Don't worry, they're already sounding their cry with the rationalization that warmer air is pushing the colder air south - all theory, of course, with no examination of actual observation to support it.
We're hitting temperatures not seen since the 1990's. And that's it. And last summer wasn't particularly hot. Where are the dramatic weather extremes we've been told would occur?
Indeed - that was my first reaction. How dare the price of things go down over time! If you care about the poor, you should make everything more expensive by giving (certain) people more free money to spend.
What do you think will be the inception date for the Nexus-6 Android, and will it come with a built-in expiration date of a few years? Will you be able to jailbreak it, or is it not possible for the coding sequence to be revised once it's been established?
That's the key, once again: the government - including the courts - have become skewed toward favoring massive numbers of lobbyists and legal teams. So even though the neighbor might have a case, he could never win. The government has become the enforcer of rights violations.
Polluting public property should be a criminal act not a civil issue. With public property the government could also sue.
So long as you believe that, or that another law is going to stop pollution on public grounds, politicians and their cronies will continue to laugh at you. So long as there exists public property and the potential for government to violate the rights of one group to benefit another, there will always be lobbyists buying politicians. The solution is not to pretend that another law against companies is going to fix the problem. The solution is to prohibit government violation of individual rights: privatize all property, and restrict government to the minimal role of police, courts, and military, to only uphold and protect individual rights. Such a system, so long as it existed, would offer no incentive for lobbyism as an industry to exist.
Why does the corporation have no incentive to minimize pollution? Because the open waterways have been deemed "public" property by the government. Whereas if you dumped your waste on your neighbor's property, he could sue you for contamination, with public property - such as rivers, lakes, even oceans - there is the potential for corruption and political pull to override all legal deterrents.
Our CO2 emissions have increased significantly these last couple decades, yet warming has been flat for 15+ years. What is the explanation? How can claim to be so certain of this causal link yet have no explanation for the last 15+ years?
The lake instantly assaults your senses. Stand on the black crust for just seconds and your eyes water and a powerful, acrid stench fills your lungs.
For hours after our visit, my stomach lurched and my head throbbed. We were there for only one hour, but those who live in Mr Yan’s village of Dalahai, and other villages around, breathe in the same poison every day.
Need I remind you that we are talking about books which are written by individuals. Find small-time writers who are trying to find a break, give them the means to publish and distribute, and there you have it.
Why would the power plant manager's boss (or insurance provider, or stakeholders) not have any interest in independently validating that the chance of an accident has not increased? Why would he take the manager's word for it that the safety has not decreased?
Whose rights get violated when one party signs an agreement with another party that says everyone else gets screwed?
I did not ask "whose rights" - I asked what specific right is violated. Name the right.
There was nothing voluntary about it.
So point to the specific force that was applied to Amazon. Point to the specific agreement they were forced to sign, and name the specific means of force that was used against them - for example a gun, a baseball bat, a threat of violence, etc. If the choice was not voluntary on both sides, then it should be possible to indicate the source of the force, as with any other situation where someone is forced to do something against his will.
I guess you have no problem with the idea of total and complete monopoly control of everything, because that is exactly what this is.
As I said previously, so long as buyers freely choose a company's products, and no rights are violated, then what concern is it whether everyone chooses to buy from one company, and no other companies are able to offer a better/cheaper product? If the so-called "monopoly" company begins to produce an inferior product, or sell at higher prices than buyers are willing to accept, then competition will arise. In reality, all real examples of "monopolies" are those organizations which have colluded with the government to forcibly ban the existence of competition on threat of violence, imprisonment, etc - e.g. local utilities, ISPs in certain areas, the Federal Reserve, etc.
when they are all forced to sell for the same price or exit the business
"Exit the business" - what does that mean, exactly? Amazon is no longer allowed to exist? No longer allowed to sell ebooks? No longer allowed to sell any books? Or does it just mean Amazon is not allowed to sell certain books from publishers who abide by Apple's agreement?
Why is that wrong? Because the people of the country say that it is wrong
That is not an explanation - that is an observation about a conclusion arrived at by specific individuals (which?). By what rationale did those individuals arrive at that conclusion?
If they do not agree to the terms, they should not sign the contract. If they do not like the terms, they should renegotiate (e.g. offering publishers a better deal than Apple). If neither party can agree to terms, then they should obviously not enter into agreement.
This is how voluntary interaction in a free society works.
'They should also be free to sign agreements to sell at fixed prices'. Wrong.
But why is it wrong - that was the question I asked. Your only answer is "that is illegal, and rightly so" - but that begs the question. Whose rights are violated? If none, then why is it wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry, they're already sounding their cry with the rationalization that warmer air is pushing the colder air south - all theory, of course, with no examination of actual observation to support it.
We're hitting temperatures not seen since the 1990's. And that's it. And last summer wasn't particularly hot. Where are the dramatic weather extremes we've been told would occur?
Indeed - that was my first reaction. How dare the price of things go down over time! If you care about the poor, you should make everything more expensive by giving (certain) people more free money to spend.
What do you think will be the inception date for the Nexus-6 Android, and will it come with a built-in expiration date of a few years? Will you be able to jailbreak it, or is it not possible for the coding sequence to be revised once it's been established?
Hmm?
At least it'll be less habitable, because the climate change at hand is a whole lot faster than what it has naturally been.
How do you figure? The global mean temperature has been flat for 17 years now. Where is this "whole lot faster" of which you speak?
You can keep him tied up in court forever.
That's the key, once again: the government - including the courts - have become skewed toward favoring massive numbers of lobbyists and legal teams. So even though the neighbor might have a case, he could never win. The government has become the enforcer of rights violations.
Polluting public property should be a criminal act not a civil issue. With public property the government could also sue.
So long as you believe that, or that another law is going to stop pollution on public grounds, politicians and their cronies will continue to laugh at you. So long as there exists public property and the potential for government to violate the rights of one group to benefit another, there will always be lobbyists buying politicians. The solution is not to pretend that another law against companies is going to fix the problem. The solution is to prohibit government violation of individual rights: privatize all property, and restrict government to the minimal role of police, courts, and military, to only uphold and protect individual rights. Such a system, so long as it existed, would offer no incentive for lobbyism as an industry to exist.
Why does the corporation have no incentive to minimize pollution? Because the open waterways have been deemed "public" property by the government. Whereas if you dumped your waste on your neighbor's property, he could sue you for contamination, with public property - such as rivers, lakes, even oceans - there is the potential for corruption and political pull to override all legal deterrents.
Answering my own question:
"U.S. Army says it does not provide hormones or sex-reassignment surgery after Wikileaks convict Bradley Manning says he wants to live as a woman"
Will they really provide that in prison?
See the graph here. Global mean temperature has been flat for 17 years now.
Another article in Forbes with more information here.
No, see the graph here.
Our CO2 emissions have increased significantly these last couple decades, yet warming has been flat for 15+ years. What is the explanation? How can claim to be so certain of this causal link yet have no explanation for the last 15+ years?
Indeed! Who needs innovators or entrepreneurs?!
So you openly admit that you still subscribe to the lipid hypothesis?
More news coverage about the whistleblower, not about the crimes he uncovered. Journalism is dead.
very good evidence that we should be cooling right now, but we're not.
And that's demonstrably a Good Thing for us.
The lake instantly assaults your senses. Stand on the black crust for just seconds and your eyes water and a powerful, acrid stench fills your lungs. For hours after our visit, my stomach lurched and my head throbbed. We were there for only one hour, but those who live in Mr Yan’s village of Dalahai, and other villages around, breathe in the same poison every day.
Yes, TEPCO was running the show, and despite the media hysteria, the measurable damage to individuals is minimal.
"There's no ground to plant it on"
Need I remind you that we are talking about books which are written by individuals. Find small-time writers who are trying to find a break, give them the means to publish and distribute, and there you have it.
Why would the power plant manager's boss (or insurance provider, or stakeholders) not have any interest in independently validating that the chance of an accident has not increased? Why would he take the manager's word for it that the safety has not decreased?
Are you suggesting that the planet orbits its star at such a high speed as to produce an observable doppler shift?
Whose rights get violated when one party signs an agreement with another party that says everyone else gets screwed?
I did not ask "whose rights" - I asked what specific right is violated. Name the right.
There was nothing voluntary about it.
So point to the specific force that was applied to Amazon. Point to the specific agreement they were forced to sign, and name the specific means of force that was used against them - for example a gun, a baseball bat, a threat of violence, etc. If the choice was not voluntary on both sides, then it should be possible to indicate the source of the force, as with any other situation where someone is forced to do something against his will.
I guess you have no problem with the idea of total and complete monopoly control of everything, because that is exactly what this is.
As I said previously, so long as buyers freely choose a company's products, and no rights are violated, then what concern is it whether everyone chooses to buy from one company, and no other companies are able to offer a better/cheaper product? If the so-called "monopoly" company begins to produce an inferior product, or sell at higher prices than buyers are willing to accept, then competition will arise. In reality, all real examples of "monopolies" are those organizations which have colluded with the government to forcibly ban the existence of competition on threat of violence, imprisonment, etc - e.g. local utilities, ISPs in certain areas, the Federal Reserve, etc.
when they are all forced to sell for the same price or exit the business
"Exit the business" - what does that mean, exactly? Amazon is no longer allowed to exist? No longer allowed to sell ebooks? No longer allowed to sell any books? Or does it just mean Amazon is not allowed to sell certain books from publishers who abide by Apple's agreement?
Why is that wrong? Because the people of the country say that it is wrong
That is not an explanation - that is an observation about a conclusion arrived at by specific individuals (which?). By what rationale did those individuals arrive at that conclusion?
private entities for which profit is more important than safety
Why do you presume this to be the case?
This is how voluntary interaction in a free society works.
'They should also be free to sign agreements to sell at fixed prices'. Wrong.
But why is it wrong - that was the question I asked. Your only answer is "that is illegal, and rightly so" - but that begs the question. Whose rights are violated? If none, then why is it wrong?