Interestingly, when I look at those statistics I see 2,135 million kWh in exports and 9,641 million kWh in imports. That'd make it a net importer of energy and I think would qualify it as a "heavy energy importer". You probably missed the imports column when you were looking at the chart.
Frankly, I don't read Digg so I wouldn't know one way or the other, but was curious if you had any actual evidence to support your assertion. The answer appears to be no.
Yeah, except you don't have to die to experience the "into the light" phenomenon. As I understand it, with some carefully applied electric and/or magnetic fields most people can be induced to have such an experience. Apparently, religious visitations and alien abductions can be replicated fairly consistently as well, by the same (or very similar) procedure. Which one occurs is very often tied to one beliefs, though it the experience can be molded by something as simple as conversation before the procedure.
There's a couple of reasons why carbon dioxide is the focus rather than methane.
1) During the 90's the methane concentration in the atmosphere stayed constant. A number of factors contributed to a reduction in emissions, plus it can be profitable to trap and use methane to generate electricity which means that methane harnessing requires little or no political willpower
2) Methane has a shorter lifespan than CO2, unfortunately it also breaks down into CO2.
3) So the biggest reason it's not center focus is that only about 20% of global warming is attributable to methane, while about 72% is attributable to CO2. In other words, a lot more CO2 is produced than methane, enough to compensate for methane being a more effective greenhouse gas in the short term.
It's simple triage. Deal with the worst problem first, then deal with the smaller problems.
I would like to point out that I have never actually heard (or seen) anyone say (or write) that "we to spend any and all costs to do EVERYTHING", while I have seen the argument of "Let's do nothing" at least once a week for years.
So... I don't really think the conversation has been hijacked by extremists on both sides of the argument. That doesn't seem to match my experience at all. Instead, what I've seen is the work of a small group of well paid lobbyists and PR people (and their agents) constantly question everything related to global warming. Of course, we've seen this before too. It happened with smoking, and asbestos, and acid rain, and pretty much any time that a wealthy industry runs up against the consequences of irresponsible behavior.
The conversation will settle down a lot when the the people who claim global warming isn't happen finally disappear, because then we'll actually be able to talk about the merits of different courses of action rather than having to constantly talk about the justification for any action.
Of course, I didn't say that at all, I said taxes could be used to combat increased usage due to increased efficiency and that even if that doesn't work, it would boost living standards to pursue that efficiency.
You seem to have trouble reading what people write instead of what you would like them to have written.
Also, it should be noted that Penn and Teller sometimes miss obvious things because they don't properly research before debunking. For instance, I'm betting they totally missed the fact that recycling (at least here) is a municipal program and the people who do the recycling make money because they are contracted to do the work. The municipality probably looses money on the actual recycling but that's not the goal of the program. It's about saving money on landfill, by diverting significant amounts of garbage (I think my city has hit a 50% diversion rate) the municipal government doesn't have to use as much landfill space and that saves a lot of money on building new dumps or transporting garbage to other dumps.
My guess would be that your so called "interesting discussions" aren't actually interesting to many other people. For a lot of people, the entire debate AGW is settled. There's just people who refuse to accept reality and everyone else.
If your "interesting discussions" are covering previously discredited lines of questioning, well, then it's no wonder they get modded down. People do get tired of seeing the exact same misinformation presented again and again.
This isn't really true. Cap and trade is a poor solution to the problem, but it has, in fact, worked in the past to reduce overall emissions. Are you old enough to remember Acid Rain? The United States approach to reducing Acid Rain was cap and trade. The U.S. reduced emissions by about 40%, however, traditional regulation in the E.U. reduced emissions by about 70%. So yes, cap and trade is an inefficient regulator.
However, the reason why cap and trade is becoming the system of choice for dealing with AGW has a lot to do with people like you who rail against doing anything about AGW. The preferred solution, regulation, is heavy lobbied against by the people who stand to loose money due to regulation and the people who think they will make a lot of money from trading emission allowances. Cap and trade is a concession to get the would be traders on board to get a solution. Everyone knows it's a poor solution to the problem, but in democracies you get the best solution you can drum up support for.
Did you bother to read the links you inserted? Jevons paradox doesn't always apply and doesn't apply at all if taxes were used to offset price reductions and diminish demand. Additionally, regardless of whether better energy conservation actually reduces energy useage (and in the short term it has) it tends to raise living standards by making better use of energy. It really does seem only a fool would try to argue against it.
As for the second law of thermodynamics, there just doesn't seem to be any sane way to apply it to the discussion at hand.
Lastly, no, you're obviously not a part of the not-very secret conspiracy. You're quite obviously a useful idiot and nothing more. Not even your political masters respect you. This is not the first timethese people have lobbied against the public interest and it will likely not be the last, as it can be very profitable to defend the wealthy against the public.
It seems at least one of us is a pretty good example of what the NPR show was talking about. Nothing you wrote seems make the slightest bit of sense. I don't understand how "the government" got into private health care and made private health companies consider themselves (in their own words) "in the business of denying health care". You claim they created a moral hazard but that's pretty ridiculous. People do not, generally, decide to get sick or in an accident. And if anything, I'd be willing to bet that accident rates are lower now than they used to be.
My father-in-law talks about the factory his father used to run from time-to-time. Most of their employees were missing fingers due to inadequate protection, training and supervision. That just isn't allowed to happen anymore. When you look at the real facts of the situation a large part of the rise in the cost of health care is because of research and development, new treatments, fewer people dying in accidents or from violence, and more people requiring more care.
Thinking that the entire problem is "government intervention" is simplistic at best, willful denial of reality at worst.
You can't, but you can look at other external data, for corroboration. As an example, the age breakdown seems to be indicative more of driver error than mechanical issues...
Actually, it was and still is, quite clever. The point of "information wants to be free" is to explicitly indicate that information has an almost alive capability to escape control. It's very difficult to make someone "unknow" something. It's so difficult, that unknow isn't even a real word.
Sure, the phrase "Information wants to be free" can be used tritely and certainly has been, but it also has a certain Zen insightfulness. Sure, literally, information can't want anything, but figuratively, the phrase captures the difficulty and expense required to keep people from sharing information. "People like to share" fails at capturing many of the subtler implications of "Information wants to be free".
That's true, the WoW forums are really nothing but a cesspit. Throw in the fact that they've banned some of the best posters for trivial reasons like speculating about unreleased content and there's really no reason to read or post on the official forums. It's ridiculous that they think a handful of moderators can handle tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of posters on a daily basis.
The real solution to the WoW forum problem is to hire more moderators, require a unique account id that's not necessarily your real name and not your login id, and to be much more public about when people have sanctions imposed on them and why. That won't clear everything up, but those three steps will go a long ways towards improving the situation. The perception that there is little to no effective moderation on the forums only encourages bad behavior.
WKRP, for example, aired before VCRs became popular in North America. I don't think you can blame their not having made arrangements for DVD reproduction rights on "short sightedness". The show is over 30 years old, it's past time for the copyrights to expire on the music played in the background of the show.
I find that while something may be free, if it's inconvenient it's not actually free. Some people are cheap and will pay the price of inconvenience to avoid paying the price in money, but many, many people will gladly pay money for things that they could otherwise get at a lower price.
Bottled water is a perfect example of the failure of cheap, millions of people would rather buy bottled water than drink water from the tap, despite tap water being cheaper and (in most developed countries) safer than bottled water. In a taste test of 16 bottled water against 16 tap waters, guess who took second place? Tap water from London, England. Now some people buy it because they're misinformed and think that tap water is somehow dangerous or unclean. Some people buy it because it's what everyone else does. But frankly, that doesn't matter, what matters is that millions of people are willing to pay more for something than they actually have to when there is no measurable benefit to doing so.
You'll find when you expand beyond tech people the perception of the value of convenience rises rapidly. Teenagers and college students don't value convenience as highly because they have an abundance of time and minimal income. If the music industry could come together and build an electronic music system that was easy to use, cheap and convenient they could be making more money than ever. They don't want to make convenience margins though, they want monopoly profits. But they can't have that anymore, and that's why they're really pissed off. They want to go back to those heady days when they could ruin the small guys and make price fixing agreements with the big guys. But that's over now, not because of pirates but because that model was never sustainable. They should be thankful that it was something as relatively benign as the Internet that ended that game because I think many of the alternative would be much less pleasant for them.
Re:Getting back to the topic...
on
Time To Dump XP?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The cynic might observe that in many companies the employees are there because they are unemployable elsewhere...
You've kind of missed the point entirely, most of the people who pirate games can't afford to buy all of the games they pirate, so they never would have bought all the games they pirated. However, if these pirates interact with people who are not pirates and talk about the games they pirated and liked, they are providing free advertising.
As the iPhone study showed about 10% of iPhone owners were responsible for over 90% piracy rates on games. That means the 10% of pirates go through games voraciously, at a rate far, far beyond what non-pirates do. This means any comparison between piracy rates and money lost is going be vastly overstated.
The true cost of piracy would probably be better estimated by figuring the average purchase rate for game players and then multiplying that by the percentage of people who pirate games. It gives much lower but more accurate and realistic numbers.
It's an interesting question with many interesting answers. For one there are serious reasons to believe that piracy may have little effect on sales. The people most likely to pirate something are already the people least likely to pay for it. What this means is that even if 90% of the people who see a move (for example) have pirated it, less than 10% of the people who would have seen the movie in theater may be watching the pirated version instead.
Now that may still sound bad, but the interesting thing is in practice, unless your movie is terrible, that huge audience will actually drive more people to see your movie than otherwise. So the movie might lose 10% of it's potential audience and simultaneously double the potential paying audience. Resulting in a net increase of around 80-90% over what the audience would have been if there was no piracy. The problem here is that there are no really effective ways to measure these contradictory effects. However, the anecdotes from music performers who have tried releasing their content for free have been overwhelming positive. They have seen increased sales of their CDs and increased attendance at their concerts.
As long as content owners are allowed to push legislative agendas we will never get the truth out of them, as their maximal benefit will always be to claim the largest losses possible and it's no coincidence that that is what we see most of them doing.
The best solution may be for the content industries to give up on certain revenue streams and focus on the ones that prosper in a digital environment. For movies this means focusing on making the theater experience attractive and profitable, possibly focusing on tie-on products that are not easily distributed digitally, and cashing in on the reputation of the production houses by exploiting public appearance fees and monetizing interest in the film as it's being developed.
In the music industry it could mean big changes, perhaps the musicians are the ones who should be paying the publishing companies and not the other way around. For this to work, it has to become the norm that the musicians own their own music, they could generate their primary revenue from public appearances. It would then be up to the musicians to pay for the creation of publicity campaigns to promote their music and ultimately the concerts. They would also own the trademarks on their likenesses for ancillary products. Of course, the current music publishers do not want that at all, not the least reason is because it would make them beholden to people they have often abused in the past. In this world view pirated music is good for the owner of the music, because it's free advertising which drives the sales of the products they do make money off of.
I hear Fox News is working on the problem already.
Still, I wonder how many of them consciously realize that they're moving in that direction. How many people today, even at Fox, would go out killing gays just because it's legal?
I seriously doubt most of the people at Fox News even understand that's the direction they're headed in. As far as I understand, Fox News is nothing more than crass commercial opportunism. I doubt Murdoch supports the views of Fox News very much, except so far as they rake in money for him.
The problem there is that telling people what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear can easily be a recipe for disaster. Fox News' primary goal is to simply to draw attention and their secondary goal is to make people angry so that they can hold on to that attention. That's a powder keg situation and we're already seeing some early results of that dangerous and volatile mixture.
So, while I seriously doubt most of the people at Fox News want to see anyone dead, I also think they perfectly willing to generate the circumstances where people will die. When it happens, they will be genuinely horrified by it and will blame it on derangement or mental illness, all the while remaining completely oblivious to the role that they play in both instigating and encouraging it.
In the end, Fox News is in the business of generating rage, and where there's rage, violence is sure to follow.
Many of both would like their religious beliefs to be enacted as law.
Maybe I'm just not looking, but how many Christians would like to see those laws include a death penalty for rejecting your religion?
You have to build up to that. First you have establish a theocracy, then you establish laws to favor the state religion, then when pragmatism has forced most of the moderates, then you start demonizing anyone who's not part of the state religion, then you slip in the laws where it's treasonous to not worship the state religion.
You can't go directly from secular state to murdering anyone who doesn't share your religion without getting yourself killed. It's like the frog in the boiling water, you have ease the majority of the country into their new unreasoning hatred.
I hear Fox News is working on the problem already.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly, when I look at those statistics I see 2,135 million kWh in exports and 9,641 million kWh in imports. That'd make it a net importer of energy and I think would qualify it as a "heavy energy importer". You probably missed the imports column when you were looking at the chart.
Sure, I can. I don't have any argument. This isn't a debate.
I asked you how you could be sure that Digg's content hasn't been affected, how would you know if it was or wasn't. You failed to answer the question.
I'll repeat in case you still don't understand. There is no argument here, just a question left unanswered.
Ah, argument from anecdotal experience.
Frankly, I don't read Digg so I wouldn't know one way or the other, but was curious if you had any actual evidence to support your assertion. The answer appears to be no.
Can you prove that? How would you know if they did or didn't have any effect?
Yeah, except you don't have to die to experience the "into the light" phenomenon. As I understand it, with some carefully applied electric and/or magnetic fields most people can be induced to have such an experience. Apparently, religious visitations and alien abductions can be replicated fairly consistently as well, by the same (or very similar) procedure. Which one occurs is very often tied to one beliefs, though it the experience can be molded by something as simple as conversation before the procedure.
There's a couple of reasons why carbon dioxide is the focus rather than methane.
1) During the 90's the methane concentration in the atmosphere stayed constant. A number of factors contributed to a reduction in emissions, plus it can be profitable to trap and use methane to generate electricity which means that methane harnessing requires little or no political willpower
2) Methane has a shorter lifespan than CO2, unfortunately it also breaks down into CO2.
3) So the biggest reason it's not center focus is that only about 20% of global warming is attributable to methane, while about 72% is attributable to CO2. In other words, a lot more CO2 is produced than methane, enough to compensate for methane being a more effective greenhouse gas in the short term.
It's simple triage. Deal with the worst problem first, then deal with the smaller problems.
I would like to point out that I have never actually heard (or seen) anyone say (or write) that "we to spend any and all costs to do EVERYTHING", while I have seen the argument of "Let's do nothing" at least once a week for years.
So... I don't really think the conversation has been hijacked by extremists on both sides of the argument. That doesn't seem to match my experience at all. Instead, what I've seen is the work of a small group of well paid lobbyists and PR people (and their agents) constantly question everything related to global warming. Of course, we've seen this before too. It happened with smoking, and asbestos, and acid rain, and pretty much any time that a wealthy industry runs up against the consequences of irresponsible behavior.
The conversation will settle down a lot when the the people who claim global warming isn't happen finally disappear, because then we'll actually be able to talk about the merits of different courses of action rather than having to constantly talk about the justification for any action.
Of course, I didn't say that at all, I said taxes could be used to combat increased usage due to increased efficiency and that even if that doesn't work, it would boost living standards to pursue that efficiency.
You seem to have trouble reading what people write instead of what you would like them to have written.
Yeah, I think you've proven my point.
Also, it should be noted that Penn and Teller sometimes miss obvious things because they don't properly research before debunking. For instance, I'm betting they totally missed the fact that recycling (at least here) is a municipal program and the people who do the recycling make money because they are contracted to do the work. The municipality probably looses money on the actual recycling but that's not the goal of the program. It's about saving money on landfill, by diverting significant amounts of garbage (I think my city has hit a 50% diversion rate) the municipal government doesn't have to use as much landfill space and that saves a lot of money on building new dumps or transporting garbage to other dumps.
My guess would be that your so called "interesting discussions" aren't actually interesting to many other people. For a lot of people, the entire debate AGW is settled. There's just people who refuse to accept reality and everyone else.
If your "interesting discussions" are covering previously discredited lines of questioning, well, then it's no wonder they get modded down. People do get tired of seeing the exact same misinformation presented again and again.
This isn't really true. Cap and trade is a poor solution to the problem, but it has, in fact, worked in the past to reduce overall emissions. Are you old enough to remember Acid Rain? The United States approach to reducing Acid Rain was cap and trade. The U.S. reduced emissions by about 40%, however, traditional regulation in the E.U. reduced emissions by about 70%. So yes, cap and trade is an inefficient regulator.
However, the reason why cap and trade is becoming the system of choice for dealing with AGW has a lot to do with people like you who rail against doing anything about AGW. The preferred solution, regulation, is heavy lobbied against by the people who stand to loose money due to regulation and the people who think they will make a lot of money from trading emission allowances. Cap and trade is a concession to get the would be traders on board to get a solution. Everyone knows it's a poor solution to the problem, but in democracies you get the best solution you can drum up support for.
Did you bother to read the links you inserted? Jevons paradox doesn't always apply and doesn't apply at all if taxes were used to offset price reductions and diminish demand. Additionally, regardless of whether better energy conservation actually reduces energy useage (and in the short term it has) it tends to raise living standards by making better use of energy. It really does seem only a fool would try to argue against it.
As for the second law of thermodynamics, there just doesn't seem to be any sane way to apply it to the discussion at hand.
Lastly, no, you're obviously not a part of the not-very secret conspiracy. You're quite obviously a useful idiot and nothing more. Not even your political masters respect you. This is not the first time these people have lobbied against the public interest and it will likely not be the last, as it can be very profitable to defend the wealthy against the public.
It seems at least one of us is a pretty good example of what the NPR show was talking about. Nothing you wrote seems make the slightest bit of sense. I don't understand how "the government" got into private health care and made private health companies consider themselves (in their own words) "in the business of denying health care". You claim they created a moral hazard but that's pretty ridiculous. People do not, generally, decide to get sick or in an accident. And if anything, I'd be willing to bet that accident rates are lower now than they used to be.
My father-in-law talks about the factory his father used to run from time-to-time. Most of their employees were missing fingers due to inadequate protection, training and supervision. That just isn't allowed to happen anymore. When you look at the real facts of the situation a large part of the rise in the cost of health care is because of research and development, new treatments, fewer people dying in accidents or from violence, and more people requiring more care.
Thinking that the entire problem is "government intervention" is simplistic at best, willful denial of reality at worst.
You can't, but you can look at other external data, for corroboration. As an example, the age breakdown seems to be indicative more of driver error than mechanical issues...
Here's an example of bad conclusions due to (deliberately) poorly chosen data.
Actually, it was and still is, quite clever. The point of "information wants to be free" is to explicitly indicate that information has an almost alive capability to escape control. It's very difficult to make someone "unknow" something. It's so difficult, that unknow isn't even a real word.
Sure, the phrase "Information wants to be free" can be used tritely and certainly has been, but it also has a certain Zen insightfulness. Sure, literally, information can't want anything, but figuratively, the phrase captures the difficulty and expense required to keep people from sharing information. "People like to share" fails at capturing many of the subtler implications of "Information wants to be free".
That's true, the WoW forums are really nothing but a cesspit. Throw in the fact that they've banned some of the best posters for trivial reasons like speculating about unreleased content and there's really no reason to read or post on the official forums. It's ridiculous that they think a handful of moderators can handle tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of posters on a daily basis.
The real solution to the WoW forum problem is to hire more moderators, require a unique account id that's not necessarily your real name and not your login id, and to be much more public about when people have sanctions imposed on them and why. That won't clear everything up, but those three steps will go a long ways towards improving the situation. The perception that there is little to no effective moderation on the forums only encourages bad behavior.
WKRP, for example, aired before VCRs became popular in North America. I don't think you can blame their not having made arrangements for DVD reproduction rights on "short sightedness". The show is over 30 years old, it's past time for the copyrights to expire on the music played in the background of the show.
I find that while something may be free, if it's inconvenient it's not actually free. Some people are cheap and will pay the price of inconvenience to avoid paying the price in money, but many, many people will gladly pay money for things that they could otherwise get at a lower price.
Bottled water is a perfect example of the failure of cheap, millions of people would rather buy bottled water than drink water from the tap, despite tap water being cheaper and (in most developed countries) safer than bottled water. In a taste test of 16 bottled water against 16 tap waters, guess who took second place? Tap water from London, England. Now some people buy it because they're misinformed and think that tap water is somehow dangerous or unclean. Some people buy it because it's what everyone else does. But frankly, that doesn't matter, what matters is that millions of people are willing to pay more for something than they actually have to when there is no measurable benefit to doing so.
You'll find when you expand beyond tech people the perception of the value of convenience rises rapidly. Teenagers and college students don't value convenience as highly because they have an abundance of time and minimal income. If the music industry could come together and build an electronic music system that was easy to use, cheap and convenient they could be making more money than ever. They don't want to make convenience margins though, they want monopoly profits. But they can't have that anymore, and that's why they're really pissed off. They want to go back to those heady days when they could ruin the small guys and make price fixing agreements with the big guys. But that's over now, not because of pirates but because that model was never sustainable. They should be thankful that it was something as relatively benign as the Internet that ended that game because I think many of the alternative would be much less pleasant for them.
The cynic might observe that in many companies the employees are there because they are unemployable elsewhere...
You've kind of missed the point entirely, most of the people who pirate games can't afford to buy all of the games they pirate, so they never would have bought all the games they pirated. However, if these pirates interact with people who are not pirates and talk about the games they pirated and liked, they are providing free advertising.
As the iPhone study showed about 10% of iPhone owners were responsible for over 90% piracy rates on games. That means the 10% of pirates go through games voraciously, at a rate far, far beyond what non-pirates do. This means any comparison between piracy rates and money lost is going be vastly overstated.
The true cost of piracy would probably be better estimated by figuring the average purchase rate for game players and then multiplying that by the percentage of people who pirate games. It gives much lower but more accurate and realistic numbers.
It's an interesting question with many interesting answers. For one there are serious reasons to believe that piracy may have little effect on sales. The people most likely to pirate something are already the people least likely to pay for it. What this means is that even if 90% of the people who see a move (for example) have pirated it, less than 10% of the people who would have seen the movie in theater may be watching the pirated version instead.
Now that may still sound bad, but the interesting thing is in practice, unless your movie is terrible, that huge audience will actually drive more people to see your movie than otherwise. So the movie might lose 10% of it's potential audience and simultaneously double the potential paying audience. Resulting in a net increase of around 80-90% over what the audience would have been if there was no piracy. The problem here is that there are no really effective ways to measure these contradictory effects. However, the anecdotes from music performers who have tried releasing their content for free have been overwhelming positive. They have seen increased sales of their CDs and increased attendance at their concerts.
As long as content owners are allowed to push legislative agendas we will never get the truth out of them, as their maximal benefit will always be to claim the largest losses possible and it's no coincidence that that is what we see most of them doing.
The best solution may be for the content industries to give up on certain revenue streams and focus on the ones that prosper in a digital environment. For movies this means focusing on making the theater experience attractive and profitable, possibly focusing on tie-on products that are not easily distributed digitally, and cashing in on the reputation of the production houses by exploiting public appearance fees and monetizing interest in the film as it's being developed.
In the music industry it could mean big changes, perhaps the musicians are the ones who should be paying the publishing companies and not the other way around. For this to work, it has to become the norm that the musicians own their own music, they could generate their primary revenue from public appearances. It would then be up to the musicians to pay for the creation of publicity campaigns to promote their music and ultimately the concerts. They would also own the trademarks on their likenesses for ancillary products. Of course, the current music publishers do not want that at all, not the least reason is because it would make them beholden to people they have often abused in the past. In this world view pirated music is good for the owner of the music, because it's free advertising which drives the sales of the products they do make money off of.
And that's just what I can think of right now.
I hear Fox News is working on the problem already.
Still, I wonder how many of them consciously realize that they're moving in that direction. How many people today, even at Fox, would go out killing gays just because it's legal?
I seriously doubt most of the people at Fox News even understand that's the direction they're headed in. As far as I understand, Fox News is nothing more than crass commercial opportunism. I doubt Murdoch supports the views of Fox News very much, except so far as they rake in money for him.
The problem there is that telling people what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear can easily be a recipe for disaster. Fox News' primary goal is to simply to draw attention and their secondary goal is to make people angry so that they can hold on to that attention. That's a powder keg situation and we're already seeing some early results of that dangerous and volatile mixture.
So, while I seriously doubt most of the people at Fox News want to see anyone dead, I also think they perfectly willing to generate the circumstances where people will die. When it happens, they will be genuinely horrified by it and will blame it on derangement or mental illness, all the while remaining completely oblivious to the role that they play in both instigating and encouraging it.
In the end, Fox News is in the business of generating rage, and where there's rage, violence is sure to follow.
Many of both would like their religious beliefs to be enacted as law.
Maybe I'm just not looking, but how many Christians would like to see those laws include a death penalty for rejecting your religion?
You have to build up to that. First you have establish a theocracy, then you establish laws to favor the state religion, then when pragmatism has forced most of the moderates, then you start demonizing anyone who's not part of the state religion, then you slip in the laws where it's treasonous to not worship the state religion.
You can't go directly from secular state to murdering anyone who doesn't share your religion without getting yourself killed. It's like the frog in the boiling water, you have ease the majority of the country into their new unreasoning hatred.
I hear Fox News is working on the problem already.