Well, you can't have a dialog without someone on the other side of the table. And without a dialog you can't have science.
As to my anti science position... that's merely your opinion.
You cannot say empirically that I am anti science. That is your subjective assessment.
Which not to put too fine a point on it... about as valuable as my subjective assessment that you're a shallow arrogant twit with delusions of sophistication.
Which of us is correct? Science has no answer.
Now... I asked for an open mind and patience. You responded by saying I have no right to sit at the table. That I have no right to a voice.
Yet you presume to offer you opinions and suggest you have a place at the table. By what right do you have a right and I do not? Shouldn't I treat such a naked power grab with contempt?
And thus I do treat it with contempt. Its not acceptable.
You accept debate or accept battle. One of the two will happen.
We will either negotiate and discuss or sneak around in the shadows with war paint on and slit each other's throats in the dark.
Just to clarify, you doubt that institutions that study climate science have seen a sharp increase in funding since the global warming debate become controversial?
If I were to show budget figures from 1990 versus 2013... would you be surprised if total spending had gone up by a factor of 100 or that whole institutions have been created entirely to satisfy the perceived need for further study?
The above is obvious. The issue then becomes... what do these institutions do when they find information or evidence that the sky is not actually falling? And more worrying, do they even actively investigate the possibility? Or are the scientists all tasked with exploring one side of an issue with no time or credence given to other possibilities?
There has been a chilling effect on the whole field. Its the price of making this political.
Don't blindly accept anyone's word for anything. It isn't the easiest thing in the world to understand, but having more people who do understand it will let us make sure we're doing the right thing.
Are you saying that the conclusion that most people agree upon is correct or that having more people understand an issue is helpful to the overall dialog on the issue?
If you are saying former then I would say that is a classic logical fallacy.
If the latter then I would agree with you.
There will always be shysters. Did bridges become a ridiculous concept when the Brooklyn Bridge was "sold" or do people just need to be a little bit more careful?
To do that we must have access to the process and a seat at the table.
There has been a concerted effort lately to shut out "deniers" from all such discussions. They are being blacklisted from media. Blacklisted from science conferences. Blacklisted in science journals.
We can't possibly tell the difference between a crooked and an honest system if we're shut out. And worse, the very people that are shutting people out won't be able to tell either since their ability to detect problems is largely based upon a healthy internal dialog which they've terminated.
Science cannot operate without debate. By all means, let the debate be amongst experts. But "expert" can not be defined as "agreeing with everything we say about everything."
That isn't expertise... it is orthodoxy.
I'm sure you don't want that anymore then I do... however, it is the current state of affairs. It is a consequence of polluting science with politics.
Until the political elements are purged the debate is likely to remain a political debate... and not a scientific one.
The pro global warming people might well have the stronger scientific argument. But in perverting the issue with politics they've made the science irrelevant. And they are losing the political battle.
The best course is to purge the politics. But so far as I've seen... they're addicted to it already. They can't stop. And that means nothing short of collapse will end the relationship.
Again... even if they're right... they'll exaggerate their position. Its what politicians do. Think of them like investment bankers suddenly being given access to a no limit credit account. That is what the scientists have... or had. They had a no limit credibility account. Our trust in science is deep. Do we trust our politicians in the same way? Not even close. By by mixing science with politics... suddenly the politicians could BORROW the credibility of the scientists and use it for their own ends.
This sort of thing eventually trends towards collapse. Eventually the politicians will tell a lie so big that credibility check will bounce.
That will be a sad day and not one I am looking forward to... but really... its inevitable if the politicians are not cut off. They will suck the scientists dry and leave them with nothing but... piles of money. So there's there. But their integrity and position in society will be merely on paper at that point. The trust will be gone.
Is it worth it? Anyone that really values science would sever the connection. Its toxic.
That was all I was saying. Neither side a monopoly on beating its own chest. And neither side is morally or ethically pure.
We're all human beings here... with all the baggage that comes along with that.
Is one side more craven then the other? That's debatable. And that's the point. Its debatable. And it should be debated.
You should tell me that your side is ethically pure and without fault. And I should tell you my side is ethically pure and without fault.
And then we can point out errors in our argument. Share our observations and thoughts.
And if we respect the discussion and our own integrity enough... we can sustain a high level dialog where we gain a deeper understanding of each other's perspectives.
And ideally... this can lead to a joining of wills where we find common cause.
But this process requires an open and patient mind. Anything less and we can only jabber at each other like monkeys... beating our chests... throwing our respective excrement at each other.
Which shall it be... I can't force you to be a sapient hominid... I can only do my best to be one myself.
Of course the briber is involved... but people willing to bribe exist everywhere.
The difference between a corrupt country and a clean one is not whether one country has corrupt people or not. There are just as many people willing to bribe government officials in one as in another.
The difference is rather that in a clean system the bribes are refused and the official turns them into the authorities for prosecution.
In short, my interpretation is what defines a society that has low corruption. While yours seems more facilitated by the inherent background radiation of human society.
That's foolish... which is why we're done.
And yes... I'll respond... because you keep presuming to have the last word and contradict me. And because saying "nah uh" to you "uh huh" costs me nothing.
Except you're wrong. A lot of scientific disent has been artificially silenced. The hatred and frothing at the mouth zealotry has terrified the scientific community into silence.
Most simply avoid it because it doesn't involve their field even though they might have problems with it.
You cannot deny there is an orthadoxy on the issue. Imagine if a minor scientist disagreed and offered up evidence to support his claim... how many would dismiss him before even looking at his work? And how many after reading it would try to show it to be wrong even if it were valid?
Scientists are people. You can never get around that issue. We are always human. And scientists no matter their ethics or training are not immune to bias.
What keeps science honest is the debate. And the debate has been silenced. Silence the debate and science stops being science.
People forget the origins of science. It was once called "natural philosophy." And that's really what it has always been. You shut down the forum or silence the debate... and the dialog stops and the philosophy dies.
You need the back and forth... without fear or recriminations.
And for that, you'd have to detach the politics and the money from the issue.
I don't think they can. Which means they're going to hype global warming until it destroys them. Even if global warming is as bad as they say... they'll hype it beyond whatever it actually is... and then hype it more... and more... and more. And eventually... the bubble will burst and with it their credibility.
And only then will the system return to balance... be it in a painful and disruptive fashion.
But then that's what happens when you fuck with the system. It happens in all systems. The recent economic problems came about from similar distortions. You either respect the system or it will eventually humble you.
Forgive my cynicism but I doubt you are actually curious. I suspect you're fishing for something to attack me with... but I'll play along.
There are two points there... trillions and control of industry to unelected international authorities.
1. Trillions: I can get citations if you'd like, but the cost of complying with the Kyoto protocol was trillions of dollars. And those were optimistic projections.
2. Most of the "plans" for dealing with global warming involve giving directorship of the program to the UN or some body of the UN which will hand down judgments. No better is when the EPA or its equivalent in the EU does the same thing. These bodies often act without legislative authority or public mandate. They are given broad powers that are open to the interpretation of the people that work for them. These people are not elected by the people and their actions are largely unresponsive to public redress or even legislative pressure. They often become petty tyrants that do what they want when they want and none short of the high level executive authority can check them.
Its a problem.
Listen... I'm okay with spending trillions if I must to survive. Its money well spent. But if you ask for that kind of money you're going to get audited and you have no right to refuse the debate. If you demand trillions and then say the science is settled... You get a fight.
I think often people are so infused with anti theism that they're philosophically simplistic.
The issue is not whether religion has a place in this or not but whether philosophy itself has a right to argue its points... and whether science can answer any philosophical question?
My point is that philosophy which both science and religion are branches of deals effectively with everything. There are some things that science as a branch of philosophy is ill suited to deal with... issues of morality, ethics, and other immaterial issues.
Science has no place in that argument. By the same token, neither do many branches of philosophy that are suited to ethics able to deal with debates involving very material questions.
The old term for science was "natural philosophy."
The point is that science has its domain. It rules it. Anything entering its domain will lose to it.
But that domain is not infinite. The scientific method itself is a philosophical construct that is extremely useful but it has limits. Other branches of philosophy ATTEMPT to deal with other issues. Their natures being more arbitary you will never get the clear results you get from science. But you will at least get SOME results which is more then you can get from science when it leaves its domain.
People like Bill Nye are less scientific activists at this point then political activists. This statements do little to educate people about anything they don't already know or to expand knowledge or to render convincing arguments that change any opinions.
He's a rabble-rouser. Which is too bad.
Understand, I am not defending theism or the theistic interpretation of the natural world. Rather, I am saying that Bill Nye isn't helping the situation and that if he both understood what he was doing and cared he would do it differently.
1. You have people like Al Gore that started a carbon trading market which he made a great deal of money on and stood to make a great deal more until it collapsed.
2. You have a carbon trading scheme in the EU that has enriched various business interests and governments.
3. You have various scientific foundations that have seen their budgets go up by more then 100 times what they had before and continued funding depends on this current level of hysteria. If the issue appears less credible the funding will dry up. They have a vested interest in specific results.
And I could go on.
As to the evil oil companies... I have no affiliation with them. Rather, my affiliation is with the rest of humanity you presume to control.
You wish to tax me, tell me what I can do, what I can't, and if I ask a question or disagree... you dismiss all of us with a fallacious argument such as "the science is settled"...
Nonsense.
I don't think you know what the words you use mean or have any grasp of the effect they have when uttered.
Saying something like "the science is settled" in that context, means "fuck you, I will do what I want and you can't stop me!"...
I don't know if that's the message you intend to send but it is how those words are interpreted. It is a challenge to battle.
Do you want a dialog where we come to common cause and action or do you want to play political games in the dark?
Because if you want to play games... then games you shall have.
It wasn't saying the world is warming up that got you in trouble.
Rather it was saying that because of that we have to give you trillions of dollars, give total control of our industry to unelected international authorities, and of course... blindly accept everything you tell us here on out or be labeled a "denier"... and if we take issue with any of that... you say the science is settled.
Which is why we can't have a productive discussion about this issue.
It is not our side that made this difficult. It is yours. And while you might pretend to not have a side and while I might wish I didn't have one. In all conflicts there are ultimately only two sides... especially as stakes are raised. Factions polarize.
If you ACTUALLY cared about the environment at all... you'd dispense with the politics and the questing after aid money to line your pockets. Whether you've gotten any power or money out of this, many of the pro global warming people have gotten extremely rich pushing this stuff and most of their future fortunes depend on it going forward. That is an unacceptable conflict of interest.
If we... by which I mean all of society the world over... is to give over our wealth and power to some select group of people that will save the world... we must trust you. And for that, at the very least, we're going to need you to be non-partisan and non-profit.
The pro global warming coalition is neither of these at this point. Which means it can't be trusted in this issue.
Indifferent to the science, these groups are after their own petty ends and it is the responsibility and right of other factions to resist them.
That is how it is... reform or don't pretend to care.
Obviously both should be held accountable. No where did I say the people offering the bribes should be left alone.
The difference is that offering such bribes is often not illegal where as taking them is always illegal.
Again, we're done. Even if your statement was due to miscommunication you know my position on the matter and I've seen nothing from you to make me think you have something to contribute beyond that point.
The numbers aren't correct. The cost of regulation often inflates the cost or running cable by as much as 50 percent above the cost of the cable. And the ongoing costs can be arbitrary and extreme.
The larger operators insulate themselves from this with various agreements not available to the smaller operators. This means they pay a lower rate and are interfered with less. That should be offered to everyone without exception.
Again... when this is done you'll have multiple operators in most large cities at the very least. Until you do you will maintain the current monopoly system.
Look at if you have overlapping coverage in any area. That is your sign.
So you think the police officer that shoots someone for money is less responsible for the act and you should take less action against corrupt government officials then those that simply try to bribe them.
That is not why you don't get multiple lines in an area. And in built up areas such as major cities, the market is rich enough to support dozens of ISPs with independent lines.
Think about the math for a second. If ONE ISP can be viable in a rural or suburban environment then how much more infrastructure is required in an urban one? Not much more. Its really just higher density which ultimately lowers costs. As such, an urban environment must be able to sustain many ISPs having multiples of the suburban density.
But its worse then that because there are suburban and even rural areas where there are multiple ISPs with multiple lines... and they stay in business for years and years and years.
No.
The reason you don't get competition is because the cities, counties, and states set regulations that make it impossible in most cases... or simply wildly uneconomical.
If you were correct then Google Fiber wouldn't be viable in areas with cable and DSL. Sure... google fiber is better... but most of the broadband customers are going to be satisfied with cable and DSL. Google fiber comes into an area as the third provider. And is viable.
But google will not deploy fiber in cities or counties that try to dick around with them which is the typical system throughout most of the country.
That is the issue.
Do you have contradictory information? Present it.
In a situation where the government does corrupt things you want to blame that corruption on the criminals NOT in government?
So if I'm a drug dealer... and I pay a police officer to kill someone... which was the greater crime?
Me paying the police officer... or the police officer taking my money and shooting someone?
And which of the two is less acceptable?
Obviously the police officer taking the money and shooting someone.
And that relates to the government allowing itself to be bought by companies. It is effectively the cop... taking the money and doing their bidding against their oaths of office.
You will always have corrupt people. But if you accept corrupt government then there is no law at all. The whole system just becomes who is more devious and scary then the next guy. And then you protect yourself by ripping throat out of anyone that messes with you.
You don't want that. So put the blame where it belongs. On the government for taking the bribe.
So your idea is that they can own the cables but they can't actually do anything with them. The cables themselves can only be used by third party companies?
I still would prefer if more companies ran cable. But your idea would be an improvement.
That was because centralized manufacturing was the only mechanized way to produce shoes.
If I can print my own inventory then I don't need the big factory.
Will localized production ever be cheaper then centralized manufacturing?
There are variables.
1. Scale... centralized manufacturing only works if you're making a lot of something. For small production runs it is less efficient.
2. Centralized manufacturing tends to require a great deal of shipping, duties, and often waiting. All of that ends up costing something. It might be as low as 5 percent of the sale price but it is often as high as 15 percent.
3. Then there is value in customization. Making a lot of something means everything has to be generic. Small production runs... possibly as small as production runs of "1" can make the product more valuable because it is one of a kind. That might mean the product is more valuable to the buyer, it might mean you can access niche markets, it might mean you can effectively have a larger inventory... always saying "yes I can have that for you in an hour". All of that is valuable.
I could go on... but the point is that for centralized manufacturing to be superior it has to overcome all those variables. As you pointed out, it did overcome them and has overcome them for generations. However, what it was overcoming was the old method of manufacturing which was by skilled craftsmen and took a lot of labor per unit to produce. THAT was the problem. If we're printing the object then the labor is going to be much lower per unit. And if its low enough... and the cost of the machine is low enough... then it might easily overcome the systemic hold of centralized manufacturing in many segments of the economy.
Practically no ISPs besides the big guys run their own cable.
The only places you see multiple providers are in some small towns mostly in the south for some reason. You find very few competing ISPs in canada as well, with the exception of some small towns that actually went so far as to build their own ISPs.
Look, we need more companies that actually run the cable themselves.
What stops it is regulation. Not economics. Not technology. Not logistics. Not anything but naked legal bullshit.
And until that stops the big ISPs are going to dick with everyone else and set unreasonable prices for crappy service.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you can't have a dialog without someone on the other side of the table. And without a dialog you can't have science.
As to my anti science position... that's merely your opinion.
You cannot say empirically that I am anti science. That is your subjective assessment.
Which not to put too fine a point on it... about as valuable as my subjective assessment that you're a shallow arrogant twit with delusions of sophistication.
Which of us is correct? Science has no answer.
Now... I asked for an open mind and patience. You responded by saying I have no right to sit at the table. That I have no right to a voice.
Yet you presume to offer you opinions and suggest you have a place at the table. By what right do you have a right and I do not? Shouldn't I treat such a naked power grab with contempt?
And thus I do treat it with contempt. Its not acceptable.
You accept debate or accept battle. One of the two will happen.
We will either negotiate and discuss or sneak around in the shadows with war paint on and slit each other's throats in the dark.
Choose.
Just to clarify, you doubt that institutions that study climate science have seen a sharp increase in funding since the global warming debate become controversial?
If I were to show budget figures from 1990 versus 2013... would you be surprised if total spending had gone up by a factor of 100 or that whole institutions have been created entirely to satisfy the perceived need for further study?
The above is obvious. The issue then becomes... what do these institutions do when they find information or evidence that the sky is not actually falling? And more worrying, do they even actively investigate the possibility? Or are the scientists all tasked with exploring one side of an issue with no time or credence given to other possibilities?
There has been a chilling effect on the whole field. Its the price of making this political.
Are you saying that the conclusion that most people agree upon is correct or that having more people understand an issue is helpful to the overall dialog on the issue?
If you are saying former then I would say that is a classic logical fallacy.
If the latter then I would agree with you.
To do that we must have access to the process and a seat at the table.
There has been a concerted effort lately to shut out "deniers" from all such discussions. They are being blacklisted from media. Blacklisted from science conferences. Blacklisted in science journals.
We can't possibly tell the difference between a crooked and an honest system if we're shut out. And worse, the very people that are shutting people out won't be able to tell either since their ability to detect problems is largely based upon a healthy internal dialog which they've terminated.
Science cannot operate without debate. By all means, let the debate be amongst experts. But "expert" can not be defined as "agreeing with everything we say about everything."
That isn't expertise... it is orthodoxy.
I'm sure you don't want that anymore then I do... however, it is the current state of affairs. It is a consequence of polluting science with politics.
Until the political elements are purged the debate is likely to remain a political debate... and not a scientific one.
The pro global warming people might well have the stronger scientific argument. But in perverting the issue with politics they've made the science irrelevant. And they are losing the political battle.
The best course is to purge the politics. But so far as I've seen... they're addicted to it already. They can't stop. And that means nothing short of collapse will end the relationship.
Again... even if they're right... they'll exaggerate their position. Its what politicians do. Think of them like investment bankers suddenly being given access to a no limit credit account. That is what the scientists have... or had. They had a no limit credibility account. Our trust in science is deep. Do we trust our politicians in the same way? Not even close. By by mixing science with politics... suddenly the politicians could BORROW the credibility of the scientists and use it for their own ends.
This sort of thing eventually trends towards collapse. Eventually the politicians will tell a lie so big that credibility check will bounce.
That will be a sad day and not one I am looking forward to... but really... its inevitable if the politicians are not cut off. They will suck the scientists dry and leave them with nothing but... piles of money. So there's there. But their integrity and position in society will be merely on paper at that point. The trust will be gone.
Is it worth it? Anyone that really values science would sever the connection. Its toxic.
That was all I was saying. Neither side a monopoly on beating its own chest. And neither side is morally or ethically pure.
We're all human beings here... with all the baggage that comes along with that.
Is one side more craven then the other? That's debatable. And that's the point. Its debatable. And it should be debated.
You should tell me that your side is ethically pure and without fault. And I should tell you my side is ethically pure and without fault.
And then we can point out errors in our argument. Share our observations and thoughts.
And if we respect the discussion and our own integrity enough... we can sustain a high level dialog where we gain a deeper understanding of each other's perspectives.
And ideally... this can lead to a joining of wills where we find common cause.
But this process requires an open and patient mind. Anything less and we can only jabber at each other like monkeys... beating our chests... throwing our respective excrement at each other.
Which shall it be... I can't force you to be a sapient hominid... I can only do my best to be one myself.
Of course the briber is involved... but people willing to bribe exist everywhere.
The difference between a corrupt country and a clean one is not whether one country has corrupt people or not. There are just as many people willing to bribe government officials in one as in another.
The difference is rather that in a clean system the bribes are refused and the official turns them into the authorities for prosecution.
In short, my interpretation is what defines a society that has low corruption. While yours seems more facilitated by the inherent background radiation of human society.
That's foolish... which is why we're done.
And yes... I'll respond... because you keep presuming to have the last word and contradict me. And because saying "nah uh" to you "uh huh" costs me nothing.
You're not very good at reading are you? I was making that very argument.
My point was that it was being silenced by political zealotry and financial self/institutional interest.
Yes... suggest that anyone besides your enemies deals in propaganda and they must be asking you to deny the universe itself.
Riddle me this... Do other entities besides the evil oil companies have propaganda machines?
Yes or no?
Really? I didn't vote for any of them. Did you?
And what about the various UN boards and panels? Who for example keeps electing Iran to the Human Rights committee?
Allow me to point out the obvious... you have about as much say in who runs the UN as an Egyptian peasant did under the Pharaohs.
aka none.
Except you're wrong. A lot of scientific disent has been artificially silenced. The hatred and frothing at the mouth zealotry has terrified the scientific community into silence.
Most simply avoid it because it doesn't involve their field even though they might have problems with it.
You cannot deny there is an orthadoxy on the issue. Imagine if a minor scientist disagreed and offered up evidence to support his claim... how many would dismiss him before even looking at his work? And how many after reading it would try to show it to be wrong even if it were valid?
Scientists are people. You can never get around that issue. We are always human. And scientists no matter their ethics or training are not immune to bias.
What keeps science honest is the debate. And the debate has been silenced. Silence the debate and science stops being science.
People forget the origins of science. It was once called "natural philosophy." And that's really what it has always been. You shut down the forum or silence the debate... and the dialog stops and the philosophy dies.
You need the back and forth... without fear or recriminations.
And for that, you'd have to detach the politics and the money from the issue.
I don't think they can. Which means they're going to hype global warming until it destroys them. Even if global warming is as bad as they say... they'll hype it beyond whatever it actually is... and then hype it more... and more... and more. And eventually... the bubble will burst and with it their credibility.
And only then will the system return to balance... be it in a painful and disruptive fashion.
But then that's what happens when you fuck with the system. It happens in all systems. The recent economic problems came about from similar distortions. You either respect the system or it will eventually humble you.
Corporations are not the only entities that have propaganda machines. Simply pointing out the obvious.
Forgive my cynicism but I doubt you are actually curious. I suspect you're fishing for something to attack me with... but I'll play along.
There are two points there... trillions and control of industry to unelected international authorities.
1. Trillions: I can get citations if you'd like, but the cost of complying with the Kyoto protocol was trillions of dollars. And those were optimistic projections.
2. Most of the "plans" for dealing with global warming involve giving directorship of the program to the UN or some body of the UN which will hand down judgments. No better is when the EPA or its equivalent in the EU does the same thing. These bodies often act without legislative authority or public mandate. They are given broad powers that are open to the interpretation of the people that work for them. These people are not elected by the people and their actions are largely unresponsive to public redress or even legislative pressure. They often become petty tyrants that do what they want when they want and none short of the high level executive authority can check them.
Its a problem.
Listen... I'm okay with spending trillions if I must to survive. Its money well spent. But if you ask for that kind of money you're going to get audited and you have no right to refuse the debate. If you demand trillions and then say the science is settled... You get a fight.
You really can't expect otherwise.
I think often people are so infused with anti theism that they're philosophically simplistic.
The issue is not whether religion has a place in this or not but whether philosophy itself has a right to argue its points... and whether science can answer any philosophical question?
My point is that philosophy which both science and religion are branches of deals effectively with everything. There are some things that science as a branch of philosophy is ill suited to deal with... issues of morality, ethics, and other immaterial issues.
Science has no place in that argument. By the same token, neither do many branches of philosophy that are suited to ethics able to deal with debates involving very material questions.
The old term for science was "natural philosophy."
The point is that science has its domain. It rules it. Anything entering its domain will lose to it.
But that domain is not infinite. The scientific method itself is a philosophical construct that is extremely useful but it has limits. Other branches of philosophy ATTEMPT to deal with other issues. Their natures being more arbitary you will never get the clear results you get from science. But you will at least get SOME results which is more then you can get from science when it leaves its domain.
People like Bill Nye are less scientific activists at this point then political activists. This statements do little to educate people about anything they don't already know or to expand knowledge or to render convincing arguments that change any opinions.
He's a rabble-rouser. Which is too bad.
Understand, I am not defending theism or the theistic interpretation of the natural world. Rather, I am saying that Bill Nye isn't helping the situation and that if he both understood what he was doing and cared he would do it differently.
Actually no.
1. You have people like Al Gore that started a carbon trading market which he made a great deal of money on and stood to make a great deal more until it collapsed.
2. You have a carbon trading scheme in the EU that has enriched various business interests and governments.
3. You have various scientific foundations that have seen their budgets go up by more then 100 times what they had before and continued funding depends on this current level of hysteria. If the issue appears less credible the funding will dry up. They have a vested interest in specific results.
And I could go on.
As to the evil oil companies... I have no affiliation with them. Rather, my affiliation is with the rest of humanity you presume to control.
You wish to tax me, tell me what I can do, what I can't, and if I ask a question or disagree... you dismiss all of us with a fallacious argument such as "the science is settled"...
Nonsense.
I don't think you know what the words you use mean or have any grasp of the effect they have when uttered.
Saying something like "the science is settled" in that context, means "fuck you, I will do what I want and you can't stop me!"...
I don't know if that's the message you intend to send but it is how those words are interpreted. It is a challenge to battle.
Do you want a dialog where we come to common cause and action or do you want to play political games in the dark?
Because if you want to play games... then games you shall have.
It wasn't saying the world is warming up that got you in trouble.
Rather it was saying that because of that we have to give you trillions of dollars, give total control of our industry to unelected international authorities, and of course... blindly accept everything you tell us here on out or be labeled a "denier"... and if we take issue with any of that... you say the science is settled.
Which is why we can't have a productive discussion about this issue.
It is not our side that made this difficult. It is yours. And while you might pretend to not have a side and while I might wish I didn't have one. In all conflicts there are ultimately only two sides... especially as stakes are raised. Factions polarize.
If you ACTUALLY cared about the environment at all... you'd dispense with the politics and the questing after aid money to line your pockets. Whether you've gotten any power or money out of this, many of the pro global warming people have gotten extremely rich pushing this stuff and most of their future fortunes depend on it going forward. That is an unacceptable conflict of interest.
If we... by which I mean all of society the world over... is to give over our wealth and power to some select group of people that will save the world... we must trust you. And for that, at the very least, we're going to need you to be non-partisan and non-profit.
The pro global warming coalition is neither of these at this point. Which means it can't be trusted in this issue.
Indifferent to the science, these groups are after their own petty ends and it is the responsibility and right of other factions to resist them.
That is how it is... reform or don't pretend to care.
Obviously both should be held accountable. No where did I say the people offering the bribes should be left alone.
The difference is that offering such bribes is often not illegal where as taking them is always illegal.
Again, we're done. Even if your statement was due to miscommunication you know my position on the matter and I've seen nothing from you to make me think you have something to contribute beyond that point.
So again... Good day.
Bingo.
Absolve Costco of all liability and they likely would have given the peanut butter to the food bank.
The numbers aren't correct. The cost of regulation often inflates the cost or running cable by as much as 50 percent above the cost of the cable. And the ongoing costs can be arbitrary and extreme.
The larger operators insulate themselves from this with various agreements not available to the smaller operators. This means they pay a lower rate and are interfered with less. That should be offered to everyone without exception.
Again... when this is done you'll have multiple operators in most large cities at the very least. Until you do you will maintain the current monopoly system.
Look at if you have overlapping coverage in any area. That is your sign.
So you think the police officer that shoots someone for money is less responsible for the act and you should take less action against corrupt government officials then those that simply try to bribe them.
Fine.
You're an idiot.
This discussion is over.
Good day, sir.
Wrong.
That is not why you don't get multiple lines in an area. And in built up areas such as major cities, the market is rich enough to support dozens of ISPs with independent lines.
Think about the math for a second. If ONE ISP can be viable in a rural or suburban environment then how much more infrastructure is required in an urban one? Not much more. Its really just higher density which ultimately lowers costs. As such, an urban environment must be able to sustain many ISPs having multiples of the suburban density.
But its worse then that because there are suburban and even rural areas where there are multiple ISPs with multiple lines... and they stay in business for years and years and years.
No.
The reason you don't get competition is because the cities, counties, and states set regulations that make it impossible in most cases... or simply wildly uneconomical.
If you were correct then Google Fiber wouldn't be viable in areas with cable and DSL. Sure... google fiber is better... but most of the broadband customers are going to be satisfied with cable and DSL. Google fiber comes into an area as the third provider. And is viable.
But google will not deploy fiber in cities or counties that try to dick around with them which is the typical system throughout most of the country.
That is the issue.
Do you have contradictory information? Present it.
No.
I am not giving last mile to the government.
So far as I understand that's against the law.
In a situation where the government does corrupt things you want to blame that corruption on the criminals NOT in government?
So if I'm a drug dealer... and I pay a police officer to kill someone... which was the greater crime?
Me paying the police officer... or the police officer taking my money and shooting someone?
And which of the two is less acceptable?
Obviously the police officer taking the money and shooting someone.
And that relates to the government allowing itself to be bought by companies. It is effectively the cop... taking the money and doing their bidding against their oaths of office.
You will always have corrupt people. But if you accept corrupt government then there is no law at all. The whole system just becomes who is more devious and scary then the next guy. And then you protect yourself by ripping throat out of anyone that messes with you.
You don't want that. So put the blame where it belongs. On the government for taking the bribe.
That's an interesting idea.
So your idea is that they can own the cables but they can't actually do anything with them. The cables themselves can only be used by third party companies?
I still would prefer if more companies ran cable. But your idea would be an improvement.
That was because centralized manufacturing was the only mechanized way to produce shoes.
If I can print my own inventory then I don't need the big factory.
Will localized production ever be cheaper then centralized manufacturing?
There are variables.
1. Scale... centralized manufacturing only works if you're making a lot of something. For small production runs it is less efficient.
2. Centralized manufacturing tends to require a great deal of shipping, duties, and often waiting. All of that ends up costing something. It might be as low as 5 percent of the sale price but it is often as high as 15 percent.
3. Then there is value in customization. Making a lot of something means everything has to be generic. Small production runs... possibly as small as production runs of "1" can make the product more valuable because it is one of a kind. That might mean the product is more valuable to the buyer, it might mean you can access niche markets, it might mean you can effectively have a larger inventory... always saying "yes I can have that for you in an hour". All of that is valuable.
I could go on... but the point is that for centralized manufacturing to be superior it has to overcome all those variables. As you pointed out, it did overcome them and has overcome them for generations. However, what it was overcoming was the old method of manufacturing which was by skilled craftsmen and took a lot of labor per unit to produce. THAT was the problem. If we're printing the object then the labor is going to be much lower per unit. And if its low enough... and the cost of the machine is low enough... then it might easily overcome the systemic hold of centralized manufacturing in many segments of the economy.
Practically no ISPs besides the big guys run their own cable.
The only places you see multiple providers are in some small towns mostly in the south for some reason. You find very few competing ISPs in canada as well, with the exception of some small towns that actually went so far as to build their own ISPs.
Look, we need more companies that actually run the cable themselves.
What stops it is regulation. Not economics. Not technology. Not logistics. Not anything but naked legal bullshit.
And until that stops the big ISPs are going to dick with everyone else and set unreasonable prices for crappy service.