Can we have Just A Little Logic here? Either you don't exist (and if you don't, how did I manage to quote you?), in spite of your words, you are actually apathetic yourself (although how would we know since you would obviously be an inveterate liar), or.... you're wrong and somebody *does* care.
But it does matter. Feel free to argue that the rich are only interested in themselves (that's bullshit, of course, but go ahead and make the argument if it makes you happy). But after you've reduced your carbon emissions, good people like yourself will have less money to help the poor (who are, as you point out, the ones who will truly suffer -- but that's the case whether global warming happens or not).
The real question here is this inequality: $(global warming damage with carbon reduction) - $(cost of carbon reduction) $(global warming damage without carbon reduction). Costs matter. For example, for a small fraction of the cost of carbon reduction ($100M), we could supply EVERYONE WORLDWIDE with clean water. If you poo-poo this, you probably have as much clean water as you could possibly want.
The problem with Kyoto is that many in the US saw it as unfair.
I see the problem as being that it will destroy our economy AND THEN after we've reduced our carbon emissions and delayed global warming by ONE YEAR, we won't be able to afford to deal with the INEVITABLE damage from global warming.
Kyoto was stupid. Just because some idiots ratified it, that doesn't make it any less stupid. As your mother probably said to you, "Just because the other kids are jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, you think that means you should??"
Yes, but the only reason the sky doesn't fall is because they're raising the alarm.
Yes, the CAVEs (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) actually think that. The sky hasn't fallen yet, has it?!? There ya go! Proof positive that they're right.
There is no evidence that cutting the levels of CO2 emissions would "devolve [the US] economy". In fact, the opposite is far more plausible: the move to energy efficient technologies would spur new R&D,
You *do* realize that you're pushing the broken window fallacy, right? I wouldn't want someone to attempt propaganda innocently.
We don't have "too many people" in the world. Every problem that is commonly attributed to "overpopulation" is actually a problem of having too little money. Only wackos and flakes think the USA or Japan has an overpopulation problem. The population density in Japan is greater than just about anywhere, and yet they have none of the problems attributed to overpopulation.
Yeah, I know, you were just making a throw-away comment, but the only reason it was funny is because lots of people think there really is a problem with "overpopulation".
And of course rediff (the news service posting this article) uses Linux. Their free webmail system, Rediffmail.com, alone uses well over sixty Linux servers and has hundreds of terabytes spinning.
Why would the government implement a charge? (other than the usual reasons why governments implement charges -- which is a problem that isn't going to go away as long as you have a government running your society.)
Hi. My email is nelson_@_crynwr_._com. Remove the underscores to send me email.
If you do that, you have paid a price to send me email. Anybody have a problem with that? So why is it wrong when Goodmail customers pay AOL to send them email?
No libertarian thinks that markets solve all problems. Every libertarian thinks that markets on average, when all is considered, solve problems BETTER THAN ANY ALTERNATIVE.
Now, you might want to propose "Well, let's have politics solve problems that it solves best, and markets solve problems that they solve best". That's a great idea. How do you tell when politics is solving a problem better? Politicians don't go bankrupt, because it's *your* money they're spending, and you never run out of money (from their perspective). When a business can't solve a problem, it runs out of money, and is replaced by some other business that does a better job.
I'll be there... so instead of flaming me on slashdot, you can flame me in person! Oh, wait, nobody ever flames f2f. I'll be in the Handhelds.org booth at least party of the time. Sorry, no T-shirts to give out. Hold your own hand.
You're sort-of right and sort-of wrong. I think you're right for the wrong reasons. Since our paper money isn't backed by any hard currency, the currency's value is proportional to everything you can purchase with the currency. By taking some things off the table, that reduces (in a very small way) the amount that can be purchased and thus inflates the currency. But relative to the $N trillion of value that you can buy, Sourcefire isn't even a drop in the bucket. The ports aren't even a drop in the bucket.
Basically, yeah. However on the road to a stateless society organized by voluntery cooperation and private property is mere compliance with the Constitution.
The fear at the time was that the states would erect trade barriers between each other. Thus, only the federal government was able to restrict trade between states, and [sarcasm]they would NEVER abuse that power, would they?[/sarcasm].
Yeah, I had a similar situation. I fell on my bicycle and tore open one knee and got serious road rash on the other. I got a ride to the hospital from the department secretary (again, hooray for secretaries). You should have seen how white her face got when I walked into her office. I was bleeding so badly that the blood had run down to my socks from the front of the building to her office. She quickly agreed that yes, I needed to go to the hospital. Got there, walked into the emergency room, and they didn't have anybody to see me right away. I said "Okay, this is bullshit! What if this was an actual emergency and I was like, you know, BLEEDING FREELY??", and walked a block to my best friend's house. His father is a doctor. He stitched me up, right as rain.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody cares about poor people now,
.... you're wrong and somebody *does* care.
Can we have Just A Little Logic here? Either you don't exist (and if you don't, how did I manage to quote you?), in spite of your words, you are actually apathetic yourself (although how would we know since you would obviously be an inveterate liar), or
If you truly believed this, you would have already killed yourself. Demonstrably, even you don't believe yourself, so why should we?
But it does matter. Feel free to argue that the rich are only interested in themselves (that's bullshit, of course, but go ahead and make the argument if it makes you happy). But after you've reduced your carbon emissions, good people like yourself will have less money to help the poor (who are, as you point out, the ones who will truly suffer -- but that's the case whether global warming happens or not).
The real question here is this inequality: $(global warming damage with carbon reduction) - $(cost of carbon reduction) $(global warming damage without carbon reduction). Costs matter. For example, for a small fraction of the cost of carbon reduction ($100M), we could supply EVERYONE WORLDWIDE with clean water. If you poo-poo this, you probably have as much clean water as you could possibly want.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaoooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaooooooo oooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaooooooooooooo!
(doppler shift)
The problem with Kyoto is that many in the US saw it as unfair.
I see the problem as being that it will destroy our economy AND THEN after we've reduced our carbon emissions and delayed global warming by ONE YEAR, we won't be able to afford to deal with the INEVITABLE damage from global warming.
Kyoto was stupid. Just because some idiots ratified it, that doesn't make it any less stupid. As your mother probably said to you, "Just because the other kids are jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, you think that means you should??"
Yes, but the only reason the sky doesn't fall is because they're raising the alarm.
Yes, the CAVEs (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) actually think that. The sky hasn't fallen yet, has it?!? There ya go! Proof positive that they're right.
There is no evidence that cutting the levels of CO2 emissions would "devolve [the US] economy". In fact, the opposite is far more plausible: the move to energy efficient technologies would spur new R&D,
You *do* realize that you're pushing the broken window fallacy, right? I wouldn't want someone to attempt propaganda innocently.
We don't have "too many people" in the world. Every problem that is commonly attributed to "overpopulation" is actually a problem of having too little money. Only wackos and flakes think the USA or Japan has an overpopulation problem. The population density in Japan is greater than just about anywhere, and yet they have none of the problems attributed to overpopulation.
Yeah, I know, you were just making a throw-away comment, but the only reason it was funny is because lots of people think there really is a problem with "overpopulation".
And of course rediff (the news service posting this article) uses Linux. Their free webmail system, Rediffmail.com, alone uses well over sixty Linux servers and has hundreds of terabytes spinning.
Obviously, the solution to this problem is to sell the DVD on the way out of the movie.
Why would the government implement a charge? (other than the usual reasons why governments implement charges -- which is a problem that isn't going to go away as long as you have a government running your society.)
Hi. My email is nelson_@_crynwr_._com. Remove the underscores to send me email.
If you do that, you have paid a price to send me email. Anybody have a problem with that? So why is it wrong when Goodmail customers pay AOL to send them email?
No libertarian thinks that markets solve all problems. Every libertarian thinks that markets on average, when all is considered, solve problems BETTER THAN ANY ALTERNATIVE.
Now, you might want to propose "Well, let's have politics solve problems that it solves best, and markets solve problems that they solve best". That's a great idea. How do you tell when politics is solving a problem better? Politicians don't go bankrupt, because it's *your* money they're spending, and you never run out of money (from their perspective). When a business can't solve a problem, it runs out of money, and is replaced by some other business that does a better job.
You mean, they should invent DomainKeys?
Will I still be able to mark certified mail as spam?
Yes. Certified Email only bypasses site filters; not an individual's filters.
No, I like to hear other people talk about me .... thanks!
(no, you can't win this argument; give up before I taunt you again.)
I'll be there ... so instead of flaming me on slashdot, you can flame me in person! Oh, wait, nobody ever flames f2f. I'll be in the Handhelds.org booth at least party of the time. Sorry, no T-shirts to give out. Hold your own hand.
Mea culpa.
I'll bet it was off-white. Or maybe transparent and chrome.
You're sort-of right and sort-of wrong. I think you're right for the wrong reasons. Since our paper money isn't backed by any hard currency, the currency's value is proportional to everything you can purchase with the currency. By taking some things off the table, that reduces (in a very small way) the amount that can be purchased and thus inflates the currency. But relative to the $N trillion of value that you can buy, Sourcefire isn't even a drop in the bucket. The ports aren't even a drop in the bucket.
So, no worries, mate.
Basically, yeah. However on the road to a stateless society organized by voluntery cooperation and private property is mere compliance with the Constitution.
The fear at the time was that the states would erect trade barriers between each other. Thus, only the federal government was able to restrict trade between states, and [sarcasm]they would NEVER abuse that power, would they?[/sarcasm].
HTML really needs a <sarcasm> tag.
Don't say "fuck". It sounds like shit when you do.
Yeah, I had a similar situation. I fell on my bicycle and tore open one knee and got serious road rash on the other. I got a ride to the hospital from the department secretary (again, hooray for secretaries). You should have seen how white her face got when I walked into her office. I was bleeding so badly that the blood had run down to my socks from the front of the building to her office. She quickly agreed that yes, I needed to go to the hospital. Got there, walked into the emergency room, and they didn't have anybody to see me right away. I said "Okay, this is bullshit! What if this was an actual emergency and I was like, you know, BLEEDING FREELY??", and walked a block to my best friend's house. His father is a doctor. He stitched me up, right as rain.