Yes. I am trying to imply that. Peak Oil alarmism is silly. Future scarcity is reflected in the current price. People in the oil business know more about that future than pundits and alarmists. They buy and sell oil and pump it or leave it in the ground. They don't act in any way that suggests there's a reason to be concerned.
So you are buying oil futures then? You know better than the people in the oil business that their prices are going to go up, don't you?
If you are right, the obvious thing for the oil guys to do is leave their cheap oil in the ground and then sell it for 30x as much in 10 years, realizing a 3000% profit for doing nothing. I guess they must not want to make a profit. Or you are wrong.
You are correct, sometimes the price can go from $50 to $5. The business investors in such a venture gambled, succeeded, won, and made a lot of money. Many other times, it starts out at $50 and goes to $20. It still can't compete with $10. The business investors gambled, failed, and lost. Still other times, it starts out at $50 goes to $9, but the competing tech goes from $10 to $5. The business investors still lose.
You are selling green tech as if it's a no-lose investment. That is a fantasy. Why does the government have to subsidize no-lose investments?
If you know exactly which tech will pay off, and exactly when it will pay off, and exactly how much it will pay, then please tell us. We'll all follow your lead, invest, and become billionaires. If not, then stop pretending you do.
More pay for less work. Less work is going to lead to progress?
It comes from people having enough free time and available capital to develop an idea on their own time...
That's less pay for more work. Exactly the opposite of the thing I said was a problem.
Green tech. Because regular tech never got anyone anywhere.
Green tech is just another way of saying that we have new constraints (reduced energy budgets) which creates a market for new products better adapted to those constraints. It's a thing we need but don't yet have -- necessity is the mother of invention, yes?
Artificial necessity is the mother of inventions that only solve artificial problems. What about the real problems?
When "green tech" is really just "tech", then great, let's do it. When it's a quest to make $10 worth of energy for $50, then I propose we let Europeans or Australians take the lead.
Hacking. I made this cool bot that does XYZ-super-geeky thing. For hacker cred. What does "productivity" mean?
Fail.
I modded my Atari 2600 game console to play pac-man twice as fast. Are we world tech leaders yet?
It doesn't seem like we want to get it back. I hear people want things like:
- More pay for less work. Less work is going to lead to progress? - Green tech. Because regular tech never got anyone anywhere. - Coding for a cause. Feel good about going through the motions. Produce nothing of any particular value. - Hacking. I made this cool bot that does XYZ-super-geeky thing. For hacker cred. What does "productivity" mean? - Envy. I want that thing the other guy has, but I don't want to earn it. Can't we just take it from him? - Lazyness. "I was going to go to school to design games. But it was hard, so I decided to be a games journalist instead."
It takes people of a certain character to do great work in any field. America increasingly lacks those people -- at least among the native-born American population.
We also have problems with misguided elitism based on credentials, too much risk aversion, a culture that doesn't value achievement, too many licensed "professions", too many lawsuits, too much government regulation, an entitlement mentality, and too many opportunities to exploit societal systems for unearned gains.
The company suing the bank had seen the bank's security measures. They had the opportunity to judge whether the bank's security measures were secure enough for them. The bank should win unless the precautions were unreasonably weak.
You would think everyone involved would be insured against these kinds of losses.
I wouldn't worry too much. Companies are leaving California pretty fast. This is just another reason to leave. If there are no commercial duplication companies in California, there won't be any warrentless searches.
So all someone has to do is threaten violence and they can have any particular information suppressed? Why allow violent people to decide what we do or don't see? Should we hide our women (or adopt an Iranian dress code for them) to further appease these enemies?
If releasing the photos will provoke violent people, then let's do it immediately. The enemies of civilization are hiding. If they are provoked to act by these photos, then we'll know who they are. It's easier to defend against rash, emotional reactions than calculated sneak attacks.
You're essentially saying the government should hide information about news events for whimsical reasons.
If there's no national security secrets in the photos, they should be released. Then the people will decide whether any good has or hasn't come from releasing them. (And if there are secrets in the photos, crop the secrets out and release the rest.)
Not releasing the photos is yet another example of the paternalistic, elitist attitude of the Obama Administration. This time, they think they should decide what we see and don't see.
1) oil depletion allowance, [which is only available to smaller, independent companies, not "big oil"] 2) expensing indirect drilling costs, [which is an accelerated expensing schedule. It changes the timing of expense writeoffs, not the amount.] and 3) a tax credit for taxes paid to foreign nations during foreign operations (foreign tax credit) [which every multinational company gets, not just oil companies.]
When you hear about oil company "subsidies", this is what they're talking about.
As of a couple days ago, the CC security people were saying there was no indication the card info had been used. If someone steals 10 million credit card numbers and tries to use them, it gets noticed.
From most likely to least, your problems are:
- a coincidence that happened during the 12 days since the breach or - a complete fabrication or - the only card (or one of the few cards) the hackers decided to use or - the first report in the pattern that the banks and card companies are looking for.
Too bad dude. CC info gets stolen. (Mine was stolen last Christmas.) It's probably not related to Fallout New Vegas.
This is not news. It was already posted on Slashdot. The only new item is that only 10 million of the 77 million accounts had credit card information associated.
BTW: Sony has said there is no evidence the intruders got CC info, but they can't rule it out either.
Investing the money in a venture capital fund would be far better for people, including MIT students. Venture capital funds startup companies so those MIT grads and graduates of other Universities can actually get jobs using the knowledge they learned in school.
Philanthropy is great, but it spends wealth rather than creating it. (Giving to MIT is more of a gray area in between though.) Venture investments can help the next Bose.
Exactly. The legal system could then return to being a system for deciding disputes rather than what it is now: a procedural way to loot companies and steal from people. Companies and people should not be "accountable" to everyone who can find a lawyer, they should only be "accountable" when they've actually harmed someone and it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
For contract cases, the current standards are fine. Either a contract has been fulfilled or not.
But tort cases and punishment with punitive damages should require a guilty verdict.
Because the defendant does not get the presumption of innocence in class action cases. Punitive damages should require a "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. They currently don't.
Your credit cards already provide "credit account monitoring" and insure you against theft from your account. This is already paid for by the 2% the credit cards take on every credit card transaction.
1. Everyone with a favorite policy says that, so nothing will be cut.
If we're serious about saving the country from bankruptcy, we'll cut stuff like this. If it makes sense, we can add the funds back when the budget is under control.
2. False. New fossil fuel extraction methods are being used. We have larger reserves than ever.
Meanwhile, solar power projects out in the desert are getting stopped by environmentalists because they don't want the power lines to bring the power from the wasteland to the people who would use it. If solar power isn't safe from obstruction by environmentalists, why should we believe any new power source will ever be allowed to be built?
3. No one? Why fund boondoggles? You seem to be advocating routine corruption because something good might somehow get built in the process.
Besides, we weren't bankrupt when nuclear power and satellites were discovered.
The Treasury is empty and we're $14 Trillion in the hole. If we weren't so recklessly willing to pay for anything, we'd only be $12 or $11 Trillion in the hole.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. I am trying to imply that. Peak Oil alarmism is silly. Future scarcity is reflected in the current price. People in the oil business know more about that future than pundits and alarmists. They buy and sell oil and pump it or leave it in the ground. They don't act in any way that suggests there's a reason to be concerned.
So you are buying oil futures then? You know better than the people in the oil business that their prices are going to go up, don't you?
If you are right, the obvious thing for the oil guys to do is leave their cheap oil in the ground and then sell it for 30x as much in 10 years, realizing a 3000% profit for doing nothing. I guess they must not want to make a profit. Or you are wrong.
You are correct, sometimes the price can go from $50 to $5. The business investors in such a venture gambled, succeeded, won, and made a lot of money.
Many other times, it starts out at $50 and goes to $20. It still can't compete with $10. The business investors gambled, failed, and lost.
Still other times, it starts out at $50 goes to $9, but the competing tech goes from $10 to $5. The business investors still lose.
You are selling green tech as if it's a no-lose investment. That is a fantasy. Why does the government have to subsidize no-lose investments?
If you know exactly which tech will pay off, and exactly when it will pay off, and exactly how much it will pay, then please tell us. We'll all follow your lead, invest, and become billionaires. If not, then stop pretending you do.
More pay for less work. Less work is going to lead to progress?
It comes from people having enough free time and available capital to develop an idea on their own time...
That's less pay for more work. Exactly the opposite of the thing I said was a problem.
Green tech. Because regular tech never got anyone anywhere.
Green tech is just another way of saying that we have new constraints (reduced energy budgets) which creates a market for new products better adapted to those constraints. It's a thing we need but don't yet have -- necessity is the mother of invention, yes?
Artificial necessity is the mother of inventions that only solve artificial problems. What about the real problems?
When "green tech" is really just "tech", then great, let's do it. When it's a quest to make $10 worth of energy for $50, then I propose we let Europeans or Australians take the lead.
Hacking. I made this cool bot that does XYZ-super-geeky thing. For hacker cred. What does "productivity" mean?
Fail.
I modded my Atari 2600 game console to play pac-man twice as fast. Are we world tech leaders yet?
So your alternate strategy to achieve greatness is to whine about Foxxconn?
Who in their right mind would like to go to to a country with this type of supremacy complex?
Someone who wants to be the best?
Maybe you wanted to post about how a third-rate country could somehow narrowly avoid becoming fourth-rate. That's not really what this topic is about.
It doesn't seem like we want to get it back. I hear people want things like:
- More pay for less work. Less work is going to lead to progress?
- Green tech. Because regular tech never got anyone anywhere.
- Coding for a cause. Feel good about going through the motions. Produce nothing of any particular value.
- Hacking. I made this cool bot that does XYZ-super-geeky thing. For hacker cred. What does "productivity" mean?
- Envy. I want that thing the other guy has, but I don't want to earn it. Can't we just take it from him?
- Lazyness. "I was going to go to school to design games. But it was hard, so I decided to be a games journalist instead."
It takes people of a certain character to do great work in any field. America increasingly lacks those people -- at least among the native-born American population.
We also have problems with misguided elitism based on credentials, too much risk aversion, a culture that doesn't value achievement, too many licensed "professions", too many lawsuits, too much government regulation, an entitlement mentality, and too many opportunities to exploit societal systems for unearned gains.
The company suing the bank had seen the bank's security measures. They had the opportunity to judge whether the bank's security measures were secure enough for them. The bank should win unless the precautions were unreasonably weak.
You would think everyone involved would be insured against these kinds of losses.
I wouldn't worry too much. Companies are leaving California pretty fast. This is just another reason to leave. If there are no commercial duplication companies in California, there won't be any warrentless searches.
So all someone has to do is threaten violence and they can have any particular information suppressed? Why allow violent people to decide what we do or don't see? Should we hide our women (or adopt an Iranian dress code for them) to further appease these enemies?
If releasing the photos will provoke violent people, then let's do it immediately. The enemies of civilization are hiding. If they are provoked to act by these photos, then we'll know who they are. It's easier to defend against rash, emotional reactions than calculated sneak attacks.
You're essentially saying the government should hide information about news events for whimsical reasons.
If there's no national security secrets in the photos, they should be released. Then the people will decide whether any good has or hasn't come from releasing them. (And if there are secrets in the photos, crop the secrets out and release the rest.)
Not releasing the photos is yet another example of the paternalistic, elitist attitude of the Obama Administration. This time, they think they should decide what we see and don't see.
Doesn't fire sterilize just fine? They have fire.
And, for plastic items, fire can be used to boil water to sterilize those.
Detailed here:
1) oil depletion allowance, [which is only available to smaller, independent companies, not "big oil"]
2) expensing indirect drilling costs, [which is an accelerated expensing schedule. It changes the timing of expense writeoffs, not the amount.] and
3) a tax credit for taxes paid to foreign nations during foreign operations (foreign tax credit) [which every multinational company gets, not just oil companies.]
When you hear about oil company "subsidies", this is what they're talking about.
As of a couple days ago, the CC security people were saying there was no indication the card info had been used. If someone steals 10 million credit card numbers and tries to use them, it gets noticed.
From most likely to least, your problems are:
- a coincidence that happened during the 12 days since the breach or
- a complete fabrication or
- the only card (or one of the few cards) the hackers decided to use or
- the first report in the pattern that the banks and card companies are looking for.
Too bad dude. CC info gets stolen. (Mine was stolen last Christmas.) It's probably not related to Fallout New Vegas.
This is not news. It was already posted on Slashdot. The only new item is that only 10 million of the 77 million accounts had credit card information associated.
BTW: Sony has said there is no evidence the intruders got CC info, but they can't rule it out either.
Investing the money in a venture capital fund would be far better for people, including MIT students. Venture capital funds startup companies so those MIT grads and graduates of other Universities can actually get jobs using the knowledge they learned in school.
Philanthropy is great, but it spends wealth rather than creating it. (Giving to MIT is more of a gray area in between though.) Venture investments can help the next Bose.
Exactly. The legal system could then return to being a system for deciding disputes rather than what it is now: a procedural way to loot companies and steal from people. Companies and people should not be "accountable" to everyone who can find a lawyer, they should only be "accountable" when they've actually harmed someone and it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
For contract cases, the current standards are fine. Either a contract has been fulfilled or not.
But tort cases and punishment with punitive damages should require a guilty verdict.
Because the defendant does not get the presumption of innocence in class action cases. Punitive damages should require a "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. They currently don't.
Good. People and companies should not be subject to "punitive awards" without a jury trial and the presumption of innocence.
And the court system shouldn't be a lottery for the sleaziest lawyers to hit the jackpot.
Your credit cards already provide "credit account monitoring" and insure you against theft from your account. This is already paid for by the 2% the credit cards take on every credit card transaction.
What should they say? Please tell us.
1. Everyone with a favorite policy says that, so nothing will be cut.
If we're serious about saving the country from bankruptcy, we'll cut stuff like this. If it makes sense, we can add the funds back when the budget is under control.
2. False. New fossil fuel extraction methods are being used. We have larger reserves than ever.
Meanwhile, solar power projects out in the desert are getting stopped by environmentalists because they don't want the power lines to bring the power from the wasteland to the people who would use it. If solar power isn't safe from obstruction by environmentalists, why should we believe any new power source will ever be allowed to be built?
3. No one? Why fund boondoggles? You seem to be advocating routine corruption because something good might somehow get built in the process.
Besides, we weren't bankrupt when nuclear power and satellites were discovered.
And you have to transfer money to your political cronies to get them to donate part of it to your reelection campaign.
This isn't gas or food money. These projects are 100% discretionary, nonessential, and speculative.
So the computers don't cost anything. Perhaps you are confusing present day with 20 years ago?
Planes get old, but uninformed Internet chatter is evergreen.
The Treasury is empty and we're $14 Trillion in the hole. If we weren't so recklessly willing to pay for anything, we'd only be $12 or $11 Trillion in the hole.