You haven't heard the complaining about the PATRIOT act because it's no longer politically advantageous for those who are the loudest. The TSA issue is still being linked to Bush as if Bush was running for a third term and there was going to be another election tomorrow.
However, the search and seizure issue has somewhat been hammered out with the courts in private enterprise being able to post notices and not violate any laws or rules when they search someone leaving or entering their premises. A crafty lawyer could probably convince the courts that this is different because the searches are mandated by the government and performed by government employees, but the reply to that is somewhat of a shell game in that government employees are used because they need the power of arrest and it's being performed at the request of the airlines. So it's really one of those splitting hairs things made popular by the meaning of the word is.
Given that our electrical grid is widely considered 'broken' and not ready to handle the 21st century demands we're going to place on it, that's as good a place to start as any.
You right, that is a good place to start. And and the sections of the grid have problems, it needs to be upgraded. But seriously, this isn't the first place they started. They came out saying they wanted to tax everything to stop people from using it unless they were rich. They want people to give up their independence and take public transit and only move on the government's schedule.
And do you seriously think that putting meters in that allow the government or utility company go in and adjust your climate controls or turn off your hot water is the answer?
How is pushing solar and renewable sources not doing this very thing?
Pushing as in mandating the unreliable and insufficient technology that we have now? Or encouraging research and development into making solar and wind a viable replacement for fossil fuels. You see, those aren't the same thing, one is not currently a viable replacement the other attempts to make it one. but the terms pushing leave a lot to be interpreted.
Again, this is exactly what I'm talking about. We work to change. yes it happens in stages, but you need a goal. Stopping our 'increase' in CO2 emissions in 10 years isn't easy, but it's a good goal to shoot for.
The problem is, and you even noted this in your earlier post, 10 years is to short a time. in order to stop our increase in Co2 production in 10 years, we would have to stop all population growth and all economic grow in 3 years. Now this is something that is close to happening in the US with the government insisting on funding planned parenthood abortions and the economy being in the tubes right on the heals of the "OMG we gotta do something about global warming and dihydrogen monoxide" in the 90's and 2000's.
When there is a viable alternative, then reductions will happen. When there is a viable alternative and it doesn't cost each resident almost the same amount as their portion of the national debt or their tax burden for the next 10 years, it might be workable.
You don't have viable options unless you start to develop them. And regulation/taxing of the stuff you don't want is a very effective way to get development going on alternatives. And we do have a number of viable alternatives now in solar, wind. They can supply a fair bit. Also molten salt heat storage for intermittent energy mitigation has plants in operation right now. I don't like nuclear, but it will be needed for a part of CO2 mitigation for the next 50-100 years or so.
Do you know a better way to encourage the development of them? To fucking do it on the government level. ?Have the government do the research in connection with other countries and offer their technology advancements and a no to very low royalty. This avoids the entire tax everything to hell in back that achieves little more then making the poor go without, the well to do become poor and turn the world into the playground of the rich who see only a small burden.
No other time in the world has the government of anywhere ever decided that taxing and punishing the bulk of it's citizens was a way to get them to be creative and inventive and solve something they saw as a problem. All it does is cause inflation and monopolies because the costs are passed down to the consumer and when consumer can ' t afford it anymore, they go without causing other companies to fold and be gobbled up by the larger companies who can cope with the costs better. You are seriously brainwashed or purposely ignorant if you think taxing things to get someone to eventually do what you want is better then just doing it and requiring replacements after it;s a viable alternative.
Infrastructure spending is one of the best was to 'grow' an economy. But you're argument is we should just do nothing? That people's freedoms are more important than the environment we need to survive?
Only when it replaces broken things, maintains, things, or add new to the infrastructure. Japan found this out in the 90's when their economy crashed and they paid people to dig ditches only to have others fill it in after manually dropping drain lines they didn't need. I caused a temporary lasp in their recession but it returned sever times more severe.
The argument isn't that we should do nothing, it's that we should do things differently, These things include finding and implementing ways to negate the impact of Co2 on the earth. Removing it ourselves is one thing, regulations that require stages of improvement to almost a non emission level only after the technology is there.
And yes, people's freedoms are more important then the enviroment because the state picked to save the enviroment in is largely arbitrary. Someone thinks it was nince in 1800, so they don't want thier pristine forest changed any way other then naturaly from what it looked like in 1800. Someone thinks the earth is good now, so they don't want the earth to change away from what it is now. There is no rational reason outside of someone else putting themselves above the freedoms of others in saying that we have to stop evolution or or processes in nature that has happened since before we were here.
This isn't about people surviving, we can overcome almost any challenge put in front of us. We will have to move, grow different foods, you know, change and evolve with it. What's really at issue is rich people saying they don't want their ocean front property under water. It's political centers losing power, not because the people are rejecting them, but because their land disapears with the threat of rising oceans.
So you're saying because it's hard we shouldn't start trying? CFCs were 'easy' for the reason you said. But it shows that we can move forward when we 'want' to.
No, I'm saying we should have a viable replacement already available. That should be the first goal, then replacing everything. Not this tax the hell out of everything hoping to reduce our carbon foot print because the poor can't afford it and the well to do now become the poor. This entire force something that doesn't exist or costs 10 times too much mentality does nothing but make things unaffordable to those with less money and nothing but an exclusive playground for those with lots of money.
Your freedom to pollute conflicts with my freedom to live in an unpolluted world. How do you resolve that conflict?
By working sanely to correct the perceived problems and not accept arbitrary demands as reasonable unless solutions are already available to mitigate the problem. Christ, this isn't a hard concept, This isn't about my freedom trumping yours or your freedom running over mine. It's about finding viable and economical solutions to the problems and implementing them with the least amount of disruption to either of us.
The reason we need to start 'right now' is that it will take us more than a decade to even stop the annual *increase* in our CO2 emissions let alone start reducing them.
It will take longer then that unless you want to ruin the economy, drive inflation up, and restrict people's freedoms.
We stopped lead poisoning, we stopped CFC release, we stopped DDT. We can do this and make changes. The earth's atmosphere doesn't turn on a dime so if we want to stop the direction it's moving (because of our inputs) we need to start earlier rather than later.
Yes we did. And we took hits in the economy because of it. We have diseased that are spread by insects that were unheard of in most populated areas, and to give you an idea of the inflation seen, My parents purchased a home for $23,000 in 1968. This home was sold in 2006 for $150,000 with little improvements outside of maintenance and vinyl siding added to it.
But Co2 is not the same as DDT which is a specialty product in limited use. It's not the same as CFCs which already had a viable replacement that was as reliable and could work in existing units. It's not the same as all the stuff we tackled in the past as thiose either already had viable and compatible replacements or required simple machinery attached to existing machinery to retrofit the useful life of it. And the so called attempts to fix this aren't attempts to fix Co2, it's an excuses to tax and punish people and companies while taking their freedoms away.
"that's all subjective and opinionated". No its not. 100's of millions a year are spent on QUANTITATIVE evaluation of these things. and BILLIONS a year are spent as (a large part by insurers) based off these quantitative models.
Don't confuse a competitive market with the market in general. They are not the same, one is an aspect of the other and imperfect information does not cause a market failure, it causes an aspect failure that can be exploited by others to create market failures.
"that's all subjective and opinionated". No its not. 100's of millions a year are spent on QUANTITATIVE evaluation of these things. and BILLIONS a year are spent as (a large part by insurers) based off these quantitative models.
Just because you spend lots of money forming your opinion does not negate the fact that it's an opinion and largely subjective. To show the differences which I'm not sure yu will get anyways, it's like a study that shows unmarried people are in more accidents then married people. That does not mean you will get into an accident because you are not married. It means on the whole, probably because the majority of most people's lives are spent unmarried, those people get into more accidents.
Again the costs are occurring NOW/YESTERDAY and tomorrow. They have gone to little villages near sources of damage and measured how long it take for paint to peel , how many times a year people are ill how long a car's air filter last etc etc etc and compared these to locations without as significant exposure. The results of this is that there is MASSIVE damage NOW. I have not even mentioned global warming etc which is another MASSIVE although estimated cost. These other costs are NOT estimated they are measured.
You pain peeling is no concern of mine. It happens because of the paint you purchased at the price you purchased it at. You enjoyed the savings just as I did. If the costs of everything imaginable was built into the cost of everything, those villages would not exist, and those people would be dieing from malnutrition if they were even alive. They benefit more from cheaper prices.
The CURRENT costs each year caused by the growing terrain slowly drifting due to climate change in the US has been estimate to reach the billions of dollars level.
And the majority of that is made us crap. Besides, evolution will present a way yo deal with it over the long length of time needed for it to show. Why is it that you do not trust in evolution?
Imperfect information is not a reason for market failure, it's a disadvantage someone can use to exploit others. But it's not a reason for market failure, the failure generally happens when someone exploits that problem or over regulates the market in some attempt to fix it.
Savings is a matter of paying less. as for future costs due to externalities, that's all subjective and opinionated bs that the completely ignores the concept of evolution.
The fact is that the costs inured are long down the road and evolution as well as the theory of it will take care of those costs as they start to rise. It naturally becomes normalized with time.
"Your right. But more efficiency equals more profits and we know profits is what business is about." If your talking about the social profit or social "surplus" than yes. However most wealth is not enumerated on the balance sheets of the Forbes 500. + Even if it is, if everyone is dead who is there to enjoy it (thats not expected but hyperbole depicting the declining utility of wealth being concentrated in the few).
First of all, profit and wealth and nto the same thing. Second, I made a statement about companies goals, not your preference or something that can only be measured by guesses. Lets not confuse the world with how it is compared to how you want it to be.
"Externalities are already paid for in the savings of cost of the product." That would be theoretically possible however just about every bit of research ive seen have put the costs at high multiples of current prices . In fact I have not seen any works Id consider reasonable that says that total net prices are any way near half the net externalities alone.
Net prices doesn't matter. IT's the net savings and it will change with the costs assigned to the externality. Most externality figures of cost are arbitrary anyways.
And as I said before, that is accounted for in the savings to the consumer. If a consumer did not want cars spewing Co2 into the air, they would stop driving them. But since they are not, they are accepting the externality by accepting the activity at the reduced cost.
This one concludes that there is over a 1 billion a year of damage to Greece alone. Which is fraction of the size of the US. Using that figure to extrapolate the net world wide loss in productivity is easily within the low/mid 100's of billions a year. Which is on the low end of what I remember seeing. External costs range from poor health / more sick days / the walls of buildings needing to be painted and rebuilt more often (the chemicals in the air help erode the building materials/ cars break down more often (same effect and more crap in the air filters) etc etc.
Again, they are accepting that cost completely by demanding cheaper products. That is accounted for in their savings. And that's not even getting into the entire concept of it costing some country money (because it isn't).
Your right. But more efficiency equals more profits and we know profits is what business is about.
I admitted a side effect of properly allocated research funding would likely be lower corporate profits for some mega corporations this is true and I am indifferent to this effect (I have stock in big and small firms I am not blindly anti corporate). If you would actually read what was said you would realize that was not the main goal and that "to counteract the effects of externalities previously unaccounted for" was the goal that does = Economic efficiency.
Externalities are already paid for in the savings of cost of the product.
"If such technologies can be profitably developed within our current regulatory economy, then entrepreneurs will create start-ups, and funders will give funding." That is fundamentally incorrect. Man made financial instruments are massively risk adverse. Not to mention the economics of scale needed to realize the value basic research.
There are plenty of risk takers out there as well as complete idiots will to throw a ton of money at something as long as someone can communicate some envisioned great reward from it. If there weren't, you would not hear about the plight of the greedy people who sunk all their retirement into high risk investments because the payout was better and lost it all. This is somewhat of a common theme in today's society. Don't discount the stupidity of greed and think risk is some untouched avenue.
Sometimes the messenger does deserve to be shot. That was the point of my original message and I admit that. I like to discuss topics with people who will actually contribute some valid back and forth however there are valid
I disagree. Of course the less they say, the easier it is to refute them which can sort of seem like shooting the messenger. But if you expect to maintain any legitimacy, then the message needs to be addressed- else you have become what you claimed of them.
Discussion on politics is often academic at best. By now the sides are far too entrenched to move the bases. I admit I am part of that and gladly so, I have my reasons for this.
That's because politics is largely opinions. Some opinions have more sound reasoning then others, some do not.
These "arguments" are classic handed down talking points. If you are pushing them you are already lost to one side any debate over the hard line talking points is silly as they have been debated ad-nauseum..
IT appears that there would be no debate if you had your way. And no, you cannot delegate me to one side simply because I read a few points put forward that you completely ignored. That does not make me biased, it makes me able to comprehend what is being said. The failure is on not addressing the points made or putting them into the proper prospective. Just becuse I followed his line of reasoning and your was essentially, I don't like you, does not mean I'm in any camp.
The problem is that in this situation, it would be like 90% or all Americans in a foreign country. What's normal for you here, is not normal there and can be a sign of something being out of place or wrong.
So imagine someone in a Nike shoes, Ill suited T-Shirt, and driving a ford, in the middle of Afghanistan were ford car haven't been sold in ages. IT not narrows the field down to a few people indicating something other then normality and most likely with someone commonly bonding them to those choices..
There is no message worth speaking of or responding to
as I pointed out, the guy raised several points that you ignored. If they aren't worth responding to, then I'm confused to why you responded in some vein attempt to shoot the messenger instead of the message.
These "people" have no information and are simply doing as their preacher tells them to.
I'm not sure what it matter if their preacher tells them something or not. You are still ignoring the points made and attacking the person saying them instead. In enlightened circles, this generally points to a flaw in your own reasoning, not the guy repeating what the preacher told him.
Arguing/ speaking with them is a joke.
How do you know this? Have you ever tried? I mean seriously, you neglected the experience here and all I have to go by is your obvious religious ferocity in hating someone because their preacher told them something.
The motivation of these techologies is not a profit motive thus there is little incentive for mega corporate entities to suck them dry. If any thing it is to counteract the effects of externalities previously unaccounted for. A large part of this will result in lower corporate profits and better living conditions for the average person.
So the guy was right after all, this is not anything to make anything more efficient or productive, but to punish corporations and reduce efficiency on the whole by forcing it onto the public. It's no wonder why you neglected to address his points and attempt to shove it off as his preacher telling him something rather then your own.
In fact, after considering your admissions of guilt here, I'm tempted to consider his entire post as not only accurate, but insightful. But before you close me off and some member of his church and not yours, please allow me to explain a bit.
You see, he said to the parent who made the comment that it would improve the economy that he shouldn't "confuse corporate welfare or a fascist economy for economically productive R&D." Now by your own admission, it's not intended to be economically productive R&D and it intended to be fascist in imposing costs onto the market. But he goes on with "If such technologies can be profitably developed within our current regulatory economy, then entrepreneurs will create start-ups, and funders will give funding." which again, by your own admission is not the intention so he's right again.
But it gets even better, "This wasteful exercise of $130 million is a political, not an economic, decision, and rent-seekers with the closest ties to the government will satiate themselves at the public trough." Well, outside of injecting the opinion that it's wasteful, I'm not sure this disagrees with yout comment or position as stated either.
So we are left with the closing of his points in that he said "If you want to rebuild the economy, the answer is not centralized planning or rent-seeking under a government unlawfully propping up its supporters with taxpayer money, but free-market competition under the same legal regime of equality under the law, absent political bribery and ransom." And again, it appears that rebuilding the economy is not the intended steps this is supposed to create according to you. He does make some accusations about unlawfulness of it but I think they might have built in enough loopholes to which that could be incorrect even though it seems to match the spirit of laws against it. Of course the free market aspect is a proven winner when the markets remain free. That doesn't seem to happen naturally in our current environment so some regulation is required from time to time to apply the principles behind a free market.
In all, I think you actually agree with the man even though your bias has showed extremely well how competent you are in pretending otherwise without ever touching the points made.It's almost that you know he is right but don't like the fact that he is right so you attack him for pointing it out.
Wow.. Way to shoot the messenger and ignore the message. Kudos to you. You will be lifted on the shoulders of 10,000 idiots in remembrance of your great deed here today. In fact, some area already hailing you as a hero.
Try picking apart his points which as far as I can tell are valid. If there was a profit opportunity here, the greedy corporations would have seized the day with them and used it to cut their costs while continuing to rape the consumers while being protected through inordinate amounts of regulation making real competition near impossible hidden under smoke screen of protecting the people. This is little more then shelling out taxpayer money to those closest to the current government who aren't afraid to be seen sucking on the government tit in public.
And yes, I like my tea served cold and unsweetened. sometimes with a slash or rum in it.
The problem is that even the most liberal estimates on AGW post it out over a series of decades if not centuries. But for some reason, they want everything to be done right now. And if we listen to the science in it all, evolution will protect the animals so Green peace is really barking for the sake of barking.
Most likely because NASCAR, at least at one time, required the options in the vehicle to be in production and has safety standards. I doubt any car maker will ever put normally open injectors in any production vehicle as they want it to fail closed. Otherwise you run the possibility of flooding the engine too readily or even causing fuel leaks in accident conditions.
As the GP said, carburetor fuel metering is very efficient at wide open or near wide open throttle. Where Fuel injection shines is where you have acceleration changes. This isn't happening on a nascar track where it's 90-100% open throttle 90% or better of the time. Each tech is better at different conditions. It's really that simple.
Your right, the feds can do that. However, the pissed off local police and their federal helpers need a warrant and time. This file can avoid all that and make you guilty in their eyes before they even bother checking out your legitimate reason for being there or bother with enough evidence to convince a judge they deserve access to it.
So let me put this straight with you. If the cops normally need a warrant to get the information, then giving it to them this easily is simply wrong.
Yep.. It's only a warrant away as apposed to simply fumbling through your phone and drawing conclusions before any external information can be processed.
Well, there's just *one little flaw in your statement. The data is never sent to Apple.
That you know of. Or better yet, what if its sent to ATT or whoever your carrier is now? I mean they would have a legitimate need for the information to maintain their network except they can probably gain it on their own without it.
More importantly, the government can gain access to the location and use it for anything if they get your phone. How about you are standing on the street corner waiting to cross the street, minding your own business in a neighborhood that you have a legitimate reason to be in. You all the sudden hear a commotion down the street and try to see what it is. Turns out to be one of the internet organized protest rallies attempting to raid the democrat or republican convention or some speech that happening close by that you knew nothing about. You sit there watching peacefully as they pass by you pondering whether to ask them what's happening or join them. They are holding signs up advertising a web site so you open your Iphone and browse to it hoping to grab some insight into what's happening in front of you. Then moments later, they clash with the police. The police chase them, rocks are thrown, tear gas is used, in the chaos, you are snagged up by the police. You swear you weren't part of it. A policeman and a representative got seriously hurt so they aren't going easily on people. They grab you Iphone and pull this file out, find out you were within 20 feet of the start of it, moved closer to it before the violence started, and visited the website that organized it moments before the violence started. You are now on the hot seat for attacking a police officer, attacking a representative of the state or federal government, participating in an illegal mob/protest/criminal gang activity and whatever else they can dream up because they are out for blood. And Its your IPHONE that is going to give them enough information to either convict you (because they like making examples out of people who hurt government employees and politicians) or cost you a shit ton of money, probably a conversion to some religion so your prayers would feel like they are helping more, maybe even your job, and maybe time in jail while sorting it out, just to get out of it.
Yeah.. It's a fail to be concerned with the Apple products tracking you without your knowledge for uses not disclosed to anyone.
After further pondering, I believe my log in issue was related more to my password being reset and my original email I signed up with having been canceled several months before. I guess I never changed it in my original account settings or something but I I had to abandon it and get a new one eventually. It was about the same time frame I guess or I'm simply conflating two separate issues into one.
I live a little closer (about 20 minutes) and only care about the software they use when they keep screwing things up or want to know how to pirate a $400 Microsoft application.
About the only real reason I change the name of the links to those of Microsoft's products is to avoid confusion when they decide they want to write something once a month and can only remember to use word or whatever the name was at work 10 years ago before they retired. It seems that word and excel are sort of like Zerox and google now and describe the concept of a word processor more then the program to some.
Because, really... "honestly mom, you should change to Libre Office, that Open Office from 2 years ago is so passe"... I just don't see that helping the cause of coming up with a free alternative. I'm not really willing to go there for myself even.
And all this time, I have been just installing the software and renaming the icons Word, Excel, and so on. I didn't realize I was supposed to tell them the name of the programs as well as they weren't using the Microsoft versions.
Didn't slashdot have a drive failure or DB crash or something resulting in some serious data loss including old stories around 1998-99? I seem to remember that because I had to stop using my original username and post anonymous for 6-8 months while they sorted something out then had to switch user names about a year or so after that because it never worked again.
Re:This is not the logic you are looking for
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
That's not true. Even in California, about 25-30% of the bars and restaurants banned smoking long before the state wide ban was in place. In Ohio, I can think of at least 8 places that server food and or drinks that banned smoking well before the state did.
You are making that number up. Pure and simple fabrication on what you want to believe in order to reconcile the point the GP made, you are basically cheering the government for stopping smoking at places you do not patronize.
I don't believe the original goal was ever to disarm anyone. IT was to stop Nuclear weapons from becoming the next Sherman Tank in warfare.
And I do not think that Israel having Nuclear weapons is a problem because Israel will end up just as poluted and devistated shall they ever use them. It's basically a last resort burn everything measure and Israel never signed the treaty. Iran on the other hand has and benefited from it.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he was inferring the brain development retardation that occurs from eating lead in order to believe either of those two conspiracies.
You haven't heard the complaining about the PATRIOT act because it's no longer politically advantageous for those who are the loudest. The TSA issue is still being linked to Bush as if Bush was running for a third term and there was going to be another election tomorrow.
However, the search and seizure issue has somewhat been hammered out with the courts in private enterprise being able to post notices and not violate any laws or rules when they search someone leaving or entering their premises. A crafty lawyer could probably convince the courts that this is different because the searches are mandated by the government and performed by government employees, but the reply to that is somewhat of a shell game in that government employees are used because they need the power of arrest and it's being performed at the request of the airlines. So it's really one of those splitting hairs things made popular by the meaning of the word is.
You right, that is a good place to start. And and the sections of the grid have problems, it needs to be upgraded. But seriously, this isn't the first place they started. They came out saying they wanted to tax everything to stop people from using it unless they were rich. They want people to give up their independence and take public transit and only move on the government's schedule.
And do you seriously think that putting meters in that allow the government or utility company go in and adjust your climate controls or turn off your hot water is the answer?
Pushing as in mandating the unreliable and insufficient technology that we have now? Or encouraging research and development into making solar and wind a viable replacement for fossil fuels. You see, those aren't the same thing, one is not currently a viable replacement the other attempts to make it one. but the terms pushing leave a lot to be interpreted.
The problem is, and you even noted this in your earlier post, 10 years is to short a time. in order to stop our increase in Co2 production in 10 years, we would have to stop all population growth and all economic grow in 3 years. Now this is something that is close to happening in the US with the government insisting on funding planned parenthood abortions and the economy being in the tubes right on the heals of the "OMG we gotta do something about global warming and dihydrogen monoxide" in the 90's and 2000's.
When there is a viable alternative, then reductions will happen. When there is a viable alternative and it doesn't cost each resident almost the same amount as their portion of the national debt or their tax burden for the next 10 years, it might be workable.
Do you know a better way to encourage the development of them? To fucking do it on the government level. ?Have the government do the research in connection with other countries and offer their technology advancements and a no to very low royalty. This avoids the entire tax everything to hell in back that achieves little more then making the poor go without, the well to do become poor and turn the world into the playground of the rich who see only a small burden.
No other time in the world has the government of anywhere ever decided that taxing and punishing the bulk of it's citizens was a way to get them to be creative and inventive and solve something they saw as a problem. All it does is cause inflation and monopolies because the costs are passed down to the consumer and when consumer can ' t afford it anymore, they go without causing other companies to fold and be gobbled up by the larger companies who can cope with the costs better. You are seriously brainwashed or purposely ignorant if you think taxing things to get someone to eventually do what you want is better then just doing it and requiring replacements after it;s a viable alternative.
Only when it replaces broken things, maintains, things, or add new to the infrastructure. Japan found this out in the 90's when their economy crashed and they paid people to dig ditches only to have others fill it in after manually dropping drain lines they didn't need. I caused a temporary lasp in their recession but it returned sever times more severe.
The argument isn't that we should do nothing, it's that we should do things differently, These things include finding and implementing ways to negate the impact of Co2 on the earth. Removing it ourselves is one thing, regulations that require stages of improvement to almost a non emission level only after the technology is there.
And yes, people's freedoms are more important then the enviroment because the state picked to save the enviroment in is largely arbitrary. Someone thinks it was nince in 1800, so they don't want thier pristine forest changed any way other then naturaly from what it looked like in 1800. Someone thinks the earth is good now, so they don't want the earth to change away from what it is now. There is no rational reason outside of someone else putting themselves above the freedoms of others in saying that we have to stop evolution or or processes in nature that has happened since before we were here.
This isn't about people surviving, we can overcome almost any challenge put in front of us. We will have to move, grow different foods, you know, change and evolve with it. What's really at issue is rich people saying they don't want their ocean front property under water. It's political centers losing power, not because the people are rejecting them, but because their land disapears with the threat of rising oceans.
No, I'm saying we should have a viable replacement already available. That should be the first goal, then replacing everything. Not this tax the hell out of everything hoping to reduce our carbon foot print because the poor can't afford it and the well to do now become the poor. This entire force something that doesn't exist or costs 10 times too much mentality does nothing but make things unaffordable to those with less money and nothing but an exclusive playground for those with lots of money.
By working sanely to correct the perceived problems and not accept arbitrary demands as reasonable unless solutions are already available to mitigate the problem. Christ, this isn't a hard concept, This isn't about my freedom trumping yours or your freedom running over mine. It's about finding viable and economical solutions to the problems and implementing them with the least amount of disruption to either of us.
It will take longer then that unless you want to ruin the economy, drive inflation up, and restrict people's freedoms.
Yes we did. And we took hits in the economy because of it. We have diseased that are spread by insects that were unheard of in most populated areas, and to give you an idea of the inflation seen, My parents purchased a home for $23,000 in 1968. This home was sold in 2006 for $150,000 with little improvements outside of maintenance and vinyl siding added to it.
But Co2 is not the same as DDT which is a specialty product in limited use. It's not the same as CFCs which already had a viable replacement that was as reliable and could work in existing units. It's not the same as all the stuff we tackled in the past as thiose either already had viable and compatible replacements or required simple machinery attached to existing machinery to retrofit the useful life of it. And the so called attempts to fix this aren't attempts to fix Co2, it's an excuses to tax and punish people and companies while taking their freedoms away.
Don't confuse a competitive market with the market in general. They are not the same, one is an aspect of the other and imperfect information does not cause a market failure, it causes an aspect failure that can be exploited by others to create market failures.
Just because you spend lots of money forming your opinion does not negate the fact that it's an opinion and largely subjective. To show the differences which I'm not sure yu will get anyways, it's like a study that shows unmarried people are in more accidents then married people. That does not mean you will get into an accident because you are not married. It means on the whole, probably because the majority of most people's lives are spent unmarried, those people get into more accidents.
You pain peeling is no concern of mine. It happens because of the paint you purchased at the price you purchased it at. You enjoyed the savings just as I did. If the costs of everything imaginable was built into the cost of everything, those villages would not exist, and those people would be dieing from malnutrition if they were even alive. They benefit more from cheaper prices.
And the majority of that is made us crap. Besides, evolution will present a way yo deal with it over the long length of time needed for it to show. Why is it that you do not trust in evolution?
Imperfect information is not a reason for market failure, it's a disadvantage someone can use to exploit others. But it's not a reason for market failure, the failure generally happens when someone exploits that problem or over regulates the market in some attempt to fix it.
Savings is a matter of paying less. as for future costs due to externalities, that's all subjective and opinionated bs that the completely ignores the concept of evolution.
The fact is that the costs inured are long down the road and evolution as well as the theory of it will take care of those costs as they start to rise. It naturally becomes normalized with time.
First of all, profit and wealth and nto the same thing. Second, I made a statement about companies goals, not your preference or something that can only be measured by guesses. Lets not confuse the world with how it is compared to how you want it to be.
Net prices doesn't matter. IT's the net savings and it will change with the costs assigned to the externality. Most externality figures of cost are arbitrary anyways.
YEah.. There is a reason why that type of market is not commonly in place and why people dogpile tackle, kicking and screaming trying to avoid it.
And as I said before, that is accounted for in the savings to the consumer. If a consumer did not want cars spewing Co2 into the air, they would stop driving them. But since they are not, they are accepting the externality by accepting the activity at the reduced cost.
Again, they are accepting that cost completely by demanding cheaper products. That is accounted for in their savings. And that's not even getting into the entire concept of it costing some country money (because it isn't).
Your right. But more efficiency equals more profits and we know profits is what business is about.
Externalities are already paid for in the savings of cost of the product.
There are plenty of risk takers out there as well as complete idiots will to throw a ton of money at something as long as someone can communicate some envisioned great reward from it. If there weren't, you would not hear about the plight of the greedy people who sunk all their retirement into high risk investments because the payout was better and lost it all. This is somewhat of a common theme in today's society. Don't discount the stupidity of greed and think risk is some untouched avenue.
I disagree. Of course the less they say, the easier it is to refute them which can sort of seem like shooting the messenger. But if you expect to maintain any legitimacy, then the message needs to be addressed- else you have become what you claimed of them.
That's because politics is largely opinions. Some opinions have more sound reasoning then others, some do not.
IT appears that there would be no debate if you had your way. And no, you cannot delegate me to one side simply because I read a few points put forward that you completely ignored. That does not make me biased, it makes me able to comprehend what is being said. The failure is on not addressing the points made or putting them into the proper prospective. Just becuse I followed his line of reasoning and your was essentially, I don't like you, does not mean I'm in any camp.
The problem is that in this situation, it would be like 90% or all Americans in a foreign country. What's normal for you here, is not normal there and can be a sign of something being out of place or wrong.
So imagine someone in a Nike shoes, Ill suited T-Shirt, and driving a ford, in the middle of Afghanistan were ford car haven't been sold in ages. IT not narrows the field down to a few people indicating something other then normality and most likely with someone commonly bonding them to those choices..
as I pointed out, the guy raised several points that you ignored. If they aren't worth responding to, then I'm confused to why you responded in some vein attempt to shoot the messenger instead of the message.
I'm not sure what it matter if their preacher tells them something or not. You are still ignoring the points made and attacking the person saying them instead. In enlightened circles, this generally points to a flaw in your own reasoning, not the guy repeating what the preacher told him.
How do you know this? Have you ever tried? I mean seriously, you neglected the experience here and all I have to go by is your obvious religious ferocity in hating someone because their preacher told them something.
So the guy was right after all, this is not anything to make anything more efficient or productive, but to punish corporations and reduce efficiency on the whole by forcing it onto the public. It's no wonder why you neglected to address his points and attempt to shove it off as his preacher telling him something rather then your own.
In fact, after considering your admissions of guilt here, I'm tempted to consider his entire post as not only accurate, but insightful. But before you close me off and some member of his church and not yours, please allow me to explain a bit.
You see, he said to the parent who made the comment that it would improve the economy that he shouldn't "confuse corporate welfare or a fascist economy for economically productive R&D." Now by your own admission, it's not intended to be economically productive R&D and it intended to be fascist in imposing costs onto the market. But he goes on with "If such technologies can be profitably developed within our current regulatory economy, then entrepreneurs will create start-ups, and funders will give funding." which again, by your own admission is not the intention so he's right again.
But it gets even better, "This wasteful exercise of $130 million is a political, not an economic, decision, and rent-seekers with the closest ties to the government will satiate themselves at the public trough." Well, outside of injecting the opinion that it's wasteful, I'm not sure this disagrees with yout comment or position as stated either.
So we are left with the closing of his points in that he said "If you want to rebuild the economy, the answer is not centralized planning or rent-seeking under a government unlawfully propping up its supporters with taxpayer money, but free-market competition under the same legal regime of equality under the law, absent political bribery and ransom." And again, it appears that rebuilding the economy is not the intended steps this is supposed to create according to you. He does make some accusations about unlawfulness of it but I think they might have built in enough loopholes to which that could be incorrect even though it seems to match the spirit of laws against it. Of course the free market aspect is a proven winner when the markets remain free. That doesn't seem to happen naturally in our current environment so some regulation is required from time to time to apply the principles behind a free market.
In all, I think you actually agree with the man even though your bias has showed extremely well how competent you are in pretending otherwise without ever touching the points made.It's almost that you know he is right but don't like the fact that he is right so you attack him for pointing it out.
Wow.. Way to shoot the messenger and ignore the message. Kudos to you. You will be lifted on the shoulders of 10,000 idiots in remembrance of your great deed here today. In fact, some area already hailing you as a hero.
Try picking apart his points which as far as I can tell are valid. If there was a profit opportunity here, the greedy corporations would have seized the day with them and used it to cut their costs while continuing to rape the consumers while being protected through inordinate amounts of regulation making real competition near impossible hidden under smoke screen of protecting the people. This is little more then shelling out taxpayer money to those closest to the current government who aren't afraid to be seen sucking on the government tit in public.
And yes, I like my tea served cold and unsweetened. sometimes with a slash or rum in it.
Well, you have to remember, 2008 was fueled by hope and change and some people believe either is working.
The problem is that even the most liberal estimates on AGW post it out over a series of decades if not centuries. But for some reason, they want everything to be done right now. And if we listen to the science in it all, evolution will protect the animals so Green peace is really barking for the sake of barking.
Most likely because NASCAR, at least at one time, required the options in the vehicle to be in production and has safety standards. I doubt any car maker will ever put normally open injectors in any production vehicle as they want it to fail closed. Otherwise you run the possibility of flooding the engine too readily or even causing fuel leaks in accident conditions.
As the GP said, carburetor fuel metering is very efficient at wide open or near wide open throttle. Where Fuel injection shines is where you have acceleration changes. This isn't happening on a nascar track where it's 90-100% open throttle 90% or better of the time. Each tech is better at different conditions. It's really that simple.
Your right, the feds can do that. However, the pissed off local police and their federal helpers need a warrant and time. This file can avoid all that and make you guilty in their eyes before they even bother checking out your legitimate reason for being there or bother with enough evidence to convince a judge they deserve access to it.
So let me put this straight with you. If the cops normally need a warrant to get the information, then giving it to them this easily is simply wrong.
Yep.. It's only a warrant away as apposed to simply fumbling through your phone and drawing conclusions before any external information can be processed.
That you know of. Or better yet, what if its sent to ATT or whoever your carrier is now? I mean they would have a legitimate need for the information to maintain their network except they can probably gain it on their own without it.
More importantly, the government can gain access to the location and use it for anything if they get your phone. How about you are standing on the street corner waiting to cross the street, minding your own business in a neighborhood that you have a legitimate reason to be in. You all the sudden hear a commotion down the street and try to see what it is. Turns out to be one of the internet organized protest rallies attempting to raid the democrat or republican convention or some speech that happening close by that you knew nothing about. You sit there watching peacefully as they pass by you pondering whether to ask them what's happening or join them. They are holding signs up advertising a web site so you open your Iphone and browse to it hoping to grab some insight into what's happening in front of you. Then moments later, they clash with the police. The police chase them, rocks are thrown, tear gas is used, in the chaos, you are snagged up by the police. You swear you weren't part of it. A policeman and a representative got seriously hurt so they aren't going easily on people. They grab you Iphone and pull this file out, find out you were within 20 feet of the start of it, moved closer to it before the violence started, and visited the website that organized it moments before the violence started. You are now on the hot seat for attacking a police officer, attacking a representative of the state or federal government, participating in an illegal mob/protest/criminal gang activity and whatever else they can dream up because they are out for blood. And Its your IPHONE that is going to give them enough information to either convict you (because they like making examples out of people who hurt government employees and politicians) or cost you a shit ton of money, probably a conversion to some religion so your prayers would feel like they are helping more, maybe even your job, and maybe time in jail while sorting it out, just to get out of it.
Yeah.. It's a fail to be concerned with the Apple products tracking you without your knowledge for uses not disclosed to anyone.
After further pondering, I believe my log in issue was related more to my password being reset and my original email I signed up with having been canceled several months before. I guess I never changed it in my original account settings or something but I I had to abandon it and get a new one eventually. It was about the same time frame I guess or I'm simply conflating two separate issues into one.
I live a little closer (about 20 minutes) and only care about the software they use when they keep screwing things up or want to know how to pirate a $400 Microsoft application.
About the only real reason I change the name of the links to those of Microsoft's products is to avoid confusion when they decide they want to write something once a month and can only remember to use word or whatever the name was at work 10 years ago before they retired. It seems that word and excel are sort of like Zerox and google now and describe the concept of a word processor more then the program to some.
And all this time, I have been just installing the software and renaming the icons Word, Excel, and so on. I didn't realize I was supposed to tell them the name of the programs as well as they weren't using the Microsoft versions.
I'll change my name and find out for you.
I'll report back in a month and let you know if I'm still alive.
Didn't slashdot have a drive failure or DB crash or something resulting in some serious data loss including old stories around 1998-99? I seem to remember that because I had to stop using my original username and post anonymous for 6-8 months while they sorted something out then had to switch user names about a year or so after that because it never worked again.
That's not true. Even in California, about 25-30% of the bars and restaurants banned smoking long before the state wide ban was in place. In Ohio, I can think of at least 8 places that server food and or drinks that banned smoking well before the state did.
You are making that number up. Pure and simple fabrication on what you want to believe in order to reconcile the point the GP made, you are basically cheering the government for stopping smoking at places you do not patronize.
I don't believe the original goal was ever to disarm anyone. IT was to stop Nuclear weapons from becoming the next Sherman Tank in warfare.
And I do not think that Israel having Nuclear weapons is a problem because Israel will end up just as poluted and devistated shall they ever use them. It's basically a last resort burn everything measure and Israel never signed the treaty. Iran on the other hand has and benefited from it.