Holding intellectual property ransom has nothing to do with capitalism.
Sure it does, if you mean free market capitalism. If there is any kind of property, it is quite within the bounds of capitalism for the owner to choose to relinquish control only when someone pays a price they set. Sure, it may be annoying that the system structure allows anyone to get squatter's rights on domain property, but as long as the system allows it, "holding intellectual property ransom" is pure capitalism. Not allowing someone to use an equitable system to gain rights over a domain is against the principles of capitalism.
Note, however, that the term 'intellectual property' doesn't really apply here.
Take your marxist claptrap elsewhere.
Marxist claptrap? I'm sorry, what part of the OP's post has anything to do with Marxism? Your post insinuates that not allowing ownership of intellectual property is capitalist. I'm sorry, isn't property ownership one of the tenets of capitalism? As long as the system allows for intellectual property (to continue using your incorrect term) then how is being allowed to sell it to the highest bidder Marxist?
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but the insightful mod on the parent to this post struck me as odd. The parent espouses an action that is more Marxist in nature than the OP, and then calls the OP Marxist. Never mind the tone of the post, or the loaded, albeit inaccurate, langage -- "olding intellectual property ransom."
"Some people think that we're doing these deals to appear more 'friendly' and that's not it at all," says Hilf, with refreshing candor, as anyone who has spent time getting information out of Microsoft will tell you. "It's all about growing our business. And the dirty little secret here is that most customers of open source run it on Windows first."
I do not think it means what you think it means:
Candor: the quality of being honest and straightforward in attitude and speech.
Honest? Maybe. But I'm not taking this reporter's word for it -- there are truths, and there are truthinesses.
Straightforward? That, I highly doubt. That last sentence -- perhaps it has something to do with Windows market saturation? It's a misleading fact, and thus is hardly straightforward. Never mind the fact that 'customers' is a term he doesn't define.
Not only would the act be illegal, but allowing the act to be possible would also be
There's still the good old a-hole. By which I mean a camcorder recording the front of my TV, since they'll be able to prevent normal analog interception.
For that matter, I could just tell my friends the plot of the show. Is that infringing? Will I not be allowed to go out in public unless I wear a ball gag?
Something tells me that the low-tech counterculture is going to be going through a huge upswing in the next generation.
And the type of content I'm talking about doesn't work in your 'new media' construct: high-production-cost content. I purposely brought up this type of content because I completely agree with you for low-production-cost content. No matter what you do, if you pay a lot to produce the content, other distributors can more cheaply deliver the content -- and "community building, fan management, esoteric content" doesn't help you one whit if your cost to consumers is much higher than your competitors.
I know you like to speak in sweeping terms that sound profound, but when you get down to the nitty gritty, the 'new media' construct fails miserably for expensive content.
It's not about groovy buzzwords and sounds-good-for-startup-business-models, it's about the microeconomics of content production and revenue generation that leave big-budget content unprofitable.
I completely agree with you wrt smaller budget content (especially the esoterica). But please, tell me how large-budget content producers (read: mainstream) can remain competitive in your new media model. No amount of community goodwill can help you recoup your production costs when alternative delivery is everywhere, particularly since companies that specialize in distribution, not production, have a competitive advantage when it comes to your source of revenue.
you're still stuck in thinking about how to make old media ways of makign content pay in the new media world
Not at all. What I'm stuck thinking about are the three segments of revenue generation, and how a company that funds content production through distribution-related revenues can take advantage of the 'new media' structure that we're talking about.
I think you're being very vague about 'new media' and 'old media' concepts. Let's talk specifics. In the 'new media' world that you're talking about, content itself is freely available to distributors. Distributors make money off of advertising, and in some cases, directly from delivering content (iTunes -- which is dependent on restricted access and branding).
Say I was a big-budget video content producer in your 'new media'. I've got a few ways of deriving revenues from my content:
Advertising within-content (product placement, etc) Public viewings (theaters, which are also dependent on distribution access control) Advertising delivered via distribution (which only generates revenue for the distributor)
The only way to be successful in the long run, as a content producer, is to have ads within the content. Any revenue stream dependent on distribution will be less profitable for me than for my competitors, since they didn't have to produce the content. With no distribution access controls, any revenue stream that isn't intrinsically tied to the content can be done more profitably by someone other than the content producer.
you need to simply accept that the access-control method doesn't work any more. move your mind off of that dead model
I'm fully aware of the situation -- don't be so condescending, please, since you're still not addressing my post at all -- the concerns about incentive to produce content not loaded with intrinsic advertising is a valid one, and still applies in your 'new media' fantasy. Once you separate production from distribution, you've got issues, which I'm trying to address. You can't simply wave a magic wand and say 'the new media will provide a way to make money off of content production -- you need to stop thinking about the old ways'. I'm directly addressing the 'new media' and the impact it will have on content production. You need to accept that removal of access control will have some negative long-term effects as well as the positive ones.
in other words, the more content you get out there, the cheaper you get it out there (hint: free), the more money you make: more traffic, more ad revenue, more awareness
What I think you're missing is that you only make more money if you're the one providing access to the content. The awareness only pays off if the traffic is on your site, and you are delivering the ads to consumers. If YouTube supplants Viacom as the major provider of Viacom's content, Viacom loses.
So the trick is to allow enough 'illicit' views of your content to get publicity and drive viewers to your distribution channels, while still retaining control of the content so you can make money off it.
Not for nothing, but the 'new media' concept has a major flaw (from the standpoint of content producers): it doesn't matter who made the content, since anyone can profit off of delivering the content. Therefore, incentive to produce expensive content is reduced.
Now, I'm not saying that the 'old media' companies are going about finding a solution in the best manner... but from the standpoint of someone who enjoys high-production-cost content (like action films), I'm concerned that the only way I'll be able to continue getting such content is if it's even more loaded with ads as part of the content instead of prepended or appended.
Most analysts consider GOOG to be inflated, but not hyper-inflated -- here's a quick Yahoo finance hit for GOOG key stats, note the market cap vs. enterprise value numbers. I don't have the specifics for how Yahoo calculates enterprise valuations, but they are in line with most analysts -- who, of course, could be wrong.
Love the Abbey quote in your sig. One of my favorite ISRs is his:
In the Soviet Union, government controls industry. In the United States, industry controls government. That is the principal structural difference between the two great oligarchies of our time.
RIP, Edward. Hope your corpse is fertilizing a cactus.
Here I was about to lambast the submitter for using "First Mile" instead of "Last Mile", only to discover after Googling that "First Mile" was coined in 1997:
That has got to be the most refreshing thing I've read on Slashdot in a few weeks. Props to you for bothering to research a bit before flaming someone.
Now, if only I can remember to always do the same...
Do you even understand what a strawman is? Obviously not.
You cant, you wont, so all you have left is attack.
Pot, meet kettle.
Do you still have no defense of your intitial post? Are you still unable to defend your arguments??? Are you still trying to make this about me, when it's about the bald fallacies expressed in your OP, and your inability to back them up?
Well, I shall hereby prove that we are surrounded by dark matter, using the mass-energy equivalence work of Einstein and Poincare. We know that E == +|- m * C*C
Let's append (d) to signify the quality of 'dark'. So, E(d) == m(d) * C*C
As we are all aware, m(d) is the abbreviation for medical doctor (+|- the parentheses), so let's go ahead and substitute for physicists (and since the last parenthetical phrase says +|- the parentheses, lets get rid of the +|- and the parentheses), which would give us: Ed == Phd * C*C.
Now we all know that ED is the universal abbreviation for Erectile Dysfunction, so let's go ahead and substitute: Bob Dole == PhD * C*C.
And of course, Dole grows pineapples, and since SpongeBob lives in one under the C, we get Bob * C/Pineapple == C * C.
Lets go ahead and simplify to: Bob/pineapple == C
Since one normally bobs for apples, we can substitute again to achieve: 1*apple/pineapple == C, or 1/pine == C, or 1 == C*pine
And we all know that Seapine makes Surround SCM[1], so we get that:
I'd be gald to point out that your reading skills are abysmal. You have yet to address my initial refutations of your gibberish.
Your "first fucking sentence of my post" is not from your OP, which you still have yet to defend -- probably because it's a load of horsecrap.
What Climate change impact can be attributed to the behavior of Humans, which has not already occured a few thousand times throughout Earth's history before we humans ever got here.
You're throwing in a straw man. Whether or not it's happened before in Earth's history is immaterial; what is important is what has happened during mankind's history, and what impact it will have on us and the world around us.
The rate of change of the CO2 levels now is unprecedented aside from some postulated superplumes of billions of years ago. I, and countless others, question the ability of many lifeforms to be able to adapt to their changing environments that we are bringing on by our escalation of the rate of climate change. Polar bears, for one. Countless marine species in coral reef habitats, for another. Never mind the impact on fish stocks that we depend on for food supplies.
So again, before you start spouting your reactionary nonsense, why don't you bother educating your ignorant self and learn something about the issue? Because obviously, if you had bothered to do so, you would have equipped yourself to answer your own question, and to counter any answers to it... if there were any counters that haven't been refuted.
It's more difficult to audit their paper trails when their HQ is in Dubai than if it were in New York. Minimum wage laws for the average janitor are probably a little more exploitable.
Sure. But another reason, I suspect, is that Halliburton will be able to hire non-US citizens who can work there and not have to pay US income tax (depending on the laws of their home country); this allows them to recruit some of the best talent around. US citizens employed by Halliburton working in Dubai will still need to pay US income tax.
Plus, Dubia has very pro-business property ownership laws, and a fantastic banking system.
And last, but not least (to some, I'm sure), the availability, variety, and quality of prostitutes is... well, better than most places. I'm half kidding, but the personal freedoms and luxuries for the wealthy in Dubai are fantastic -- yet another draw for top talent.
What question? You started with ad hominem attacks on those who believe that the current global warming trend is both anthropogenic and harmful, then ignored any response to your OP and jumped onto the ad hominem attacks again.
You jump back to your kneejerk "Conservatives are Bad, MKay?" mantra
Huh? You attacked the "liberals" (and continue to do so) and their supposedly out-of-control spending; I merely pointed out that conservatives, in fact have spent more than liberals in the past two and a half decades, and that a large amount of the spending has indeed gone to enriching people connected to them. This is not a "Conservatives are bad mantra" -- this is the truth of the military-industrial complex foreseen by Eisenhower. I personally believe that true conservatism is what we need -- but that is not even close to what we are getting.
but when asked to defend your views, you simply cant do it.
Sure I can -- but the point is, can you? You had the OP which I questioned, and you are the one who has failed to defend their point of view -- you can't change that by deflecting criticism onto me.
You still haven't responded to my initial responses to your OP -- is it perhaps because I'm right and you cannot defend that which you know nothing about?
Seriously, how do you claim that the pop-sci global cooling articles are in any way comparable to the current real scientific study into gloabal warming / climate change?
Or can you please comment on how the sun is intrinsically involved in anthropogenic climate change, and not part of an either|or dichitomy that you presented in your OP?
Or your representation of the Earth as being something that doesn't include humans, and that it has a will of its own?
Please. Grow up. Adress my initial responses, then I'll bother to waste my energy on explaining things to you that you should have a basic understanding of already if you plan on discussing climate change with anyone who has a clue.
Kyoto alone talks about cutting the global economy by about a third
Source, please? I've never seen economic impact statements with any kind of estimate that damaging for the Kyoto treaty. Time and again, we've seen pollution controls result in better economies, not worse -- despite dire predictions of the opposite.
for an "improvement" predicted (even by its advocates) to be too small to measure.
Huh? What advocates of the Kyoto Treaty have said that? Please cite a source, since everything I've read has predicted a measurable impact on global atmospheric CO2 levels.
Even super-critical-of-Kyoto analyses put the GDP impact in 2010 (if we had adopted under Clinton) at 400 Bn, which is less than a third of projected 2010 GDP... and that calculation uses a base gas price of $1.10, with a Kyoto impact of about 0.40... since the base gas price is slightly less than double the $1.10, we can expect the impact (in the worst-case-scenario, without technological discoveries and improvements) to be significantly lower than the $400 Bn.
Furthermore, this 'study' totally ignores the economic positives associated with alternative source development -- it only looks at the negative impacts. Any wonder, since it was funded by the DoE, which is a stomping-ground for energy lobbyists?
If you don't believe him, all you have to do is to look back at ANY Slashdot article on global warming in the last 5 years to see an incredible amount of vitriol and hate directed at those like myself who are highly skeptical of "Global Warming" as a man-made phenomena.
Not for nothing, but a lot of that is due to the tone the sceptics take when they post. Tends to be very antagonistic, which in turn elicits the same tone...
We are called "Deniers", fools, idiots, trolls, tools, apologists for "big oil", ignorant, and any number of insults that you can imagine. Our intelligence is derided, our ability to research and think critically is questioned and our honesty is doubted.
As for me, I call a spade a spade. When someone is being willfully ignorant, I call them on it -- for example, when someone refuses to acknowledge that alternative theories exist, and they at least bear reading about. When someone refuses to use logic, or to acknowledge it, I will criticize their ability to think critically.
I may be in the minority, but I've read a lot on the issue, by both sceptics and 'proponents' of anthropogenic global warming.
I have to disagree with you there. Their science was sound in the sense that any science is sound until it is either falsified or a 'better' competing theory is found. As for the OISM: sourcewatch info here. The fact that you found their science to be sound, but apparently didn't bother to research prior analyses of their science (or dismissed them out of hand)... well... you know how I feel about that. Just one small example:
oreover, Bazzaz's experiments involved carbon dioxide concentrations at levels 100% greater than those now existing in our atmosphere, whereas the greenhouse warming we are experiencing right now results from only a 20% increase in world carbon dioxide levels. Clearly, it is irresponsible to predict "benefits" from increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when such "benefits" may only appear after we suffer the consequences of a five-fold increase over current anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Finally, Bazzaz found that different plant species vary dramatically in their response to increased carbon dioxide. Plants such as sugar cane and corn were not improved, but weeds were stimulated. There is not much real benefit in warming the planet by several degrees just so we can maybe make it easier for weeds to grow.
Did you read this? Have you seen these disputations of OISM's claims?
Or, perhaps more alarming, the fact that NAS had to actively pursue a campaign to make OISM stop trying to make it look like they published in the NAS journal?
I question your "due diligence." Seems not very diligent to me.
Not to mention it would be incredibly expensive and I bet fairly hard on the solar cells (wings flex during flight).
The added maintenance costs are a problem. But the price depends on the expected life of the cells; flex is not so much an issue, since a grid of smaller cells can be used that will allow flexion of the wing. I'd expect debris to be a bigger factor, really reducing efficiency in the long run. As for weight, I'd expect the cells to be fairly light; fuel, on the other hand, is quite dense. It's just guesswork without seeing the numbers and running some calculations, but as efficiencies increase (and fuels costs also increase), it'll become cost-effective at some point.
What impact would that be, genius?
The seas are rising? Woopy, the continents have been shifing for thousands of years. You dopes want to blame it on Cow flatulence.
Man, you really go out of your way to be ignorant, don't you? To not even bother reading the littles bit about opposing points of view before throwing out your trash comments?
Liberals need an excuse to take more taxes from people to go towards their grand utopia? Yeah, that one, I buy completely.
Funny, the so-called 'conservatives' are the big spenders, have been since Reagan. But instead of spending on any kind of 'utopia', they spend public funds on enriching their friends. I know which I'd rather have in power.
Let me clue you in a bit -- if you want to be taken seriously in a discussion of climate change, at least do your homework and read up on both sides of the debate, instead of spewing irrelevant gibberish.
I'm with you though; I don't see any of this being viable for any commercial airline in the immediate future.
Why not? Besides the obvious energy gains, what about the gain realized by not having to take off with whatever fuel the solar energy replaced? There's the extra cost for maintenance, but lifting all that fuel to 10,000 meters has got to be expensive.
This doesn't have to replace traditional fuels, it can supplement them.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure it does, if you mean free market capitalism. If there is any kind of property, it is quite within the bounds of capitalism for the owner to choose to relinquish control only when someone pays a price they set. Sure, it may be annoying that the system structure allows anyone to get squatter's rights on domain property, but as long as the system allows it, "holding intellectual property ransom" is pure capitalism. Not allowing someone to use an equitable system to gain rights over a domain is against the principles of capitalism.
Note, however, that the term 'intellectual property' doesn't really apply here.
Marxist claptrap? I'm sorry, what part of the OP's post has anything to do with Marxism? Your post insinuates that not allowing ownership of intellectual property is capitalist. I'm sorry, isn't property ownership one of the tenets of capitalism? As long as the system allows for intellectual property (to continue using your incorrect term) then how is being allowed to sell it to the highest bidder Marxist?
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but the insightful mod on the parent to this post struck me as odd. The parent espouses an action that is more Marxist in nature than the OP, and then calls the OP Marxist. Never mind the tone of the post, or the loaded, albeit inaccurate, langage -- "olding intellectual property ransom."
Blech. Timothy Leary said "Tune in -- turn on -- drop out".
I think it's time for "Tune it out -- turn it off -- drop out".
Instead of the trend recently of more law enforcement happening in our computers?
I do not think it means what you think it means:
Candor: the quality of being honest and straightforward in attitude and speech.
Honest? Maybe. But I'm not taking this reporter's word for it -- there are truths, and there are truthinesses.
Straightforward? That, I highly doubt. That last sentence -- perhaps it has something to do with Windows market saturation? It's a misleading fact, and thus is hardly straightforward. Never mind the fact that 'customers' is a term he doesn't define.
For that matter, I could just tell my friends the plot of the show. Is that infringing? Will I not be allowed to go out in public unless I wear a ball gag?
Something tells me that the low-tech counterculture is going to be going through a huge upswing in the next generation.
And the type of content I'm talking about doesn't work in your 'new media' construct: high-production-cost content. I purposely brought up this type of content because I completely agree with you for low-production-cost content. No matter what you do, if you pay a lot to produce the content, other distributors can more cheaply deliver the content -- and "community building, fan management, esoteric content" doesn't help you one whit if your cost to consumers is much higher than your competitors.
I know you like to speak in sweeping terms that sound profound, but when you get down to the nitty gritty, the 'new media' construct fails miserably for expensive content.
It's not about groovy buzzwords and sounds-good-for-startup-business-models, it's about the microeconomics of content production and revenue generation that leave big-budget content unprofitable.
I completely agree with you wrt smaller budget content (especially the esoterica). But please, tell me how large-budget content producers (read: mainstream) can remain competitive in your new media model. No amount of community goodwill can help you recoup your production costs when alternative delivery is everywhere, particularly since companies that specialize in distribution, not production, have a competitive advantage when it comes to your source of revenue.
I think you're being very vague about 'new media' and 'old media' concepts. Let's talk specifics. In the 'new media' world that you're talking about, content itself is freely available to distributors. Distributors make money off of advertising, and in some cases, directly from delivering content (iTunes -- which is dependent on restricted access and branding).
Say I was a big-budget video content producer in your 'new media'. I've got a few ways of deriving revenues from my content:
Advertising within-content (product placement, etc)
Public viewings (theaters, which are also dependent on distribution access control)
Advertising delivered via distribution (which only generates revenue for the distributor)
The only way to be successful in the long run, as a content producer, is to have ads within the content. Any revenue stream dependent on distribution will be less profitable for me than for my competitors, since they didn't have to produce the content. With no distribution access controls, any revenue stream that isn't intrinsically tied to the content can be done more profitably by someone other than the content producer.
I'm fully aware of the situation -- don't be so condescending, please, since you're still not addressing my post at all -- the concerns about incentive to produce content not loaded with intrinsic advertising is a valid one, and still applies in your 'new media' fantasy. Once you separate production from distribution, you've got issues, which I'm trying to address. You can't simply wave a magic wand and say 'the new media will provide a way to make money off of content production -- you need to stop thinking about the old ways'. I'm directly addressing the 'new media' and the impact it will have on content production. You need to accept that removal of access control will have some negative long-term effects as well as the positive ones.
So the trick is to allow enough 'illicit' views of your content to get publicity and drive viewers to your distribution channels, while still retaining control of the content so you can make money off it.
Not for nothing, but the 'new media' concept has a major flaw (from the standpoint of content producers): it doesn't matter who made the content, since anyone can profit off of delivering the content. Therefore, incentive to produce expensive content is reduced.
Now, I'm not saying that the 'old media' companies are going about finding a solution in the best manner... but from the standpoint of someone who enjoys high-production-cost content (like action films), I'm concerned that the only way I'll be able to continue getting such content is if it's even more loaded with ads as part of the content instead of prepended or appended.
Most analysts consider GOOG to be inflated, but not hyper-inflated -- here's a quick Yahoo finance hit for GOOG key stats, note the market cap vs. enterprise value numbers. I don't have the specifics for how Yahoo calculates enterprise valuations, but they are in line with most analysts -- who, of course, could be wrong.
IBM is considered slightly undervalued.
RIP, Edward. Hope your corpse is fertilizing a cactus.
Now, if only I can remember to always do the same...
Pot, meet kettle.
Do you still have no defense of your intitial post? Are you still unable to defend your arguments??? Are you still trying to make this about me, when it's about the bald fallacies expressed in your OP, and your inability to back them up?
Well, right.. foreign talent that would be in the US at HQ no longer has to pay US income tax when Halliburton is in Dubai...
Oh, maybe that's what's causing the accidents ;)
Bad mistake, she drives west in the evening, east in the AM to catch the other half of the solar blindness.
Well, I'm not sure what the ancient refracting telescopes did, but the ancient reflecting telescopes sat around and thought a lot.
Thanks folks, I'll be here all week. Try the fish.
Well, I shall hereby prove that we are surrounded by dark matter, using the mass-energy equivalence work of Einstein and Poincare. We know that E == +|- m * C*C
:
Let's append (d) to signify the quality of 'dark'.
So, E(d) == m(d) * C*C
As we are all aware, m(d) is the abbreviation for medical doctor (+|- the parentheses), so let's go ahead and substitute for physicists (and since the last parenthetical phrase says +|- the parentheses, lets get rid of the +|- and the parentheses), which would give us
Ed == Phd * C*C.
Now we all know that ED is the universal abbreviation for Erectile Dysfunction, so let's go ahead and substitute:
Bob Dole == PhD * C*C.
And of course, Dole grows pineapples, and since SpongeBob lives in one under the C, we get
Bob * C/Pineapple == C * C.
Lets go ahead and simplify to:
Bob/pineapple == C
Since one normally bobs for apples, we can substitute again to achieve:
1*apple/pineapple == C, or 1/pine == C, or 1 == C*pine
And we all know that Seapine makes Surround SCM[1], so we get that:
1 == Surround, or Surround == 1. Or:
Surround == true.
There, I have used Einstein's and Poincare's work to prove that we are surrounded by dark matter.
[1] Just a note, I'm not affiliated with Seapine, but I thought I'd provide a link anyway.
Your "first fucking sentence of my post" is not from your OP, which you still have yet to defend -- probably because it's a load of horsecrap.
You're throwing in a straw man. Whether or not it's happened before in Earth's history is immaterial; what is important is what has happened during mankind's history, and what impact it will have on us and the world around us.
The rate of change of the CO2 levels now is unprecedented aside from some postulated superplumes of billions of years ago. I, and countless others, question the ability of many lifeforms to be able to adapt to their changing environments that we are bringing on by our escalation of the rate of climate change. Polar bears, for one. Countless marine species in coral reef habitats, for another. Never mind the impact on fish stocks that we depend on for food supplies.
So again, before you start spouting your reactionary nonsense, why don't you bother educating your ignorant self and learn something about the issue? Because obviously, if you had bothered to do so, you would have equipped yourself to answer your own question, and to counter any answers to it... if there were any counters that haven't been refuted.
Plus, Dubia has very pro-business property ownership laws, and a fantastic banking system.
And last, but not least (to some, I'm sure), the availability, variety, and quality of prostitutes is... well, better than most places. I'm half kidding, but the personal freedoms and luxuries for the wealthy in Dubai are fantastic -- yet another draw for top talent.
Huh? You attacked the "liberals" (and continue to do so) and their supposedly out-of-control spending; I merely pointed out that conservatives, in fact have spent more than liberals in the past two and a half decades, and that a large amount of the spending has indeed gone to enriching people connected to them. This is not a "Conservatives are bad mantra" -- this is the truth of the military-industrial complex foreseen by Eisenhower. I personally believe that true conservatism is what we need -- but that is not even close to what we are getting.
Sure I can -- but the point is, can you? You had the OP which I questioned, and you are the one who has failed to defend their point of view -- you can't change that by deflecting criticism onto me.
You still haven't responded to my initial responses to your OP -- is it perhaps because I'm right and you cannot defend that which you know nothing about?
Seriously, how do you claim that the pop-sci global cooling articles are in any way comparable to the current real scientific study into gloabal warming / climate change?
Or can you please comment on how the sun is intrinsically involved in anthropogenic climate change, and not part of an either|or dichitomy that you presented in your OP?
Or your representation of the Earth as being something that doesn't include humans, and that it has a will of its own?
Please. Grow up. Adress my initial responses, then I'll bother to waste my energy on explaining things to you that you should have a basic understanding of already if you plan on discussing climate change with anyone who has a clue.
Even super-critical-of-Kyoto analyses put the GDP impact in 2010 (if we had adopted under Clinton) at 400 Bn, which is less than a third of projected 2010 GDP... and that calculation uses a base gas price of $1.10, with a Kyoto impact of about 0.40... since the base gas price is slightly less than double the $1.10, we can expect the impact (in the worst-case-scenario, without technological discoveries and improvements) to be significantly lower than the $400 Bn.
Furthermore, this 'study' totally ignores the economic positives associated with alternative source development -- it only looks at the negative impacts. Any wonder, since it was funded by the DoE, which is a stomping-ground for energy lobbyists?
As for me, I call a spade a spade. When someone is being willfully ignorant, I call them on it -- for example, when someone refuses to acknowledge that alternative theories exist, and they at least bear reading about. When someone refuses to use logic, or to acknowledge it, I will criticize their ability to think critically.
I may be in the minority, but I've read a lot on the issue, by both sceptics and 'proponents' of anthropogenic global warming.
I have to disagree with you there. Their science was sound in the sense that any science is sound until it is either falsified or a 'better' competing theory is found. As for the OISM: sourcewatch info here. The fact that you found their science to be sound, but apparently didn't bother to research prior analyses of their science (or dismissed them out of hand)... well... you know how I feel about that. Just one small example:
Did you read this? Have you seen these disputations of OISM's claims?
Or, perhaps more alarming, the fact that NAS had to actively pursue a campaign to make OISM stop trying to make it look like they published in the NAS journal?
I question your "due diligence." Seems not very diligent to me.
Funny, the so-called 'conservatives' are the big spenders, have been since Reagan. But instead of spending on any kind of 'utopia', they spend public funds on enriching their friends. I know which I'd rather have in power.
Let me clue you in a bit -- if you want to be taken seriously in a discussion of climate change, at least do your homework and read up on both sides of the debate, instead of spewing irrelevant gibberish.
This doesn't have to replace traditional fuels, it can supplement them.