Retailers post pictures on their wall saying "Do no accept checks from this person". It's just a reputation system committed to paper. It's not really a problem, but it's also not something the government (police) should be involved in because government blacklists violate due process rights.
What we need to help fix this planet are people that run off of logic, not emotions.
How about we start by not saying "fix this planet" as if the concept of "fixing" the planet were serious?
Perhaps it's just a short way of saying what you mean, but there are lots of emotion-driven arguments to "save the planet". But the planet is oblivious. And what we really need is a way to live the best lives we can -- for a definition of "we" that respectfully includes people in the future.
You mean besides the human beings who, as a result of heavy childhood exposure, grew up to be more violent, more impulsive, more aggressive, and less intelligent?
That's a big problem, but not really "long term environmental damage". It's not something that will be seen in the environment in the future.
Sure. Lead emitted from cars settle onto the ground, and kind of just sits there. It doesn't biodegrade, it's not soluble enough to wash away especially easily, and it's heavy enough to stay where it lands -- until organisms like us end up ingesting and sequestering it, and that seems to take a LONG time, much longer than the 20-odd years since it was banned in the US.
I don't have time this afternoon to look up numbers, but as I recall, you'll still find highly elevated levels of lead in surface soil near highways that saw a lot of traffic during the leaded-gas era. I don't expect the US to pony up a few trillion bucks to remediate all that soil any time soon.
That's "long term". Is it "environmental damage"? Lead in the soil that causes no measurable effects can't really be said to cause persistent measurable "damage".
The point is that the environment seems to have largely recovered from leaded gasoline (hasn't it?). The environment is resilient.
Also, what is the long term environmental damage from lead in gasoline? Leaded gas has been gone for a long time. Can someone point to the anything in the environment today that still shows signs of damage from leaded gasoline?
That's only 3 years, and the pace is accelerating. They'd be really worried if they weren't also the guys who sell you broadband internet.
The people who should be worried are the cable-only content providers. When all TV content is available for streaming, will anyone watch the Travel Channel, or the Food Network, or the Golf Channel, or Court TV, or TNT, or any other similar networks? Why aren't we already talking about these shutting down in 5 years?
It isn't new. Its been going on for decades. You are too stupid to realize it. For every dollar they don't pay in taxes, the dollar needs to come from another source.
Why not just spend less? Then we'll all desperately miss the extremely valuable value we all receive from government and everyone will be eager to pay more when they see the consequences.
It's called "we need to pay for this and don't have money" and then "Oh, I know! Let's increase taxes on everyone!" while some dodge taxes.
When did taxes get increased on "everyone"? The way I remember it, tax increase bills are rare, and the ones that pass never increase taxes on "everyone".
It's also called "a free ride".
Are you saying it's wrong for one person to pay a smaller tax bill than another person while still receiving the extremely valuable value we've all been told we receive from government?
Seems like the answer is to give those people less of the extremely valuable value if they want to pay less.
No, I'm not trying to say that. They are probably getting more value than what they are paying in. Fortunately they have us little people paying those taxes for them. So they get the value out, without having to pay in as much. Because little people like you are helping to pay their share.
When they pay less, other people pay more? What's the mechanism for that? I didn't see that line on my tax forms last year. Is this a new thing?
Um, no. They aren't stupid. They want to get rich, fast, now. Why wait 5 years? Get rich now. In 5 years move on and get rich again at another company. Being shortsighted or greedy doesn't mean you are stupid.
But they're potentially losing out on the extremely valuable value of extra government. Slashdot commenters insist that value is worth a lot more than the tax amount.
I already did. Greed. Why would companies pay more than they have to?
Because, as Slashdot commenters insist, extra government is super valuable to them.
Don't you want the corporations to make more money so they can pay people like Marissa $50 million a year?
Do you get paid less because she makes that much? Does anyone? I don't. If no one gets paid less, why not just be happy for her?
"If taxes are very low and extra government is very valuable, then why are these people avoiding paying them? Do they hate themselves and so they're going out of their way to increase their own suffering? Are they just extremely stupid?"
Because greed.
If it's greed, then shouldn't they be greedy for more of the extremely valuable value they get from extra government? You aren't trying to say that the value they get from the extra government is worth less than the cost in taxes, are you?
And shortsightedness. Taxes ARE low. But if they can save 5% that can be billions that they can pocket themselves TODAY. They aren't worried about five years from now. They will pocket that money now.
I see. So all these executives are just very low IQ, stupid individuals.
Or they're super smart and somehow know they'll personally be dead in 5 years so they won't need the extremely valuable value they'd get 5 years from now for the extra government spending.
You are the one that is extremely stupid, or naive. Companies will do many stupid short term things to make a few dollars now to enrich the people at the top.
Yeah, maybe I am. Because all these things I see people do don't seem to fit the explanations from those who insist taxes are low. I wish someone would explain it all, step by step, in plain language, so my limited brain could understand what's going on and be happy paying my taxes.
Yeah. Taxes are so low that all these companies are merging or otherwise completely changing their structure to avoid paying them. All of these executives must not be able to add and subtract, because they are making strategic decisions based on taxes -- which some Slashdot commenters insist are low -- instead of anything about the actual business that they do.
Why aren't these executives happy to pay taxes for the extremely valuable benefits they get from extra government? These executives must be doubly stupid to not realize the value -- which some Slashdot commenters insist is very large for even a small difference in government spending -- that they would receive for the additional taxes they'd pay.
If taxes are very low and extra government is very valuable, then why are these people avoiding paying them? Do they hate themselves and so they're going out of their way to increase their own suffering? Are they just extremely stupid?
It can't be that taxes are high enough to be among the most significant factors in these businesses, can it? It can't be that the value from extra government isn't worth paying extra for, can it?
If that were the case, why do you feel threatened by the changes that are currently underway to replace coal and fossil fuel based energy generation with direct extraction of energy from renewables?
It is bad for some people and good for others. There's no chance it will cause the economy to "collapse" as long as the transition is gradual. Coal is mostly being replaced by natural gas.
[Very odd talk about conspiracies and magic wand deleted.]
You could always look it up yourself. Also you'll find that "modern economies" are very susceptible to the kinds of changes we'll see becuase they rely on fixed infrastructure and are invested heavily in stability.
Modern economies see gradual changes over 20+ year periods as approximately the same as "stability".
Why do you think the leaders of these economies are so interested in arresting climate change below 2 degrees? Do you think they care about polars bears and penguins and coral reefs? Such naevity.
Global elites say you can "save the world" by giving more money and power to global elites. You believe them, but I'm the one who is naive.
The trend for the last couple hundred years has been that technology becomes cheaper and available to more people
It's not magical. Technology advances because there is investment in it. That's why shovels, wheelbarrows, toothpicks and pencils have remained basically unchanged for 100 years.
The point is that technology to solve the world's problems will be cheaper in the future, not more expensive. It always is.
I don't care about credit or blame. Take however much of each.
But you can't take credit for subsidizing (or "incentivizing") something and then claim "market forces" made it cheap. Subsidies are not "market forces".
So you see no ethical problem with any amount of GHG emissions, in other words.
I see no ethical problem with an ordinary person minding her own business, living her life. And even if I did, I don't think I could convince her she was unethical. And even if I could, there are clear ethical problems with convincing her she's unethical -- it makes her unhappy and it helps no one.
So as long as they escape global warming with their lives it's A-OK?
I'm responding to someone who says they'll die. They won't. They'll go somewhere safe, like anyone else would do.
Do you want people to understand the issue, or do you want people to believe an obviously false narrative? That's one of the reasons for all the warming skepticism: weird, obviously false, exaggerated storytelling. You want fewer "deniers", then tell people a story that isn't obviously false.
Who says that renewable energy won't be affordable? Wind is already cheaper than coal in some countries, even without subsidies, solar is close behind and advancing rapidly. Soon market forces will make your desire to use dirty energy too expensive.
If so, the issue will completely self-correct with no government action. Good.
Because they kickstarted the process. Even if we stop emitting completely now, the warming is going to go on for quite a while courtesy of all the CO2 already in atmosphere.
I'm still not sure what you are saying here. Does 1 ton of historical emissions raise the sea level more than 1 ton of future emissions? How much more? If it's a lot more, then large future emissions can correctly be said to be less and less significant.
Slashdot Mirror
Retailers post pictures on their wall saying "Do no accept checks from this person". It's just a reputation system committed to paper. It's not really a problem, but it's also not something the government (police) should be involved in because government blacklists violate due process rights.
What we need to help fix this planet are people that run off of logic, not emotions.
How about we start by not saying "fix this planet" as if the concept of "fixing" the planet were serious?
Perhaps it's just a short way of saying what you mean, but there are lots of emotion-driven arguments to "save the planet". But the planet is oblivious. And what we really need is a way to live the best lives we can -- for a definition of "we" that respectfully includes people in the future.
You mean besides the human beings who, as a result of heavy childhood exposure, grew up to be more violent, more impulsive, more aggressive, and less intelligent?
That's a big problem, but not really "long term environmental damage". It's not something that will be seen in the environment in the future.
Sure. Lead emitted from cars settle onto the ground, and kind of just sits there. It doesn't biodegrade, it's not soluble enough to wash away especially easily, and it's heavy enough to stay where it lands -- until organisms like us end up ingesting and sequestering it, and that seems to take a LONG time, much longer than the 20-odd years since it was banned in the US.
I don't have time this afternoon to look up numbers, but as I recall, you'll still find highly elevated levels of lead in surface soil near highways that saw a lot of traffic during the leaded-gas era. I don't expect the US to pony up a few trillion bucks to remediate all that soil any time soon.
That's "long term". Is it "environmental damage"? Lead in the soil that causes no measurable effects can't really be said to cause persistent measurable "damage".
The point is that the environment seems to have largely recovered from leaded gasoline (hasn't it?). The environment is resilient.
Also, what is the long term environmental damage from lead in gasoline? Leaded gas has been gone for a long time. Can someone point to the anything in the environment today that still shows signs of damage from leaded gasoline?
That's only 3 years, and the pace is accelerating. They'd be really worried if they weren't also the guys who sell you broadband internet.
The people who should be worried are the cable-only content providers. When all TV content is available for streaming, will anyone watch the Travel Channel, or the Food Network, or the Golf Channel, or Court TV, or TNT, or any other similar networks? Why aren't we already talking about these shutting down in 5 years?
Does the smoke affect your neighbor in any way?
He says it slows down his WiFi and gives his goldfish panic attacks.
Race-divider squad activate! Set grievance-politics field to "social unrest"! Aim sites on people getting along! And ... Go!
Searching to see if there are more terrorists engaged in a coordinated attack? Seems like a reasonable and responsible thing to do.
It isn't new. Its been going on for decades. You are too stupid to realize it. For every dollar they don't pay in taxes, the dollar needs to come from another source.
Why not just spend less? Then we'll all desperately miss the extremely valuable value we all receive from government and everyone will be eager to pay more when they see the consequences.
It's called "we need to pay for this and don't have money" and then "Oh, I know! Let's increase taxes on everyone!" while some dodge taxes.
When did taxes get increased on "everyone"? The way I remember it, tax increase bills are rare, and the ones that pass never increase taxes on "everyone".
It's also called "a free ride".
Are you saying it's wrong for one person to pay a smaller tax bill than another person while still receiving the extremely valuable value we've all been told we receive from government?
Seems like the answer is to give those people less of the extremely valuable value if they want to pay less.
No, I'm not trying to say that. They are probably getting more value than what they are paying in. Fortunately they have us little people paying those taxes for them. So they get the value out, without having to pay in as much. Because little people like you are helping to pay their share.
When they pay less, other people pay more? What's the mechanism for that? I didn't see that line on my tax forms last year. Is this a new thing?
Um, no. They aren't stupid. They want to get rich, fast, now. Why wait 5 years? Get rich now. In 5 years move on and get rich again at another company. Being shortsighted or greedy doesn't mean you are stupid.
But they're potentially losing out on the extremely valuable value of extra government. Slashdot commenters insist that value is worth a lot more than the tax amount.
I already did. Greed. Why would companies pay more than they have to?
Because, as Slashdot commenters insist, extra government is super valuable to them.
Don't you want the corporations to make more money so they can pay people like Marissa $50 million a year?
Do you get paid less because she makes that much? Does anyone? I don't. If no one gets paid less, why not just be happy for her?
"If taxes are very low and extra government is very valuable, then why are these people avoiding paying them? Do they hate themselves and so they're going out of their way to increase their own suffering? Are they just extremely stupid?"
Because greed.
If it's greed, then shouldn't they be greedy for more of the extremely valuable value they get from extra government? You aren't trying to say that the value they get from the extra government is worth less than the cost in taxes, are you?
And shortsightedness. Taxes ARE low. But if they can save 5% that can be billions that they can pocket themselves TODAY. They aren't worried about five years from now. They will pocket that money now.
I see. So all these executives are just very low IQ, stupid individuals.
Or they're super smart and somehow know they'll personally be dead in 5 years so they won't need the extremely valuable value they'd get 5 years from now for the extra government spending.
You are the one that is extremely stupid, or naive. Companies will do many stupid short term things to make a few dollars now to enrich the people at the top.
Yeah, maybe I am. Because all these things I see people do don't seem to fit the explanations from those who insist taxes are low. I wish someone would explain it all, step by step, in plain language, so my limited brain could understand what's going on and be happy paying my taxes.
Yeah. Taxes are so low that all these companies are merging or otherwise completely changing their structure to avoid paying them. All of these executives must not be able to add and subtract, because they are making strategic decisions based on taxes -- which some Slashdot commenters insist are low -- instead of anything about the actual business that they do.
Why aren't these executives happy to pay taxes for the extremely valuable benefits they get from extra government? These executives must be doubly stupid to not realize the value -- which some Slashdot commenters insist is very large for even a small difference in government spending -- that they would receive for the additional taxes they'd pay.
If taxes are very low and extra government is very valuable, then why are these people avoiding paying them? Do they hate themselves and so they're going out of their way to increase their own suffering? Are they just extremely stupid?
It can't be that taxes are high enough to be among the most significant factors in these businesses, can it? It can't be that the value from extra government isn't worth paying extra for, can it?
If that were the case, why do you feel threatened by the changes that are currently underway to replace coal and fossil fuel based energy generation with direct extraction of energy from renewables?
It is bad for some people and good for others. There's no chance it will cause the economy to "collapse" as long as the transition is gradual. Coal is mostly being replaced by natural gas.
[Very odd talk about conspiracies and magic wand deleted.]
Yes. We are humans. What do the people of your home planet do?
Which is among the most bizarre reactions ever. I'm amazed how many people have the delusion...
Translation, "I have poor empathy skills." Or perhaps you understand and are pretending not to.
Try understanding people instead of ranting at them.
A sensible start would be, all guns locked away in gun clubs and in homes, jail time for carrying one outside the home or gun club.
Because putting innocent people in jail is "sensible" ? What kind of person believes that?
You could always look it up yourself. Also you'll find that "modern economies" are very susceptible to the kinds of changes we'll see becuase they rely on fixed infrastructure and are invested heavily in stability.
Modern economies see gradual changes over 20+ year periods as approximately the same as "stability".
Why do you think the leaders of these economies are so interested in arresting climate change below 2 degrees? Do you think they care about polars bears and penguins and coral reefs? Such naevity.
Global elites say you can "save the world" by giving more money and power to global elites. You believe them, but I'm the one who is naive.
The trend for the last couple hundred years has been that technology becomes cheaper and available to more people
It's not magical. Technology advances because there is investment in it. That's why shovels, wheelbarrows, toothpicks and pencils have remained basically unchanged for 100 years.
The point is that technology to solve the world's problems will be cheaper in the future, not more expensive. It always is.
I don't care about credit or blame. Take however much of each.
But you can't take credit for subsidizing (or "incentivizing") something and then claim "market forces" made it cheap. Subsidies are not "market forces".
So you see no ethical problem with any amount of GHG emissions, in other words.
I see no ethical problem with an ordinary person minding her own business, living her life. And even if I did, I don't think I could convince her she was unethical. And even if I could, there are clear ethical problems with convincing her she's unethical -- it makes her unhappy and it helps no one.
So as long as they escape global warming with their lives it's A-OK?
I'm responding to someone who says they'll die. They won't. They'll go somewhere safe, like anyone else would do.
Do you want people to understand the issue, or do you want people to believe an obviously false narrative? That's one of the reasons for all the warming skepticism: weird, obviously false, exaggerated storytelling. You want fewer "deniers", then tell people a story that isn't obviously false.
Who says that renewable energy won't be affordable? Wind is already cheaper than coal in some countries, even without subsidies, solar is close behind and advancing rapidly. Soon market forces will make your desire to use dirty energy too expensive.
If so, the issue will completely self-correct with no government action. Good.
what is the difference between you and me? I don't want to make the world a worse place and you do.
You seem to want to make life worse for everyone who needs energy but can't afford low-carbon energy.
its not "lifestyle", its life. until you understand the difference you are going to struggle to understand the issue...
Do you think a Kiribati resident will just watch the water rise over 50 years until he drowns? Or will he move to higher ground?
I clearly don't understand, because everyone I know would move to higher ground rather than drown. Even animals and insects would.
Because they kickstarted the process. Even if we stop emitting completely now, the warming is going to go on for quite a while courtesy of all the CO2 already in atmosphere.
I'm still not sure what you are saying here. Does 1 ton of historical emissions raise the sea level more than 1 ton of future emissions? How much more? If it's a lot more, then large future emissions can correctly be said to be less and less significant.