That's what drives business -- the high profits pull other people into the market. In the case of oil, more oil is sought out, and found. Substitutes are developed, or become economically viable, all along the line, from artificial oil, to oil substitutes, to different engine styles, and so on.
It's kind of sad an oil "crisis" has to come along to generate the political will to slap down scientifically illiterate idiocy like "preserving the Alaskan wilderness", where the complete trashing of a few hundred square miles, a large exaggeration of what would actually happen, would nevertheless be absolutely unnoticeable in the vastness of the area.
But who pays attention? It's all about satisfying the squeamishness of the teaming masses of concrete canyon dwellers by letting them feel powerful by telling those in Alaska and elsewhere how to live their lives.
To the oil comanies: "steal" away! You deserve it in the face of this clownishness.
If only this were a troll. If only I were exaggerating.
Removing their "obscene luxury" does nothing to raise the standards of living. The amount of wealth they devote to personal pursuits is trivial when amortized over the population as a whole. Yet removing this wealth has, in actual fact, greatly reduced the quality of life for the average person.
And here's the point people like you regularly miss: Doing so also does absolutely nothing to stop thugs from ruling everything. They still rise to the top -- and, indeed, the type who rises typically is just a social manipulator, and does not even have the skills of a skilled businessman. Now you've got a "country" with nothing but a bunch of thugs in power, with no way to actually get anything done without the permission of a thug, often a local thug. Last century saw hundreds of such "experiments" that all pointed to the same result: lower quality of life.
It's strange that these are viewed as "experiments", too. Political science is the only "science" that finds it ethical to experiment on unwilling subjects. There's a hell of a lot more to freedom than freedom of speech.
> That wealth is stolen by the rich to begin with - from > everyone else involved in making that wealth. I thought > I made that point clear in my original post.
"Stolen" presumes they have any kind of legal or even moral claim on ownership. Given they freely traded their effort for money, they give up any such claims. Class warfare has never been anything about leading masses on cruscades, in exchange for illegitimate power, by politicians, over things which they do not own. That's all it's ever been about.
> I think history will remember that Gates set computing back at least 20 years. > Hell, up until quite recently, we were still running the same old DOS-over-Windows > on a slightly juiced up 386 and it was called "innovative."
No one forced you to use those computers. You could have used an Apple, or an Amiga.
The Apple people pointed to studies that showed PCs were more expensive, once you took into account training classes PC use required that the intuitive Apple Mac did not. But nobody was listening.
Also, Microsoft had yet to lock down the legal rights to a look and feel similar to Apple's. And way back then, IBM was the big, evil corporation, not Microsoft, which you people all too soon forget.
>> You took the red pill didn't you. > > I lost mine, can i have another please?
I'll take a blue one. I wanna be dumb, with a huge weiner, a good lookin' face, a somewhat hairy chest, someone with money, and power. And I want to rember nothing.
1. Lime 2. Mint 3. The flavor of pistachio ice cream, which is actually the same as that used in maraschino cherries, and I don't think has anything to do with pistachios.
>> From Wikipedia: >> "He is opposed to the transfer of great fortunes from one generation to the next." > > That's a stand-up man, right there. It's a sign he believes everyone should earn their own > fortune, no free rides - even for his own children. > > Bravo, sir.
Would, which is the entire problem. A freemarket capitalism might be able to leap over the problems, and still provide not just an equal quality of life, but continue with an ever-increasing one, even in the face of global warming, when compared to strict regulations that reverse it.
In other words, measure quality of life in 100 years, with and without Kyoto and other restrictions, and the world with continued global warming might very well have a higher quality of life, more people, etc. This is not an unreasonable outcome. And if it were to be true, would people touting massive intervention be any friend of humanity?
I've been an AOL member for 12 years, and have been BYOA (bring your own access) for 6. If I quit, will my screen names still exist? Can I use them in AIM? More importantly, can I still use the email (do they provide this for AIM-only? And if so, will my transition be seamless?)
They're not making people "pull games from shelves" -- they've just stopped greedy Ferenghi from selling things to kids that are inappropriate without the parent's approval.
Little Johnny can still take Mommy down to the store to buy Grand Trunk Postal 3: Carmageddon of the Bimbos ("Now with 30% more volume on the ass slider!")
It's just that Quark can't sneak it to Johnny directly anymore.
> I am astounded at the amount of hatred expressed..
I experience the same thing when I point out that Linux, if it were on a billion and a half computers around the world, and thus under savage assault from thousands of hackers, would be found to be just as, if not even more so, full of security holes.
Eh, might as well go for the trifecta: Britney is way hotter than Natalie Portman, too.
> However, what's not in question is: Ice is melting. > As ice melts, the sea level must go up.
So if the sea level isn't going up, then we aren't getting any significantly different amount of ice melting?
Or, if the ice is melting and calving faster in Antarctica, it may be because of increased deposition rates on the land itself, forcing the ice to churn back into the sea faster, but no net extra water? Or perhaps even lowering of sea levels because some additional ice will build up?
Golly, well-accepted, well-established, definitive science is so exciting! Tell me more!
> Sure, until you are informed. Then you realize that you are simply > perpetuating a 6-year old partisan attack masquerading as a joke.
Potatoe, Potahtoe
That never stopped people from ragging on Dan Quayle even though he was set up (give him a spelling bee card with "potatoe" on the back, a word easy to misspell, and jam the cameras in his face. The card is authoritative, the cameras, rolling. What'cha gonna do when they come for you?)
> I have also always believed in leaving the smallest footprint possible
I wish you people would believe in the smallest legal and regulatory footprint as possible.
Actual sociological studies demonstrate this is of the greatest benefit to humanity in terms of quality of life and rate of technological advancement. Last century was replete with hundreds of "experiments" in this exact thing.
A felon should not have their voting rights removed, even in prison. You shouldn't be prevented from participating in electing those who create the laws that throw you into jail.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what drives business -- the high profits pull other people into the market. In the case of oil, more oil is sought out, and found. Substitutes are developed, or become economically viable, all along the line, from artificial oil, to oil substitutes, to different engine styles, and so on.
It's kind of sad an oil "crisis" has to come along to generate the political will to slap down scientifically illiterate idiocy like "preserving the Alaskan wilderness", where the complete trashing of a few hundred square miles, a large exaggeration of what would actually happen, would nevertheless be absolutely unnoticeable in the vastness of the area.
But who pays attention? It's all about satisfying the squeamishness of the teaming masses of concrete canyon dwellers by letting them feel powerful by telling those in Alaska and elsewhere how to live their lives.
To the oil comanies: "steal" away! You deserve it in the face of this clownishness.
If only this were a troll. If only I were exaggerating.
Removing their "obscene luxury" does nothing to raise the standards of living. The amount of wealth they devote to personal pursuits is trivial when amortized over the population as a whole. Yet removing this wealth has, in actual fact, greatly reduced the quality of life for the average person.
And here's the point people like you regularly miss: Doing so also does absolutely nothing to stop thugs from ruling everything. They still rise to the top -- and, indeed, the type who rises typically is just a social manipulator, and does not even have the skills of a skilled businessman. Now you've got a "country" with nothing but a bunch of thugs in power, with no way to actually get anything done without the permission of a thug, often a local thug. Last century saw hundreds of such "experiments" that all pointed to the same result: lower quality of life.
It's strange that these are viewed as "experiments", too. Political science is the only "science" that finds it ethical to experiment on unwilling subjects. There's a hell of a lot more to freedom than freedom of speech.
> That wealth is stolen by the rich to begin with - from
> everyone else involved in making that wealth. I thought
> I made that point clear in my original post.
"Stolen" presumes they have any kind of legal or even moral claim on ownership. Given they freely traded their effort for money, they give up any such claims. Class warfare has never been anything about leading masses on cruscades, in exchange for illegitimate power, by politicians, over things which they do not own. That's all it's ever been about.
> I think history will remember that Gates set computing back at least 20 years.
> Hell, up until quite recently, we were still running the same old DOS-over-Windows
> on a slightly juiced up 386 and it was called "innovative."
No one forced you to use those computers. You could have used an Apple, or an Amiga.
The Apple people pointed to studies that showed PCs were more expensive, once you took into account training classes PC use required that the intuitive Apple Mac did not. But nobody was listening.
Also, Microsoft had yet to lock down the legal rights to a look and feel similar to Apple's. And way back then, IBM was the big, evil corporation, not Microsoft, which you people all too soon forget.
>> You took the red pill didn't you.
>
> I lost mine, can i have another please?
I'll take a blue one. I wanna be dumb, with a huge weiner, a good lookin' face, a somewhat hairy chest, someone with money, and power. And I want to rember nothing.
Nothing.
There's three flavors of "green":
1. Lime
2. Mint
3. The flavor of pistachio ice cream, which is actually the same as that used in maraschino cherries, and I don't think has anything to do with pistachios.
>> From Wikipedia:
>> "He is opposed to the transfer of great fortunes from one generation to the next."
>
> That's a stand-up man, right there. It's a sign he believes everyone should earn their own
> fortune, no free rides - even for his own children.
>
> Bravo, sir .
I think you mean, "Bravo, Daddy Dearest "
...and they've been right.
Better yet, he's a bottom!
New hires at "The Large Hardon Collider"?
Sounds like a new bartender at the local LGBT club.
Except that in this case, the cure might be closer to shooting him in the head than the disease.
What if, due to slowing the economy, the cure actually ends up with a poorer quality of life than unrestricted capitalism + global warming?
> Might cost us dearly
Would, which is the entire problem. A freemarket capitalism might be able to leap over the problems, and still provide not just an equal quality of life, but continue with an ever-increasing one, even in the face of global warming, when compared to strict regulations that reverse it.
In other words, measure quality of life in 100 years, with and without Kyoto and other restrictions, and the world with continued global warming might very well have a higher quality of life, more people, etc. This is not an unreasonable outcome. And if it were to be true, would people touting massive intervention be any friend of humanity?
I've been an AOL member for 12 years, and have been BYOA (bring your own access) for 6. If I quit, will my screen names still exist? Can I use them in AIM? More importantly, can I still use the email (do they provide this for AIM-only? And if so, will my transition be seamless?)
Unfortunately, when they turned on the air conditioner, the milage dropped to 23 mpg.
They're not making people "pull games from shelves" -- they've just stopped greedy Ferenghi from selling things to kids that are inappropriate without the parent's approval.
Little Johnny can still take Mommy down to the store to buy Grand Trunk Postal 3: Carmageddon of the Bimbos ("Now with 30% more volume on the ass slider!")
It's just that Quark can't sneak it to Johnny directly anymore.
One might do better typing "freelance program m ing" into Google.
Mating?
Quit messin' around. Here's all the info on God you'll ever need: The God FAQ Don't forget to read the fine print regarding errors or omissions.
> I am astounded at the amount of hatred expressed..
I experience the same thing when I point out that Linux, if it were on a billion and a half computers around the world, and thus under savage assault from thousands of hackers, would be found to be just as, if not even more so, full of security holes.
Eh, might as well go for the trifecta: Britney is way hotter than Natalie Portman, too.
> However, what's not in question is: Ice is melting.
> As ice melts, the sea level must go up.
So if the sea level isn't going up, then we aren't getting any significantly different amount of ice melting?
Or, if the ice is melting and calving faster in Antarctica, it may be because of increased deposition rates on the land itself, forcing the ice to churn back into the sea faster, but no net extra water? Or perhaps even lowering of sea levels because some additional ice will build up?
Golly, well-accepted, well-established, definitive science is so exciting! Tell me more!
> Sure, until you are informed. Then you realize that you are simply
> perpetuating a 6-year old partisan attack masquerading as a joke.
Potatoe, Potahtoe
That never stopped people from ragging on Dan Quayle even though he was set up (give him a spelling bee card with "potatoe" on the back, a word easy to misspell, and jam the cameras in his face. The card is authoritative, the cameras, rolling. What'cha gonna do when they come for you?)
> I have also always believed in leaving the smallest footprint possible
I wish you people would believe in the smallest legal and regulatory footprint as possible.
Actual sociological studies demonstrate this is of the greatest benefit to humanity in terms of quality of life and rate of technological advancement. Last century was replete with hundreds of "experiments" in this exact thing.
> He created it, this much is true. Maybe you could go look up the actual thing he said?
"...so in a sense, I invented the Internet"? You can go watch a video of it, if you like.
> And almost every debunking has been shown to be junk science.
And almost every proposed "cure" for global warming has been debunked as being worse than the disease.
Your move.
A felon should not have their voting rights removed, even in prison. You shouldn't be prevented from participating in electing those who create the laws that throw you into jail.