They have also gotten away with not showing a complete list of every chemical they use in there fracking process, claiming it is a "trade secret". How f'in secretive can it be when every drilling company is fracking?
In other words, that's what you'd expect of actual trade secrets of considerable value. If I had a business with no potential competitors, then trade secrets wouldn't have much value.
Yea, Ferrari has been doubling the speed of its cars every two years. Or is that doubling the transistor density? I don't remember... But I'm sure it's all the same.
Small companies and individuals don't normally organize as well as hierarchical power structures in large enterprises.
I have yet to see evidence of this inherent superior organizational capability of large enterprises. It is a prior that a large enterprise had to start as something that organizes well, but it's been demonstrated that large businesses build up bureaucracy and inertia.
I think it's a waste of time trying to solve issues of maintaining a biosphere in space, when a push into space will be much easier after we've reached the Singularity: machine bodies don't need food, air or water.
I was told back in 2000 that the Singularity would solve the problem of cheap access to space in twenty years. So we have about seven years to go.
Second, we are already machines. But machines that happen to need food, air, and water. There's no particular reason to wait for the Singularity to do things which we can do now.
No, the linked article debunks your legitimate concern
"Debunk" is not what is going on. They are arguing that yes, the underlying data is unreliable, but that they have procedures for greatly reducing error coming from this unreliability. Then they argue that this process has been successful because it matches closely a selection of temperature proxy data.
They neglect that both the original temperature data and the temperature proxy data may be subject to a variety of biases (particularly, confirmation bias to have it fit a more aggressive AGW narrative). It's easy to massage data to get it to agree with a desired result - peer reviewed or not.
up until the point you produced a peer-reviewed paper debunking the debunking.
Followed by an argument from authority.
It's called a myth because it is wrong.
Even the authors of the link you cite acknowledge that raw temperature data is unreliable. Else one wouldn't need such complicated processing of the data. The myth is not wrong.
We use words like that to describe things that are, well nonsense.
It's a well known technique in propaganda to vilify opponents via a choice of words with negative connotations. This is done here by you through the use of the words, "myth", "debunking", and "nonsense".
Power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. When you remove power from an elected government over the economy, you transfer it to the next largest players, large corporations or enterprises.
And to smaller players like people and small businesses. Your model is broken. But that should be expected when you're just arguing by cliche without considering what is going on.
Ok, so you are basing your entire argument on "air". How does one own air? How does one get someone to contract for use of that air? How does an air owner lose value from pollution of their air?
This sounds more to me like rent-seeking, that is, making someone pay for an otherwise free activity, rather than legitimate ownership of an asset. For example, there's no incentive to actually make air better quality.
But that doesn't work because it assumes the owner is deeply concerned with long term sustainability instead of short term profits--a proven falsehood when examining corporate behavior today
Keep in mind that government and society are providing a lot of incentives for short term profits over long term sustainability.
There are lots of problems the free market cannot solve, just like there are lots of problems collective rule cannot solve. That's why it is important to choose the right solution for every problem. People who think there is only one true path will end up with lots of bad and inefficient solutions that often just make the problems worse.
This is a nice, even handed way to ignore that free markets work in a lot more cases than collective rule does. Maybe free markets are not the best use of society's resources for the divvying up of air. But they work fine for food, water, shelter, and most other human needs.
A successful business breeds a positive feedback process just as failing businesses tend to nosedive. As a business becomes more and more successful, it attracts more and more customers. It also can afford to negotiate for favorable supply contracts, buy up smaller competitors, and do other things that accelerate the growth curve even more by diving it an edge on the competition. Eventually, it gets so big that it can buy government on its own terms.
Except that's not what actually happens. As it gets big, it gets clumsy, bureaucratic, and attracts nimbler competitors. As to buying government on its own terms, why is that libertarians' fault? As I noted, they propose weakening government which in turn reduces what the business above allegedly can get from government.
Also, we can look at actual history here. The biggest monopolies were either governments or backed by powerful governments. Businesses of considerable power such as the Congo Free State or the East India Company were backed by powerful governments (here respectively, Belgium and other European countries, and England).
And "moral rules" generally do help people.
Sure, they do. What works in a kindergarten doesn't necessarily work in an economy. It's worth noting here that there are plenty of examples of striking failure when someone applies a poorly thought out system of morality to societies.
One of the most dangerous business fallacies is the pseudo-Darwinistic conceit that only the strong and the nasty survive.
Another dangerous conceit is to assume something should be right or wrong based on a superficial consideration of the activity. I believe that is what is going on here. There's no consideration of whether libertarianism promotes monopolies. It is merely assumed to be inevitable.
What's the case for your claim that libertarianism leads to "monopolism"? The ideology deliberately weaken government which is the both the most powerful sort of monopoly out there and the principal creator of monopolies historically.
And what's supposed to be wrong with vulture capitalism? Capitalism has always been fairly good at disposing of dying businesses and obsolete capital. I think part of the problem here is arbitrary moral rules that don't actually help anyone.
The problem of nutrition is always more cultural than anything else. Look at the USA itself, where abundant nutritious food is available, yet the average American gets most of his calories from high-fructose corn syrup
That's not cultural, it's economic. Lots of subsidies made that happen.
My neighbour downstairs is 29 with a 13 year old daughter and is on social security (called the dole in Australia) - never worked.
At least, if your neighbor lives to 150, she'll have time to turn her life around. And if she's raising a daughter, she's worked - just never been paid for it.
Which raises the question: will they still be willing to go die on Mars, after spending seven years turning their life around?
Some will, some won't. With that many applicants, you can pick a larger group than you need for the final mission precisely to account for people bowing out of the program.
Also, a 1 in 100 event occurring six years apart is still exceptional, but never mind.
Unless the second event is conditional on the first. Again, we wouldn't know because we weren't looking before. Observation bias is an ugly thing.
Please cite the paper
Please cite the paper that's quoting centuries or millennia of high quality satellite data. There's a genuine problem here with what we don't know over the time scales we need to study and predict. Putting a veneer of overconfidence over that won't change the quality of the underlying knowledge.
are you so obtuse that you can't see what's happening here?
Not at all. A similar thing happened with satellites and the ozone hole over the Antarctic. We don't know if that hole has always been there or not either.
If nothing else, I hope we can agree that the outlook for polar bear cubs born today is pretty fucking grim.
If we're going to do something dumb, we might as well do it for the polar bear cubs.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's being "let off" here? Harsh and arbitrary punishments for minor offense breeds contempt for law.
Like open source has no potential competitors?
Open source doesn't have trade secrets (being open and all) so it's not useful as any sort of analogy.
They have also gotten away with not showing a complete list of every chemical they use in there fracking process, claiming it is a "trade secret". How f'in secretive can it be when every drilling company is fracking?
In other words, that's what you'd expect of actual trade secrets of considerable value. If I had a business with no potential competitors, then trade secrets wouldn't have much value.
We've only been told for years that we must punish all offenders heavily.
Told by idiots. What's your take on the War on Drugs? All drug carrying offenders must be punished heavily, amirite?
Buyer vs. Seller is a zero sum game.
There isn't a voluntary trade without mutual benefit. Buyer vs. Seller is always positive sum.
Yea, Ferrari has been doubling the speed of its cars every two years. Or is that doubling the transistor density? I don't remember... But I'm sure it's all the same.
Small companies and individuals don't normally organize as well as hierarchical power structures in large enterprises.
I have yet to see evidence of this inherent superior organizational capability of large enterprises. It is a prior that a large enterprise had to start as something that organizes well, but it's been demonstrated that large businesses build up bureaucracy and inertia.
So instead of discussing their approach in detail
What makes you think I'm not describing their and your approach in detail?
I think it's a waste of time trying to solve issues of maintaining a biosphere in space, when a push into space will be much easier after we've reached the Singularity: machine bodies don't need food, air or water.
I was told back in 2000 that the Singularity would solve the problem of cheap access to space in twenty years. So we have about seven years to go.
Second, we are already machines. But machines that happen to need food, air, and water. There's no particular reason to wait for the Singularity to do things which we can do now.
No, the linked article debunks your legitimate concern
"Debunk" is not what is going on. They are arguing that yes, the underlying data is unreliable, but that they have procedures for greatly reducing error coming from this unreliability. Then they argue that this process has been successful because it matches closely a selection of temperature proxy data.
They neglect that both the original temperature data and the temperature proxy data may be subject to a variety of biases (particularly, confirmation bias to have it fit a more aggressive AGW narrative). It's easy to massage data to get it to agree with a desired result - peer reviewed or not.
up until the point you produced a peer-reviewed paper debunking the debunking.
Followed by an argument from authority.
It's called a myth because it is wrong.
Even the authors of the link you cite acknowledge that raw temperature data is unreliable. Else one wouldn't need such complicated processing of the data. The myth is not wrong.
We use words like that to describe things that are, well nonsense.
It's a well known technique in propaganda to vilify opponents via a choice of words with negative connotations. This is done here by you through the use of the words, "myth", "debunking", and "nonsense".
Power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. When you remove power from an elected government over the economy, you transfer it to the next largest players, large corporations or enterprises.
And to smaller players like people and small businesses. Your model is broken. But that should be expected when you're just arguing by cliche without considering what is going on.
This sounds more to me like rent-seeking, that is, making someone pay for an otherwise free activity, rather than legitimate ownership of an asset. For example, there's no incentive to actually make air better quality.
But that doesn't work because it assumes the owner is deeply concerned with long term sustainability instead of short term profits--a proven falsehood when examining corporate behavior today
Keep in mind that government and society are providing a lot of incentives for short term profits over long term sustainability.
There are lots of problems the free market cannot solve, just like there are lots of problems collective rule cannot solve. That's why it is important to choose the right solution for every problem. People who think there is only one true path will end up with lots of bad and inefficient solutions that often just make the problems worse.
This is a nice, even handed way to ignore that free markets work in a lot more cases than collective rule does. Maybe free markets are not the best use of society's resources for the divvying up of air. But they work fine for food, water, shelter, and most other human needs.
The people who have tried? Ayn Rand, David Koch, Ron Paul have pretty much provided mush
Only one of those people, Ayn Rand actually took at turn at "libertarian thinker". I'd suggest Friedrich von Hayek for that more cogent way.
OK, then I'll have to wait until someone delineates the ideology of libertarianism in a cogent way.
And please wait a long time.
The fact the humans aren't perfect means there is a problem with EVERY philosophy.
Ok, let's look at an example and you explain what the problem is. "I think therefore I am."
Go.
Just because something is work doesn't mean that anyone values that work.
A successful business breeds a positive feedback process just as failing businesses tend to nosedive. As a business becomes more and more successful, it attracts more and more customers. It also can afford to negotiate for favorable supply contracts, buy up smaller competitors, and do other things that accelerate the growth curve even more by diving it an edge on the competition. Eventually, it gets so big that it can buy government on its own terms.
Except that's not what actually happens. As it gets big, it gets clumsy, bureaucratic, and attracts nimbler competitors. As to buying government on its own terms, why is that libertarians' fault? As I noted, they propose weakening government which in turn reduces what the business above allegedly can get from government.
Also, we can look at actual history here. The biggest monopolies were either governments or backed by powerful governments. Businesses of considerable power such as the Congo Free State or the East India Company were backed by powerful governments (here respectively, Belgium and other European countries, and England).
And "moral rules" generally do help people.
Sure, they do. What works in a kindergarten doesn't necessarily work in an economy. It's worth noting here that there are plenty of examples of striking failure when someone applies a poorly thought out system of morality to societies.
One of the most dangerous business fallacies is the pseudo-Darwinistic conceit that only the strong and the nasty survive.
Another dangerous conceit is to assume something should be right or wrong based on a superficial consideration of the activity. I believe that is what is going on here. There's no consideration of whether libertarianism promotes monopolies. It is merely assumed to be inevitable.
leads to monopolism and vulture capitalism
What's the case for your claim that libertarianism leads to "monopolism"? The ideology deliberately weaken government which is the both the most powerful sort of monopoly out there and the principal creator of monopolies historically.
And what's supposed to be wrong with vulture capitalism? Capitalism has always been fairly good at disposing of dying businesses and obsolete capital. I think part of the problem here is arbitrary moral rules that don't actually help anyone.
Note your linked article is responding to a legitimate concern. The temperature record is unreliable. That doesn't mean it is incorrect.
To call such concern a "myth" is just a bit of disingenuous and unscientific propaganda and you should wonder why they felt the need to label it such.
The problem of nutrition is always more cultural than anything else. Look at the USA itself, where abundant nutritious food is available, yet the average American gets most of his calories from high-fructose corn syrup
That's not cultural, it's economic. Lots of subsidies made that happen.
My neighbour downstairs is 29 with a 13 year old daughter and is on social security (called the dole in Australia) - never worked.
At least, if your neighbor lives to 150, she'll have time to turn her life around. And if she's raising a daughter, she's worked - just never been paid for it.
Which raises the question: will they still be willing to go die on Mars, after spending seven years turning their life around?
Some will, some won't. With that many applicants, you can pick a larger group than you need for the final mission precisely to account for people bowing out of the program.
Also, a 1 in 100 event occurring six years apart is still exceptional, but never mind.
Unless the second event is conditional on the first. Again, we wouldn't know because we weren't looking before. Observation bias is an ugly thing.
Please cite the paper
Please cite the paper that's quoting centuries or millennia of high quality satellite data. There's a genuine problem here with what we don't know over the time scales we need to study and predict. Putting a veneer of overconfidence over that won't change the quality of the underlying knowledge.
2007 was an exceptional year for ice melt, a 1 in 1000 event.
Or it could have been a 1 in 100 event and we hadn't paid attention before. Observation bias is an ugly thing.
This doesn't mean society can't choose to draw a tentative, intermediate conclusion and act on that basis.
But it doesn't provide a reason to do so.
But if Exxon has only 1.5 sigma belief that carbon emissions could prove disastrous, it's business as usual.
What 1.5 sigma belief? What is Exxon's responsibility supposed to be here? And Exxon is scooping renewable energy funding as well.
are you so obtuse that you can't see what's happening here?
Not at all. A similar thing happened with satellites and the ozone hole over the Antarctic. We don't know if that hole has always been there or not either.
If nothing else, I hope we can agree that the outlook for polar bear cubs born today is pretty fucking grim.
If we're going to do something dumb, we might as well do it for the polar bear cubs.