Well, but if you are outraged now that you know, that doesn't change the fact that during the period of the previous statement of "Sweden is better because of the mooses!" this WAS going on in Sweden. So, either it wasn't important that it was going on (in other words, Sweden wasn't fascist even though they did it), or it is important and the citizens of Sweden were being personally affected in some way (that was so important that they couldn't tell).
After all, he gave the druggy son just as great a reward as the good son.
Did he? Reread the end of the story, what the father says to the faithful son. The druggy son gets a party, and is allowed to live under the roof. The good son get all that his father has...
If God is our father and we are here to learn to be like him, then some are going to be better at that than others. Let's say you have two kids - one is dutiful, always listens, and is completely trustworthy. The other is a druggy, always take the easy way out, etc. Now you are retiring and you want to leave the family business to one of them. Obviously, you choose the dutiful one. The other one believes that you are leaving him in hell - but really, he just made his own hell.
I don't think God sends people to hell for the most part - he just elevates people out of it.
1. None of the privates have reached orbit. I think that in the next month that spacex will do so, but no guarentee.
Um, hello? Orbital Sciences? Pegasus?
Just because they now are firmly with the government does not change the fact that they started private and "small". They started private, successfully launched Pegasus into LEO, and now do launches for the government.
A common misconception. Space is a place, a destination. Orbit (LEO) is a velocity, without any reference to place. LEO is possible at 100km, but would be very short-lived.
Quick reference from yarchive.net/space:
Anything above 1000 km will stay up for 100+ years...
At lower altitudes there's a nice set of rules of thumb...
At 100km your orbit lasts about an hour. At 150km your orbit lasts about a day. At 200km your orbit lasts about a week. At 250km your orbit lasts about a month. At 300km your orbit lasts about a quarter. At 350km your orbit lasts a bit under a year.
To be honest, my first thought when I read this was: "Did someone just spam slashdot?"
Imagine: 1. Sell short on Intel and AMD shares. 2. Post Slashdot story about price war between Intel and AMD. 3. Watch as the share prices fall and your profit goes up!
So, it is not environmentalists who are responsible for those regulations, it is politicians and bureaucrats.
OK, I can see how you would think that. But I believe that you are responsible for even the unforseen/unwanted effects of what you have done. Absent environmentalists, these dumb laws would not have been passed - but they were passed. Environmentalists must take on that blame - blaming politicians doesn't work, they are a known entity and there reaction was predictable. If the environmentalists really wanted to avoid this outcome, they could have.
create incentives for the conservation of resources, and punish waste
Well, I kind of agree with this - except that when the government does these things, they never seem to turn out right. Governments are reasonably good at enforcing/following a plan. They are terrible at creating/optimizing a plan. So if you want the government to do it right, tell them exactly what you want, with clear delineations. For example, is my rocket a waste? Why or why not? (It does use up some fuel resources, but does not noticably change the environment) Personally, I think government involvement should be limmitted to the gross problems like wholesale pollution of rivers, etc. But where do you draw the line? As I have said, currently the line was drawn as "anything that involves the government (such as flight licensing) must include an environmental assessment", which lead to enough problems that the meaning was removed (no one ever fails their assessment) but the cost remains (you still have to do the assessment). By anyone's reasoning, this is the worst of both worlds - destruction of economy and destruction of environment.
I am not worried about people choosing to buy efficient cars, or people choosing to pollute less. I am concerned with the people that are running for office on these issues, or that are lobbying on these issues. Those are the people that want to destroy my dreams.
(And all that said, I walk to work and hardly ever drive anywhere. But that is my choice, and the government is never here to help.
First, let me point out that I am not the original poster - I think you had me confused with someone else.
Why do you think that?...
So you take my perception of reality and tell me that I am wrong because I am dumb. Very convincing...
The evironmentalists I hear about all want to legislate a solution - forcing treaties, laws, etc. I think any law on the environment makes things worse, not better. For example, one of the most expensive part of a rocket launch is filling out the environmental impact assessment. You are never denied for it (so it does the environment no good at all), but you must spend a few million on it. I want to build rockets. Environmentalists are in my way. Therefore, environmentalists are anti-technology (at least for me).
scientists want people to be miserable is totally stupid
That would have really hurt my feelings if I had every said that...
And noone lives in Canada - it is an illusion;-}
what's the big deal about "property values"? Surely quality of life, and sustainability of living is more important
Ah, but is not the quality of life captured by the property values? Why do you think Florida is so expensive? (If anyone cared about sustainability, noone would live in huricane zones.)
the economy stands to suffer a lot more if global warming and pollution issues aren't tackled.
But an economist reads this sentence as "the economy will not let GW and pollution remain untackled" whereas a politician reads this as "I must tackle this for the economy." Let the economy sort this out as much as possible - the economy is much smarter than politicians.
Most politicians have just been full of shit, because they pump this propaganda
Explain to me that I will not need to spend millions on an environmental assessment for my rocket and then I will believe that environmentalists are not anti-tech. Until then, their actions speak for them.
Really, if you don't think they are anti-progress - what do you think the propper action for politicians is? What should Gore do - what laws do you think he should pass?
If you don't think he should pass any laws, but merely educate, then we agree. But then you would not be an environmental activist, would you?
Better idea, we'll just kill off all the people who don't believe that global warming is strictly man made. We'll start with you. Well, since there is a "consensus" that would obviously not get enough people to resolve the problem. On the other hand if those that don't "believe that global warming is strictly man made" kill all the believers:
1) Most of the guns are owned by the "nonbelievers in AGW", so the believers couldn't really put up a fight. 2) The believers outnumber the nonbelievers so killing them actually makes a difference (its not like they aren't flying around on jets, the hippocrates). 3) And after they are dead, the nonbelievers will be right! (The effect humanity had will be reduced below the background noise.)
(On a slightly more serious note, you should remove the strictly from your claim. If all of nature stopped producing CO2, the problem would go away. What is really claimed is that the emissions by humans have changed the balance, not that humans are the only thing that matters.)
Some places will get colder, some places will get warmer.
Yeah, well, you may want to look at the data before you go any further...
There are other places with better data, but the reality of the situation is that Canada and further north get the bulk of the warming, and most of the warming everywhere is the winter getting warmer. The summers and places that are currently hot remain about the same temperature (with some exceptions). (There is a better temperature increase distribution graph that shows the entire planet - it is much more obvious on that graph, because north of Canada shows up on it.)
If anything, global warming will be solved through technology
I totally agree - technology is the answer. I think most of the people shouting about global warming would disagree though.
Do scientists feel there's some special value to being cold and miserable? (I know, this was the original poster)
I think what it comes down to is a war between people fighting for stasis and people trying to move forward. The global warming argument is a stasis argument - it is gettting warmer, and any change is inherently bad. Florida coastline propperty values will decline sharply, and that must be avoided.
The problem is that there is a flip side to the argument. Florida values decline, but Canadian values increase (like, you know, you can actually live there now...). Many people say that the right of Florida to maintain value trumps the right of Canadians to increased value - but there is no real set law/moral there. Throw in the fact that saving Florida destroys the economy (or at least puts heavy strains on it) and perhaps the answer is to allow change.
I know that many people are now saying "we don't need to do much, just make slight course adjustments in the economy." My only answer is that this is a new development, and my support for the "fix" for global warming is inversely proportional to the effect it has on the economy. Until recently, no one has been paying much attention to that - they just wanted to make all sorts of laws to tell me what I can and can't do. This new perspective is a welcome change.
We don't know enough about the environment to do something like this. What if we are on the edge of an ice age, and carbon dioxide is the only thing holding us back? Something like this would permanantly remove the CO2 - I think any viable solution would need to be reversable.
BTW, does anyone know what the proposal submission process is?
Ah - so you believe that the economy is a zero sum game, where the way you get money is by taking it from someone else. If it really was a zero sum game, the way to win would be to not play - be a farmer, and refuse to exchange your goods for paper IOUs. Why would a farmer trade food for worthless paper?
Fortunately, it is really easy to prove that the zero sum economy is false. The clasic example is a desert island, where two people live. One can fish, and one grows coconuts. In the beginning, their is no economy - guy 1 eats only fish, and guy 2 eats only coconuts. Both guys are pretty miserable about that. Then, one day the fish guy trades some fish for a coconut. Both people are better off - guy 2 values fish more than cocnuts, while guy 1 values coconuts more than fish - so the economy has more value in it than 0, where it started. Any trade in the economy creates value - otherwise people would not engage in trade!
Think about it this way - you are willing to trade your money (which really just represents some of your time) for a computer game, for example. Some other guy was willing to trade his time to create the game. He is better off, because he values money and the things it can buy more than the time he spent making the game. You are better off because you value the game more than the time it took to earn the money for the game. The CEO (or rich guy, in your example) makes money by facilitating the conversion of time into a game, but he makes less off of you than your increase in happiness from the game. (Because if he took more value than that, you wouldn't buy the game).
So everyone wins - the programmer, the CEO, and you (the consumer). For extra credit, now figure out why money should not be linked to a fixed resource, like gold... (Hint: do you want fluctuations in the value of a rare commodity to effect the value of your time?)
I think what you have just stated is that things are good now and getting better - I'm not sure how that jives with the thought that you can't get ahead. Unless you cannot be happy without someone else being sad, that is.
In addition, though I have a much smaller sample size above $50M, the same observations hold. The people are self-made, and did it by starting companies. One had a middle-income background, and one came from the projects.
In the US, you really can get ahead by starting your own company enough times that you get good at it.
In my experience, you are totally wrong - and saying that to others is incredibly damaging. If they believe you, they are less likely to try and therefore much less likely to succeed.
I know many people with wealth of over a million dollars - say about 50 of them. Of those, several came from destitute families - I can think of three right off the bat, and of course I don't know the life stories of everyone. Most came from middle class families, or at least they are currently supporting their parents (and I know that their parents had to work). Only a few (I can think of 3) came from wealthy families. Even if you choose some other cutoff, in my experience it still applies. (The two richest people I know both started from nothing and pulled themselves up) In fact, one thing that VC types look for is a history of overcoming obstacles - and coming from a poor background shows that much better than living a life of luxury.
You don't know what you are talking about. Sure, the media goes on about the spoiled brats of the wealthy families - but really, how many are there? The consider how big the US is, and how many new millionaires are made each year. The birth rate is not high enough among rich people to explain the growth in millionaires under your scenario.
What you should be telling people: If you want to get rich, start a business. It will fail, and then you start another business. Keep doing it until you learn enough to make it work. You can't get money? Then start a business that doesn't require money. The man holding you down? Move away from the man. Whatever the obstacle, overcome it. The most valuable person in the world is someone that knows how to take labor and convert it to dollars - there is a huge shortage of this type of person, and there are no prerequisites or profiles you need to match to do it.
Seriously, everyone I know that did this (and really applied themselves) is now rich. Even the guys that did not know what they were doing in the begining - if you keep going, you learn. The best time to start is right after (or during) college - you know, when eating mac and cheese still seems acceptable... and remember, the first few will fail so be prepared for that and don't let it kill you.
when it was normal to save for years for a house/car/stuff the gap was much smaller and the middle class was much larger
I wonder how much advertising/marketing had to do with this. After all, marketing has changed from "explaining how you fill a need" to "create a need and then fill it". Should marketing to certain segnments have government oversight?
(I'd say no - any government oversight is bad oversight by definition, but as you say the problem is education - and these people are getting their education from marketing departments...)
OK, first of all, the report explicitly says that the model is not working when predicting Texas, particularly for precipitation. So let's be honest and remember that this data is still being worked on. Second, I quote: "It can be seen from Fig. 5 that over UMRB: (1) increase in Tmin/Tmax is consistently 2-3K,". Since 1K=1C, I think that the report pretty much backs me up.
model predicts up to 5C warming in... Texas
I will merely point out that there are two models in the study, neither of which worked for the testable part of Texas' weather (which is admitted in the study) - and these models gave opposite predictions for Texas. I guess we just don't know about Texas.
The summer change is still nothing to sneer at
The summer change is less than 2 degrees C - and this is an average across the whole nation with most of the warming happening up north where it is cold - and of course, no to mention that this is one century from now, when we will have weather control rays operated by our mutant mental powers. Sorry, I do have to sneer at that.
I wonder how the people who live there feel about it.
Well, I'm not the one requiring a lifestyle change at gunpoint, am I? Are you saying that their right to existing weather patterns is more important than my right to live the way I want? Why is preserving the status quo (a pointless excersize, in my opinion) more important than my persuit of happiness?
if you realized what the costs would actually be
Don't scaremonger about costs. How much did it cost to relocate New Orleans? It was noticeable, but not major unless you lived there.
I hope you also don't mind the greater influx of immigrants both legal and illegal into more northern nations.
Well, this gets onto another topic altogether, but I happen to like immigration. I wish we would stop trying to shoot overselves in the foot and realize that we need them more than they need us - so we better be nice to them.
Of course, for a lot of this I am against the global warming scare on principles - I actually walk to work and hardly ever drive. I just don't think trying to force my religion on other people is very nice.
1. If you read the report, it says 2-3C change, not 5C. The northern parts of the country get the most additional heat, like I said. (If you look at a global distribution, this is far more obvious). There is an exception - it looks like eastern Texas will get warmer acording to one model, but not acording to the other. Obviously, the error bars are rather large on this research at this point.
2. If you even make a cursury glance at the seasonal data, you will see that the winters are far warmer than the summers - almost double. So the cold winters in the cold parts of the world get warmer, and the hot summers in the hot parts of the world are relatively unchanged.
Why is this a bad thing? I would gladly pay to relocate all the people in Bangladesh or Florida is it means that 75% of the country becomes a nicer place to live!
Why is noone reporting this, when it is so clear from the model's data?
This could make many hot places like Arizona and Texas, which now have August days of 120F, nigh uninhabitable.
But that is exactly my point - no studies I know of say this! They say the average will go up 6C maximum - and that the poles will melt. Think about it, the poles are going to go up above freezing from an average temperature of -15C. So the poles, call it 25% of the planet are going up 15C at least, and yet the planet as a whole only goes up 6C. The places that are currently warm or hot stay warm or hot, but the cold places get warmer.
Think about it! This is not the first time this has happened. The artic once was a paradise - there was a much lower variation in temperature from the equator to the poles.
Where is the actual, detailed data that shows this? Is it not published in the mainstream media because it would not prove the desired point?
If you are on Slashdot there is a good chance that your job is considered part of the problem. You are using energy to make stuff. You are using energy to do stuff.
I want to build rockets. Take most of humanity to the stars.
I realize that we may lose same land to the sea. But not land we care about, since if we care about it in one day a single bulldozer can make a 2 foot barrier 100 miles long. We are currently reclaiming land from the ocean when we want to! I'm saying that these problems have solutions, even simple solutions.
Further, why does no one mention that Canada will finally be a place you can live;-} ? It's not all bad - but the only thing you hear about is the bad. Most of the US actually ends up better off - the weather becomes much nicer, crops go up, etc. Yes, the coast will be hit. But then every year my taxes go to pay for the house repairs of those people who just can't figure out that a coastal home in a huricane zone is a bad idea.
I don't mind those taxes so much - but when you start to tell me that I can't do my job so that those people can keep their homes, you go too far.
Tell you what, I'll keep my job, and they can relocate. Or keep using my taxes to rebuild their house every year. Whatever. just stop trying to tell me what to do.
As I pointed out, if they are a foot and a half from disaster, then they had better change something regardless of global warming.
A foot and a half, people. Less than the size of a good kid's sandcastle can stop it. What, they have run out of labor to dig a foot and a half barrier in Bangladesh?
And since you are being a jerk about it, my life makes their lives better. Hopefully in the future, it will make it much better.
How much did you donate to charity last year? Back when I lived off a few thousand a year I still donated a portion of my income to charity... do you?
the world will be destroy most likely long after I'm dead and gone
This is what I don't understand. Since when is a 6.4C maximum possible increase going to destroy the world? Especially since most of that is the cold places getting warmer rather than the warm places getting hot?
And this whole thing about 43cm - you mean to tell me you are all worked up about a one and a half foot change in level when we have 6 foot tides?!? I mean, come on, I've seen 5 year olds build sand castles that could withstand that!
I think we did it, and it's happening. But I also think that we are much better off for having done it, and will weather the problems it creates just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, but if you are outraged now that you know, that doesn't change the fact that during the period of the previous statement of "Sweden is better because of the mooses!" this WAS going on in Sweden. So, either it wasn't important that it was going on (in other words, Sweden wasn't fascist even though they did it), or it is important and the citizens of Sweden were being personally affected in some way (that was so important that they couldn't tell).
Interesting....
After all, he gave the druggy son just as great a reward as the good son.
Did he? Reread the end of the story, what the father says to the faithful son. The druggy son gets a party, and is allowed to live under the roof. The good son get all that his father has...
Look at it this way:
If God is our father and we are here to learn to be like him, then some are going to be better at that than others. Let's say you have two kids - one is dutiful, always listens, and is completely trustworthy. The other is a druggy, always take the easy way out, etc. Now you are retiring and you want to leave the family business to one of them. Obviously, you choose the dutiful one. The other one believes that you are leaving him in hell - but really, he just made his own hell.
I don't think God sends people to hell for the most part - he just elevates people out of it.
It sounds like an open and shut case of bait and switch or false advertising to me.
Those are illegal, and will get you in big trouble with the FTC.
I guess my point was more that you are nowhere near half way there. More like 1/20th of the way, by energy spent.
1. None of the privates have reached orbit. I think that in the next month that spacex will do so, but no guarentee.
Um, hello? Orbital Sciences? Pegasus?
Just because they now are firmly with the government does not change the fact that they started private and "small". They started private, successfully launched Pegasus into LEO, and now do launches for the government.
I basically agree with the rest, though.
100km is barely halfway there
A common misconception. Space is a place, a destination. Orbit (LEO) is a velocity, without any reference to place. LEO is possible at 100km, but would be very short-lived.
Quick reference from yarchive.net/space:
Anything above 1000 km will stay up for 100+ years...
At lower altitudes there's a nice set of rules of thumb...
At 100km your orbit lasts about an hour.
At 150km your orbit lasts about a day.
At 200km your orbit lasts about a week.
At 250km your orbit lasts about a month.
At 300km your orbit lasts about a quarter.
At 350km your orbit lasts a bit under a year.
To be honest, my first thought when I read this was: "Did someone just spam slashdot?"
Imagine:
1. Sell short on Intel and AMD shares.
2. Post Slashdot story about price war between Intel and AMD.
3. Watch as the share prices fall and your profit goes up!
So, it is not environmentalists who are responsible for those regulations, it is politicians and bureaucrats.
OK, I can see how you would think that. But I believe that you are responsible for even the unforseen/unwanted effects of what you have done. Absent environmentalists, these dumb laws would not have been passed - but they were passed. Environmentalists must take on that blame - blaming politicians doesn't work, they are a known entity and there reaction was predictable. If the environmentalists really wanted to avoid this outcome, they could have.
create incentives for the conservation of resources, and punish waste
Well, I kind of agree with this - except that when the government does these things, they never seem to turn out right. Governments are reasonably good at enforcing/following a plan. They are terrible at creating/optimizing a plan. So if you want the government to do it right, tell them exactly what you want, with clear delineations. For example, is my rocket a waste? Why or why not? (It does use up some fuel resources, but does not noticably change the environment) Personally, I think government involvement should be limmitted to the gross problems like wholesale pollution of rivers, etc. But where do you draw the line? As I have said, currently the line was drawn as "anything that involves the government (such as flight licensing) must include an environmental assessment", which lead to enough problems that the meaning was removed (no one ever fails their assessment) but the cost remains (you still have to do the assessment). By anyone's reasoning, this is the worst of both worlds - destruction of economy and destruction of environment.
I am not worried about people choosing to buy efficient cars, or people choosing to pollute less. I am concerned with the people that are running for office on these issues, or that are lobbying on these issues. Those are the people that want to destroy my dreams.
(And all that said, I walk to work and hardly ever drive anywhere. But that is my choice, and the government is never here to help.
First, let me point out that I am not the original poster - I think you had me confused with someone else.
...
;-}
Why do you think that?
So you take my perception of reality and tell me that I am wrong because I am dumb. Very convincing...
The evironmentalists I hear about all want to legislate a solution - forcing treaties, laws, etc. I think any law on the environment makes things worse, not better. For example, one of the most expensive part of a rocket launch is filling out the environmental impact assessment. You are never denied for it (so it does the environment no good at all), but you must spend a few million on it. I want to build rockets. Environmentalists are in my way. Therefore, environmentalists are anti-technology (at least for me).
scientists want people to be miserable is totally stupid
That would have really hurt my feelings if I had every said that...
And noone lives in Canada - it is an illusion
what's the big deal about "property values"? Surely quality of life, and sustainability of living is more important
Ah, but is not the quality of life captured by the property values? Why do you think Florida is so expensive? (If anyone cared about sustainability, noone would live in huricane zones.)
the economy stands to suffer a lot more if global warming and pollution issues aren't tackled.
But an economist reads this sentence as "the economy will not let GW and pollution remain untackled" whereas a politician reads this as "I must tackle this for the economy." Let the economy sort this out as much as possible - the economy is much smarter than politicians.
Most politicians have just been full of shit, because they pump this propaganda
Explain to me that I will not need to spend millions on an environmental assessment for my rocket and then I will believe that environmentalists are not anti-tech. Until then, their actions speak for them.
Really, if you don't think they are anti-progress - what do you think the propper action for politicians is? What should Gore do - what laws do you think he should pass?
If you don't think he should pass any laws, but merely educate, then we agree. But then you would not be an environmental activist, would you?
1) Most of the guns are owned by the "nonbelievers in AGW", so the believers couldn't really put up a fight.
2) The believers outnumber the nonbelievers so killing them actually makes a difference (its not like they aren't flying around on jets, the hippocrates).
3) And after they are dead, the nonbelievers will be right! (The effect humanity had will be reduced below the background noise.)
(On a slightly more serious note, you should remove the strictly from your claim. If all of nature stopped producing CO2, the problem would go away. What is really claimed is that the emissions by humans have changed the balance, not that humans are the only thing that matters.)
Some places will get colder, some places will get warmer.
Yeah, well, you may want to look at the data before you go any further...
There are other places with better data, but the reality of the situation is that Canada and further north get the bulk of the warming, and most of the warming everywhere is the winter getting warmer. The summers and places that are currently hot remain about the same temperature (with some exceptions). (There is a better temperature increase distribution graph that shows the entire planet - it is much more obvious on that graph, because north of Canada shows up on it.)
If anything, global warming will be solved through technology
I totally agree - technology is the answer. I think most of the people shouting about global warming would disagree though.
Do scientists feel there's some special value to being cold and miserable? (I know, this was the original poster)
I think what it comes down to is a war between people fighting for stasis and people trying to move forward. The global warming argument is a stasis argument - it is gettting warmer, and any change is inherently bad. Florida coastline propperty values will decline sharply, and that must be avoided.
The problem is that there is a flip side to the argument. Florida values decline, but Canadian values increase (like, you know, you can actually live there now...). Many people say that the right of Florida to maintain value trumps the right of Canadians to increased value - but there is no real set law/moral there. Throw in the fact that saving Florida destroys the economy (or at least puts heavy strains on it) and perhaps the answer is to allow change.
I know that many people are now saying "we don't need to do much, just make slight course adjustments in the economy." My only answer is that this is a new development, and my support for the "fix" for global warming is inversely proportional to the effect it has on the economy. Until recently, no one has been paying much attention to that - they just wanted to make all sorts of laws to tell me what I can and can't do. This new perspective is a welcome change.
We don't know enough about the environment to do something like this. What if we are on the edge of an ice age, and carbon dioxide is the only thing holding us back? Something like this would permanantly remove the CO2 - I think any viable solution would need to be reversable.
BTW, does anyone know what the proposal submission process is?
Black holes emit Hawkings radiation, and boil away to nothing eventually.
Ah - so you believe that the economy is a zero sum game, where the way you get money is by taking it from someone else. If it really was a zero sum game, the way to win would be to not play - be a farmer, and refuse to exchange your goods for paper IOUs. Why would a farmer trade food for worthless paper?
Fortunately, it is really easy to prove that the zero sum economy is false. The clasic example is a desert island, where two people live. One can fish, and one grows coconuts. In the beginning, their is no economy - guy 1 eats only fish, and guy 2 eats only coconuts. Both guys are pretty miserable about that. Then, one day the fish guy trades some fish for a coconut. Both people are better off - guy 2 values fish more than cocnuts, while guy 1 values coconuts more than fish - so the economy has more value in it than 0, where it started. Any trade in the economy creates value - otherwise people would not engage in trade!
Think about it this way - you are willing to trade your money (which really just represents some of your time) for a computer game, for example. Some other guy was willing to trade his time to create the game. He is better off, because he values money and the things it can buy more than the time he spent making the game. You are better off because you value the game more than the time it took to earn the money for the game. The CEO (or rich guy, in your example) makes money by facilitating the conversion of time into a game, but he makes less off of you than your increase in happiness from the game. (Because if he took more value than that, you wouldn't buy the game).
So everyone wins - the programmer, the CEO, and you (the consumer). For extra credit, now figure out why money should not be linked to a fixed resource, like gold... (Hint: do you want fluctuations in the value of a rare commodity to effect the value of your time?)
I think what you have just stated is that things are good now and getting better - I'm not sure how that jives with the thought that you can't get ahead. Unless you cannot be happy without someone else being sad, that is.
In addition, though I have a much smaller sample size above $50M, the same observations hold. The people are self-made, and did it by starting companies. One had a middle-income background, and one came from the projects.
In the US, you really can get ahead by starting your own company enough times that you get good at it.
In my experience, you are totally wrong - and saying that to others is incredibly damaging. If they believe you, they are less likely to try and therefore much less likely to succeed.
I know many people with wealth of over a million dollars - say about 50 of them. Of those, several came from destitute families - I can think of three right off the bat, and of course I don't know the life stories of everyone. Most came from middle class families, or at least they are currently supporting their parents (and I know that their parents had to work). Only a few (I can think of 3) came from wealthy families. Even if you choose some other cutoff, in my experience it still applies. (The two richest people I know both started from nothing and pulled themselves up) In fact, one thing that VC types look for is a history of overcoming obstacles - and coming from a poor background shows that much better than living a life of luxury.
You don't know what you are talking about. Sure, the media goes on about the spoiled brats of the wealthy families - but really, how many are there? The consider how big the US is, and how many new millionaires are made each year. The birth rate is not high enough among rich people to explain the growth in millionaires under your scenario.
What you should be telling people: If you want to get rich, start a business. It will fail, and then you start another business. Keep doing it until you learn enough to make it work. You can't get money? Then start a business that doesn't require money. The man holding you down? Move away from the man. Whatever the obstacle, overcome it. The most valuable person in the world is someone that knows how to take labor and convert it to dollars - there is a huge shortage of this type of person, and there are no prerequisites or profiles you need to match to do it.
Seriously, everyone I know that did this (and really applied themselves) is now rich. Even the guys that did not know what they were doing in the begining - if you keep going, you learn. The best time to start is right after (or during) college - you know, when eating mac and cheese still seems acceptable... and remember, the first few will fail so be prepared for that and don't let it kill you.
Be the man.
when it was normal to save for years for a house/car/stuff the gap was much smaller and the middle class was much larger
I wonder how much advertising/marketing had to do with this. After all, marketing has changed from "explaining how you fill a need" to "create a need and then fill it". Should marketing to certain segnments have government oversight?
(I'd say no - any government oversight is bad oversight by definition, but as you say the problem is education - and these people are getting their education from marketing departments...)
That's not well supported by the report...
... Texas
OK, first of all, the report explicitly says that the model is not working when predicting Texas, particularly for precipitation. So let's be honest and remember that this data is still being worked on. Second, I quote: "It can be seen from Fig. 5 that over UMRB: (1)
increase in Tmin/Tmax is consistently 2-3K,". Since 1K=1C, I think that the report pretty much backs me up.
model predicts up to 5C warming in
I will merely point out that there are two models in the study, neither of which worked for the testable part of Texas' weather (which is admitted in the study) - and these models gave opposite predictions for Texas. I guess we just don't know about Texas.
The summer change is still nothing to sneer at
The summer change is less than 2 degrees C - and this is an average across the whole nation with most of the warming happening up north where it is cold - and of course, no to mention that this is one century from now, when we will have weather control rays operated by our mutant mental powers. Sorry, I do have to sneer at that.
I wonder how the people who live there feel about it.
Well, I'm not the one requiring a lifestyle change at gunpoint, am I? Are you saying that their right to existing weather patterns is more important than my right to live the way I want? Why is preserving the status quo (a pointless excersize, in my opinion) more important than my persuit of happiness?
if you realized what the costs would actually be
Don't scaremonger about costs. How much did it cost to relocate New Orleans? It was noticeable, but not major unless you lived there.
I hope you also don't mind the greater influx of immigrants both legal and illegal into more northern nations.
Well, this gets onto another topic altogether, but I happen to like immigration. I wish we would stop trying to shoot overselves in the foot and realize that we need them more than they need us - so we better be nice to them.
Of course, for a lot of this I am against the global warming scare on principles - I actually walk to work and hardly ever drive. I just don't think trying to force my religion on other people is very nice.
Two things:
1. If you read the report, it says 2-3C change, not 5C. The northern parts of the country get the most additional heat, like I said. (If you look at a global distribution, this is far more obvious). There is an exception - it looks like eastern Texas will get warmer acording to one model, but not acording to the other. Obviously, the error bars are rather large on this research at this point.
2. If you even make a cursury glance at the seasonal data, you will see that the winters are far warmer than the summers - almost double. So the cold winters in the cold parts of the world get warmer, and the hot summers in the hot parts of the world are relatively unchanged.
Why is this a bad thing? I would gladly pay to relocate all the people in Bangladesh or Florida is it means that 75% of the country becomes a nicer place to live!
Why is noone reporting this, when it is so clear from the model's data?
This could make many hot places like Arizona and Texas, which now have August days of 120F, nigh uninhabitable.
But that is exactly my point - no studies I know of say this! They say the average will go up 6C maximum - and that the poles will melt. Think about it, the poles are going to go up above freezing from an average temperature of -15C. So the poles, call it 25% of the planet are going up 15C at least, and yet the planet as a whole only goes up 6C. The places that are currently warm or hot stay warm or hot, but the cold places get warmer.
Think about it! This is not the first time this has happened. The artic once was a paradise - there was a much lower variation in temperature from the equator to the poles.
Where is the actual, detailed data that shows this? Is it not published in the mainstream media because it would not prove the desired point?
If you are on Slashdot there is a good chance that your job is considered part of the problem. You are using energy to make stuff. You are using energy to do stuff.
I want to build rockets. Take most of humanity to the stars.
It takes a little bit of energy...
I realize that we may lose same land to the sea. But not land we care about, since if we care about it in one day a single bulldozer can make a 2 foot barrier 100 miles long. We are currently reclaiming land from the ocean when we want to! I'm saying that these problems have solutions, even simple solutions.
;-} ? It's not all bad - but the only thing you hear about is the bad. Most of the US actually ends up better off - the weather becomes much nicer, crops go up, etc. Yes, the coast will be hit. But then every year my taxes go to pay for the house repairs of those people who just can't figure out that a coastal home in a huricane zone is a bad idea.
Further, why does no one mention that Canada will finally be a place you can live
I don't mind those taxes so much - but when you start to tell me that I can't do my job so that those people can keep their homes, you go too far.
Tell you what, I'll keep my job, and they can relocate. Or keep using my taxes to rebuild their house every year. Whatever. just stop trying to tell me what to do.
(BTW, I walk to work every day anyway - do you?)
As I pointed out, if they are a foot and a half from disaster, then they had better change something regardless of global warming.
A foot and a half, people. Less than the size of a good kid's sandcastle can stop it. What, they have run out of labor to dig a foot and a half barrier in Bangladesh?
And since you are being a jerk about it, my life makes their lives better. Hopefully in the future, it will make it much better.
How much did you donate to charity last year? Back when I lived off a few thousand a year I still donated a portion of my income to charity... do you?
the world will be destroy most likely long after I'm dead and gone
This is what I don't understand. Since when is a 6.4C maximum possible increase going to destroy the world? Especially since most of that is the cold places getting warmer rather than the warm places getting hot?
And this whole thing about 43cm - you mean to tell me you are all worked up about a one and a half foot change in level when we have 6 foot tides?!? I mean, come on, I've seen 5 year olds build sand castles that could withstand that!
I think we did it, and it's happening. But I also think that we are much better off for having done it, and will weather the problems it creates just fine.