Wasn't this tried with those who thought the earth revolved around the sun crowd - Galieo and Cupericus?
Or was it the smoking crowd that smoking was good for you?
Or was it the Agent Orange isn't dangerous crowd?
I forget.
But it is interesting that when ideas cannot win approval, force is considered as the appropriate action:-)
Monopolies do not exist in free markets - fundamental economics. If capital is able to freely move, then it will seek profitable applications. Indeed, MS may have market share, but in order to have a monopoly, it has to prevent others from entering the market. It doesn't, there are alternatives available. I can run many Windows apps without even having windows. MS has the market share they have because of their investment in products and advertising. Product manufacturers can install other OS's and sell them based on their desired profit model. Some do, Apple has OSX, a number have *nix offerings. Others tried and failed in the market place- CPM, BEOS, NEXT. Someone could be developing the next OS now as we speak.
Answer to the better question...
Because the 'scientists' have vested interests unlike your claim. The need funding for research. Crisis and doomsday scenarios attract research $$$. It is clear that there is questionable results and theories proported as fact. Nothing new, something that has been done forever. Difference is that media latches onto and promotes things more than ever.
It is science that told us we were going to outlive our food supply, kill ourselves with ______ weapons (fill in the blank), die of this or that disease and that the oceans are going to become sterile (I forget, was that 20 years ago or is that one new?).
In the big picture, if one looks at the other events like quakes, volcanoes, impacts or near misses from external heavenly bodies, and indeed the sun itself, is it very hard to swallow that man, who occupies such a small part of the world has the power to change climates over the long term. What's even harder is that we cannot adapt to the change. For if evolution is a true theory, we would need to believe that real issue is how we will adapt because all species are commanded to do so as the essence of survival. This would apply regardless of the cause of the change.
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't this tried with those who thought the earth revolved around the sun crowd - Galieo and Cupericus? Or was it the smoking crowd that smoking was good for you? Or was it the Agent Orange isn't dangerous crowd? I forget. But it is interesting that when ideas cannot win approval, force is considered as the appropriate action :-)
Monopolies do not exist in free markets - fundamental economics. If capital is able to freely move, then it will seek profitable applications. Indeed, MS may have market share, but in order to have a monopoly, it has to prevent others from entering the market. It doesn't, there are alternatives available. I can run many Windows apps without even having windows. MS has the market share they have because of their investment in products and advertising. Product manufacturers can install other OS's and sell them based on their desired profit model. Some do, Apple has OSX, a number have *nix offerings. Others tried and failed in the market place- CPM, BEOS, NEXT. Someone could be developing the next OS now as we speak.
Answer to the better question... Because the 'scientists' have vested interests unlike your claim. The need funding for research. Crisis and doomsday scenarios attract research $$$. It is clear that there is questionable results and theories proported as fact. Nothing new, something that has been done forever. Difference is that media latches onto and promotes things more than ever. It is science that told us we were going to outlive our food supply, kill ourselves with ______ weapons (fill in the blank), die of this or that disease and that the oceans are going to become sterile (I forget, was that 20 years ago or is that one new?). In the big picture, if one looks at the other events like quakes, volcanoes, impacts or near misses from external heavenly bodies, and indeed the sun itself, is it very hard to swallow that man, who occupies such a small part of the world has the power to change climates over the long term. What's even harder is that we cannot adapt to the change. For if evolution is a true theory, we would need to believe that real issue is how we will adapt because all species are commanded to do so as the essence of survival. This would apply regardless of the cause of the change.