I was talking about "libertarian" in the general sense of being the opposite of statism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, etc. I would argue that all forms of libertarianism have policies that are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, to the extent that they have policies at all (e.g. all except the anarchists).
Anyway, my point was that the tea party people (mostly) aren't really libertarians. They support Arizona's anti-immigration law not because of states' rights, but rather economic protectionism (and let's be honest, racism too). They're all pissed off about Obamacare, but have no problem with Welfare and Social Security. Many of their leaders are fundamentalist nutjobs who want to foist their religion on everyone (e.g. issues such as abortion). Maybe there are different "forms" of libertarianism, but none of them fit that mold.
The more spaced out they are, the more a driver has to cover the same neighborhood, day after day, and the less 'green' it is.
On the other hand, once you get past a certain threshold where the delivery driver has to visit the neighborhood daily anyway, all the marginal packages increase efficiency.
But am I weird compared to the majority of Americans (who aren't tea party idiots)?
As far as I'm concerned, Social Security is a tax -- I don't expect to see any benefit from it. I guess that's the real issue: young people like myself are getting screwed over by Baby Boomers.
Not trying to troll here, but isn't the whole concept of "illegal to circumvent DRM encryption measures only if the encryption measure is effective" somewhat ludicrous?
Sure, but that's because it's the logical extension of a ludicrous premise (the idea of DRM itself, as you went on to describe). Garbage in, garbage out, as they say!
Personally, I think we should have no troops in Afghanistan, as we cannot win there. We should have bombed them back into the stone age and left, or perhaps let Pakistan annex them or something.
Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but bombing them into the stone age would have too much collateral damage, and annexation would only spread the Taliban/Al Qaida cancer to Pakistan faster.
When a politician says one thing and then, a few months later, completely reverses course for no good reason, few news agencies will hold them to their past words.
Unless the politician does have a good reason for changing his position, in which case the media will pillory him for not blindly "staying the course!"
I'd love to see ANY politician go on national television and watch them say "We're cutting Defense, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security." They'd be pilloried so fast, you'd hear sonic booms.
See, that's the part I don't get. He could follow that up with "...and by the way, I also eat babies" and I'd still vote for him (well, almost)!
Am I really that weird, politically, that nobody else would do the same thing? I don't think I am...
While I agree, it is frustrating to be represented by the minority party, you need to remember, you've been dealing with this for but a few short years.
What's really frustrating is to not be represented by either party because they're both totalitarian and corrupt!
That's the situation most Americans are in, although they may be too distracted by irrelevant "left vs. right" cheerleading to recognize it. (Don't believe me? Ask people about their politics and see how often the phrase "lesser of two evils" comes up!)
But where does the water come from, and how much energy does it take to get it there? If that energy comes from any fossil fuel, then you've just defeated your purpose...
Would it be breaking even carbon-vise is a whole new ballgame.
I don't think it would; I think it would be more efficient to just quit mining the coal and petroleum (i.e., already-sequestered carbon!) in the first place.
The problem is those unexpected consequences. I've been hearing about crop residue sequestration for nearly a decade, but the problem has always been in the sequestration process.
This problem was solved literally millions of years ago; success depends simply on how well we can replicate a peat bog.
In my opinion, the primary problem with these sorts of ideas is that they are inherently less efficient than simply leaving the already-sequestered carbon (i.e., coal and petroleum) in the ground to begin with!
But I can understand that the MPEG people want their cut for licensing out their technology
I think everybody understands that the MPG people want their cut; what some of us don't understand is why the law forces us to give it to them when it doesn't do society any good overall.
Like Hell they're not! The express purpose of patents are "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." Not to "benefit an innovator" -- that's merely a side effect; a means to an end.
...patents do not address a public good. Sure, someone might say patents inspire people to be innovative since it gives them an economic incentive, but we all know that's not true.
Then they have no valid reason for continuing to exist, and must be abolished. Period.
If the generation of that power produces pollution (and really, that's only coal in practice), it's because the local consumers are cool with that.
But the pollution doesn't affect only the local consumers (or the local non-consumers, or the non-local consumers, for that matter!). Instead, the pollution ends up causing acid rain halfway across the continent, killing trees owned by people who had no say in the construction or operation of the power plant that caused it. No say except through government, that is.
In other words, government is needed to protect the tree owners' property from the negative externalities of the coal-fired power plant -- a function even Libertarians support!
Either way, I think it's significant that solar panels are unlikely to be in the same places that plants would otherwise have been, for the most part. Most solar systems are installed on rooftops, which are typically not covered in plants anyway (unless you count mold in some parts of the country).
I think that's more a reflection of the idiotic building design we practice here in the US than anything else. Your argument fails for the middle east, for example, where the roofs tend to be flat and used as living space.
I look forward to the day when there are no more black asphalt shingles and all roofs are either flat (and used), green (i.e., vegetation-covered), high-albedo, or solar.
Where possible, they cut production from the most expensive sources first. That means nuclear gets cut first...
You have no idea WTF you're talking about. Not only is nuclear the cheapest source except for the initial construction costs (which are irrelevant since we're talking about already-operational stuff here), but it is also slow to adjust in response to changes in load. Nuclear is the last thing that gets cut, even after coal.
I think the biggest savings is in mandating commercial vehicle improvements, actually.
Why? Commercial vehicles are naturally efficient due to market pressure, since fuel cost is a significant factor and "big-engine-as-penis-extension" is not.
Ahh, but to argue that "wasting energy is iirresponsible" requires that you argue that there's some significant harm to others when you do so.
There is! First of all, producing more energy produces more pollution. Second, it uses up natural resources faster, leaving less for future generations. Third, the increased demand means the electric company has to build new power plants, and raises everybody's rate to pay for them. These are all things that harm everyone, not just the idiots wasting the energy.
Slashdot Mirror
I was talking about "libertarian" in the general sense of being the opposite of statism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, etc. I would argue that all forms of libertarianism have policies that are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, to the extent that they have policies at all (e.g. all except the anarchists).
Anyway, my point was that the tea party people (mostly) aren't really libertarians. They support Arizona's anti-immigration law not because of states' rights, but rather economic protectionism (and let's be honest, racism too). They're all pissed off about Obamacare, but have no problem with Welfare and Social Security. Many of their leaders are fundamentalist nutjobs who want to foist their religion on everyone (e.g. issues such as abortion). Maybe there are different "forms" of libertarianism, but none of them fit that mold.
On the other hand, once you get past a certain threshold where the delivery driver has to visit the neighborhood daily anyway, all the marginal packages increase efficiency.
But am I weird compared to the majority of Americans (who aren't tea party idiots)?
As far as I'm concerned, Social Security is a tax -- I don't expect to see any benefit from it. I guess that's the real issue: young people like myself are getting screwed over by Baby Boomers.
Sure, but that's because it's the logical extension of a ludicrous premise (the idea of DRM itself, as you went on to describe). Garbage in, garbage out, as they say!
Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but bombing them into the stone age would have too much collateral damage, and annexation would only spread the Taliban/Al Qaida cancer to Pakistan faster.
As for the rest of your post, I agree completely!
Unless the politician does have a good reason for changing his position, in which case the media will pillory him for not blindly "staying the course!"
See, that's the part I don't get. He could follow that up with "...and by the way, I also eat babies" and I'd still vote for him (well, almost)!
Am I really that weird, politically, that nobody else would do the same thing? I don't think I am...
What's really frustrating is to not be represented by either party because they're both totalitarian and corrupt!
That's the situation most Americans are in, although they may be too distracted by irrelevant "left vs. right" cheerleading to recognize it. (Don't believe me? Ask people about their politics and see how often the phrase "lesser of two evils" comes up!)
He wasn't talking about conservatives, he was talking about tea partyers.
conservative and libertarian values aren't the same thing. They share similar fiscal policy ideas, but libertarian social policy is liberal.
But where does the water come from, and how much energy does it take to get it there? If that energy comes from any fossil fuel, then you've just defeated your purpose...
I don't think it would; I think it would be more efficient to just quit mining the coal and petroleum (i.e., already-sequestered carbon!) in the first place.
This problem was solved literally millions of years ago; success depends simply on how well we can replicate a peat bog.
In my opinion, the primary problem with these sorts of ideas is that they are inherently less efficient than simply leaving the already-sequestered carbon (i.e., coal and petroleum) in the ground to begin with!
I think everybody understands that the MPG people want their cut; what some of us don't understand is why the law forces us to give it to them when it doesn't do society any good overall.
Like Hell they're not! The express purpose of patents are "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." Not to "benefit an innovator" -- that's merely a side effect; a means to an end.
Then they have no valid reason for continuing to exist, and must be abolished. Period.
I imagine the written offer has to include contact information. Otherwise, there's no way to take them up on it!
WTF are you talking about? All I did was point out that the nazis called themselves socialists!
But the pollution doesn't affect only the local consumers (or the local non-consumers, or the non-local consumers, for that matter!). Instead, the pollution ends up causing acid rain halfway across the continent, killing trees owned by people who had no say in the construction or operation of the power plant that caused it. No say except through government, that is.
In other words, government is needed to protect the tree owners' property from the negative externalities of the coal-fired power plant -- a function even Libertarians support!
That's pretty terrible; a Honda CRX or Geo Metro of about the same vintage would get 10-20 MPG better.
My '98 Beetle TDI with almost 200,000 miles gets 60 MPG on the highway (or would, if I didn't drive it as if my pants were on fire!).
Power companies are currently rolling out "smart meters" so that they can do just that sort of thing.
I think that's more a reflection of the idiotic building design we practice here in the US than anything else. Your argument fails for the middle east, for example, where the roofs tend to be flat and used as living space.
I look forward to the day when there are no more black asphalt shingles and all roofs are either flat (and used), green (i.e., vegetation-covered), high-albedo, or solar.
You have no idea WTF you're talking about. Not only is nuclear the cheapest source except for the initial construction costs (which are irrelevant since we're talking about already-operational stuff here), but it is also slow to adjust in response to changes in load. Nuclear is the last thing that gets cut, even after coal.
Why? Commercial vehicles are naturally efficient due to market pressure, since fuel cost is a significant factor and "big-engine-as-penis-extension" is not.
You're looking at it from the wrong perspective: the real waste is the excess calories you're consuming.
There is! First of all, producing more energy produces more pollution. Second, it uses up natural resources faster, leaving less for future generations. Third, the increased demand means the electric company has to build new power plants, and raises everybody's rate to pay for them. These are all things that harm everyone, not just the idiots wasting the energy.
"Infrastructure" includes electric infrastructure. And mandating energy efficiency is government's way of minimizing the cost of that infrastructure.