On the other hand, I do have evidence that God exists but whether or not you will accept that evidence depends on your experience with that evidence.
True evidence doesn't depend on the observer's 'experience'. It is solvable and provable and repeatable. Please provide your evidence of God's existence. Not philosophical justifications for feelings and whether a tree makes a sound when it falls if no one is around to hear it.
I also never said God doesn't exist. I merely said that religion is a human creation and provided provable scenarios and causes that would give rise to faith in religion.
Yes, because as we all know, anyone who believes in a creator God is a backwards moron who hates science.
If they take their religion literally, I give them much respect. They are still wrong but at least they are true to their beliefs.
Today's 'religious' people very conveniently ignore the parts of religion they find distasteful or outright horrifying. Those people I do not give any respect towards their beliefs. If you want the 'good' parts you have to take the bad parts.
Religion is entirely a human creation - to explain the (at the time) unexplainable and to provide the ability to live 'nicely' with your neighbor. Every single religion on the planet has the same basic tenets; be nice, be honest, be good. That could be a sign of a 'creator' or it could just as easily be evidence of the same human desires manifesting themselves in very similar ways in disparate circumstances. In which case their 'creator' was 'necessity' the mother of invention.
Science is continually expanding our knowledge. What about religion? It is only clinging to the as yet unprovable factoids. It is introducing no new evidence to the record. Hell science is introducing proof of pieces of the biblical fables. Not of their true meaning but that they at least happened. I find that both infinitely fascinating and ironic.
indeed. Apparently DirecTV still has to pay big money even if the season is cancelled. I want to negotiate my service contract with the morons who came up with that 'deal'.
Solar panels won't work very well far out in the solar system and not at all in deep space. Even if they would, the size you'd need to power 'active' shielding would be prohibitive to actually getting stuff into orbit.
I would say that depends greatly on what the book's content/purpose is. Trashy romance novel? sure. How to correctly wire your house panel? I think I want something more definitive than $0.99.
My point was the subject matter and purpose have an effect on what people are willing to pay.
He documented what he did in pretty good detail. What sort of 'proof' are you looking for?
He 'self-published'. What more then putting it on Amazon for free did he do? He described decent traffic to his online version. From which he sold the physical copies. It wasn't available unless people asked for it because he self published. It was publish on demand.
Um, yes. If a certain percentage of your views result in sales, giving it away in an unlimited and free format can drive sales of your limited physical good.
The greater the number of views, the more sales. And he didn't have to pay a publisher a cut of his revenue.
Which is exactly what the author did...just instead of 'cheap' he chose 'free'.
But getting back to my point. You think people would buy a $0.99 technical reference? or would they buy something from O'Reilly that has demonstrated experience? Or go find something free like google books?
"I'm not sure I'd really want a $0.99 'tech' book. However, something free is worth at least looking at - hey this is pretty good I'll tell my tech friends." And some of them buy it.
There was just a guy who lowered his published his fictional eBook from $2.99 to $0.99 and made more money due to higher sales - linky. I think the difference is spending a dollar on recreation is fine for people, but if it's for 'work', I'm going to want to spend a decent amount to make sure I'm getting a quality product. The 'free' stuff gets noticed but the 'super cheap' stuff is still viewed as being lower quality.
Because the countries where it's imperative that they adopt such clean tech do not have subsidies nor can they afford them
Uh, they 'subsidize' by taxing the hell out of the fossil fuel prices. Leveling the playing field can either be reducing cost of A or increasing cost of B. *Both* are subsidies to A.
Uh, sorry, the OIL industry claimed it was perfectly safe and GWB/Cheney chastised anyone who questioned big oil on those claims. Until they proved that it wasn't.
'Safe Drilling' is a misnomer. There is no such thing. Some methods may be 'safer' and less likely to accident or error, but then we were told the Titanic was unsinkable weren't we?
If you claim it can't possibly fail, but if it does it can be contained and cleaned up (in a document that says part of your clean up efforts will protect the WALRUSES in the Gulf of Mexico) - and then can't contain it or clean it up - well sorry, no sympathy for putting onerous restrictions on your ability to do business. You failed, you don't get to keep on keeping on until we the people are satisfied you aren't just still blowing smoke about your abilities.
I'm talking about in the short term. We are still in an economic downturn, and looking at a "double-dip". We can NOT recover if some uninformed ideologue's idea is to artificially raise prices to levels that the middle class cannot afford
Short term I don't disagree.
The fun part is this exact same statement could be made about the national debt. We can massively cut our spending trying to go cold turkey and in turn create even more economic depression; or we can plan an orderly transition to more reasonable spending/taxation/benefits policy.
You do realize that fossil fuel prices are going to skyrocket completely independent of any government policy right? They will run out, they cause environmental damage. These 2 factors will cause their price to skyrocket way more than anything proposed so far.
Renewable sources will likely never achieve current fossil fuel prices. However, their price also won't ever 'skyrocket' they way a finite polluting fuel will.
The current proposals are to artificially inflate fossil fuel prices now so that over time we push ourselves towards renewable sources. This allows us to gradually switch rather than have to do it wholesale at a later date when the fossil fuel prices/environment cause prices to 'skyrocket'.
You can pay a little over time or you can wait and pay through the nose later. Take your pick, but the latter is much much more expensive.
Well actually yes they are being subsidized; though perhaps not in the manner you assume.
What is the cost associated with releasing all that CO2 into the atmosphere? Zero? Not hardly. The effects may not manifest themselves in cost specific ways for 100 years, but they will manifest. And when they do, it is going to be catastrophically expensive.
So yes they are being subsidized in that we aren't paying for the waste they produce yet.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, I do have evidence that God exists but whether or not you will accept that evidence depends on your experience with that evidence.
True evidence doesn't depend on the observer's 'experience'. It is solvable and provable and repeatable. Please provide your evidence of God's existence. Not philosophical justifications for feelings and whether a tree makes a sound when it falls if no one is around to hear it.
I also never said God doesn't exist. I merely said that religion is a human creation and provided provable scenarios and causes that would give rise to faith in religion.
Yes, because as we all know, anyone who believes in a creator God is a backwards moron who hates science.
If they take their religion literally, I give them much respect. They are still wrong but at least they are true to their beliefs.
Today's 'religious' people very conveniently ignore the parts of religion they find distasteful or outright horrifying. Those people I do not give any respect towards their beliefs. If you want the 'good' parts you have to take the bad parts.
Religion is entirely a human creation - to explain the (at the time) unexplainable and to provide the ability to live 'nicely' with your neighbor. Every single religion on the planet has the same basic tenets; be nice, be honest, be good. That could be a sign of a 'creator' or it could just as easily be evidence of the same human desires manifesting themselves in very similar ways in disparate circumstances. In which case their 'creator' was 'necessity' the mother of invention.
Science is continually expanding our knowledge. What about religion? It is only clinging to the as yet unprovable factoids. It is introducing no new evidence to the record. Hell science is introducing proof of pieces of the biblical fables. Not of their true meaning but that they at least happened. I find that both infinitely fascinating and ironic.
indeed. Apparently DirecTV still has to pay big money even if the season is cancelled. I want to negotiate my service contract with the morons who came up with that 'deal'.
Solar panels won't work very well far out in the solar system and not at all in deep space. Even if they would, the size you'd need to power 'active' shielding would be prohibitive to actually getting stuff into orbit.
Just crew the ship(s) with Japanese astronauts. ...
What? Too soon?
Yes, this rare situation is much to serious to be made light of.
Wait till it's well done before making such jokes!
As a general rule, one only encounters neutrons, gamma rays, and x-rays from artificial sources, such as nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants.
What do you think is going to be powering these space vehicles?
If you 'bought' new phones, why is your bill higher? since presumably buying the phone means the lower pricing?
Well if you call getting 39 BILLION dollars 'being thrown out on the street' sure
"they are still competing with other carriers"
Except there really is only one other carrier they are competing with now. 2 is not enough competition.
so shouldn't this be JP Morgan buying T-Mobile? ;-)
If you couldn't go to prison for crimes, wouldn't you do things a wee bit differently? ;-)
4 words.
N F L Ticket.
Seriously? The monthly rates are lower if you buy the phone outright? I haven't seen that from any US carrier...
"$0.99 is a reasonable price for an ebook"
I would say that depends greatly on what the book's content/purpose is. Trashy romance novel? sure. How to correctly wire your house panel? I think I want something more definitive than $0.99.
My point was the subject matter and purpose have an effect on what people are willing to pay.
He documented what he did in pretty good detail. What sort of 'proof' are you looking for?
He 'self-published'. What more then putting it on Amazon for free did he do? He described decent traffic to his online version. From which he sold the physical copies. It wasn't available unless people asked for it because he self published. It was publish on demand.
Um, yes. If a certain percentage of your views result in sales, giving it away in an unlimited and free format can drive sales of your limited physical good.
The greater the number of views, the more sales. And he didn't have to pay a publisher a cut of his revenue.
Which is exactly what the author did...just instead of 'cheap' he chose 'free'.
But getting back to my point. You think people would buy a $0.99 technical reference? or would they buy something from O'Reilly that has demonstrated experience? Or go find something free like google books?
Which is exactly my point. I'm willing to spend a buck on my recreational reading. For work? not so much, I'll look for something higher quality.
I believe the mentality goes like this:
"I'm not sure I'd really want a $0.99 'tech' book. However, something free is worth at least looking at - hey this is pretty good I'll tell my tech friends." And some of them buy it.
There was just a guy who lowered his published his fictional eBook from $2.99 to $0.99 and made more money due to higher sales - linky. I think the difference is spending a dollar on recreation is fine for people, but if it's for 'work', I'm going to want to spend a decent amount to make sure I'm getting a quality product. The 'free' stuff gets noticed but the 'super cheap' stuff is still viewed as being lower quality.
Because the countries where it's imperative that they adopt such clean tech do not have subsidies nor can they afford them
Uh, they 'subsidize' by taxing the hell out of the fossil fuel prices. Leveling the playing field can either be reducing cost of A or increasing cost of B. *Both* are subsidies to A.
Uh, sorry, the OIL industry claimed it was perfectly safe and GWB/Cheney chastised anyone who questioned big oil on those claims. Until they proved that it wasn't.
'Safe Drilling' is a misnomer. There is no such thing. Some methods may be 'safer' and less likely to accident or error, but then we were told the Titanic was unsinkable weren't we?
If you claim it can't possibly fail, but if it does it can be contained and cleaned up (in a document that says part of your clean up efforts will protect the WALRUSES in the Gulf of Mexico) - and then can't contain it or clean it up - well sorry, no sympathy for putting onerous restrictions on your ability to do business. You failed, you don't get to keep on keeping on until we the people are satisfied you aren't just still blowing smoke about your abilities.
I'm talking about in the short term. We are still in an economic downturn, and looking at a "double-dip". We can NOT recover if some uninformed ideologue's idea is to artificially raise prices to levels that the middle class cannot afford
Short term I don't disagree.
The fun part is this exact same statement could be made about the national debt. We can massively cut our spending trying to go cold turkey and in turn create even more economic depression; or we can plan an orderly transition to more reasonable spending/taxation/benefits policy.
You do realize that fossil fuel prices are going to skyrocket completely independent of any government policy right? They will run out, they cause environmental damage. These 2 factors will cause their price to skyrocket way more than anything proposed so far.
Renewable sources will likely never achieve current fossil fuel prices. However, their price also won't ever 'skyrocket' they way a finite polluting fuel will.
The current proposals are to artificially inflate fossil fuel prices now so that over time we push ourselves towards renewable sources. This allows us to gradually switch rather than have to do it wholesale at a later date when the fossil fuel prices/environment cause prices to 'skyrocket'.
You can pay a little over time or you can wait and pay through the nose later. Take your pick, but the latter is much much more expensive.
Well actually yes they are being subsidized; though perhaps not in the manner you assume.
What is the cost associated with releasing all that CO2 into the atmosphere? Zero? Not hardly. The effects may not manifest themselves in cost specific ways for 100 years, but they will manifest. And when they do, it is going to be catastrophically expensive.
So yes they are being subsidized in that we aren't paying for the waste they produce yet.
Why yes honey, that dress does make you look fat. But this camera will fix it!