It never ceases to amaze me that peopel make the argument that somehow the profits to be made from promoting a "global warming agenda" eclipse the profits and therefore dominate the national interests of the fossil fuel industry.
Why is that amazing? The numbers are huge on both sides. And given that we are seeing record profits for the oil companies at the same time that we're seeing this global warming hysteria, it reminds me that profit from each ideological approach is not mutually exclusive!
Let say science is 90% confident that a comet is going to crash on the earth
How big is this comet? We already know Earth gets hit by comets frequently (meaning we're already 100% confident that a comet will crash on Earth). And of course, we're ignoring the unscientific exaggerations of comet impact likelihood and harm which would accompany this prediction.
Man made climate change is happening. Are we 100% confident? No, but close enough so that we should live accordingly. Again, is the science 100% settled? No. But while we continue research on the matter, there is no reason not to act.
Where's the analysis of the relative costs and benefits of acting and not acting? Not acting has substantial benefits with respect to dealing with future global warming while acting has both substantial present day harm and not very impressive future benefits even if global warming is as bad as claimed.
This "we have to do something" impulse is also stupid. For example, you will die at some point. But if you kill yourself now, you won't die at any point in the future. It fixes the problem of dying in the future far more completely than any alternative method. Since we have to do something now, killing yourself is the obvious choice for best approach.
I think this is why climate alarmism will ultimately fail. You say things about an AC which are clearly untrue. The AC didn't say those things, you did.
And if we use that graph you linked as our "trend" (ignoring that 1970 is not a good starting point because it's near a local minimum), then we see around 1.5 C heating from 2000 to 2100. That currently is much less than the forecasts are projecting (2 C being a bare minimum and 4 C being the most common prediction).
This is effectively what you would be doing by handing over your password.
It's just like handing over keys to a storage cabinet you own. There's no Fifth Amendment protection here. You aren't being forced to testify against yourself.
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, such as forcing a student to hand over a password to a Facebook account or a key to a storage cabinet without a warrant.
I see only one reason to elaborate further. We have almost sixteen more years of experience demonstrating the problems with AC posting. I don't consider AC posting terrible enough to ban, but you are ignoring some really obvious problems.
Every time the National Guard is called in to put down disturbance, that's a violation of the constitution which does not permit the military to be used against the citizenry.
The state governments are not subject to the same rules as the federal government. And the National Guard are elements of the US military that belong to the states.
Because I can't tell any of you apart from the trolls, shills, and other vermin that skitter through these halls. If you have a pseudonym, I can with some pain, search through your previous posts and decide if you're on the level or not. I figure a person who cranks out more than half a dozen similar posts probably isn't faking it, that takes too much work for the usual troll.
But a one-time AC post? There's far less effort involved.
I notice in your link that most of the posts that were highly rated, were posted by people with an account. It's not that hard to set up an account just to post an anonymous message.
Here, the customs and practices are that it depends on whether company resources were used. If no company resources were used and the contract doesn't mandate transfer of ownership of that class of IP, then the company has no claim.
ut how is the US any better? Is Europe any better?
You could always read the article to answer these questions you have. Nakamura describes some relevant differences between the Japanese and US approaches.
In the US, your employee contract will state that everything you invent is property of the company.
Unless you didn't sign a contract like that. Enshrining something in law is a whole lot different than a contractual matter that may not be in your contract.
I believe the expectations may have been a bit less lofty than that. The internet doesn't do sarcasm very well, but I believe there may have been a bit of rolling of the eyes with that rhetorical question.
You need to read the article. It *might* be $2.6 billion, but only for completely new drugs that are not modifications of other drugs AND it did not involve any public research (such as using prior public university research) AND it was not tax deductable. Might as well be developing a vaccine for unicorn farts if that is how you determine an "average" cost.
I notice a couple of things. First, I don't see any actual disagreement with my post. Second, public research is not free research. Instead, it's another form of cost inflation since public research is notoriously more expensive than focused private research.
Ok, sure. But given the prevailing wind patterns, wiping out Israel with nukes would not have favorable "fallout" for Iran.
Depends on what they think the costs and benefits are. But fallout from a few small nuclear bombs just isn't that much of a cost on its own, especially when you're not going to get that much in the way of fallout.
...with estimates ranging from $161 million to $1.8 billion...
That's a far cry from $2.6 Billion.
I understand this sort of costing depends on the difficulty of the research, whether you're accounting for failure rate, and whether you choose to include time value (of money and other things). Sounds like if you're research new drugs with novel chemistry, it's going to be around that $2.6 billion number after accounting for time value. If you're researching a slight variation of a drug you already have, especially if you're just changing it minimally in order to preserve a patent, then that's going to be vastly cheaper.
Because even the flimsy pseudonym approach introduces reputation-based mechanics. There are several factors. First, you have to know the password to the account or some exploit of the posting system in order to post to a particular pseudonym.
Second, it introduces correlation. Someone who posts crap about this North Korea story is going to have more trouble in any other conversations they have.
Third, it creates a bit of psychological attachment to the pseudonym. Why do things like karma or achievements even work in the slightest?
You'd need a linguist that can understand the language in question.
Which is pretty much every linguist without a hearing impairment and a lot of people without a linguist education. "can understand" is not the same thing as "currently understands".
Again, I don't see the problem. Unemployment is only a problem in a free market, if you have a static neverchanging distribution of labor. Then it means you have someone who is permanently unemployable. Else, they just find a job and cease to be part of a "problem". Conversely, if people are routinely transitioning between jobs, then in a system which is not perfectly efficient, they will have bouts of unemployment between the employment.
As I said labor comes with a fixed cost, as it needs workers to stay alive and be renewed. Latest neoclassic theory therefore teach us that labor cannot be a free market. As a consequence a market that involves labor will be "tainted" by that problem too.
And if the fixed cost of living is far below the value of labor, which is the case through human society, then we are close enough to free market to ignore that condition.
Even if we don't ignore that, it still doesn't materially affect the market itself or how it works, but rather the behavior of the participant breaks assumptions made about the behavior of the participant (particularly profit maximization and mobility of factors).
Do you mean overproduction crisis do not happen, or that they are not caused by a weak demand?
Well, obviously overproduction can also be caused by strong supply. That's actually the normal route for overproduction. And once again, non-market forces can lead to considerable "crises" in this area, such as the permanent, subsidized "crisis" of excess food production throughout the world or current rare earth production in China.
I do not deny that some free market exist, and that neoclassic theory predicting maximum efficiency may have some ground there. Wholesale raw material market is an example. I just disagree with the idea that this theory can be applied to any market. Latest neoclassic economists themselves demonstrated it was not true.
Except that didn't actually happen. As I noted before, mathematical proofs are hard to do. And they generally require a lot of simplifying assumptions in order to get a limited answer that is perfectly, always correct.
In the real world, we can create a mostly free market that is by definition a perturbation of the ideal free market and get something that comes close to the behavior and dynamics of the ideal. I believe it is deeply flawed reasoning to take any deviation from the ideal free market as a sufficient condition to void the model.
There's already hundreds of millions or billions of tons of U238 in the natural environment - where do you think it all came from?
So what? It's not universally mixed throughout the environment. One will still be able to see a spike in uranium 238 in sediment from coal burning and enhanced erosion of certain forests.
Nobody said anything about forcing people to do anything.
It's just strongly implied. I've played this game before. You have a problem which you claim is solely due to people behaving in a way you don't like and for which the only stated solution is to change their behavior. Force is automatically implied.
If you really don't understand the difference between Africa and a prison
Slashdot Mirror
I see a unmet need for my car sounding like a unlicensed nuclear accelerator. "Switch me on".
Another alternative explanation is that AGW and the harm coming from it exist, but are grossly exaggerated.
which by most standards, means we're doing just fine.
Yay, for ISLE. Most standards are pretty lousy when it comes to publicly held debt.
It never ceases to amaze me that peopel make the argument that somehow the profits to be made from promoting a "global warming agenda" eclipse the profits and therefore dominate the national interests of the fossil fuel industry.
Why is that amazing? The numbers are huge on both sides. And given that we are seeing record profits for the oil companies at the same time that we're seeing this global warming hysteria, it reminds me that profit from each ideological approach is not mutually exclusive!
Let say science is 90% confident that a comet is going to crash on the earth
How big is this comet? We already know Earth gets hit by comets frequently (meaning we're already 100% confident that a comet will crash on Earth). And of course, we're ignoring the unscientific exaggerations of comet impact likelihood and harm which would accompany this prediction.
Man made climate change is happening. Are we 100% confident? No, but close enough so that we should live accordingly. Again, is the science 100% settled? No. But while we continue research on the matter, there is no reason not to act.
Where's the analysis of the relative costs and benefits of acting and not acting? Not acting has substantial benefits with respect to dealing with future global warming while acting has both substantial present day harm and not very impressive future benefits even if global warming is as bad as claimed.
This "we have to do something" impulse is also stupid. For example, you will die at some point. But if you kill yourself now, you won't die at any point in the future. It fixes the problem of dying in the future far more completely than any alternative method. Since we have to do something now, killing yourself is the obvious choice for best approach.
Are humans causing a climate change that will cause us considerable harm?
The answer is an obvious "yes", but via things like desertification, deforestation, and resource mismanagement not global warming.
I think this is why climate alarmism will ultimately fail. You say things about an AC which are clearly untrue. The AC didn't say those things, you did.
And if we use that graph you linked as our "trend" (ignoring that 1970 is not a good starting point because it's near a local minimum), then we see around 1.5 C heating from 2000 to 2100. That currently is much less than the forecasts are projecting (2 C being a bare minimum and 4 C being the most common prediction).
Who really wants to end the world in Chicago?
This is effectively what you would be doing by handing over your password.
It's just like handing over keys to a storage cabinet you own. There's no Fifth Amendment protection here. You aren't being forced to testify against yourself.
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, such as forcing a student to hand over a password to a Facebook account or a key to a storage cabinet without a warrant.
The same can be said of pretty much any industry which isn't well regulated or well unionised
The same can be said of well regulated or well unionized industries.
So again I ask: why?
I see only one reason to elaborate further. We have almost sixteen more years of experience demonstrating the problems with AC posting. I don't consider AC posting terrible enough to ban, but you are ignoring some really obvious problems.
Every time the National Guard is called in to put down disturbance, that's a violation of the constitution which does not permit the military to be used against the citizenry.
The state governments are not subject to the same rules as the federal government. And the National Guard are elements of the US military that belong to the states.
Why turn ACs into a group of social outcasts?
Because I can't tell any of you apart from the trolls, shills, and other vermin that skitter through these halls. If you have a pseudonym, I can with some pain, search through your previous posts and decide if you're on the level or not. I figure a person who cranks out more than half a dozen similar posts probably isn't faking it, that takes too much work for the usual troll.
But a one-time AC post? There's far less effort involved.
I notice in your link that most of the posts that were highly rated, were posted by people with an account. It's not that hard to set up an account just to post an anonymous message.
Here, the customs and practices are that it depends on whether company resources were used. If no company resources were used and the contract doesn't mandate transfer of ownership of that class of IP, then the company has no claim.
ut how is the US any better? Is Europe any better?
You could always read the article to answer these questions you have. Nakamura describes some relevant differences between the Japanese and US approaches.
In the US, your employee contract will state that everything you invent is property of the company.
Unless you didn't sign a contract like that. Enshrining something in law is a whole lot different than a contractual matter that may not be in your contract.
You expect actual justice? In THIS modern world?!
I believe the expectations may have been a bit less lofty than that. The internet doesn't do sarcasm very well, but I believe there may have been a bit of rolling of the eyes with that rhetorical question.
You need to read the article. It *might* be $2.6 billion, but only for completely new drugs that are not modifications of other drugs AND it did not involve any public research (such as using prior public university research) AND it was not tax deductable. Might as well be developing a vaccine for unicorn farts if that is how you determine an "average" cost.
I notice a couple of things. First, I don't see any actual disagreement with my post. Second, public research is not free research. Instead, it's another form of cost inflation since public research is notoriously more expensive than focused private research.
Ok, sure. But given the prevailing wind patterns, wiping out Israel with nukes would not have favorable "fallout" for Iran.
Depends on what they think the costs and benefits are. But fallout from a few small nuclear bombs just isn't that much of a cost on its own, especially when you're not going to get that much in the way of fallout.
...with estimates ranging from $161 million to $1.8 billion...
That's a far cry from $2.6 Billion.
I understand this sort of costing depends on the difficulty of the research, whether you're accounting for failure rate, and whether you choose to include time value (of money and other things). Sounds like if you're research new drugs with novel chemistry, it's going to be around that $2.6 billion number after accounting for time value. If you're researching a slight variation of a drug you already have, especially if you're just changing it minimally in order to preserve a patent, then that's going to be vastly cheaper.
Because even the flimsy pseudonym approach introduces reputation-based mechanics. There are several factors. First, you have to know the password to the account or some exploit of the posting system in order to post to a particular pseudonym.
Second, it introduces correlation. Someone who posts crap about this North Korea story is going to have more trouble in any other conversations they have.
Third, it creates a bit of psychological attachment to the pseudonym. Why do things like karma or achievements even work in the slightest?
You'd need a linguist that can understand the language in question.
Which is pretty much every linguist without a hearing impairment and a lot of people without a linguist education. "can understand" is not the same thing as "currently understands".
That is the initial neoclassic response to the problem of unemployment. The condition that there is no production fixed cost was added to the neoclassic theory later (Kenneth Arrow & Gérard Debreu). You can easily understand the problem: in neoclassic theory, demand and supply meet each other at the optimal point. But if there are fixed production costs, producers cannot stand adjustments that drop the market price below that cost.
Again, I don't see the problem. Unemployment is only a problem in a free market, if you have a static neverchanging distribution of labor. Then it means you have someone who is permanently unemployable. Else, they just find a job and cease to be part of a "problem". Conversely, if people are routinely transitioning between jobs, then in a system which is not perfectly efficient, they will have bouts of unemployment between the employment.
As I said labor comes with a fixed cost, as it needs workers to stay alive and be renewed. Latest neoclassic theory therefore teach us that labor cannot be a free market. As a consequence a market that involves labor will be "tainted" by that problem too.
And if the fixed cost of living is far below the value of labor, which is the case through human society, then we are close enough to free market to ignore that condition.
Even if we don't ignore that, it still doesn't materially affect the market itself or how it works, but rather the behavior of the participant breaks assumptions made about the behavior of the participant (particularly profit maximization and mobility of factors).
Do you mean overproduction crisis do not happen, or that they are not caused by a weak demand?
Well, obviously overproduction can also be caused by strong supply. That's actually the normal route for overproduction. And once again, non-market forces can lead to considerable "crises" in this area, such as the permanent, subsidized "crisis" of excess food production throughout the world or current rare earth production in China.
I do not deny that some free market exist, and that neoclassic theory predicting maximum efficiency may have some ground there. Wholesale raw material market is an example. I just disagree with the idea that this theory can be applied to any market. Latest neoclassic economists themselves demonstrated it was not true.
Except that didn't actually happen. As I noted before, mathematical proofs are hard to do. And they generally require a lot of simplifying assumptions in order to get a limited answer that is perfectly, always correct.
In the real world, we can create a mostly free market that is by definition a perturbation of the ideal free market and get something that comes close to the behavior and dynamics of the ideal. I believe it is deeply flawed reasoning to take any deviation from the ideal free market as a sufficient condition to void the model.
There's already hundreds of millions or billions of tons of U238 in the natural environment - where do you think it all came from?
So what? It's not universally mixed throughout the environment. One will still be able to see a spike in uranium 238 in sediment from coal burning and enhanced erosion of certain forests.
Nobody said anything about forcing people to do anything.
It's just strongly implied. I've played this game before. You have a problem which you claim is solely due to people behaving in a way you don't like and for which the only stated solution is to change their behavior. Force is automatically implied.
If you really don't understand the difference between Africa and a prison
"IF".