The hybrids only cost more if you ignore the externalities [wikipedia.org]. That is, if you conveniently ignore the cost of our climate warming up, and the cost in blood and treasure of maintaining access to oil, then sure, the hybrid costs more.
Right! And, I mean, really, hybrids only cost more because of this evil capitalist concept of "money". If we lived under communism or anarchy, they'd cost exactly the same as a non-hybrid! So yeah, as long as we get to redefine the word "cost" to mean whatever we like, clearly hybrids are WAY better!
I think the reason they kept it down to 5 years is so they wouldn't have to screw around with calculating maintenance/repair costs. If you factor in the price of a new battery pack, the $15k in savings gets quite a bit smaller. You'd have to have a way of accurately predicting how much more or less the repairs on a hybrid would cost over a 20 year period, and that's a rather difficult thing to do at this point.
It's funny... your first paragraph actually answers his "moved goalposts". You don't "get energy" by using up electricity to make hydrogen and oxygen.
As for there not being a "Point B" in space.... that's just silly. There are plenty of places to go - the only question is what do we get out of it. Exploration of the Americas was worthwhile for the people involved because it brought back plenty of shiny metal. Colonization was worthwhile because it gave the various empires a chance to have a pissing match far away from home (and taxing the colonists to death didn't hurt the coffers, either). We just need to figure out a way to make space either profitable or attractive in some other way, and there will be plenty of governments and corporations getting involved. Hell, it's already started. Tourism alone seems to have the potential to fund companies like Virgin Galactic. Give them a few decades and they'll be mining the moon.
In my experience, the people you refer to as "left-wingers" are in the majority, the ones you deem "right-wingers" are almost non-existent, and the "large middle" consists of 5 guys ever since Stanislav died.
The US received LOTS of criticism when going into Afghansitan, both in Europe and here in Canada. I remember it well. They received far MORE criticism when going in to Iraq, even though most people believed that Saddam probably did have biological and chemical weapons. To claims that there was "almost no criticism" to the Afghan war only makes sense if you're talking in relative terms - comparing it to the opposition voiced over Iraq. And to claim that:
it was obvious to most outside observers that both the talk about "weapons of mass destruction" and the talk about "aiding terrorism" was bull
It is interesting that in this case Terry Childs did very little actual damage but got 4 years. In fact more damage was done when the prosecutor decided to publish a list of working passwords for the cities computer network. Just goes to show the kind of technophobic old people working in the city offices and in law.
Your failure to understand the law does NOT indicate that either the lawyers or the city officials are "technophobic". It just indicated that you have no idea WTF is going on. Intent makes a massive difference in any criminal case. If you try to kill someone with your car and fail, you'll go to jail for longer than someone who accidentally runs over and kills a pedestrian. If that doesn't make sense to you then you really need to re-examine your morals.
We used to. In the era of Andrew Jackson and co., you could just walk right on in. You could even attempt to kill him if you wish. Just make sure you get his cane first...
Which works fine when you have a population of 10 million dirt poor farmers, most of whom couldn't afford to go more than 100 miles from their home. It doesn't work so well when you've got a population of 300 million, almost all of whom could easily afford to cross the continent on a whim.
Does it expose the actions of other individuals that increase such attacks (or an increase in their effectiveness)? If so, they are helping put a stop to individuals that are a "clear and present danger".... I haven't read the documents, but as I understand it, they expose some pretty horrific actions, including innocent people getting killed.
No, they don't. AFAIK the vast majority of the info that was "leaked" has been previously reported on. There's nothing new in these documents. Unless under "new" you count info that's clearly wrong, such as the supposed "friendly-fire" deaths of several Canadian in Kandahar who we know died in battle with the Taliban. Possibly some of the incidents involving afghan-on-afghan friendly-fire may not have been previously reported on, but they're hardly relevant.
Even if your initial premise were correct, I doubt that posting incorrect and obsolete information is going to be very effective at "putting a stop to those individuals".
There aren't any. Various manufacturers have looked at making them, and some may eventually be produced, but as of now there are no supersonic business jets on the market.
Soldiers don't die "because of freedom" - they die because of bullets, explosives, and shrapnel. If your actions lead to an increase in such attacks (or an increase in their effectiveness), then yes, you certainly are presenting a "clear and present danger", and should be dealt with the same as any other traitor.
I'm not convincing that the actions of WikiLeaks has the potential to increase the danger, though. At worst, it'll cause a bunch of brain-dead america-haters to be more resolute in their beliefs. I can't see it causing any real damage.
Could have bought it from Iraq, too, instead of trying to keep them from exporting it. Everyone else was doing it, but apparently America didn't wanna be one of the cool kids.
The fossil fuel industry has a lobbing campaign that dwarfs that of renewable energy. 'nuf said.
Ah, yes, it's all about the lobbyists. It can't have anything to do with the scale difference between the renewable energy industry and the fossil fuel industry.
You know what REALLY pisses me off? I, as an individual, get close to ZERO subsidies! Where's my $40 billion? I demand equal treatment!
I've found the best method is to involve family. I've known people who were racist but once their brother or sister was dating someone of that race, they broadened their view a little bit.
That depends on the society. In some parts of the world (or even in some communities in 1st world nation), they'd be more likely to resort to "honour killing" the sister. I'm not saying it's not worth doing, but if you're going to take such an approach you'd better either make damn sure that the people you're dealing with are relatively reasonable, or expect some blood to be spilled.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I want CEO's to be paid large amounts of money in order to compensate them for the risk. The rest of the twits replying are making the same mistake. They get paid lots of money because they're the best at what they do. The risk is just an added incentive to do well.
On top of that, you're commenting on things you really don't understand. It's like a child with a $5 per month allowance saying to his parents "Oh no, boohoo, you lost your job. Now you'll ONLY get that $1,200 a month welfare cheque. Darn. I don't know WHAT I'd do if I had that little money!"
The only good part of your comment is the last bit, where you talk about the pilot and the parachute. I agree to an extent, as far as the analogy applies to CEO's. However, if you knew any pilots, you'd realize that the comparison is rather counterproductive to the point you're trying to make - most pilots would rather die trying to save their aircraft than bail out and have to face the shame, the guilt, and the lawsuits. Or, at least that goes for all the pilots I know, and there are several examples of military pilots at airshows dying with their aircraft while attempting to steer them clear of people on the ground. There are bound to be a few exceptions out there, but they'd be quite rare. People who take difficult, risky, and well compensated jobs don't generally bail at the first sign of trouble. It's the fry-chef at the local McDonalds who's likely to do that, not a well paid professional.
*shrug* You're welcome to think what you like. It's debatable whether or not you've read more than me, but it's clear that you've understood quite a bit less. As for me, I'm growing tired of being lectured on things I already know. You take care, spun.
Both anarchism and communism are inherently irrational. They have some good points to contribute - there's something to be learned from every political system or ideology, even if it's just what not to do. Marxist communism comes the closest to actually being viable, only because it necessitates an "organic" origin rather than an imposed system. If you considered yourself a true Marxist, I'd be inclined to take you a bit more seriously. If you consider yourself a generic communist, or an anarchist, then it's obvious that you haven't actually thought about the issues (or that you don't know how to think).
Your views are conventional, pedestrian, and you haven't thought through the consequences of your beliefs.
Ditto.
Seriously, what political and philosophical thinkers do you admire?
None. I don't idolize people. I take their ideas at face value and arrive at my own conclusions. There's things you can learn from many, MANY authors and philosophers, and some are more noteworthy than others, but there isn't a single one that I've come across who is beyond reproach. I don't give a damn where a particular idea came from - I'll judge it on it's own merit. I'm sorry that you can't do the same.
It depends. If we run out of easily accessible fuel sources like oil and coal, and then follow that up with a major world war, there's a very real possibility that our infrastructure would collapse entirely. From there it's a downward spiral - no more power plants, no more computers, no more transportation of goods (food being an important one), no more modern farming techniques... we could very easily lose most of what we've spent the last couple thousand years learning and developing. Get a few theocracies going, and you'll end up with more wars, more oppression, more book-burnings and literal witch-hunts, leading to ever increasing levels of poverty and ignorance. And without easily accessible energy sources, it becomes damn near impossible to break the cycle and start relearning and redeveloping the technologies which we take for granted. If we go back to an iron or copper-age society, we could very well be stuck there forever - and at that level of development the earth would be hard-pressed to support even a billion of us, let alone the 2 or 3 which you suggested. Throw in a plague or two a few hundred years later, and it's goodbye human race.
Even if we didn't go extinct, though, I'm not sure that spending the next few eons as dirt-poor farmers and feudal warlords is any more appealing. Without the constant discovery and exploration in which we now engage... we may as well not exist.
Suit yourself. I fully intend to be not just alive, but enhanced beyond all the current boundaries and limitations of our ape heritage by then. Heck, with any luck I'll have ditched the last of the organic crap at that stage.
You know, I was going to point out a possible flaw in that plan, but now that I think about it I guess it's safe to assume that, as a Shlashdot reader, your sex-life will remain unaffected.
If you're running a successful financial firm, "risk" simply doesn't exist for you, at a personal level.
Nonsense. It's not just about the money - it's about the power and the prestige. Sure, if you run your company into the ground you might still be well off financially, but you lose an entire lifestyle. Not only that, but there's a reason why such a high percentage of lottery winners end up declaring bankruptcy. You have to know how to leverage your money, how to use it to earn more, and how to spend wisely. Without that, your $50 million nest-egg won't last very long. If you're the type of fool who can completely destroy a fortune 500 company, I'm betting you won't be much better at managing your personal finances.
So, long story short, yes, there is still a hell of a lot of risk, and there's a reason why these positions pay as much as they do.
Slashdot Mirror
The hybrids only cost more if you ignore the externalities [wikipedia.org]. That is, if you conveniently ignore the cost of our climate warming up, and the cost in blood and treasure of maintaining access to oil, then sure, the hybrid costs more.
Right! And, I mean, really, hybrids only cost more because of this evil capitalist concept of "money". If we lived under communism or anarchy, they'd cost exactly the same as a non-hybrid! So yeah, as long as we get to redefine the word "cost" to mean whatever we like, clearly hybrids are WAY better!
I think the reason they kept it down to 5 years is so they wouldn't have to screw around with calculating maintenance/repair costs. If you factor in the price of a new battery pack, the $15k in savings gets quite a bit smaller. You'd have to have a way of accurately predicting how much more or less the repairs on a hybrid would cost over a 20 year period, and that's a rather difficult thing to do at this point.
So you're saying that we'll never have a practical electric car?
Being a wee bit of a pessimist, are we?
Why should the race last forever?
Because we want to.
It's funny ... your first paragraph actually answers his "moved goalposts". You don't "get energy" by using up electricity to make hydrogen and oxygen.
As for there not being a "Point B" in space .... that's just silly. There are plenty of places to go - the only question is what do we get out of it. Exploration of the Americas was worthwhile for the people involved because it brought back plenty of shiny metal. Colonization was worthwhile because it gave the various empires a chance to have a pissing match far away from home (and taxing the colonists to death didn't hurt the coffers, either). We just need to figure out a way to make space either profitable or attractive in some other way, and there will be plenty of governments and corporations getting involved. Hell, it's already started. Tourism alone seems to have the potential to fund companies like Virgin Galactic. Give them a few decades and they'll be mining the moon.
Better spending tax dollars on saving the human race than blowing it up in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Right on! Why bother fighting fanaticism and oppression here on Earth? Let's find some aliens to beat up on, instead!
In my experience, the people you refer to as "left-wingers" are in the majority, the ones you deem "right-wingers" are almost non-existent, and the "large middle" consists of 5 guys ever since Stanislav died.
The US received LOTS of criticism when going into Afghansitan, both in Europe and here in Canada. I remember it well. They received far MORE criticism when going in to Iraq, even though most people believed that Saddam probably did have biological and chemical weapons. To claims that there was "almost no criticism" to the Afghan war only makes sense if you're talking in relative terms - comparing it to the opposition voiced over Iraq. And to claim that:
it was obvious to most outside observers that both the talk about "weapons of mass destruction" and the talk about "aiding terrorism" was bull
is simply historical revisionism.
lol. I see. Another conspiracy twit. Carry on.
It is interesting that in this case Terry Childs did very little actual damage but got 4 years. In fact more damage was done when the prosecutor decided to publish a list of working passwords for the cities computer network. Just goes to show the kind of technophobic old people working in the city offices and in law.
Your failure to understand the law does NOT indicate that either the lawyers or the city officials are "technophobic". It just indicated that you have no idea WTF is going on. Intent makes a massive difference in any criminal case. If you try to kill someone with your car and fail, you'll go to jail for longer than someone who accidentally runs over and kills a pedestrian. If that doesn't make sense to you then you really need to re-examine your morals.
We used to. In the era of Andrew Jackson and co., you could just walk right on in. You could even attempt to kill him if you wish. Just make sure you get his cane first...
Which works fine when you have a population of 10 million dirt poor farmers, most of whom couldn't afford to go more than 100 miles from their home. It doesn't work so well when you've got a population of 300 million, almost all of whom could easily afford to cross the continent on a whim.
Does it expose the actions of other individuals that increase such attacks (or an increase in their effectiveness)? If so, they are helping put a stop to individuals that are a "clear and present danger". ...
I haven't read the documents, but as I understand it, they expose some pretty horrific actions, including innocent people getting killed.
No, they don't. AFAIK the vast majority of the info that was "leaked" has been previously reported on. There's nothing new in these documents. Unless under "new" you count info that's clearly wrong, such as the supposed "friendly-fire" deaths of several Canadian in Kandahar who we know died in battle with the Taliban. Possibly some of the incidents involving afghan-on-afghan friendly-fire may not have been previously reported on, but they're hardly relevant.
Even if your initial premise were correct, I doubt that posting incorrect and obsolete information is going to be very effective at "putting a stop to those individuals".
There aren't any. Various manufacturers have looked at making them, and some may eventually be produced, but as of now there are no supersonic business jets on the market.
The world hates the US because of opinion pieces written by journalists?
You know ... while I'm sure that's not what you meant to say .... I'm going to have to agree with you 100% on this one.
Soldiers don't die "because of freedom" - they die because of bullets, explosives, and shrapnel. If your actions lead to an increase in such attacks (or an increase in their effectiveness), then yes, you certainly are presenting a "clear and present danger", and should be dealt with the same as any other traitor.
I'm not convincing that the actions of WikiLeaks has the potential to increase the danger, though. At worst, it'll cause a bunch of brain-dead america-haters to be more resolute in their beliefs. I can't see it causing any real damage.
Could have bought it from Iraq, too, instead of trying to keep them from exporting it. Everyone else was doing it, but apparently America didn't wanna be one of the cool kids.
The fossil fuel industry has a lobbing campaign that dwarfs that of renewable energy. 'nuf said.
Ah, yes, it's all about the lobbyists. It can't have anything to do with the scale difference between the renewable energy industry and the fossil fuel industry.
You know what REALLY pisses me off? I, as an individual, get close to ZERO subsidies! Where's my $40 billion? I demand equal treatment!
I've found the best method is to involve family. I've known people who were racist but once their brother or sister was dating someone of that race, they broadened their view a little bit.
That depends on the society. In some parts of the world (or even in some communities in 1st world nation), they'd be more likely to resort to "honour killing" the sister. I'm not saying it's not worth doing, but if you're going to take such an approach you'd better either make damn sure that the people you're dealing with are relatively reasonable, or expect some blood to be spilled.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I want CEO's to be paid large amounts of money in order to compensate them for the risk. The rest of the twits replying are making the same mistake. They get paid lots of money because they're the best at what they do. The risk is just an added incentive to do well.
On top of that, you're commenting on things you really don't understand. It's like a child with a $5 per month allowance saying to his parents "Oh no, boohoo, you lost your job. Now you'll ONLY get that $1,200 a month welfare cheque. Darn. I don't know WHAT I'd do if I had that little money!"
The only good part of your comment is the last bit, where you talk about the pilot and the parachute. I agree to an extent, as far as the analogy applies to CEO's. However, if you knew any pilots, you'd realize that the comparison is rather counterproductive to the point you're trying to make - most pilots would rather die trying to save their aircraft than bail out and have to face the shame, the guilt, and the lawsuits. Or, at least that goes for all the pilots I know, and there are several examples of military pilots at airshows dying with their aircraft while attempting to steer them clear of people on the ground. There are bound to be a few exceptions out there, but they'd be quite rare. People who take difficult, risky, and well compensated jobs don't generally bail at the first sign of trouble. It's the fry-chef at the local McDonalds who's likely to do that, not a well paid professional.
*shrug* You're welcome to think what you like. It's debatable whether or not you've read more than me, but it's clear that you've understood quite a bit less. As for me, I'm growing tired of being lectured on things I already know. You take care, spun.
Yes, yes it is.
You mean like this?
No thanks. I'll take the good old-fashioned hunka-chunka any day.
Both anarchism and communism are inherently irrational. They have some good points to contribute - there's something to be learned from every political system or ideology, even if it's just what not to do. Marxist communism comes the closest to actually being viable, only because it necessitates an "organic" origin rather than an imposed system. If you considered yourself a true Marxist, I'd be inclined to take you a bit more seriously. If you consider yourself a generic communist, or an anarchist, then it's obvious that you haven't actually thought about the issues (or that you don't know how to think).
Your views are conventional, pedestrian, and you haven't thought through the consequences of your beliefs.
Ditto.
Seriously, what political and philosophical thinkers do you admire?
None. I don't idolize people. I take their ideas at face value and arrive at my own conclusions. There's things you can learn from many, MANY authors and philosophers, and some are more noteworthy than others, but there isn't a single one that I've come across who is beyond reproach. I don't give a damn where a particular idea came from - I'll judge it on it's own merit. I'm sorry that you can't do the same.
It depends. If we run out of easily accessible fuel sources like oil and coal, and then follow that up with a major world war, there's a very real possibility that our infrastructure would collapse entirely. From there it's a downward spiral - no more power plants, no more computers, no more transportation of goods (food being an important one), no more modern farming techniques ... we could very easily lose most of what we've spent the last couple thousand years learning and developing. Get a few theocracies going, and you'll end up with more wars, more oppression, more book-burnings and literal witch-hunts, leading to ever increasing levels of poverty and ignorance. And without easily accessible energy sources, it becomes damn near impossible to break the cycle and start relearning and redeveloping the technologies which we take for granted. If we go back to an iron or copper-age society, we could very well be stuck there forever - and at that level of development the earth would be hard-pressed to support even a billion of us, let alone the 2 or 3 which you suggested. Throw in a plague or two a few hundred years later, and it's goodbye human race.
Even if we didn't go extinct, though, I'm not sure that spending the next few eons as dirt-poor farmers and feudal warlords is any more appealing. Without the constant discovery and exploration in which we now engage ... we may as well not exist.
Suit yourself. I fully intend to be not just alive, but enhanced beyond all the current boundaries and limitations of our ape heritage by then.
Heck, with any luck I'll have ditched the last of the organic crap at that stage.
You know, I was going to point out a possible flaw in that plan, but now that I think about it I guess it's safe to assume that, as a Shlashdot reader, your sex-life will remain unaffected.
If you're running a successful financial firm, "risk" simply doesn't exist for you, at a personal level.
Nonsense. It's not just about the money - it's about the power and the prestige. Sure, if you run your company into the ground you might still be well off financially, but you lose an entire lifestyle. Not only that, but there's a reason why such a high percentage of lottery winners end up declaring bankruptcy. You have to know how to leverage your money, how to use it to earn more, and how to spend wisely. Without that, your $50 million nest-egg won't last very long. If you're the type of fool who can completely destroy a fortune 500 company, I'm betting you won't be much better at managing your personal finances.
So, long story short, yes, there is still a hell of a lot of risk, and there's a reason why these positions pay as much as they do.