treatement that corporations get from the government. We want the government to stay out of the private sector completely, not giving handouts to your Pfizers and Halliburtons.
Killjoe,
I mean libertarian in philosophy, not necessarily in poll numbers. There's a good sized faction within the Republican party, for example, that is pretty libertarian in philosophy, at least a few percent.
Generally, libertarian candidates get between 3-5% of the vote, depending on the state and the election. Keep in mind that some of the more libertarian among us would rather choose the lesser of two evils, than vote by principle, especially when the race could go either way.
If that's the case, why are only 5-10% Libertarian?
You'd think people would get the idea and stop voting for Democrats and Republicans, but that hasn't happened. The only logical conclusion is that people want fascism. People no longer really want freedom. Freedom brings too many responsibilities.
How did you do it without exposing Windows to the Internet? Inward facing linux or BSD proxy?
You used Windows for a ... server???
He works for MS. Does there really need to be any other explanation about why he comes off sounding like a fucktard?
Good morning, did you know there's a whole world of server-side programming out there?
And what does the world of PHP and ASP.net have to do with some crappy browser plugin that sites from 1998 use?
Would it have made any difference to uptake if it wasn't ?
Yes, I believe so. I know I was using Opera, and primarily switched to Firefox due to license. Of course most end users won't care, but one early user like me plants the seeds for many other users. One example is that our company web site is only tested in Firefox now, and validated by the w3c. If anyone has a problem with it, I make them download Firefox.
Why would anyone use Java unless forced to by some crappy web site?
For 99.9% of the world, the plugin is all that matters.