- Offer this on the web. - Get the destination from my Google Calendar - Calculate the time of travel to my destination. Factor in traffic and construction. - Tell me when I need to leave in order to arrive on time - Tell me alternate routes to take based on which one is fastest right now - Message me on my phone when it's time to leave.
You have all the information. Put it together into something helpful.
Yes, and the caribou count for something in my book. As much as people who use SUVs as personal communting vehicles, at least.
...caribou count...as much as people...
That's what environmentalism is about. That's why some of us disagree with it as a philosophy. I'm a person. I'm better than a caribou (or a herd of caribou). A lot better. Every person is.
Given that oil is a pure commodity and that future scarcity of oil is reflected in the price, the answer to this is clear. Drilling in ANWR will result in cheaper gas within days after the president signs the bill that allows it. The price difference might not be noticable, but it will be a non-zero difference immediately.
Good suggestion. How about whatever you want to buy? One car, two cars, big, small, medium, sporty, new, used, etc. They're all choices that fit someone's need. People should buy what works for their situation.
The OP was the one who knew that other people than him were making the wrong, immoral choices of vehicle because they were bad, immoral, vain people, unlike himself.
Basic math gives us the result of: ANWR reserves, at the most optimistic review by professional geologists, 770 days of oil at current consumption rates.
It doesn't matter. More (inexpensive) oil production means cheaper gas prices than there would be without that production. Period. The only question is how much cheaper.
And the fact is, they do care more about caribou than children.
Did your senator vote to help those people get cheaper gas by allowing oil drilling in ANWR?
Why should he... ?
Cheaper gasoline.
My reasoning is simple: if you do the same thing you did before, but more efficiently, it has to be good.
I agree. As long as "more efficiently" takes time, money, happiness, and everything else into account. For example, spending $1000 to save $100 worth of energy isn't "more efficient". It's also not more efficient to spend $100 to save $100 worth of energy if it also makes you unhappy.
...nor may you care much about future generations...
I guess I don't see the future in such limited terms. Depriving the current generation to allow the next generation to deprive itself, so that future generations can continue to be deprived until an inevitable sad end -- it's not my view of things.
In my view, the current generation should prosper and be happy and produce technological advances that future generations will use to solve problems. I forsee a future of wealth and prosperity where everyone can afford pollution-free energy. Making the current generation artificially poor through inefficient energy conservation is unnecessary and counter-productive to that goal.
What's the dividing line between moral and immoral, BTW? Is 20 MPG immoral where 21 is godly (or the secular equivalent: "enlightened")? I want to know if I'm a sinner or not and the news won't tell me.
Enterprise Search is Microsoft's? We didn't realize that. We're sorry. We really wanted to sell Enterprise Search services. But hey, you got dibs on it, so nevermind. Didn't mean to crowd you. Please accept our apologies.
I know you're morally superior to everyone else because of your vehicle choice. But...
Further, fewer than 1% of SUV owners actually take their cars offroad.
How many drive them on snowy roads? Everyone who owns one and lives where it snows, I bet. How many people need to tow something? Not a huge percentage, but they won't be doing it in a honda civic. How many people have a couple of kids and have to fit a car seat? A lot. Sure they could drive a minivan, but the mileage isn't too much different in a lot of cases.
Most people now buy these things for their own vanity and nothing else.
Um, so what? You're using energy to post on Slashdot. No vanity there?
People should buy the cars they want. For everyone that makes a "wrong" choice, there are hundreds who would make a better choice for thier own situation than some government car-choosing authority would make for them. People understand their own lives better than anyone else -- enough even to understand which car they should choose.
Meanwhile, while they guzzle fuel at 3mpg
Which new SUV gets 3 mpg?
...they drive the price of this increasingly limited and taxed resource...
...that they are apparently still readily able to afford...
...to the point where there are news reports of the working poor having to pawn off household objects merely to make it into work.
Yeah. News reports. Never exaggerated. Never over-emotionalized. Always a good gauge of exactly what's going to happen to you and everyone you know.
How's that case of the bird-flu BTW? Have you died of that yet?
At this point this activity is approaching immorality.
Yes. Tut-tut. We'll have no more of that choosing your own car. It's not seemly. It's not fashionable. It's against the natural order of things and it will cause the downfall of civilization, I tell you.
I know of few other activities (besides lobbying) which actively make other people poorer for no reason.
Did your senator vote to help those people get cheaper gas by allowing oil drilling in ANWR? Or did he choose the convenience of caribou over the well-being of these poor people? How about drilling off shore? How about cutting the gas tax?
How about ethanol? Ethanol costs more than gasoline these days. So mixing it into gasoline raises the pump price. What about the poor guy on the news who has to sell his kidney for gas money to get to work? Did the Ethanol boosters think of him? Are they immoral then?
Two hundred innocent people are killed and people are worried that future events like these might cause an IT outage?
Yes. Specifically, they are people who have the responsibility to prevent or otherwise deal with IT outages.
The people who think the only moral thing to do in a crisis is to be emotionally overwrought are of no use to anyone when a crisis occurs. You can go sit in a closet and cry while the rest of us solve problems for the people who didn't get killed.
What bias? How do you expect him to report anything good about the PS3 when there isn't any good news about it available?
This isn't a negative story. This isn't a story at all. This is 100% content free. The non-biased thing would be to ignore it.
And that's my comment on your comment on zonk's bias for posting an article about a Sony exec's comment on joystiq's question about the feeling that there was arrogance percieved in Sony execs' previous comments. Write a blog post about it. It's sooooo relevant to whether the PS3 games will be fun or not (which doesn't matter until they are available anyway).
Congradulations. You got what you wanted. You imagine yourself safer with no factual basis. Other people are harmed, but you don't care that they are harmed. Actual harm to them results in a supposed benefit to you. And that's all that matters.
Yeah, what's next? Banning smoking in bars? Banning political ads? Banning inappropriate speech on campuses and in the workplace? Restrictions on selling alcohol on Sunday?
Gambling is a special case though. It's a pure government money-grab. There are zero other factors in this. Prohibit an activity, then run it as a business for your own benefit and strong-arm the competition into shutting down. That's either government gambling or something the mafia might do. You really can't tell the difference.
Whether or not it was wise of him to sue, SBC screwed up and he is going to get nothing for it.
Let me be the first to say it: Good.
He got awarded damages. He probably could have settled with SBC to begin with and been fairly compensated for the problem. But he decided to play the litigation lottery, hoping to turn his poor planning and subsequent misfortune into a huge jackpot. I'm glad he lost.
Every time one of these people wins, things get more expensive for everyone. Fewer products and services are available to purchase and fewer people are employed producing them. More time is spent complying with CYA rules and less is spent actually supplying value to customers. Somewhere a guy stays an extra hour at work filling out forms instead of going home and playing games with his kids. Somewhere else a working mom gets a 10% smaller annual bonus, even though she did a good job. All so one guy and his lawyers can get a huge payout for a simple mistake that was 55% his fault anyway. That doesn't sound like justice to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Invest in beer. Stay away from the name-brand American beers. You can afford good beer.
- profit
- Advertisements for restuarants to stop for lunch on the way back.
- Offer this on the web.
- Get the destination from my Google Calendar
- Calculate the time of travel to my destination. Factor in traffic and construction.
- Tell me when I need to leave in order to arrive on time
- Tell me alternate routes to take based on which one is fastest right now
- Message me on my phone when it's time to leave.
You have all the information. Put it together into something helpful.
What's so special about transformers?
They're more than meets the eye.
They were heat-seeking moisture missles.
It depends on which blog you mean. I know what brings people to Roland Piquepaille's blog.
That's what environmentalism is about. That's why some of us disagree with it as a philosophy. I'm a person. I'm better than a caribou (or a herd of caribou). A lot better. Every person is.
So, what you are sahying is we should drill in ANWR for non-noticeable difference? in prices?
Yes. What's the downside? Irritated caribou? Let the caribou complain to their union rep or email their congressman.
cheaper when?
Given that oil is a pure commodity and that future scarcity of oil is reflected in the price, the answer to this is clear. Drilling in ANWR will result in cheaper gas within days after the president signs the bill that allows it. The price difference might not be noticable, but it will be a non-zero difference immediately.
How about two cars.
Good suggestion. How about whatever you want to buy? One car, two cars, big, small, medium, sporty, new, used, etc. They're all choices that fit someone's need. People should buy what works for their situation.
The OP was the one who knew that other people than him were making the wrong, immoral choices of vehicle because they were bad, immoral, vain people, unlike himself.
Basic math gives us the result of: ANWR reserves, at the most optimistic review by professional geologists, 770 days of oil at current consumption rates.
It doesn't matter. More (inexpensive) oil production means cheaper gas prices than there would be without that production. Period. The only question is how much cheaper.
And the fact is, they do care more about caribou than children.
Why should he... ?
Cheaper gasoline.
My reasoning is simple: if you do the same thing you did before, but more efficiently, it has to be good.
I agree. As long as "more efficiently" takes time, money, happiness, and everything else into account. For example, spending $1000 to save $100 worth of energy isn't "more efficient". It's also not more efficient to spend $100 to save $100 worth of energy if it also makes you unhappy.
I guess I don't see the future in such limited terms. Depriving the current generation to allow the next generation to deprive itself, so that future generations can continue to be deprived until an inevitable sad end -- it's not my view of things.
In my view, the current generation should prosper and be happy and produce technological advances that future generations will use to solve problems. I forsee a future of wealth and prosperity where everyone can afford pollution-free energy. Making the current generation artificially poor through inefficient energy conservation is unnecessary and counter-productive to that goal.
What's the dividing line between moral and immoral, BTW? Is 20 MPG immoral where 21 is godly (or the secular equivalent: "enlightened")? I want to know if I'm a sinner or not and the news won't tell me.
Enterprise Search is Microsoft's? We didn't realize that. We're sorry. We really wanted to sell Enterprise Search services. But hey, you got dibs on it, so nevermind. Didn't mean to crowd you. Please accept our apologies.
See ya later. And don't be evil.
Further, fewer than 1% of SUV owners actually take their cars offroad.
How many drive them on snowy roads? Everyone who owns one and lives where it snows, I bet.
How many people need to tow something? Not a huge percentage, but they won't be doing it in a honda civic.
How many people have a couple of kids and have to fit a car seat? A lot. Sure they could drive a minivan, but the mileage isn't too much different in a lot of cases.
Most people now buy these things for their own vanity and nothing else.
Um, so what? You're using energy to post on Slashdot. No vanity there?
People should buy the cars they want. For everyone that makes a "wrong" choice, there are hundreds who would make a better choice for thier own situation than some government car-choosing authority would make for them. People understand their own lives better than anyone else -- enough even to understand which car they should choose.
Meanwhile, while they guzzle fuel at 3mpg
Which new SUV gets 3 mpg?
...that they are apparently still readily able to afford...
Yeah. News reports. Never exaggerated. Never over-emotionalized. Always a good gauge of exactly what's going to happen to you and everyone you know.
How's that case of the bird-flu BTW? Have you died of that yet?
At this point this activity is approaching immorality.
Yes. Tut-tut. We'll have no more of that choosing your own car. It's not seemly. It's not fashionable. It's against the natural order of things and it will cause the downfall of civilization, I tell you.
I know of few other activities (besides lobbying) which actively make other people poorer for no reason.
Did your senator vote to help those people get cheaper gas by allowing oil drilling in ANWR? Or did he choose the convenience of caribou over the well-being of these poor people? How about drilling off shore? How about cutting the gas tax?
How about ethanol? Ethanol costs more than gasoline these days. So mixing it into gasoline raises the pump price. What about the poor guy on the news who has to sell his kidney for gas money to get to work? Did the Ethanol boosters think of him? Are they immoral then?
For the price of the laptop, Excel, and his time, he could have bought enough extra fuel to last years.
But I guess everyone needs a hobby.
Two hundred innocent people are killed and people are worried that future events like these might cause an IT outage?
Yes. Specifically, they are people who have the responsibility to prevent or otherwise deal with IT outages.
The people who think the only moral thing to do in a crisis is to be emotionally overwrought are of no use to anyone when a crisis occurs. You can go sit in a closet and cry while the rest of us solve problems for the people who didn't get killed.
just don't eat as much food
What bias? How do you expect him to report anything good about the PS3 when there isn't any good news about it available?
This isn't a negative story. This isn't a story at all. This is 100% content free. The non-biased thing would be to ignore it.
And that's my comment on your comment on zonk's bias for posting an article about a Sony exec's comment on joystiq's question about the feeling that there was arrogance percieved in Sony execs' previous comments. Write a blog post about it. It's sooooo relevant to whether the PS3 games will be fun or not (which doesn't matter until they are available anyway).
Have you watched or read the news lately? This is pure gold compared to a lot of the rest of the news.
Congradulations. You got what you wanted. You imagine yourself safer with no factual basis. Other people are harmed, but you don't care that they are harmed. Actual harm to them results in a supposed benefit to you. And that's all that matters.
Yeah, what's next? Banning smoking in bars? Banning political ads? Banning inappropriate speech on campuses and in the workplace? Restrictions on selling alcohol on Sunday?
Gambling is a special case though. It's a pure government money-grab. There are zero other factors in this. Prohibit an activity, then run it as a business for your own benefit and strong-arm the competition into shutting down. That's either government gambling or something the mafia might do. You really can't tell the difference.
Whether or not it was wise of him to sue, SBC screwed up and he is going to get nothing for it.
Let me be the first to say it: Good.
He got awarded damages. He probably could have settled with SBC to begin with and been fairly compensated for the problem. But he decided to play the litigation lottery, hoping to turn his poor planning and subsequent misfortune into a huge jackpot. I'm glad he lost.
Every time one of these people wins, things get more expensive for everyone. Fewer products and services are available to purchase and fewer people are employed producing them. More time is spent complying with CYA rules and less is spent actually supplying value to customers. Somewhere a guy stays an extra hour at work filling out forms instead of going home and playing games with his kids. Somewhere else a working mom gets a 10% smaller annual bonus, even though she did a good job. All so one guy and his lawyers can get a huge payout for a simple mistake that was 55% his fault anyway. That doesn't sound like justice to me.
But it didn't happen this time. Good.
yeah, and it'll all be information previously completely available on public sites on the internet
So your point is: it's on the Internet on public web sites.
But you don't actually link to those sites because that would totally prove your point conclusively. How credible is that?
If it's on the net, link it for us. If you can't, your claim that it's on the net in public is laughable.
But do they taste super?