Personally, I'm suffering because distant space aliens are taking experimental pills and transmitting their symptoms to me. I call it The Arecibo Effect.
No matter what you do, you owe your success to the government because you drove or traveled on a road once. If you make any money, the government has first claim to all of it.
3) Other than that I'd like to encourage the US to move as quickly to as much fracking as possible starting now, despite the risks.
That's not a view consistent with modern environmental orthodoxy. Most environmentalist leaders would consider you a right wing extremist tool of the oil and gas industries.
If that wasn't the point of your "no one knows" FUD, then what was your point? What is the correct outcome for "no one knows" or "there have been some problems" that involves something besides shutting down production forever?
Maybe we should just shut everything down until everyone knows everything and no problems are possible...?
"No one has any idea", so let's obstruct. "No one has been able to answer",so shut it down forever. "That's a problem", so don't produce any energy. "No one knows", so stop doing anything until everyone knows all possible outcomes. "There is a lot of risk there potentially" and no risk can ever be tolerated. "There have been some problems" and no one in the world has ever had problems before, so let's not start doing this problematic energy production. There's "not enough oil" and therefore it's impossible to discover any. We shouldn't even look.
Regulation can be used to guide, inform, and safeguard production, or it can be used to obstruct production. Right now, it is being used to obstruct.
And we don't have "regulation" of some large sources of cheap energy. That energy, such as the oil off the east and west coasts of the US and in parts of Alaska, is off-limits for production. Fracking for natural gas -- one of the cheapest, cleanest, safest, and most reliable domestic energy sources -- has been made illegal in some states. Environmentalists oppose fracking for natural gas because they don't want us to have cheap energy.
Energy companies are trying to continue producing cheap energy. But their every effort is opposed by a determined government enemy that has invested in their alternative (expensive) energy competitors and by environmental doomsday cultists.
Personally, I'd like "the golden age" to last 50 more years so we have time to perfect and commercialize fusion reactors or actually figure out how to make "alternative" energy useful and beneficial instead of the expensive burden it is now. Then we won't have to worry about the end of cheap energy.
In the future, people will eat essentially the same things we eat now. Rising prices for meat will cause meat producers to make more money, which will cause more people to raise more livestock for meat, which will cause meat prices to stabilize at a supply/demand equilibrium.
Environmental concerns will become less and less important to people as people learn that human concerns are less and less important to environmentalists. Practical conservation efforts will regain the environmental mainstream, overthrowing the hairshirt doomsday environmentalism that peaked in about 2005.
Futurists and futurologists (?) will continue to predict "interesting" futures, because no one writes an article about you when you say things will stay about the same.
People from seperate countries do things together all the time. We have air travel and the internet. They can do things together, so why wouldn't they?
There's something of a cottage industry in spreading FUD about Huawei and ZTE. Why should anyone believe this stuff? (Or, for that matter, why should we believe much of anything in the news or on web sites?)
Slashdot Mirror
Can I interest you in a standardized character set? UTF-8 perhaps? Or Unicode?
Its always the same thing withe busybodies and totalitarians: Anything that is not forbidden is mandatory.
Here's an alternate ethic: Leave us alone. We'll make our own choices.
Because it was so cromulent.
Personally, I'm suffering because distant space aliens are taking experimental pills and transmitting their symptoms to me. I call it The Arecibo Effect.
You didn't build that.
No matter what you do, you owe your success to the government because you drove or traveled on a road once. If you make any money, the government has first claim to all of it.
3) Other than that I'd like to encourage the US to move as quickly to as much fracking as possible starting now, despite the risks.
That's not a view consistent with modern environmental orthodoxy. Most environmentalist leaders would consider you a right wing extremist tool of the oil and gas industries.
If that wasn't the point of your "no one knows" FUD, then what was your point? What is the correct outcome for "no one knows" or "there have been some problems" that involves something besides shutting down production forever?
Maybe we should just shut everything down until everyone knows everything and no problems are possible...?
"No one has any idea", so let's obstruct.
"No one has been able to answer",so shut it down forever.
"That's a problem", so don't produce any energy.
"No one knows", so stop doing anything until everyone knows all possible outcomes.
"There is a lot of risk there potentially" and no risk can ever be tolerated.
"There have been some problems" and no one in the world has ever had problems before, so let's not start doing this problematic energy production.
There's "not enough oil" and therefore it's impossible to discover any. We shouldn't even look.
Regulation can be used to guide, inform, and safeguard production, or it can be used to obstruct production. Right now, it is being used to obstruct.
And we don't have "regulation" of some large sources of cheap energy. That energy, such as the oil off the east and west coasts of the US and in parts of Alaska, is off-limits for production. Fracking for natural gas -- one of the cheapest, cleanest, safest, and most reliable domestic energy sources -- has been made illegal in some states. Environmentalists oppose fracking for natural gas because they don't want us to have cheap energy.
Energy companies are trying to continue producing cheap energy. But their every effort is opposed by a determined government enemy that has invested in their alternative (expensive) energy competitors and by environmental doomsday cultists.
Personally, I'd like "the golden age" to last 50 more years so we have time to perfect and commercialize fusion reactors or actually figure out how to make "alternative" energy useful and beneficial instead of the expensive burden it is now. Then we won't have to worry about the end of cheap energy.
97% lean ground beef is sad. The fat is what makes it taste good.
In the future, people will eat essentially the same things we eat now. Rising prices for meat will cause meat producers to make more money, which will cause more people to raise more livestock for meat, which will cause meat prices to stabilize at a supply/demand equilibrium.
Environmental concerns will become less and less important to people as people learn that human concerns are less and less important to environmentalists. Practical conservation efforts will regain the environmental mainstream, overthrowing the hairshirt doomsday environmentalism that peaked in about 2005.
Futurists and futurologists (?) will continue to predict "interesting" futures, because no one writes an article about you when you say things will stay about the same.
There are no "basic" packages that cost $200 a month.
Why do people make up nonsense numbers? Or why not just say $2 million per month if you're going to make up nonsense?
DirecTV alone added a record 645,000 subscribers in the latest quarter. And they added 593,000 subscribers in Latin America during the first quarter.
Business is peaceful. People from any different countries come together for business every day. Only they do it without the self-important hype.
Please explain the value then.
People from seperate countries do things together all the time. We have air travel and the internet. They can do things together, so why wouldn't they?
The Olympics are self-important beyond their entertainment (or any other) value. Not interested.
They don't need an excuse. "It belongs to us and that's what we decided" is sufficient.
World ends. Because hypothetical customer wants something he doesn't automatically get. Hypothetically.
Who needs evidence? Apple is "in Trouble". Because someone has a complaint. No one ever had a complaint before. Ever.
Without more specifics, it's just random internet whining.
These are the things you get with the lack of openness
Internet whining? You pretty much get that all the time, regardless of openness.
No way. Barack Obama promised he'd close down Guantanomo when he ran for President 4 years ago. Surely it's closed by now.
That settles it then. "Common knowledge" is always right. Especially when there's an exclamation point !
There's something of a cottage industry in spreading FUD about Huawei and ZTE. Why should anyone believe this stuff? (Or, for that matter, why should we believe much of anything in the news or on web sites?)