Have you read your own past posts ? You're beyond hypocritical.
Is this how AGW denialists picture
Let me guess : it did prove that I was wrong, but it doesn't prove you were wrong.
Allow me to quote futurama : THIS IS THE WORST KIND OF RACISM ! The kind against me.
But really I want to hear you say directly what you just alluded to in this post : you're saying that "on average" greenies are pro-nuclear power ? I repeat, you know, because it's like saying rocks fall upward, you are saying green parties are pro-nuclear power ?
The political efficiency of losing 90% of your generated power (probably 150% if you count the construction cost amortized over 20 years) in a way that is called "green" by journalists who don't realize that there is anything behind the power socket...
The self-masturbatory potential is off the scale...
(and of course, once everything's factored in, this actually hurts the environment. Not that the dutch have anything remotely resembling a natural environment left. In reality the dutch destroyed the entirety of the original dutch environment several centuries ago, because they wanted to cure malaria by destroying all dutch swamps (holland would normally be a country of swamps and sand banks). In addition they made massive stretches of land areable and inhabitable by doing this. It worked. And it was probably the best public health policy ever, and one of the few doublings of a country's territory that did not involve killing one's neighbors)
The problem is that the US government's guns are painted so very nice it makes some people think you can survive without using violence, take for example the wide demands for Israel to drop it's use of violence (which any idiot can see is required for it's existence). The problem with that is what always happens when countries drop their use of violence, as say Poland and Frace did on the eve of WWII. It would take 45 years before the constant kidnappings and concentration camps that started then in Poland (first nazi concentration camps, then socialist ones), in large part due to it's "preference of negotiation over conflict" would end.
The US's guns are painted so ridiculously well that there are actual living pacifists within it's borders.
And thank God that the US government is not very afraid to fire it's guns, "at enemies foreign and domestic", even without approval from it's pacifists. Or there would be no US and no pacifists in short order.
The total hypocrisy of US pacifists is that these assholes don't see any problem with neither calling the police nor demonstrating under police protection. Where Gandhi (knowing full well he wouldn't really be hurt, beaten at worst, so he was a serious hypocrite as well, and he knew perfectly well why he wouldn't want to use the same tactic on india's muslims (these then renamed themselves to "pakistan" and started ethnically cleansing, then started killing eachother, with the result they're now called "pakistan" and "bangladesh"). Gandhi was a reasonable man, looking for reasoned, polite, discussion, pacifists here are just agressive baboons threatening everyone, none of them give a shit about anyone but themselves (or at least, I've still haven't had the pleasure of meeting one who did).
Oh and obviously the human population will have to be decimated, even if you do actually give those things up. Forget about birth control, which only has effect after 60 years or so, assuming you can enforce it globally (assuming, to be blunt, that every nation on earth is prepared to kill "unapproved" babies), which is "too late". So who do we kill ?
Geez... let's kill people because we can forget about encouraging contraception.
Is this supposed to be criticism ? Your policy is considered in the original post, and explained perfectly well to be useless, including the reason why.
I expect my 4-year old to come up with better arguments. Don't you ?
Sarah Palin has said that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will destroy the economy.
And Barack Obama has said "fuck niggers", you know, while drunk at a frat party.
How about we take a reasonable assessment of her opinion ? Say...
Within her executive order, Palin described warming as a "global challenge" and sought "opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Alaska sources, including the expanded use of alternative fuels, energy conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, land use management, and transportation planning."[117] In December 2009 she wrote, "any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs."[118]
(from wikipedia)
Meaning, obviously, a) no to mandatory reductions (no to reductions at all costs) b) (reasonable) encouragement of private sector renewable energy production*
* and if, as you people keep claiming, renewable energy is indeed cheaper, then lighting a minute spark should transform the US into a renewable nation.
And quite frankly, the reason greenies want more legislation is exactly for that reason : they know perfectly well renewable energy doesn't work. It's EREOI is barely 1, except in very special cases.
My reaction to that is "let's try again in ten years". Apparently your reaction is "this must be the conspiracies". Let me guess (I'm in Europe and you do find this sort of opinion here on the street in Brussels) : it's the Jews again ? (Ironically you find both pro-agw "it's the jews" idiots and anti-agw "it's the jews" idiots. Amongst Brussel's muslims, this is unfortunately quite a normal attitude)
*ahem* allow me to insert a few links in your statement
These arguments are always presented the same way: our choices are 1) keep doing what we're doing, regardless of the resulting environmental devastation, or 2) go back to the Stone Age. But of course, in reality we have the third option of better energy conservation + non-polluting energy generation, which not only are pretty much solved problems, but actually save everyone a bunch of money in the long run. But they're not so good for the bottom line of outfits like ExxonMobil... so with the aid of a bunch of bought-off lawmakers and vast quantities of FUD, nothing gets done.
And I'll skip the conspiracies, after all, obviously I'm part of them, right ? Rex will pay me millions just for this post.
And again you pull a rabbit out of your head. It was, you see, "environmental change", which is so totally different from "climate change". Personally I'm more a fan of the "if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck..." line of thinking.
First one hell of a hypocritical part of your statement. Can I interpret your "let's fight adaptation" attitude as that you don't believe in Darwin ? Because if you DO believe in darwin, that theory stipulates perfectly well what happens to people (and animals, and plants, and single-cellular organisms) who refuse to adapt to changing environments.
The fun thing is it also describes what happens if the environment doesn't change. You might want to google it's technological analogy : "grey goo disaster", for a basic introduction.
So which is it ? a) you don't believe in evolution. Jesus, jahwe, buddha, some prophet, or whoever created us. If so, why won't Jesus (or...) save us ? Although, looking at you, whoever created use sure could should used some more "intelligence" in his designs. b) you "believe" in evolution like al gore believes in climate change : it's just a convenient soundbyte, used to not go to church on sundays. "Darwin", to you is a sequence of 6 letters, nothing more, that "means that you are right"
You do realize that this will never hold up in court, right ?
It is not allowed, for obvious reasons, to threaten someone out of using the court system. Everyone has a right to file a complaint, for any reason, against anyone (except in Europe the king of the country in question), without any consequences.
Come on, we agree on 3 counts : 1) the current legal system is not (or at least insufficiently) protecting copyright 2) this carries a cost 3) this has the potential of spilling over into other things
Okay let's see you "go first". Become an early adopter of the post-AGW lifestyle.
First thing : dump your computer, your car, your tv, your telephone. There's just no way that we can have personal computers, cars, or even normal phones (pray you get to keep your cell phone, and forget about smartphones) using only renewable resources. Not going to happen.
Oh and obviously the human population will have to be decimated, even if you do actually give those things up. Forget about birth control, which only has effect after 60 years or-so, assuming you can enforce it globally (assuming, to be blunt, that every nation on earth is prepared to kill "unapproved" babies), which is "too late". So who do we kill ?
Mind you, we'll need to lose somewhere between 60% and 90% of all humans alive. Who do we start with ? To keep in the theme of this thread, perhaps the Jews ? Of course atheists, christians, muslims, hindus and buddhists, even slashdotters won't be far behind. This 60% merely makes "living renewably" an attainable goal, btw, it does not, at all, guarantee we actually do accomplish it.
There are 2 things we can do : 1) attempt to stop climate change 2) ignore it, adapt to changing circumstances, and grow
EVERY species that has chosen option 1, and every human civilization that has done so (according to Jared Diamond) is...
extinct
(and one can easily name dozens of species and civilizations that have attempted to preserve their environment... all extinct)
It does not work.
Of course, when there is a climate conference, there is a solar eclipse generated by the amount of private planes converging. So we all know what the politicians and scientists (everyone who goes to such conferences) want...
Of course, we "have science" so we can do anything, right ? (of course, half of those extinct civilizations did have science too, most had quite extensive agricultural and climatic knowledge. It didn't save them. Why would it save us ?)
Of course, when it comes to killing children's intrest I think the whitehouse is using much more effective techniques than your suggested violence. I mean these apps sound about as tasty as brussels' sprouts with brown rice.
You can keep children away from books by forcing them to read moby dick just as easily. More effective than the death penalty they use in Iran, in my opinion.
It's a great con, been used for thousands of years. I am amazed people still fall for it all over then act so surprised when they find out..they've been conned!
The sad thing is you're right. But so is Churchill:
Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that capitalist democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Our system sucks. Badly. It's also the only reason we have a world worth living in. There are many countries with different systems, but once you visit one or two, and take the trouble of actually understanding what goes wrong, you realize this.
From the idiotic "leftist" dictators, supported by our own leftists, like Chaves, with the constant state-sponsored plunders of anything worth anything.
Other countries make suicide the preferable option due to the seemingly inherent fatalism and destruction of "that" religion (we all know which ones), from the gold-plated intellectual black hole called "the kingdom of madness" (a certain oil producer) to the tasteless, cultureless islamic deserts in Africa and Asia.
And yet, even something so seemingly insignificant as our absurd desire to raise children well, even when it means having very few children, matters more than you'd think. At least you won't think it matters, you might even think it's bad, until you've seen the situation in countries like Rwanda (you can say whatever you want about the motivation for genocide, but unlike the muslims, Rwandans had one choice : genocide or starving. We all know what they chose, and we like to delude ourselves that there were other alternatives. If you like to believe that, believe that it was some evil, don't visit the country)
Really it's a con. It's not stable. And yet everybody who knows the alternatives will be ready to kill for it.
Have you ever seen an ISP's traffic graphs ? Surely you're not claiming that anyone would miss the obviously illegal activity on those ?
And traffic graphs, even separated by protocol are not (currently considered) invasions of privacy.
This is the way it should be.
No it's not. It's a system that allows a form of theft, even if only by the complexities and cost of the law. It actively encourages theft, even.
Yes you can't take de-facto free stuff away from the masses once given without a revolution. Or at least no state has ever done so, from the Roman empire (and you'll see the healthcare bill will bankrupt the US before they'll repeal this moutain of debt)... but that doesn't make it right, or sustainable. It's not.
We both know this. And we both like to tell ourselves fairy tales that say otherwise. But one day the pound of flesh will come due... and we'll both be fucked.
Except of course that computer science is nowhere near it's theoretical limits (or at least it can improve a few hundred times yet before it hits those limits and we can always switch to smaller particles to store information). For this craft...
Solar panels : 40% efficient (at least) (and let's not forget theoretical limits are not much above 60%) Electrical motors : 97% efficient (and that's what's easily found your local modeling shop, presumably they have better ones) Aerodynamics : now studied for about 2500 years (at least) Batteries : half as efficient as fuel (the only area where real improvement is possible)
That means that the plance can scarcely be improved. A 2x improvement would stretch the laws of physics. A 3x improvement is not in the cards because it's theoretically impossible. Weight loss is just about the only avenue of optimization, and presumably they used very, very good materials already.
Add to that that this craft is not exactly capable of sustained flight anywhere remotely approaching a northern location. And let's not discuss any location north of the pole circles (where still 1/4th of the earth's landmass is located, including quite a few countries), because that's just ridiculous : the craft would need to improve efficiency several hundred times to stay aloft there. From the article:
Yuma Proving Ground lies in the Sonoran Desert just 32 degrees north of the Equator, and the northern-hemisphere summer solstice is only just past. The sun is tracking as nearly dead overhead as it ever does over US territory just now, meaning that the Zephyr is getting far more energy from its cells than it would farther north or at other times of year.
So this will *not* advance like computer technology. Not at all. Unfortunately.
It's certainly not your electric provider's fault, it's certainly not the corner convenient store's fault, so why pretend that it's the ISP's fault or obligation? They, like the others, are just members of your community that offer a service. Should the store be responsible for your house being robbed because the burglar looked through their window while buying something and saw you leaving the premises? Should the electric company be responsible because the crook flipped on a light to see what they were stealing? Then why would the ISP be responsible when they are not hosting the content, encouraging it's theft, or pointing to the location of it in any way? (if they are, then existing laws would cover that).
Agreed. However all these people should cooperate with the police and the victim in identifying both the illegal acts and the perpetrators.
Mostly people/companies cooperate because they're the victim, they are mostly the guy with the best possible information to catch the crook (e.g. the electricity company is the victim of electricity theft, and files a complaint after finding a cable inserted into their infrastructure and going into someone's home address).
But even when you have zero reason to help the police or a illegally disadvantaged party, you should still help them identify the crime and the criminal.
Even if you see someone openly violate a contract, strictly speaking, it's your duty to report it. Additionally, depending on the kind of offense (ie. if it's criminal, like sabotage or fraud) it's your duty to attempt to stop it from happening (mostly calling the police is sufficient, but you HAVE to do something).
So are the ISP's responsible for other people's crimes ? Of course not. They are, however, forced to do everything in their power (including packet inspection I would think) to at the very least report criminal activity on their networks. Even if they themselves have nothing to do with it.
That's the problem with law. You don't really care about what's practical... but about what's right.
It would be right (lawful, if you like) to have some device inspecting network traffic, and then calling offenders into the station.
You know, like a cop on the street.
The only place such a device could function is in all isps (just like cops get access on any -and all- locations, public or private. With the small detail that private locations are off limits until probable cause is established (probable being the operative word, they get to make mistakes))
There's merit, given the way our justice system works, for devices in isp's checking (and enforcing) the law.
The one thing I really don't agree with is that these devices would have to be paid by the ISP. They should be on the taxpayer's money.
Yes, just like people who hold the rights to houses should be responsible themselves for keeping out burglars or murderers, right ? And if they fail, it's obviously their own fault right ?
And why stop there ? You have a right to be paid by your employer. Obviously you cannot be allowed to call for legal aid if you fail to enforce this right yourself, right ?
This is an argument that goes quite far beyond stupidity.
Here's how it works, the state has a monopoly on violence against persons. In trade for that monopoly (and taxes) the state has to defend all your legal rights using the appropriate violence (whether that means a police officer or a military campaign). All your legal rights (balanced, of course, against the rights of others). Your right to be left alone in your own home, your right to acquire whatever people who contracted with you promised they'd give you (say, your wages) and the right of copyright holders to be compensated for the distribution of their copyrighted works.
You can whine about it until the cows come home, but in actuality the failure of the state to prevent internet copying is a massive failure to uphold the law. It is, in essence, disrespecting the state's duty to uphold the law.
It is a massive failure of the (civil) justice system that these laws are not enforced.
I'm not saying I want draconian measures by the government, and I'm certainly not trying to justify such measures, I'm just trying to call a cow a cow. Internet copying is a direct breach of law. You don't like the law ? Great, the place to fight laws is parliament and demonstrations. If you can't do that, please stop whining.
Every hospital with advanced medical imaging has a Farnsworth-Hirsh fusor on the premises (most efficient non-weapon neutron producer we know). So technically not only can we fuse atoms perfectly well, we do it on a regular, commercial basis.
Of course, thanks to the tolerance in academia for differing opinions the only fusion design any academic can work on is the tokamak. It is actually considered a negative that the Z-pinch machine might work, and it is only due to good friends in DoE and Washington that it can get funding. The "scientific consensus" is that no form of inertial confinement will ever work, and that circular devices (like fusors and polywells) also cannot work. Problem is, of course, that both have been demonstrated in actual operation.
The (US) military, by comparison, is sponsoring -> tokamaks (plural, what you might call "alternative" designs different from ITER) -> Z-pinch -> laser inertial confinement fusion -> polywell -> acoustic fusion and apparently 2 other options which are considered sensitive. Academia claim none of these designs will work, but half of them are considered unfeasible because they can't easily fit into the generally used equations for particle movement (e.g. a polywell is specifically designed to create a direct conversion between thermal and magnetic energy, resulting in a potential well. According to academia non-uniform temperature distributions are impossible, and exchanging energy between magnetic fields and temperature is stupid. Therefore "accepted" calculations show that a polywell device cannot produce fusion. There's one tiny issue with these statements : the device does work (even if nowhere as efficient as we would like))
(and yes, I realize that allowing non-uniform temperature distributions in hot gases and-or plasmas is opening up a can of worms the size of which has not been seen since farao's Egypt. But that is is hard (very, very hard) to calculate doesn't mean it can't work)
And if it's true that we have maybe 10-20 years of oil left, we better start sponsoring every last good and bad idea to build a working fusion reactor. Unless, of course, you like living at the luxury level your grandfather's dad lived. You know, without soap or toothpaste for "normal" people. Without cars. Etc.
(and before anyone says it, electric cars are NOT a solution for energy generation. How anyone can be dumb enough to claim this is beyond me, but there's lots of greenies who claim this anyway)
The only one to lose will be the heads of the government. The rest of the country will have freedom and a far greater standard of living than they have ever known.
So you mean communism (term sane people use) or socialism (term kim jong il, and the american democratic party use to describe their policies) is not in fact better ?
You capitalist slave-labor exploiting orphan-eating bastard ! Clearly you've been bribed !
But don't you see... in reality the "dear leader" wants world peace. He's just a communist... merely wants to "fairly redistribute" your assets. Really. (heh, technically it's even a true statement)
In exactly the same way as ahmadinejad (and other muslims) want world peace.
In order for their "world piece", they merely want you to vacate your piece of the world. As permanently as possible.
Let's not forget that the UN ranks nations that kill gays routinely under "religious" (we all know what religion) law as having more respect for "human rights" than the US.
I mean "the UN states" has about the same amount of credibility as "last night I stepped in cow dung and the second footprint I left after that read..."
Actually like all communists they burn it all on the politicians. Can't have the people who "divide the wealth" go with less than 10 mercedesses per kid, now can you ?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you should add to your signature :
May I suggest :
Fanatically anti-fanatical
&
Consistently inconsistent
Adding taxes is going to improve the economy. You know, even Karl Marx didn't dare to go that far.
Have you read your own past posts ? You're beyond hypocritical.
Is this how AGW denialists picture
Let me guess : it did prove that I was wrong, but it doesn't prove you were wrong.
Allow me to quote futurama : THIS IS THE WORST KIND OF RACISM ! The kind against me.
But really I want to hear you say directly what you just alluded to in this post : you're saying that "on average" greenies are pro-nuclear power ? I repeat, you know, because it's like saying rocks fall upward, you are saying green parties are pro-nuclear power ?
Can you even say that with a straight face ?
That's only true for the electrical efficiency.
The political efficiency of losing 90% of your generated power (probably 150% if you count the construction cost amortized over 20 years) in a way that is called "green" by journalists who don't realize that there is anything behind the power socket ...
The self-masturbatory potential is off the scale ...
(and of course, once everything's factored in, this actually hurts the environment. Not that the dutch have anything remotely resembling a natural environment left. In reality the dutch destroyed the entirety of the original dutch environment several centuries ago, because they wanted to cure malaria by destroying all dutch swamps (holland would normally be a country of swamps and sand banks). In addition they made massive stretches of land areable and inhabitable by doing this. It worked. And it was probably the best public health policy ever, and one of the few doublings of a country's territory that did not involve killing one's neighbors)
The problem is that the US government's guns are painted so very nice it makes some people think you can survive without using violence, take for example the wide demands for Israel to drop it's use of violence (which any idiot can see is required for it's existence). The problem with that is what always happens when countries drop their use of violence, as say Poland and Frace did on the eve of WWII. It would take 45 years before the constant kidnappings and concentration camps that started then in Poland (first nazi concentration camps, then socialist ones), in large part due to it's "preference of negotiation over conflict" would end.
The US's guns are painted so ridiculously well that there are actual living pacifists within it's borders.
And thank God that the US government is not very afraid to fire it's guns, "at enemies foreign and domestic", even without approval from it's pacifists. Or there would be no US and no pacifists in short order.
The total hypocrisy of US pacifists is that these assholes don't see any problem with neither calling the police nor demonstrating under police protection. Where Gandhi (knowing full well he wouldn't really be hurt, beaten at worst, so he was a serious hypocrite as well, and he knew perfectly well why he wouldn't want to use the same tactic on india's muslims (these then renamed themselves to "pakistan" and started ethnically cleansing, then started killing eachother, with the result they're now called "pakistan" and "bangladesh"). Gandhi was a reasonable man, looking for reasoned, polite, discussion, pacifists here are just agressive baboons threatening everyone, none of them give a shit about anyone but themselves (or at least, I've still haven't had the pleasure of meeting one who did).
Oh and obviously the human population will have to be decimated, even if you do actually give those things up. Forget about birth control, which only has effect after 60 years or so, assuming you can enforce it globally (assuming, to be blunt, that every nation on earth is prepared to kill "unapproved" babies), which is "too late". So who do we kill ?
Geez... let's kill people because we can forget about encouraging contraception.
Is this supposed to be criticism ? Your policy is considered in the original post, and explained perfectly well to be useless, including the reason why.
I expect my 4-year old to come up with better arguments. Don't you ?
Let me guess, you see yourself as reasonable ?
Sarah Palin has said that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will destroy the economy.
And Barack Obama has said "fuck niggers", you know, while drunk at a frat party.
How about we take a reasonable assessment of her opinion ? Say ...
Within her executive order, Palin described warming as a "global challenge" and sought "opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Alaska sources, including the expanded use of alternative fuels, energy conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, land use management, and transportation planning."[117] In December 2009 she wrote, "any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs."[118]
(from wikipedia)
Meaning, obviously,
a) no to mandatory reductions (no to reductions at all costs)
b) (reasonable) encouragement of private sector renewable energy production*
* and if, as you people keep claiming, renewable energy is indeed cheaper, then lighting a minute spark should transform the US into a renewable nation.
Of course, despite tons of sparks, this hasn't happened, which means that renewable energy both isn't cheaper and is not a good idea. Or, more optimistically, it is not (yet ?) sufficiently superior to warrant rebuilding all energy infrastructure. Or it could be that it's somewhat harder than you think, and you live in a fantasy world where congress should just vote out the laws of physics. (I don't claim this proves it's impossible. It does indicate it's hard, very hard). And of course, there's this idiot Jevon.
And quite frankly, the reason greenies want more legislation is exactly for that reason : they know perfectly well renewable energy doesn't work. It's EREOI is barely 1, except in very special cases.
My reaction to that is "let's try again in ten years". Apparently your reaction is "this must be the conspiracies". Let me guess (I'm in Europe and you do find this sort of opinion here on the street in Brussels) : it's the Jews again ? (Ironically you find both pro-agw "it's the jews" idiots and anti-agw "it's the jews" idiots. Amongst Brussel's muslims, this is unfortunately quite a normal attitude)
Unfortunately, if there's one thing AGW'ers hate more than oil companies, it's nuclear energy.
Let's pretend you didn't know this, even if it does sound a bit ridiculous.
*ahem* allow me to insert a few links in your statement
These arguments are always presented the same way: our choices are 1) keep doing what we're doing, regardless of the resulting environmental devastation, or 2) go back to the Stone Age. But of course, in reality we have the third option of better energy conservation + non-polluting energy generation, which not only are pretty much solved problems, but actually save everyone a bunch of money in the long run. But they're not so good for the bottom line of outfits like ExxonMobil... so with the aid of a bunch of bought-off lawmakers and vast quantities of FUD, nothing gets done.
And I'll skip the conspiracies, after all, obviously I'm part of them, right ? Rex will pay me millions just for this post.
And again you pull a rabbit out of your head. It was, you see, "environmental change", which is so totally different from "climate change". Personally I'm more a fan of the "if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck ..." line of thinking.
First one hell of a hypocritical part of your statement. Can I interpret your "let's fight adaptation" attitude as that you don't believe in Darwin ? Because if you DO believe in darwin, that theory stipulates perfectly well what happens to people (and animals, and plants, and single-cellular organisms) who refuse to adapt to changing environments.
The fun thing is it also describes what happens if the environment doesn't change. You might want to google it's technological analogy : "grey goo disaster", for a basic introduction.
So which is it ? ...) save us ? Although, looking at you, whoever created use sure could should used some more "intelligence" in his designs.
a) you don't believe in evolution. Jesus, jahwe, buddha, some prophet, or whoever created us. If so, why won't Jesus (or
b) you "believe" in evolution like al gore believes in climate change : it's just a convenient soundbyte, used to not go to church on sundays. "Darwin", to you is a sequence of 6 letters, nothing more, that "means that you are right"
You do realize that this will never hold up in court, right ?
It is not allowed, for obvious reasons, to threaten someone out of using the court system. Everyone has a right to file a complaint, for any reason, against anyone (except in Europe the king of the country in question), without any consequences.
Does it really need to be explained why ?
If you are talking about copyright, you lost me.
Come on, we agree on 3 counts :
1) the current legal system is not (or at least insufficiently) protecting copyright
2) this carries a cost
3) this has the potential of spilling over into other things
Okay let's see you "go first". Become an early adopter of the post-AGW lifestyle.
First thing : dump your computer, your car, your tv, your telephone. There's just no way that we can have personal computers, cars, or even normal phones (pray you get to keep your cell phone, and forget about smartphones) using only renewable resources. Not going to happen.
Oh and obviously the human population will have to be decimated, even if you do actually give those things up. Forget about birth control, which only has effect after 60 years or-so, assuming you can enforce it globally (assuming, to be blunt, that every nation on earth is prepared to kill "unapproved" babies), which is "too late". So who do we kill ?
Mind you, we'll need to lose somewhere between 60% and 90% of all humans alive. Who do we start with ? To keep in the theme of this thread, perhaps the Jews ? Of course atheists, christians, muslims, hindus and buddhists, even slashdotters won't be far behind. This 60% merely makes "living renewably" an attainable goal, btw, it does not, at all, guarantee we actually do accomplish it.
There are 2 things we can do :
1) attempt to stop climate change
2) ignore it, adapt to changing circumstances, and grow
EVERY species that has chosen option 1, and every human civilization that has done so (according to Jared Diamond) is ...
extinct
(and one can easily name dozens of species and civilizations that have attempted to preserve their environment ... all extinct)
It does not work.
Of course, when there is a climate conference, there is a solar eclipse generated by the amount of private planes converging. So we all know what the politicians and scientists (everyone who goes to such conferences) want ...
Of course, we "have science" so we can do anything, right ? (of course, half of those extinct civilizations did have science too, most had quite extensive agricultural and climatic knowledge. It didn't save them. Why would it save us ?)
Of course, when it comes to killing children's intrest I think the whitehouse is using much more effective techniques than your suggested violence. I mean these apps sound about as tasty as brussels' sprouts with brown rice.
You can keep children away from books by forcing them to read moby dick just as easily. More effective than the death penalty they use in Iran, in my opinion.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that you can't use things that you can't recycle. All I'm saying is that you have to take care of your own trash.
Surely you realize that this statement is internally inconsistent ? It contradicts itself.
Unless of course you mean by "take care of trash" to throw it on the nearest mountain, which would contradict everything else you've said.
I'd like a shower sir, I just don't want to get wet.
It's a great con, been used for thousands of years. I am amazed people still fall for it all over then act so surprised when they find out..they've been conned!
The sad thing is you're right. But so is Churchill :
Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that capitalist democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Our system sucks. Badly. It's also the only reason we have a world worth living in. There are many countries with different systems, but once you visit one or two, and take the trouble of actually understanding what goes wrong, you realize this.
From the idiotic "leftist" dictators, supported by our own leftists, like Chaves, with the constant state-sponsored plunders of anything worth anything.
Other countries make suicide the preferable option due to the seemingly inherent fatalism and destruction of "that" religion (we all know which ones), from the gold-plated intellectual black hole called "the kingdom of madness" (a certain oil producer) to the tasteless, cultureless islamic deserts in Africa and Asia.
And yet, even something so seemingly insignificant as our absurd desire to raise children well, even when it means having very few children, matters more than you'd think. At least you won't think it matters, you might even think it's bad, until you've seen the situation in countries like Rwanda (you can say whatever you want about the motivation for genocide, but unlike the muslims, Rwandans had one choice : genocide or starving. We all know what they chose, and we like to delude ourselves that there were other alternatives. If you like to believe that, believe that it was some evil, don't visit the country)
Really it's a con. It's not stable. And yet everybody who knows the alternatives will be ready to kill for it.
Unfortunately ...
with good reason
Have you ever seen an ISP's traffic graphs ? Surely you're not claiming that anyone would miss the obviously illegal activity on those ?
And traffic graphs, even separated by protocol are not (currently considered) invasions of privacy.
This is the way it should be.
No it's not. It's a system that allows a form of theft, even if only by the complexities and cost of the law. It actively encourages theft, even.
Yes you can't take de-facto free stuff away from the masses once given without a revolution. Or at least no state has ever done so, from the Roman empire (and you'll see the healthcare bill will bankrupt the US before they'll repeal this moutain of debt) ... but that doesn't make it right, or sustainable. It's not.
We both know this. And we both like to tell ourselves fairy tales that say otherwise. But one day the pound of flesh will come due ... and we'll both be fucked.
Except of course that computer science is nowhere near it's theoretical limits (or at least it can improve a few hundred times yet before it hits those limits and we can always switch to smaller particles to store information). For this craft ...
Solar panels : 40% efficient (at least) (and let's not forget theoretical limits are not much above 60%)
Electrical motors : 97% efficient (and that's what's easily found your local modeling shop, presumably they have better ones)
Aerodynamics : now studied for about 2500 years (at least)
Batteries : half as efficient as fuel (the only area where real improvement is possible)
That means that the plance can scarcely be improved. A 2x improvement would stretch the laws of physics. A 3x improvement is not in the cards because it's theoretically impossible. Weight loss is just about the only avenue of optimization, and presumably they used very, very good materials already.
Add to that that this craft is not exactly capable of sustained flight anywhere remotely approaching a northern location. And let's not discuss any location north of the pole circles (where still 1/4th of the earth's landmass is located, including quite a few countries), because that's just ridiculous : the craft would need to improve efficiency several hundred times to stay aloft there. From the article :
Yuma Proving Ground lies in the Sonoran Desert just 32 degrees north of the Equator, and the northern-hemisphere summer solstice is only just past. The sun is tracking as nearly dead overhead as it ever does over US territory just now, meaning that the Zephyr is getting far more energy from its cells than it would farther north or at other times of year.
So this will *not* advance like computer technology. Not at all. Unfortunately.
It's certainly not your electric provider's fault, it's certainly not the corner convenient store's fault, so why pretend that it's the ISP's fault or obligation? They, like the others, are just members of your community that offer a service. Should the store be responsible for your house being robbed because the burglar looked through their window while buying something and saw you leaving the premises? Should the electric company be responsible because the crook flipped on a light to see what they were stealing? Then why would the ISP be responsible when they are not hosting the content, encouraging it's theft, or pointing to the location of it in any way? (if they are, then existing laws would cover that).
Agreed. However all these people should cooperate with the police and the victim in identifying both the illegal acts and the perpetrators.
Mostly people/companies cooperate because they're the victim, they are mostly the guy with the best possible information to catch the crook (e.g. the electricity company is the victim of electricity theft, and files a complaint after finding a cable inserted into their infrastructure and going into someone's home address).
But even when you have zero reason to help the police or a illegally disadvantaged party, you should still help them identify the crime and the criminal.
Even if you see someone openly violate a contract, strictly speaking, it's your duty to report it. Additionally, depending on the kind of offense (ie. if it's criminal, like sabotage or fraud) it's your duty to attempt to stop it from happening (mostly calling the police is sufficient, but you HAVE to do something).
So are the ISP's responsible for other people's crimes ? Of course not. They are, however, forced to do everything in their power (including packet inspection I would think) to at the very least report criminal activity on their networks. Even if they themselves have nothing to do with it.
That's the problem with law. You don't really care about what's practical ... but about what's right.
It would be right (lawful, if you like) to have some device inspecting network traffic, and then calling offenders into the station.
You know, like a cop on the street.
The only place such a device could function is in all isps (just like cops get access on any -and all- locations, public or private. With the small detail that private locations are off limits until probable cause is established (probable being the operative word, they get to make mistakes))
There's merit, given the way our justice system works, for devices in isp's checking (and enforcing) the law.
The one thing I really don't agree with is that these devices would have to be paid by the ISP. They should be on the taxpayer's money.
Yes, just like people who hold the rights to houses should be responsible themselves for keeping out burglars or murderers, right ? And if they fail, it's obviously their own fault right ?
And why stop there ? You have a right to be paid by your employer. Obviously you cannot be allowed to call for legal aid if you fail to enforce this right yourself, right ?
This is an argument that goes quite far beyond stupidity.
Here's how it works, the state has a monopoly on violence against persons. In trade for that monopoly (and taxes) the state has to defend all your legal rights using the appropriate violence (whether that means a police officer or a military campaign). All your legal rights (balanced, of course, against the rights of others). Your right to be left alone in your own home, your right to acquire whatever people who contracted with you promised they'd give you (say, your wages) and the right of copyright holders to be compensated for the distribution of their copyrighted works.
You can whine about it until the cows come home, but in actuality the failure of the state to prevent internet copying is a massive failure to uphold the law. It is, in essence, disrespecting the state's duty to uphold the law.
It is a massive failure of the (civil) justice system that these laws are not enforced.
I'm not saying I want draconian measures by the government, and I'm certainly not trying to justify such measures, I'm just trying to call a cow a cow. Internet copying is a direct breach of law. You don't like the law ? Great, the place to fight laws is parliament and demonstrations. If you can't do that, please stop whining.
We can fuse atoms perfectly well ... we just can't do it efficiently.
Every hospital with advanced medical imaging has a Farnsworth-Hirsh fusor on the premises (most efficient non-weapon neutron producer we know). So technically not only can we fuse atoms perfectly well, we do it on a regular, commercial basis.
And if you want to do it in your own garage
Of course, thanks to the tolerance in academia for differing opinions the only fusion design any academic can work on is the tokamak. It is actually considered a negative that the Z-pinch machine might work, and it is only due to good friends in DoE and Washington that it can get funding. The "scientific consensus" is that no form of inertial confinement will ever work, and that circular devices (like fusors and polywells) also cannot work. Problem is, of course, that both have been demonstrated in actual operation.
The (US) military, by comparison, is sponsoring
-> tokamaks (plural, what you might call "alternative" designs different from ITER)
-> Z-pinch
-> laser inertial confinement fusion
-> polywell
-> acoustic fusion
and apparently 2 other options which are considered sensitive. Academia claim none of these designs will work, but half of them are considered unfeasible because they can't easily fit into the generally used equations for particle movement (e.g. a polywell is specifically designed to create a direct conversion between thermal and magnetic energy, resulting in a potential well. According to academia non-uniform temperature distributions are impossible, and exchanging energy between magnetic fields and temperature is stupid. Therefore "accepted" calculations show that a polywell device cannot produce fusion. There's one tiny issue with these statements : the device does work (even if nowhere as efficient as we would like))
(and yes, I realize that allowing non-uniform temperature distributions in hot gases and-or plasmas is opening up a can of worms the size of which has not been seen since farao's Egypt. But that is is hard (very, very hard) to calculate doesn't mean it can't work)
And if it's true that we have maybe 10-20 years of oil left, we better start sponsoring every last good and bad idea to build a working fusion reactor. Unless, of course, you like living at the luxury level your grandfather's dad lived. You know, without soap or toothpaste for "normal" people. Without cars. Etc.
(and before anyone says it, electric cars are NOT a solution for energy generation. How anyone can be dumb enough to claim this is beyond me, but there's lots of greenies who claim this anyway)
The only one to lose will be the heads of the government. The rest of the country will have freedom and a far greater standard of living than they have ever known.
So you mean communism (term sane people use) or socialism (term kim jong il, and the american democratic party use to describe their policies) is not in fact better ?
You capitalist slave-labor exploiting orphan-eating bastard ! Clearly you've been bribed !
Are you a ... jew ?
But don't you see ... in reality the "dear leader" wants world peace. He's just a communist ... merely wants to "fairly redistribute" your assets. Really. (heh, technically it's even a true statement)
In exactly the same way as ahmadinejad (and other muslims) want world peace.
In order for their "world piece", they merely want you to vacate your piece of the world. As permanently as possible.
Let's not forget that the UN ranks nations that kill gays routinely under "religious" (we all know what religion) law as having more respect for "human rights" than the US.
I mean "the UN states" has about the same amount of credibility as "last night I stepped in cow dung and the second footprint I left after that read ..."
Actually like all communists they burn it all on the politicians. Can't have the people who "divide the wealth" go with less than 10 mercedesses per kid, now can you ?