But, as with anything I say, this is a gross oversimplification
Well, unless you want to write something of "War and Peace" length, gross oversimplification is going to be a norm.
Part of the problem is, some people can't get beyond the gross oversimplification. They think in terms of sound bites and that's it. "This is bad!" "That is evil!"
They don't dig into the meat of the subject, and have no real desire to. Individuals like that only hurt the situation, since they go after simplistic answers that may or may not actually remedy the situation in a meaningful and applicable way.
Another problem is going to be, how do we get everyone on the planet on board with this? I mean, it's great that we could do something to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. But what good does it do if China, with a quarter of the planet's population simply takes up the slack, plus some?
The problem is, the auto industry can't be subsidizing your desire for a cleaner car at all costs.
Look at today's hybrids. The price-premium of one is such that you have to drive it for anywhere between 6 and 10 years (at an average of 12K miles a year) to realize savings in fuel costs. Granted, hikes in fuel prices and greater mileage per year lower this some. However, there's still the issue of battery lifetimes too.
Are the automakers simply supposed to eat the cost difference to comply with some arbitrary notion of "clean"?
Even alternative power sources don't really address the real problem. Since most of them merely dilute, or shift their output.
(Plug-in cars = shifting, since the environmental impact is concentrated in/shifted to the power generation facilities) (E85 = dilution, since it takes more to provide similar mileage, with similar gross outputs on a per-mile basis)
And who exactly was going to buy a hybrid/alternative fuel car before it was economically feasible?
Sure, stars can afford a six digit environentally friendly car. But they can also afford expensive, exotic gas guzzlers too. Someone pulling home $22K a year can't go out and spend that kind of money?
Note to the trolls: I am NOT SAYING THAT environmentally friendly cars are six digits NOW. I'm saying when the first few prototypes were being developed, the cost per-unit was outrageous and the economy of the vehicles was dubious at best.
The auto industry has bent over backwards to comply with California emissions controls. And this is just a slap in the face for them and yet another example of the state's childish detachment from reality.
He was later lynched by other college underclassmen who had been going to class for years, who finally worked out that what they really couldn't stand was a smart-ass.
With some directly applicable experiments that can be used to show some correlation with reality.
Likewise, that the average surface temperature of the Earth is increasing is a fact ("global warming").
Yes, we're emerging from a period of relative coolness/coldness (see "Little Ice Age"). The world is waming up.
Unfortunately you completely missed the real point. That global warming is HUMAN-CAUSED is still a controversial theory with no real supporting evidence. There are nothing at this point but theories that what we're doing to the environment is speeding things up. They've drawn some correlations between CO2 levels, but still fail to show whether or not it's actually a cause or an effect.
At no time did I say that global warming wasn't happening. It is. But the ultimate causes and effects of if aren't set in stone.
designed to convince laypeople that human causation of global warming is scientifically controversial
Well, could it be that they're trying to convince people because it IS controversial?
I KNOW people want to believe this. That's fine. It's a belief, great. So is Catholicism. And, like Catholicism, that doesn't mean it's fact. Global warming, right now is a theory with lots of supporting evidence, but no proof. If it had proof, it wouldn't be a theory.
Additionally, the whole global warming thing is all over the map. We're going to cook. We're going to dive into an ice age. The seas are going to heat up. The seas are going to cool off. About the only thing that the various claimants agree on is "Global Warming Is A Bad Thing".
The problem is, there's only a limited amount real "news" in the world. And with near-instant communications, live feeds from anywhere, and the burgeoning multitude of huge news organizations, the pickings get slim REAL fast. Thus, the bar for "quality" gets kicked ever lower, as they have to report SOMETHING. Nobody's going to watch very long if the reporter just sits there on camera, saying nothing and looking dumb(er than usual).
And you can demand quality all you want. You must remember that you're a lone voice in a mob of idiots who simply want instant gratification and MORE MORE MORE!
Can you tell that I have an exceptionally high opinion of my fellow man?;-)
I see. So now the CIA is going to lie about population figures? Please, cast aspersions elsewhere.
And yes, setting up here is going to be more expensive. These smaller countries tend to have more uniform distribution of their populations. The US doesn't. Also, with the size of the system we're talking about, the meds themselves are the cheap part (at least at first). It's the INFRASTRUCTURE costs that get insane quite rapidly.
So Britain, Canada, Italy, Germany, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, etc. are all left-wing exteremists. Ok...
No. But none of those countries have a population of 300 MILLION people, with fully 1/3rd getting ready to hit retirement.
Hit the CIA factbook and you'll see that, all together, the named countries only exceed the US population by about 15%. The cash outlay for something like that would be staggering.
Six years of Republican rule, and we still have gun control. If this is such an extreme left-wing issue, how come they haven't done something about it?
Because it's harder to repeal a bad law than it is to pass one.
BTU taxes and Kyoto treaty is about paying for what you use.
No, it's merely a set of socialist transfer payments to 3rd world countries. The US is already investing trillions in foreign aid. Why the fuck should we be required to pay more? ESPECIALLY when even the nations signatory to things like Kyoto are ignoring the guidelines set up? More toothless, but feel-good, legislation? No thanks!
Until we can vote in a way where everyone's votes count, not just the winners, we don't really have democracy.
Small reminder. THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!
The United States is a Federal Republic with democratic trappings. The reason that a democracy wasn't instituted is that straight democracies are easily subverted by a charismatic-enough individual. It's tyranny of the majority with ZERO PROTECTIONS for those in the statistical minority.
Pure democracy = mob rule. Mob rule means that whoever jumps out in front and screams the loudest can essentially do whatever they want, whether it's legal, ethical, moral or not.
The republican form of government we currently have is NOT perfect. However, it protects statistical minorities from gross abuses by the majority. Therefore, I'm ill-disposed to a notion to bin it and replace it with a chaotic free-for-all and the vague hope that whoever emerges as the leader of the mob is well-intentioned...
Yes, a credibility system might improve the situation. Readers could know that certain entries would be from people with a history as a high-quality contributor.
Then again, it may not. Karma-whoring and alias-building could hurt badly. Also, exactly HOW are you going to indicate which chunks of text came from whom? And what kind of resources are going to be necessary to track this over multiple series of edits without a reader going into the version tracker and conducting a line-by-line comparison?
"At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time."
And what was the life expectancy of people? And exactly why was it that long?
Simply because something has been used a long time doesn't mean that it's safe.
Slashdot Mirror
What sort of safeguards are in place to do fact-checking and prevent false/obviously slanted mob-rule style reports from being propagated as fact?
But, as with anything I say, this is a gross oversimplification
Well, unless you want to write something of "War and Peace" length, gross oversimplification is going to be a norm.
Part of the problem is, some people can't get beyond the gross oversimplification. They think in terms of sound bites and that's it. "This is bad!" "That is evil!"
They don't dig into the meat of the subject, and have no real desire to. Individuals like that only hurt the situation, since they go after simplistic answers that may or may not actually remedy the situation in a meaningful and applicable way.
Another problem is going to be, how do we get everyone on the planet on board with this? I mean, it's great that we could do something to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. But what good does it do if China, with a quarter of the planet's population simply takes up the slack, plus some?
The problem is, the auto industry can't be subsidizing your desire for a cleaner car at all costs.
Look at today's hybrids. The price-premium of one is such that you have to drive it for anywhere between 6 and 10 years (at an average of 12K miles a year) to realize savings in fuel costs. Granted, hikes in fuel prices and greater mileage per year lower this some. However, there's still the issue of battery lifetimes too.
Are the automakers simply supposed to eat the cost difference to comply with some arbitrary notion of "clean"?
Even alternative power sources don't really address the real problem. Since most of them merely dilute, or shift their output.
(Plug-in cars = shifting, since the environmental impact is concentrated in/shifted to the power generation facilities)
(E85 = dilution, since it takes more to provide similar mileage, with similar gross outputs on a per-mile basis)
And who exactly was going to buy a hybrid/alternative fuel car before it was economically feasible?
Sure, stars can afford a six digit environentally friendly car. But they can also afford expensive, exotic gas guzzlers too. Someone pulling home $22K a year can't go out and spend that kind of money?
Note to the trolls: I am NOT SAYING THAT environmentally friendly cars are six digits NOW. I'm saying when the first few prototypes were being developed, the cost per-unit was outrageous and the economy of the vehicles was dubious at best.
The auto industry has bent over backwards to comply with California emissions controls. And this is just a slap in the face for them and yet another example of the state's childish detachment from reality.
Yes, I can see that the automakers FORCED people to buy automobiles AT GUNPOINT.
America. Where you can sue anyone for anything. Regardless of how stupid your premise is.
He was later lynched by other college underclassmen who had been going to class for years, who finally worked out that what they really couldn't stand was a smart-ass.
Way to completely miss the point AGAIN. Is this a natural talent? Or do you work at it?
"Gravity" is just a theory.
With some directly applicable experiments that can be used to show some correlation with reality.
Likewise, that the average surface temperature of the Earth is increasing is a fact ("global warming").
Yes, we're emerging from a period of relative coolness/coldness (see "Little Ice Age"). The world is waming up.
Unfortunately you completely missed the real point. That global warming is HUMAN-CAUSED is still a controversial theory with no real supporting evidence. There are nothing at this point but theories that what we're doing to the environment is speeding things up. They've drawn some correlations between CO2 levels, but still fail to show whether or not it's actually a cause or an effect.
At no time did I say that global warming wasn't happening. It is. But the ultimate causes and effects of if aren't set in stone.
:Colonel I suggest that ^H^H^H^ ALLAH OWNZ J00R B0X0RZ!^H^H^H^ insurgents.: :Shit. Switch over to IM! AOL encrypts EVERYTHING!:
designed to convince laypeople that human causation of global warming is scientifically controversial
Well, could it be that they're trying to convince people because it IS controversial?
I KNOW people want to believe this. That's fine. It's a belief, great. So is Catholicism. And, like Catholicism, that doesn't mean it's fact. Global warming, right now is a theory with lots of supporting evidence, but no proof. If it had proof, it wouldn't be a theory.
Additionally, the whole global warming thing is all over the map. We're going to cook. We're going to dive into an ice age. The seas are going to heat up. The seas are going to cool off. About the only thing that the various claimants agree on is "Global Warming Is A Bad Thing".
Oh, so now, because you misunderstood me in the first place, "I" am the one who's mounting a "desperate defense"?
"I assumed..."
Okay. You ASSUMED.
"but you're full of it in any case:"
Nice to see that you go into these things with an open mind...
"The United States has not spent trillions on foriegn aid in the course of it's entire history."
If you say so.
Higher quality?
;-)
The problem is, there's only a limited amount real "news" in the world. And with near-instant communications, live feeds from anywhere, and the burgeoning multitude of huge news organizations, the pickings get slim REAL fast. Thus, the bar for "quality" gets kicked ever lower, as they have to report SOMETHING. Nobody's going to watch very long if the reporter just sits there on camera, saying nothing and looking dumb(er than usual).
And you can demand quality all you want. You must remember that you're a lone voice in a mob of idiots who simply want instant gratification and MORE MORE MORE!
Can you tell that I have an exceptionally high opinion of my fellow man?
Again, please tell me where I said they were investing trillions all in a single year?
The US is already investing trillions in foreign aid.
Please tell me where I said "this year alone"?
Well? I'm waiting!
Also, when did disagreement automatically become "trolling"?
Oh yeah! It didn't.
Question, how does it make better "environmental" sense if said countries who are signatory to the Kyoto Protocols are IGNORING THEIR PROVISIONS?
I see. So now the CIA is going to lie about population figures? Please, cast aspersions elsewhere.
And yes, setting up here is going to be more expensive. These smaller countries tend to have more uniform distribution of their populations. The US doesn't. Also, with the size of the system we're talking about, the meds themselves are the cheap part (at least at first). It's the INFRASTRUCTURE costs that get insane quite rapidly.
$70 per disk per movie?
No. No thanks. I'll wait for a more open standard, or one that offers real gains in visual quality before I go and pawn a kidney.
No linking. Gotta love it. Undermind the damn net! Undermine I say!
The fact is, the situation is neither better, nor worse than it was in previous eras.
It's just BETTER PUBLICIZED.
End of story.
So Britain, Canada, Italy, Germany, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, etc. are all left-wing exteremists. Ok...
No. But none of those countries have a population of 300 MILLION people, with fully 1/3rd getting ready to hit retirement.
Hit the CIA factbook and you'll see that, all together, the named countries only exceed the US population by about 15%. The cash outlay for something like that would be staggering.
Six years of Republican rule, and we still have gun control. If this is such an extreme left-wing issue, how come they haven't done something about it?
Because it's harder to repeal a bad law than it is to pass one.
BTU taxes and Kyoto treaty is about paying for what you use.
No, it's merely a set of socialist transfer payments to 3rd world countries. The US is already investing trillions in foreign aid. Why the fuck should we be required to pay more? ESPECIALLY when even the nations signatory to things like Kyoto are ignoring the guidelines set up? More toothless, but feel-good, legislation? No thanks!
Small reminder. THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!
The United States is a Federal Republic with democratic trappings. The reason that a democracy wasn't instituted is that straight democracies are easily subverted by a charismatic-enough individual. It's tyranny of the majority with ZERO PROTECTIONS for those in the statistical minority.
Pure democracy = mob rule. Mob rule means that whoever jumps out in front and screams the loudest can essentially do whatever they want, whether it's legal, ethical, moral or not.
The republican form of government we currently have is NOT perfect. However, it protects statistical minorities from gross abuses by the majority. Therefore, I'm ill-disposed to a notion to bin it and replace it with a chaotic free-for-all and the vague hope that whoever emerges as the leader of the mob is well-intentioned...
Yes, a credibility system might improve the situation. Readers could know that certain entries would be from people with a history as a high-quality contributor.
Then again, it may not. Karma-whoring and alias-building could hurt badly. Also, exactly HOW are you going to indicate which chunks of text came from whom? And what kind of resources are going to be necessary to track this over multiple series of edits without a reader going into the version tracker and conducting a line-by-line comparison?
Screw that! It's completely unacceptable that the thoughts of one-sixth of the world's population be controlled by ANYONE, elected or otherwise.
[Dr. Evil] No...not really...
I wonder which "good citizen" thought up THIS brain-damaged policy.
"At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time."
And what was the life expectancy of people? And exactly why was it that long?
Simply because something has been used a long time doesn't mean that it's safe.