And when they don't have the "FULL COSTS", they'll selectively make up costs in order to make the math come out the way they want.
I'll happily be against completely made up numbers, but we are seeing effects from the CO2 emissions. How would you suggest we factor in those effects in terms of costs? especially when the effects are backloaded 20-100 years from now. Do we wait until they fully realize themselves when it will be more expensive to deal with? or pay a little more now to head off that scenario?
Precisely my point - taxation doesn't actually equate to paying for the costs of pollution, but it *does* artificially inflate the costs of the 'polluting stuff'.
That is the point. Make the polluting stuff less affordable so people switch to the renewable. The polluting stuff is going up in price anyway since it is not renewable *and* has what we currently believe are significantly bad effects.
(Never mind that renewable sources pollute too, but that pollution is out of sight, out of mind, and doesn't matter - because the goal isn't to reduce pollution, it's to force a predetermined outcome into being.)
And what might those sources be? the cost to manufacture the renewable solar panels or other renewable infrastructure like wind mills, etc? That is offset by the cost to build coal/nuclear/natural gas plants.
Is it a 1:1 offset? probably debatable. Even so, the cost to build the system is far and away lower than the cost of the fuel that the system uses.
Construction/maintenance are costs that both systems have. The renewable system just has no ongoing output from the processing of fuel.
I'll have to take this one back, the elitist comment from you came after my salvo.
Even if we assume what you're saying, you're good with human kind being reduced to 1000 breeding pairs again?
Where did I say that? What credible study has suggested that's going to happen?
Your Toba article calls out the 1000 breeding pairs.
Does it make it easier to dismiss someone when you can apply a loaded word like 'denier' to them?
Since they are in fact 'denying' that Global Warming is happening or that humans are the cause, yes Denier is a perfectly valid descriptor. Does it apply to you? seems to fit reasonably well enough. You did say nothing happening now is cause for concern, which is denying that something dangerous is going on. Hence denier.
You seem to be good at putting words in my mouth and making up shit that I never said.
Like your statement that I said the earth was a static environment?
I will grant you the ice age. Of course I asked for examples of what is happening now and none of them comes close, even Toba since the vast bulk of that effect was being too much particulates in the atmosphere causing cooling. We simply haven't *ever* dealt with what we're dealing with now.
Even if we assume what you're saying, you're good with human kind being reduced to 1000 breeding pairs again? I'm guessing most people would not be ok with that little detail in you examples.
Your point that things have happened before so we should just accept it is nice, but irrelevant. It's like saying that because I've walked down a 100 ft mountain that falling 100 ft should be the same problem. As they say, it's not the fall that kills you, it's the stop. Things are happening much much faster than anything in recorded geologic history.
'tipping point', you mean like a 'feedback loop'? Another favorite point of deniers like yourself is that water vapor is much more of a global warming gas and that isn't changing. This is true. But if you heat the planet a little with CO2 increase, the water vapor amplifies that effect significantly. Hence a tipping point when it begins to change to a runaway heating scenario.
Likewise, methane hydrates house massive amounts of the gas in the deep oceans. As oceans warm even a few degrees, this may come out of solution and into the atmosphere speeding even more warming since methane is something like 21 times worse than CO2 as a green house gas. Doesn't last as long, but short term (a decade) it can be pretty devastating in large enough amounts.
You still seem to be saying 'we couldnt possibly affect the entire earth' despite evidence that we are starting to do just that.
As opposed to your 'well its impossible so we just ignore it' attitude?
Never claimed Earth was a static environment. It has, however, been remarkably stable since our species has existed.
By dumping in so much carbon from outside the 'natural' processes, you don't think that's going to cause any issue? like rising sea levels, melting glaciers for instance? or do you want to wait until the tipping point is past before trying to mitigate what we're doing?
From your head in the sand ostrich positions, logic and science do certainly look elitist...
Unknown and impossible to quantify, but thanks for playing.
I assume you don't use planes since flying was once impossible for people? We have a pretty damned good idea that fossil fuel use is causing changes in the world. While an *exact* accounting may not be possible, it is possible to say 'this is bad' and encourage people to move to other forms of technology. Heck, even the Pentagon is trying to get off fossil fuels; or are they just green hippies too?
You mean the stuff that I'm breathing out right now? Good luck with that.
No I mean the CO2 from millions of years that is being released over the course of a couple hundred years. It tends to have effects on the equilibrium when you push a million years of effect into a single century.
Your 'output' is part of the normal and natural cycle, just like leaves growing and falling off the trees. You took in that carbon during the same timeframe you're outputing it so there is no measurable change in the system.
Thank you for playing 'be the idiot'! you're doing great!
From a moral argument it is indefensible, no argument there.
From a duty to their paying customers, if they lost either staff or equipment fighting a fire that they weren't on the hook to fight, what do you tell the people for whom they are responsible when they don't have the ability to respond anymore?
or without the BS spin from the anti-environmentalists:
Environmentalists want the FULL COSTS of fossil fuel use to be included when comparing the prices. What is the cost of releasing all the CO2 into the air? You tax the polluting stuff versus rebating the non-polluting stuff to encourage adoption until the actual costs of the pollution can be incorporated.
This does mean that renewable energy is never going to cost as cheap as current fossil fuel prices. That much is agreed. What the anti-environment won't tell you is that fossil fuel costs are only going up as supplies and pollutions effects are realized into higher costs.
As a Upstate NY native who lives in DC, one thing that happens here much more frequently is icing. Which is decidedly nastier to deal with than snow.
When they rebuilt the major interchange known as the Mixing Bowl with 50 flyover ramps...for budget reasons they didn't install any de-icing ability. "We'll just run salt trucks" was the mantra. First major ice storm hit and oopsie the trucks didn't run.
The drivers here aren't the best, especially when you swap them out ever 4-8 years so nobody gets to learn. But the biggest problem by far is the lack of knowledge from the people tasked with clearing the roads during the storms and weather. And the major lack of equipment to do the jobs properly doesn't help either.
Sometimes shutting down a city is literally a better/safer/cheaper option than trying to do a half-arsed job with not enough equipment.
Interesting but off the point. Your example is one where they do have agreements between the towns. "Everything from central heating to postal delivery is centrally coordinated"
My question involved responding to something outside of their jurisdiction.
According to other posters, the man was contacted both in writing and by phone prior to the fire asking if he really truly didn't want coverage.
A court could see that as reasonable effort by the city to cover the man and when the situation occurred count them as mitigating circumstances of the 'duress'.
For starters, we're on the same side of this. The guy's a moron and deserved what happened.
To your points:
Bankruptcy is a factor in the 'business plan' of the service. You estimate how many you'll have that file for bankruptcy and price things accordingly; that's just standard business practice so nothing new or unexpected here.
Contract under duress is certainly a reasonable concern. The fact that the town warned him in writing and then actually called him about it would be pretty damning circumstances in a court of law. He willingly chose not to have a small preventative service and then when he needed it reneged on the contract he would have in theory signed under duress. That's a nuance that a decent lawyer would be able to argue as well.
Trust me, I'm much closer to your system than the one we have here;-)
In your case, everybody pays in for universal coverage and so everyone is covered.
To put it in your perspective, should a Swedish fire company cross the border and put out a Finnish house fire? Unless there is an agreement between Sweden and Finland for such action, isn't that outside the responsibility (legal, not ethically) of the Swedish fire company?
The difference here is that these areas aren't covered under the city's charter. They are simply providing a service to people who otherwise have *no* fire protection. If people don't want to pay it, that's fine, but they get what happened here.
As I mentioned in my other post on this thread, this guy's own son had a fire and hadn't paid the free. That time they cut the son some slack and put out the fire.
If, after your own son's house catches fire, you *forget* to pay your fire service fee - sorry, Darwin is working closely here.
How about when the fee is due, i.e. *before* the fire, the person unable to pay actually contacts the city and works out some sort of agreement. Rather than waiting for the emergency to deal with it?
What makes this worse is this guys own son had the exact same situation happen and they cut the son some slack. Yet he claims he *forgot* about the fee? Not buying that explanation. It speaks of willful denial to not pay a fee until you actually need the protection; which doesn't work for 'insurance' types of services. They need constant payments so they are able to react when an emergency happens. It can't be retroactive unless it's a massive 'right now emergency' fee situation; like 1000x the normal fee.
how the heck do you get the power back to the ground? You'll lose a lot of power during transmission from satellite to ground.
The beauty of systems with 'free/unlimited' fuel is that their efficiency is just a small footnote. There's more power available than we could ever use in any reasonable time frame. So even if the 'loss' is 90 percent, simply build a bigger system so that the 10 percent we do get covers our needs.
On top of that, when you can use the energy to power the energy capture system, now your system literally is self sustaining.
That's exactly backwards. Thanks to special relativity, the faster they go, the slower time is passing on earth relative to them.
No you have it backwards. As they approach c their time slows down so that c stays c. Meanwhile on earth time is moving along at 'normal' rates which is much faster than on the ship that is going near c.
The colony ship would only find themselves to have experienced less time than what had passed on earth if they decided to turn around and come back.
Yes because all relativity effects are only felt on the way back. Facepalm. perhaps you meant they would only realize (as in see it firsthand) the time difference when they returned to earth, but they have indeed experienced less time regardless of whether they go back or not.
I agree that tons of cheaply made useless apps only lessen the value of a platforms app market, but really what you end up with is Apple's subjective selection process. I guess ideally one could have a selective app section walled off for those who want a more professional user experience, outside of which would be your 'unapproved' fart apps etc. Of course they would have to add some value to the creators for placing them inside the wall, but thats up to RIM to decide what it would like to offer I guess.
I disagree that tons of cheaply made apps diminishes value. Having *only* those cheapos would decrease value, but as long as you have a robust market with useful apps, what the rest of the store is made of should be irrelevant.
I would say that a truly 'open' app store is more of a selling point than one that filters things arbitrarily. As you said, having a 'approved' section and then the wild west would be a reasonable compromise.
Saying "We don't want that" is trying to tell 'me' what I do and do not want.
1. noob
2. user 3. 'expert' who *knows* they won't get busted
4. actual expert who knows that any precaution is not fool proof and it's best not to proclaim how much better they are than others.
NoScript is an absolute must have for anyone who knows what they are doing.
However, for the tech luddites it can *really* mess things up for them. The solution of course is to have the non-techy always browse at absolute minimum permissions so at least some of the damage can be mitigated when IE engages in its hopelessly condom free visits to the porn sites.
I wonder if it has a 'stop most bad things' type of stuff that some web and google click preventers have?
Slashdot Mirror
And when they don't have the "FULL COSTS", they'll selectively make up costs in order to make the math come out the way they want.
I'll happily be against completely made up numbers, but we are seeing effects from the CO2 emissions. How would you suggest we factor in those effects in terms of costs? especially when the effects are backloaded 20-100 years from now. Do we wait until they fully realize themselves when it will be more expensive to deal with? or pay a little more now to head off that scenario?
Precisely my point - taxation doesn't actually equate to paying for the costs of pollution, but it *does* artificially inflate the costs of the 'polluting stuff'.
That is the point. Make the polluting stuff less affordable so people switch to the renewable. The polluting stuff is going up in price anyway since it is not renewable *and* has what we currently believe are significantly bad effects.
(Never mind that renewable sources pollute too, but that pollution is out of sight, out of mind, and doesn't matter - because the goal isn't to reduce pollution, it's to force a predetermined outcome into being.)
And what might those sources be? the cost to manufacture the renewable solar panels or other renewable infrastructure like wind mills, etc? That is offset by the cost to build coal/nuclear/natural gas plants.
Is it a 1:1 offset? probably debatable. Even so, the cost to build the system is far and away lower than the cost of the fuel that the system uses.
Construction/maintenance are costs that both systems have. The renewable system just has no ongoing output from the processing of fuel.
Where?
I'll have to take this one back, the elitist comment from you came after my salvo.
Even if we assume what you're saying, you're good with human kind being reduced to 1000 breeding pairs again? Where did I say that? What credible study has suggested that's going to happen?
Your Toba article calls out the 1000 breeding pairs.
Does it make it easier to dismiss someone when you can apply a loaded word like 'denier' to them?
Since they are in fact 'denying' that Global Warming is happening or that humans are the cause, yes Denier is a perfectly valid descriptor. Does it apply to you? seems to fit reasonably well enough. You did say nothing happening now is cause for concern, which is denying that something dangerous is going on. Hence denier.
You seem to be good at putting words in my mouth and making up shit that I never said.
Like your statement that I said the earth was a static environment?
So I'll go with 3 out of 4 points in my favor.
you started the name calling ;-)
I will grant you the ice age. Of course I asked for examples of what is happening now and none of them comes close, even Toba since the vast bulk of that effect was being too much particulates in the atmosphere causing cooling. We simply haven't *ever* dealt with what we're dealing with now.
Even if we assume what you're saying, you're good with human kind being reduced to 1000 breeding pairs again? I'm guessing most people would not be ok with that little detail in you examples.
Your point that things have happened before so we should just accept it is nice, but irrelevant. It's like saying that because I've walked down a 100 ft mountain that falling 100 ft should be the same problem. As they say, it's not the fall that kills you, it's the stop. Things are happening much much faster than anything in recorded geologic history.
'tipping point', you mean like a 'feedback loop'? Another favorite point of deniers like yourself is that water vapor is much more of a global warming gas and that isn't changing. This is true. But if you heat the planet a little with CO2 increase, the water vapor amplifies that effect significantly. Hence a tipping point when it begins to change to a runaway heating scenario.
Likewise, methane hydrates house massive amounts of the gas in the deep oceans. As oceans warm even a few degrees, this may come out of solution and into the atmosphere speeding even more warming since methane is something like 21 times worse than CO2 as a green house gas. Doesn't last as long, but short term (a decade) it can be pretty devastating in large enough amounts.
You still seem to be saying 'we couldnt possibly affect the entire earth' despite evidence that we are starting to do just that.
As opposed to your 'well its impossible so we just ignore it' attitude?
Never claimed Earth was a static environment. It has, however, been remarkably stable since our species has existed.
By dumping in so much carbon from outside the 'natural' processes, you don't think that's going to cause any issue? like rising sea levels, melting glaciers for instance? or do you want to wait until the tipping point is past before trying to mitigate what we're doing?
From your head in the sand ostrich positions, logic and science do certainly look elitist...
Unknown and impossible to quantify, but thanks for playing.
I assume you don't use planes since flying was once impossible for people? We have a pretty damned good idea that fossil fuel use is causing changes in the world. While an *exact* accounting may not be possible, it is possible to say 'this is bad' and encourage people to move to other forms of technology. Heck, even the Pentagon is trying to get off fossil fuels; or are they just green hippies too?
You mean the stuff that I'm breathing out right now? Good luck with that.
No I mean the CO2 from millions of years that is being released over the course of a couple hundred years. It tends to have effects on the equilibrium when you push a million years of effect into a single century.
Your 'output' is part of the normal and natural cycle, just like leaves growing and falling off the trees. You took in that carbon during the same timeframe you're outputing it so there is no measurable change in the system.
Thank you for playing 'be the idiot'! you're doing great!
From a moral argument it is indefensible, no argument there.
From a duty to their paying customers, if they lost either staff or equipment fighting a fire that they weren't on the hook to fight, what do you tell the people for whom they are responsible when they don't have the ability to respond anymore?
or without the BS spin from the anti-environmentalists:
Environmentalists want the FULL COSTS of fossil fuel use to be included when comparing the prices. What is the cost of releasing all the CO2 into the air? You tax the polluting stuff versus rebating the non-polluting stuff to encourage adoption until the actual costs of the pollution can be incorporated.
This does mean that renewable energy is never going to cost as cheap as current fossil fuel prices. That much is agreed. What the anti-environment won't tell you is that fossil fuel costs are only going up as supplies and pollutions effects are realized into higher costs.
yeah but it literally took more energy to *take them down* than it took to leave them there. It was a political statement pure and simple.
As a Upstate NY native who lives in DC, one thing that happens here much more frequently is icing. Which is decidedly nastier to deal with than snow.
When they rebuilt the major interchange known as the Mixing Bowl with 50 flyover ramps...for budget reasons they didn't install any de-icing ability. "We'll just run salt trucks" was the mantra. First major ice storm hit and oopsie the trucks didn't run.
The drivers here aren't the best, especially when you swap them out ever 4-8 years so nobody gets to learn. But the biggest problem by far is the lack of knowledge from the people tasked with clearing the roads during the storms and weather. And the major lack of equipment to do the jobs properly doesn't help either.
Sometimes shutting down a city is literally a better/safer/cheaper option than trying to do a half-arsed job with not enough equipment.
Interesting but off the point. Your example is one where they do have agreements between the towns. "Everything from central heating to postal delivery is centrally coordinated"
My question involved responding to something outside of their jurisdiction.
uh, you price the 'not covered' fee according to the bankruptcy factor. It doesn't have to have anything to do with the normal prepaid fee.
According to other posters, the man was contacted both in writing and by phone prior to the fire asking if he really truly didn't want coverage.
A court could see that as reasonable effort by the city to cover the man and when the situation occurred count them as mitigating circumstances of the 'duress'.
To put it in your perspective, should a Swedish fire company cross the border and put out a Finnish house fire?
that's just being pedantic. This is a thought experiment about covering people outside of your jurisdiction.
But to your point, what if the Finnish services couldn't get there? what should the Swedish system do?
For starters, we're on the same side of this. The guy's a moron and deserved what happened.
To your points:
Bankruptcy is a factor in the 'business plan' of the service. You estimate how many you'll have that file for bankruptcy and price things accordingly; that's just standard business practice so nothing new or unexpected here.
Contract under duress is certainly a reasonable concern. The fact that the town warned him in writing and then actually called him about it would be pretty damning circumstances in a court of law. He willingly chose not to have a small preventative service and then when he needed it reneged on the contract he would have in theory signed under duress. That's a nuance that a decent lawyer would be able to argue as well.
Trust me, I'm much closer to your system than the one we have here ;-)
In your case, everybody pays in for universal coverage and so everyone is covered.
To put it in your perspective, should a Swedish fire company cross the border and put out a Finnish house fire? Unless there is an agreement between Sweden and Finland for such action, isn't that outside the responsibility (legal, not ethically) of the Swedish fire company?
You don't put out the fire until the owner *signs* a document stating that they will pay.
When they don't pay, you take them to court and sue them for it.
Actually the *best* way to ensure payment of the prepayment is education that the 'postpayment' will be ridiculously high.
The difference here is that these areas aren't covered under the city's charter. They are simply providing a service to people who otherwise have *no* fire protection. If people don't want to pay it, that's fine, but they get what happened here.
As I mentioned in my other post on this thread, this guy's own son had a fire and hadn't paid the free. That time they cut the son some slack and put out the fire.
If, after your own son's house catches fire, you *forget* to pay your fire service fee - sorry, Darwin is working closely here.
When the guy can't pay the fine what then?
How about when the fee is due, i.e. *before* the fire, the person unable to pay actually contacts the city and works out some sort of agreement. Rather than waiting for the emergency to deal with it?
What makes this worse is this guys own son had the exact same situation happen and they cut the son some slack. Yet he claims he *forgot* about the fee? Not buying that explanation. It speaks of willful denial to not pay a fee until you actually need the protection; which doesn't work for 'insurance' types of services. They need constant payments so they are able to react when an emergency happens. It can't be retroactive unless it's a massive 'right now emergency' fee situation; like 1000x the normal fee.
Uh, sure they do. It's just a different 'fee'.
Preventative fire fee: $75.
Urgent right now fire fee: $10000.
Case closed.
how the heck do you get the power back to the ground? You'll lose a lot of power during transmission from satellite to ground.
The beauty of systems with 'free/unlimited' fuel is that their efficiency is just a small footnote. There's more power available than we could ever use in any reasonable time frame. So even if the 'loss' is 90 percent, simply build a bigger system so that the 10 percent we do get covers our needs.
On top of that, when you can use the energy to power the energy capture system, now your system literally is self sustaining.
That's exactly backwards. Thanks to special relativity, the faster they go, the slower time is passing on earth relative to them.
No you have it backwards. As they approach c their time slows down so that c stays c. Meanwhile on earth time is moving along at 'normal' rates which is much faster than on the ship that is going near c.
The colony ship would only find themselves to have experienced less time than what had passed on earth if they decided to turn around and come back.
Yes because all relativity effects are only felt on the way back. Facepalm. perhaps you meant they would only realize (as in see it firsthand) the time difference when they returned to earth, but they have indeed experienced less time regardless of whether they go back or not.
I agree that tons of cheaply made useless apps only lessen the value of a platforms app market, but really what you end up with is Apple's subjective selection process. I guess ideally one could have a selective app section walled off for those who want a more professional user experience, outside of which would be your 'unapproved' fart apps etc. Of course they would have to add some value to the creators for placing them inside the wall, but thats up to RIM to decide what it would like to offer I guess.
I disagree that tons of cheaply made apps diminishes value. Having *only* those cheapos would decrease value, but as long as you have a robust market with useful apps, what the rest of the store is made of should be irrelevant.
I would say that a truly 'open' app store is more of a selling point than one that filters things arbitrarily. As you said, having a 'approved' section and then the wild west would be a reasonable compromise.
Saying "We don't want that" is trying to tell 'me' what I do and do not want.
how in the fsck is this flamebait? lol
lets see the rankings:
1. noob
2. user
3. 'expert' who *knows* they won't get busted
4. actual expert who knows that any precaution is not fool proof and it's best not to proclaim how much better they are than others.
See the bold mirror moron
NoScript is an absolute must have for anyone who knows what they are doing.
However, for the tech luddites it can *really* mess things up for them. The solution of course is to have the non-techy always browse at absolute minimum permissions so at least some of the damage can be mitigated when IE engages in its hopelessly condom free visits to the porn sites.
I wonder if it has a 'stop most bad things' type of stuff that some web and google click preventers have?