Angel investing is a huge part of the high tech industry. There's far more than enough capital just in that sector to fund solar power start ups. Oil drilling is another industry with vast amounts of angel funding (and its in the energy sector). There's nothing laughable about my assertion.
Not eating meat once a week is major economic sacrifice?
What's the benefit again? A completely irrelevant drop in the bucket of carbon emissions. What's the cost again? The morale of the Norwegian military. They get now that they're less important than some token effort in the war on climate change.
And if this were happening in isolation, it wouldn't be too bad an economic blow, but it's part of a far larger pattern of costly sacrifices for futile goals.
That's an awful lot of talk for something which happens to be totally irrelevant. Just because it happens to be the political fad to wage wars without an overt political declaration of war, doesn't change either of our arguments.
So while the GP is incorrect to say overall population will drop, more people having sex would indeed help fight global warming.
By creating problems which are more urgent and have higher social priority than global warming? Tell me how that works out.
Keep in mind that the current increases in greenhouse gases emissions are coming from the high population areas now. And if the world had a vast lower population, virtually all of the environmental impacts wouldn't be there (invasive species issues probably still would, unless there was little global traffic).
Never mind. I wasn't thinking it through. Pressure also is an indication of how many potentially heat absorbing particles are impacting a heat sink surface.
While I guess why more ionizing events stemming from neutron impacts affects electronics, I don't get the blaming of "pressure"? Perhaps they mean the reduced air cooling of electrical components from a less dense atmosphere? Someone else noted that components on the top of a rack might tend to be warmer. This might be more of the same sort of effect.
Solyndra failed because they were grossly incompetent. Read up on it sometime. And the US has a huge private sector with which to do Angle-type investments. There is no need for government action here except perhaps to knee-cap the overseas businesses that are doing the alleged "dumping" and such.
"Old school republicans and libertarians both distaste government intervention"
Correct - unless such intervention benefits them or their cronies...
I know this is hard for a lot of people to grasp. But conflicts of interest don't go away just because someone is is old school republican or libertarian. Your trust is misplaced.
I for one love the infighting in the GOP - John McCain is my hero for giving Sarah Palin a national platform and launching the deniers in the anti-intellectual Tea Party. Anti-intellectual... hmm that sounds a lot like Deutschland many years ago...
Because the Nazis were all about fiscal conservatism and the rule of law.
He floated a plan to sell oil in Euros instead of dollars...a month later US troops were toppling statues in Baghdad and he was hiding in a hole.
The landing gear were down long before the Euros for oil thing (which to be honest was a last minute bit of defiance by Hussein in the face of the oncoming invasion). I don't know if there was any one thing. I've heard settling a grudge, stopping Iraq from developing a nuclear bomb, stabilizing oil markets, creating a client state/domino theory of democracy, knocking over someone that Israel doesn't like, etc.
Well fuck it, nothing can be done. We might as well give up and prepare to die as there is no cumulative effect when combating global warming. Goodbye cruel world...
Or we could just not worry about it. That leads to two outcomes - enjoying the fruits of a technological civilization and having to deal with the mild consequences of AGW. Sounds like a good trade off to me.
China eventually is going to change just because they'll run out of easy coal and will want better air quality.
But making major economic sacrifices just so China can take control of things looks rather foolish to me. AGW just isn't that important.
Democrats put together a way out of a war and saved the economy from financial collapse.
I see people are still dying in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those wars are still ongoing.
And economically, the US hasn't done much to recover since the recession. It's worth noting here that doing nothing leads to a quicker recovery than what we're seeing in the US. Partly, it's Keynesian economics poorly applied and partly it's an administration more intent on ideology than economic recovery.
The Republicans are unique in their ability to drive a supposedly "world leading" country into a failed state hellhole for large portions of the population.
I see they aren't unique in getting blamed for other peoples' faults. Obamacare isn't the Republicans' baby. They don't own it.
I see this as another free lunch delusion. Where's the money going to come from?
That's ok. As a result, we learned that the Dear Leader and his administration are still horribly incompetent. They also lie badly.
This is what is most apt in this situation is that Republicans will claim that government doesn't work, and they prove it by fucking it over for everybody.
It's not the Republicans' jobs to fix the shit that the Democrats break. Someone who wasn't a complete idiot would have been aware, years ago, that this was going to be a problem. The Democrats own this problem.
That would be "prehistoric", unless someone left a letter describing the cool rug they got (prehistory pretty much means anything that went on before someone was writing it down). Pretty much what this thread has been yacking OT about. Pedants everywhere sigh annoyingly, while they roll their eyes in an exaggerated manner, at your base ignorance.
Or perhaps we come up with new ways of doing the same thing without using fossil fuels. Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean it's not possible.
So we'll be saved yet again by the hope-based economy? I'm not exactly counting on it.
If Obama was a private CEO, he'd be in court for both accounting fraud (accounting behind the US budget and its public presentation are notoriously fraudulent in the criminal sense) and the regular sort of fraud ("if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan").
Slashdot Mirror
Angel investing is a huge part of the high tech industry. There's far more than enough capital just in that sector to fund solar power start ups. Oil drilling is another industry with vast amounts of angel funding (and its in the energy sector). There's nothing laughable about my assertion.
Not eating meat once a week is major economic sacrifice?
What's the benefit again? A completely irrelevant drop in the bucket of carbon emissions. What's the cost again? The morale of the Norwegian military. They get now that they're less important than some token effort in the war on climate change.
And if this were happening in isolation, it wouldn't be too bad an economic blow, but it's part of a far larger pattern of costly sacrifices for futile goals.
That's an awful lot of talk for something which happens to be totally irrelevant. Just because it happens to be the political fad to wage wars without an overt political declaration of war, doesn't change either of our arguments.
So while the GP is incorrect to say overall population will drop, more people having sex would indeed help fight global warming.
By creating problems which are more urgent and have higher social priority than global warming? Tell me how that works out.
Keep in mind that the current increases in greenhouse gases emissions are coming from the high population areas now. And if the world had a vast lower population, virtually all of the environmental impacts wouldn't be there (invasive species issues probably still would, unless there was little global traffic).
Never mind. I wasn't thinking it through. Pressure also is an indication of how many potentially heat absorbing particles are impacting a heat sink surface.
While I guess why more ionizing events stemming from neutron impacts affects electronics, I don't get the blaming of "pressure"? Perhaps they mean the reduced air cooling of electrical components from a less dense atmosphere? Someone else noted that components on the top of a rack might tend to be warmer. This might be more of the same sort of effect.
When you give advertising or subscription money to CSM, that's money going to CS.
That's the point of paying for a good service. You want the money to go to who is providing the service.
Solyndra failed because they were grossly incompetent. Read up on it sometime. And the US has a huge private sector with which to do Angle-type investments. There is no need for government action here except perhaps to knee-cap the overseas businesses that are doing the alleged "dumping" and such.
"Old school republicans and libertarians both distaste government intervention"
Correct - unless such intervention benefits them or their cronies...
I know this is hard for a lot of people to grasp. But conflicts of interest don't go away just because someone is is old school republican or libertarian. Your trust is misplaced.
I for one love the infighting in the GOP - John McCain is my hero for giving Sarah Palin a national platform and launching the deniers in the anti-intellectual Tea Party. Anti-intellectual... hmm that sounds a lot like Deutschland many years ago...
Because the Nazis were all about fiscal conservatism and the rule of law.
He floated a plan to sell oil in Euros instead of dollars...a month later US troops were toppling statues in Baghdad and he was hiding in a hole.
The landing gear were down long before the Euros for oil thing (which to be honest was a last minute bit of defiance by Hussein in the face of the oncoming invasion). I don't know if there was any one thing. I've heard settling a grudge, stopping Iraq from developing a nuclear bomb, stabilizing oil markets, creating a client state/domino theory of democracy, knocking over someone that Israel doesn't like, etc.
It's ironic that you're posting this on the Internet which was invented by government funding.
It would have been invented anyway.
Private research is all about low risk and expected short term profit.
Public research is about writing checks and science theater. If useful science happens to get done, it's happenstance.
"too late for Solyndra"
Solyndra would have failed hard anyway. A company that incompetently run wasn't long for the world.
While this may be true, the fact of the matter is that killing all subsidies in the field of energy would kill solar.
Ok. So what's the point of your observation? Should we forestall or hasten that outcome?
it's an empty argument that does nothing to address the problems of pollution, climate change, job creation, and economic growth.
In other words, it's an argument that's been relevant for the past few centuries - not just today.
Well fuck it, nothing can be done. We might as well give up and prepare to die as there is no cumulative effect when combating global warming. Goodbye cruel world...
Or we could just not worry about it. That leads to two outcomes - enjoying the fruits of a technological civilization and having to deal with the mild consequences of AGW. Sounds like a good trade off to me.
China eventually is going to change just because they'll run out of easy coal and will want better air quality.
But making major economic sacrifices just so China can take control of things looks rather foolish to me. AGW just isn't that important.
Perhaps big enough to deal with global warming but that's not 'why' it happened.
Like the good old days of high female fertility were?
Democrats put together a way out of a war and saved the economy from financial collapse.
I see people are still dying in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those wars are still ongoing.
And economically, the US hasn't done much to recover since the recession. It's worth noting here that doing nothing leads to a quicker recovery than what we're seeing in the US. Partly, it's Keynesian economics poorly applied and partly it's an administration more intent on ideology than economic recovery.
The Republicans are unique in their ability to drive a supposedly "world leading" country into a failed state hellhole for large portions of the population.
I see they aren't unique in getting blamed for other peoples' faults. Obamacare isn't the Republicans' baby. They don't own it.
I see this as another free lunch delusion. Where's the money going to come from?
This is what is most apt in this situation is that Republicans will claim that government doesn't work, and they prove it by fucking it over for everybody.
It's not the Republicans' jobs to fix the shit that the Democrats break. Someone who wasn't a complete idiot would have been aware, years ago, that this was going to be a problem. The Democrats own this problem.
Happened twice to my recollection, both women over 40.
That would be "prehistoric", unless someone left a letter describing the cool rug they got (prehistory pretty much means anything that went on before someone was writing it down). Pretty much what this thread has been yacking OT about. Pedants everywhere sigh annoyingly, while they roll their eyes in an exaggerated manner, at your base ignorance.
Or perhaps we come up with new ways of doing the same thing without using fossil fuels. Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean it's not possible.
So we'll be saved yet again by the hope-based economy? I'm not exactly counting on it.
Yea, I heard that before, unfortunately. When you know what is right, you can't do anything wrong.
If Obama was a private CEO, he'd be in court for both accounting fraud (accounting behind the US budget and its public presentation are notoriously fraudulent in the criminal sense) and the regular sort of fraud ("if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan").
Depends what you use it for. You don't need a real name to play Farmville, for example.