This should still be a requirement in my mind. If you can not build it or refuse to build at least a small proto-type, what use is the invention going to be for mankind when even the inventor refuses to build it?
How exactly is Edison a bad example of how the patent process works? Whether we agree with his methods on farming work out and paying employees to invent things for him, we must recognize the fact that through this system he used that he both made money, and benefited mankind through his shops and his laboratories where his employees advanced human knowledge.
And isn't that the point to the patent system?
To advance our technology and to advance those who invent? The people all along had an option to not work for Edison and strike out on their own, but they chose to stay in the laboratory. That was their choice, and I would argue therefore that the process worked great back than. As for today, that is a different topic of conversation because things are slightly different today than they were in Edison's time.
There is absolutely no other way to cut CO2 emissions without additional taxes OR regulation. Since carbon taxes are easy for a democracy to come out against when they see no benefit, regulation is the only route to go (especially after the result of the carbon tax in Australia and the literal death of the labor party). People tire of obsessive regulation however, and eventually the same fate will come to those who push for that avenue once people start seeing the actual cost in their power bills and in their tax bills where they pay additional money to fund additional employees of the federal Government to sit around and pick their noses as they make sure companies are not jacking off with the regulations. Of course, the smart people would have long ago advocated (like say 30 years ago) for massive money to be put into alternative energy research instead of climate change research. If the science was so sure for so long, why do we need to study it more? Put that money into coming up with a technological solution since green energy costs more and people are inherently against something that makes them pay a vast amount of money for no tangible gain.
But people get entrenched into their positions of power and prestige. There is always something "interesting" to them to study in their field, and so they make a cushy living while also wasting money in the end. If the science is so sure, why are those jobs even necessary? Put them to work coming up with a solution since they are already intelligent right? But go figure, people get entrenched into their careers and insist that they need their money still until they retire, and so the world is stuck with people pushing a solution that will never work and others fighting against insane regulation that will kill people today due to fuel poverty and many more deaths in the third world who can not even get decent sanitation due to lack of power.
Every metric I see including air pollution, etc. shows the US has improved vastly over the last 100 years, with very notable gains shown in the last 30. You can look at the EPA website for the actual data, but I have a feeling you are not up to speed on this issue and instead are injecting your personal beliefs into what should be a scientific argument.
China is building many many more coal fired power plants at this time than they are nuclear. They are industrializing, and just like most countries that start that process, they have to start with dirt cheap and work their way up to the filters and scrubbers that we use in the US which are yes very expensive in comparison. I think its worth it most of the time to curtail pollution if the cost is low like what we do. But there comes a time when you are spending so much money that you end up shooting yourself in the foot. Case in point, more people are burning wood today in the US than 10 years ago just to stay warm and this is directly tied to rising electricity prices.
In other words, you will get more pollution if you reduce your pollution at a certain point. Because if there is a cheaper option, people will take it. That is why the cost of power is just as important as the pollution produced by the power production. You have to take everything into consideration so that you can actually safe-guard the environment.
I never realized until you stated it that the science had blamed humanity for Jopin, Boulder and others? So evil humans are the cause of bad weather now?
Weather is not climate unless weather is climate I guess. Weird how that works. But I do have to say I agree with your last statement. Who really cares about poor (or rich) oil tycoons because by definition they are rich and we must always be constantly envious of those with more than we do. I hate em too. Let's take all of their money and at least we will feel better until we blow it all on hookers, drugs and bad life choices.
Sounds like a plan, we have the enemy of society, evil oil barons, we have the good guys (incompetent climate scientists bravely driving their volvo's and making six figures sacrificing year after year obviously when they are getting plastered at exotic locations all over the world.) And we have the disaster that only fascism an d cronyism can prevent: "evil human witches that are causing bad weather."
Sounds like a good rehash of our inquisition period when we used to burn people at the stake for causing bad weather. I am with you, that is far more interesting than our current reality tv, so why don't we burn a few witches or deniers and than the weather will return to normal. Sounds just as logical today as it did in yesteryear. Lets do it. Sign me up.
I see. So MY solution is to simply ignore the poor people dying due to energy poverty, poor people dying in the third world from preventable disease because we refuse to allow them to industrialize, fuck future generations of third-worlders (and even some current populations) and live with the consequences of a perfectly avoidable disaster.
In a way, you're even worse than the denialists. You have adopted an ideological position and have decided that maintaining it should trump any change in human behavior.
I fixed it for you. If the solution you propose is no better than the consequences of doing nothing, you are not solving a problem but creating your own problem. here is a hint free of charge. If you solution requires fascism to be implemented, you don't have a solution worth exploring. Come up with a better solution and stop telling other people that if they refuse to agree with you that they are heartless bastards. Because frankly from my perspective, you are just as heartless by promoting a solution that involves quantifiable deaths to our poor people and to those in the third world. And we are talking millions here. But killing a few million is all for the greater good right? Do you know what famous fascist used that line in the past to justify their evil actions?
Why every single one of them.
So when climate scientists obscure their research and refuse to honor FOIA requests, they are no better than tobacco companies as documented by Naomi Oresekes? I am glad she is showing climate scientists has no better than cigarette executives. After all, climate scientists can not get funding and grants if they tell the world that they were wrong. So yes, seems like a similar situation to me.
I am glad you made that clear for the rest of us.
Way to go genius.
That does not prove the world is warming.
If that was true, than since the last 12 years of my life have been "the tallest years of my life" this would mean I am still growing. It would mean every adult human on this planet including your grandmother is still growing taller.
Sorry, you are just ignorant of basic statistics and for fucks sake as you say, learn some basic STAT.
Slashdot Mirror
This should still be a requirement in my mind. If you can not build it or refuse to build at least a small proto-type, what use is the invention going to be for mankind when even the inventor refuses to build it?
You patent things just to patent them and hope to eventually extort money from others as opposed to actually using said patent.
How exactly is Edison a bad example of how the patent process works? Whether we agree with his methods on farming work out and paying employees to invent things for him, we must recognize the fact that through this system he used that he both made money, and benefited mankind through his shops and his laboratories where his employees advanced human knowledge.
And isn't that the point to the patent system?
To advance our technology and to advance those who invent? The people all along had an option to not work for Edison and strike out on their own, but they chose to stay in the laboratory. That was their choice, and I would argue therefore that the process worked great back than. As for today, that is a different topic of conversation because things are slightly different today than they were in Edison's time.
There is absolutely no other way to cut CO2 emissions without additional taxes OR regulation. Since carbon taxes are easy for a democracy to come out against when they see no benefit, regulation is the only route to go (especially after the result of the carbon tax in Australia and the literal death of the labor party). People tire of obsessive regulation however, and eventually the same fate will come to those who push for that avenue once people start seeing the actual cost in their power bills and in their tax bills where they pay additional money to fund additional employees of the federal Government to sit around and pick their noses as they make sure companies are not jacking off with the regulations. Of course, the smart people would have long ago advocated (like say 30 years ago) for massive money to be put into alternative energy research instead of climate change research. If the science was so sure for so long, why do we need to study it more? Put that money into coming up with a technological solution since green energy costs more and people are inherently against something that makes them pay a vast amount of money for no tangible gain.
But people get entrenched into their positions of power and prestige. There is always something "interesting" to them to study in their field, and so they make a cushy living while also wasting money in the end. If the science is so sure, why are those jobs even necessary? Put them to work coming up with a solution since they are already intelligent right? But go figure, people get entrenched into their careers and insist that they need their money still until they retire, and so the world is stuck with people pushing a solution that will never work and others fighting against insane regulation that will kill people today due to fuel poverty and many more deaths in the third world who can not even get decent sanitation due to lack of power.
By what metric is the US regressing as you claim?
Every metric I see including air pollution, etc. shows the US has improved vastly over the last 100 years, with very notable gains shown in the last 30. You can look at the EPA website for the actual data, but I have a feeling you are not up to speed on this issue and instead are injecting your personal beliefs into what should be a scientific argument.
China is building many many more coal fired power plants at this time than they are nuclear. They are industrializing, and just like most countries that start that process, they have to start with dirt cheap and work their way up to the filters and scrubbers that we use in the US which are yes very expensive in comparison. I think its worth it most of the time to curtail pollution if the cost is low like what we do. But there comes a time when you are spending so much money that you end up shooting yourself in the foot. Case in point, more people are burning wood today in the US than 10 years ago just to stay warm and this is directly tied to rising electricity prices.
In other words, you will get more pollution if you reduce your pollution at a certain point. Because if there is a cheaper option, people will take it. That is why the cost of power is just as important as the pollution produced by the power production. You have to take everything into consideration so that you can actually safe-guard the environment.
I never realized until you stated it that the science had blamed humanity for Jopin, Boulder and others? So evil humans are the cause of bad weather now? Weather is not climate unless weather is climate I guess. Weird how that works. But I do have to say I agree with your last statement. Who really cares about poor (or rich) oil tycoons because by definition they are rich and we must always be constantly envious of those with more than we do. I hate em too. Let's take all of their money and at least we will feel better until we blow it all on hookers, drugs and bad life choices.
Sounds like a plan, we have the enemy of society, evil oil barons, we have the good guys (incompetent climate scientists bravely driving their volvo's and making six figures sacrificing year after year obviously when they are getting plastered at exotic locations all over the world.) And we have the disaster that only fascism an d cronyism can prevent: "evil human witches that are causing bad weather."
Sounds like a good rehash of our inquisition period when we used to burn people at the stake for causing bad weather. I am with you, that is far more interesting than our current reality tv, so why don't we burn a few witches or deniers and than the weather will return to normal. Sounds just as logical today as it did in yesteryear. Lets do it. Sign me up.
I see. So MY solution is to simply ignore the poor people dying due to energy poverty, poor people dying in the third world from preventable disease because we refuse to allow them to industrialize, fuck future generations of third-worlders (and even some current populations) and live with the consequences of a perfectly avoidable disaster.
In a way, you're even worse than the denialists. You have adopted an ideological position and have decided that maintaining it should trump any change in human behavior.
I fixed it for you. If the solution you propose is no better than the consequences of doing nothing, you are not solving a problem but creating your own problem. here is a hint free of charge. If you solution requires fascism to be implemented, you don't have a solution worth exploring. Come up with a better solution and stop telling other people that if they refuse to agree with you that they are heartless bastards. Because frankly from my perspective, you are just as heartless by promoting a solution that involves quantifiable deaths to our poor people and to those in the third world. And we are talking millions here. But killing a few million is all for the greater good right? Do you know what famous fascist used that line in the past to justify their evil actions? Why every single one of them.
So when climate scientists obscure their research and refuse to honor FOIA requests, they are no better than tobacco companies as documented by Naomi Oresekes? I am glad she is showing climate scientists has no better than cigarette executives. After all, climate scientists can not get funding and grants if they tell the world that they were wrong. So yes, seems like a similar situation to me. I am glad you made that clear for the rest of us.
Logically, if it signified nothing, you wouldn't have posted about it. So it must logically signify something.
Way to go genius. That does not prove the world is warming. If that was true, than since the last 12 years of my life have been "the tallest years of my life" this would mean I am still growing. It would mean every adult human on this planet including your grandmother is still growing taller. Sorry, you are just ignorant of basic statistics and for fucks sake as you say, learn some basic STAT.