Based on your response, and your apparent level of confusion, it appears you've never seriously thought about this issue or done anything like a cost-benefit analysis. I don't say that to insult you, just to suggest how much you're missing.
Inputs ARE WHAT CAUSE THE OUTPUTS.
Yes, but, to extend the metaphor some more, outputs are caused by *all* of the inputs. When you ban one input, without penalizing the output, you simply change one input into another. So I can't use incandescents? Then I can't relax at home. So, I'll drive around -- which isn't punished -- to other places and increase the energy load there -- which isn't punished. Since CFL's use less, I'll be less persistent about turning them off when not in use -- which isn't punished -- and end up using the same energy for light -- which isn't punished. So I'll move out of my apartment into a larger home that requires more energy to regulate its temperature -- which isn't punished -- and take up more land -- which isn't punished.
If using CFL's makes me less productive -- as they do -- that's a loss to the labor pool. That's labor that can't be used to research better energy-related technologies or abate the consequences. (It doesn't matter that I can't personally do those things; on the macro scale, labor is ultimately fungible. Labor I can't do has to be filled by someone else, which cascades down the line until that stuff is affected.)
All that banning individual inputs does is shift to other, unbanned inputs, while forgoing the tax revenues people would have gladly paid for the extra energy the original input would have used. Sure, you could ban or regulate *all* inputs that you judge as wasteful, but why not just regulate the outputs and let people figure out for themselves what inputs they can do without?
Trying to control or influence all of them is nigh on impossible, short of making the things you describe illegal, which would probably lead to a revolt.
False. If you just assess the actual costs of these activities on the people that do them, they have a strong financial incentive not to do them -- this is how it works with every product on the market. You don't need to, for example, encourage people to avoiding eating "unnecessary" foods -- the "unnecssary" expense already does that. If food was as socialized as roads and air currently are, I can 100% guarantee you we'd see proposals to give tax credits to people who exercise less than 1 hour per week in the hopes that this would lead them to request less food from the Food Department. (Just as you see proposals for tax credits for switching to specific energy-efficient technologies.) People who eat too much would be derided as "stupid, thoughtless, and self-centered."
If you simply taxed in proportion to the costs imposed on others, people would be free to do whichever energy-saving alternative is least inconvenient for them. Even if they do nothing, hey -- at least you have a huge war chest with which to research better technologies or reduce the impact.
If you can't bring yourself to advocate that, you have to keep in mind any other solution is probably less efficient. And if you can't trust a government to administer that properly, you have to think about what it would do with a less efficient solution.
Most calculations I've seen, even assuming you have to buy a stronger light to replace incandescents, give an effective ROI of over 100%, untaxed. (You're not taxed on avoiding consumer expenses.)
I wet my pants at the idea of a 13% ROR, pre-tax.
You really think I'm passing that up for no reason?
By the way... when you focus on controlling inputs (what kinds of light I can use) rather than outputs (total energy use, or total CO2 emissions necessitated)... you start to give the impression you're more interested in micromanaging others' lives than actually saving the environment. Just a heads-up.
Skinner: Hm, it would be great if we had something to hunt here. I know! Let's import rabits and turn them loose! Lisa: But they'll have no natural competition and could devastate the ecosystem! Skinner: Don't be silly, then we'll just turn cats loose. They'll go feral, and the bunnies won't have a chance. Lisa: But cats are even worse in the wild! Skinner: Don't be silly, then we can just bring in leopards. You think cats have a chance against them? Lisa: But leopards are even more dangerous! Skinner: Don't be silly, if it ever gets bad, we can just give everyone a high-powered rifle and tell them to shoot the leopards on sight. Lisa: Isn't it kind of dangerous to tell people to fire high-powered rifles at rapidly-moving targets in population centers? Skinner: Don't be silly, we'll just abolish the right to a trial by jury and have the death penalty for accidental killings. You think anyone's stupid enough to be reckless with a rifle if that's the consequence? Lisa: But then you'll have a totalitarian government! Skinner: Ah, but that's the easy part -- then we just vote in a new constitution.
Don't worry -- you can still feel morally superior to people living with a quarter of the space (indoor and outdoor) by pointing out how you use CFL's, while they don't.
I'm already accustomed to video sites not working when I use FireFox. Yes, even after allowing Javascript. So this would pretty much be par for the course.
(Here it comes: "J00 LIAR! J00 just didn't d/l the lastest version from last night!")
Yep, like clockwork, environmentalists can come up with an excuse why anything other than micromanaging developed economies according to their dictates won't save the planet from global warming, only THEY know the way.
Since this plan allows for expensive solutions, why not put the trees on artificial floating islands in the Pacific? I bet you already have a story about why any blockage of sunlight over the Pacific would DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT. I want to hear this one.
Very well put. Although, fair warning: people will exaggerate what you said to make it look like you claimed no one ever does anything unless there's a monetary gain behind it, which is neither true, nor necessary for your claim. People will certainly work for free in some cases, but is it always enough for these epidemics? And when it's not, how do you get them to? There's the rub.
1) Founder leaving, 2) advance notice he'll be leaving, 3) 10% stake, 4) most stocks are valued at half their current price for purposes of valuing as collateral, 5) capital gains tax. Okay, not a 99.9% loss... but a big hit.
Btw, what does "near retirement" mean? Did you mean "near 65"? People always seem to carry on like you're legally obligated or morally entitled to retire at that age.
Pissed about what? That Indonesian scientists couldn't find a cure? That a lot of people don't work for free? That the people who do work for free (or for charitable causes) didn't succeed?
I'd be unhappy in their case too, but who's really to blame? "No good deed goes unpunished", they say.
It's not that simple. A lot of people think that because he owns X shares of MS, and a share is currently trading at Y, he has $X*Y. That's not true. For the founder and long-time head to quit, and to sell ~10% of the shares would significantly depress the value. Remember, as an insider he must report his sales, which could trigger a selloff. He might finish with a mere $50 million.
You want to run to China with a suitcase every time you need to have a secure transaction?
No. If I needed to give someone in China the new encryption key, I'd simply put my own lock -- which only I have the key to -- on the suitcase. Then I'd ship it to him. Then he'd put his own lock on it (i.e., now it has my and his lock), and ship it back. Then I'd remove my lock and ship it to him. Then he'd remove his lock and open it.
The problem is that closing the gate (passing the law) is most likely an excuse not to pursue the horses (spammers) that have already escaped (violated users' privacy), even though previously existing lassos (laws) are sufficient to capture (prosecute) them.
Close the gate, sure, but don't disband the posse that's going after the horses!
Question from someone who's clueless about the intricacies of the internet: Is it possible to get your data better treatment under such a protocol by falsely labeling it? Or would that be pointless since no priority ruleset would be strictly better than another?
Am I the only one sick and tired of this method of trivializing crimes? "Oh, it's non-violent, I guess it's not so bad." You really think all violent crimes are worse than all non-violent crimes? Then tell ya what: slapping me in the face is a violent crime. I would gladly be slapped in the face in return for just 10% of the costs a spammer imposes on the rest of us.
If you put it on a banner close to the center of the front facade, it will be hard to remove in the photograph. If they blur it or cut it out, "Hey, what's up with this spot in the middle of the picture?" If they paste their own text over it, "Hey, why did you put the text right over the front of the house?"
Of course, one will also look like a dork for having such a banner on one's house, but hey -- who defines himself based on his house, anyway? Oh, wait...
(On a side note, I just want to mention that a co-worker saw a picture she took for work, on ebay being sold as a poster. "Photographer: unknown." She's sinced talked to the legal department. So don't be so sure the owner won't find out.)
A real bomb is never designed to make itself presentable/noticable.
You asked for it:
*Terrorist parks small cheap car and walks away.* Cop: Hey, you, did you just part a car filled with explosives? Terrorist: No... I'm just parking my cheap car here to do some business in that store a few blocks away! Cop: Hm... it *looks* like the kind they use in car bombings. Terrorist: Officer, give me a little credit here. If I were going to blow up a building, I wouldn't make the bomb *look* like the kind of thing a terrorist uses! I'd put it in a car no one's gonna pay any attention to! Cop: Oh, okay... just checking. Terrorist: *stupid cop*
Sorry, didn't realize they were only referring to the next-gen version of the engine. I know, I know, "Please read the summary before responding. It's fun. It's like reading, but... of the summary."
Slashdot Mirror
Based on your response, and your apparent level of confusion, it appears you've never seriously thought about this issue or done anything like a cost-benefit analysis. I don't say that to insult you, just to suggest how much you're missing.
Inputs ARE WHAT CAUSE THE OUTPUTS.
Yes, but, to extend the metaphor some more, outputs are caused by *all* of the inputs. When you ban one input, without penalizing the output, you simply change one input into another. So I can't use incandescents? Then I can't relax at home. So, I'll drive around -- which isn't punished -- to other places and increase the energy load there -- which isn't punished. Since CFL's use less, I'll be less persistent about turning them off when not in use -- which isn't punished -- and end up using the same energy for light -- which isn't punished. So I'll move out of my apartment into a larger home that requires more energy to regulate its temperature -- which isn't punished -- and take up more land -- which isn't punished.
If using CFL's makes me less productive -- as they do -- that's a loss to the labor pool. That's labor that can't be used to research better energy-related technologies or abate the consequences. (It doesn't matter that I can't personally do those things; on the macro scale, labor is ultimately fungible. Labor I can't do has to be filled by someone else, which cascades down the line until that stuff is affected.)
All that banning individual inputs does is shift to other, unbanned inputs, while forgoing the tax revenues people would have gladly paid for the extra energy the original input would have used. Sure, you could ban or regulate *all* inputs that you judge as wasteful, but why not just regulate the outputs and let people figure out for themselves what inputs they can do without?
It's not rocket science.
Trying to control or influence all of them is nigh on impossible, short of making the things you describe illegal, which would probably lead to a revolt.
False. If you just assess the actual costs of these activities on the people that do them, they have a strong financial incentive not to do them -- this is how it works with every product on the market. You don't need to, for example, encourage people to avoiding eating "unnecessary" foods -- the "unnecssary" expense already does that. If food was as socialized as roads and air currently are, I can 100% guarantee you we'd see proposals to give tax credits to people who exercise less than 1 hour per week in the hopes that this would lead them to request less food from the Food Department. (Just as you see proposals for tax credits for switching to specific energy-efficient technologies.) People who eat too much would be derided as "stupid, thoughtless, and self-centered."
If you simply taxed in proportion to the costs imposed on others, people would be free to do whichever energy-saving alternative is least inconvenient for them. Even if they do nothing, hey -- at least you have a huge war chest with which to research better technologies or reduce the impact.
If you can't bring yourself to advocate that, you have to keep in mind any other solution is probably less efficient. And if you can't trust a government to administer that properly, you have to think about what it would do with a less efficient solution.
No, they're not. They're really, really not.
... when you focus on controlling inputs (what kinds of light I can use) rather than outputs (total energy use, or total CO2 emissions necessitated) ... you start to give the impression you're more interested in micromanaging others' lives than actually saving the environment. Just a heads-up.
Most calculations I've seen, even assuming you have to buy a stronger light to replace incandescents, give an effective ROI of over 100%, untaxed. (You're not taxed on avoiding consumer expenses.)
I wet my pants at the idea of a 13% ROR, pre-tax.
You really think I'm passing that up for no reason?
By the way
The Simpsons: Australia edition
Skinner: Hm, it would be great if we had something to hunt here. I know! Let's import rabits and turn them loose!
Lisa: But they'll have no natural competition and could devastate the ecosystem!
Skinner: Don't be silly, then we'll just turn cats loose. They'll go feral, and the bunnies won't have a chance.
Lisa: But cats are even worse in the wild!
Skinner: Don't be silly, then we can just bring in leopards. You think cats have a chance against them?
Lisa: But leopards are even more dangerous!
Skinner: Don't be silly, if it ever gets bad, we can just give everyone a high-powered rifle and tell them to shoot the leopards on sight.
Lisa: Isn't it kind of dangerous to tell people to fire high-powered rifles at rapidly-moving targets in population centers?
Skinner: Don't be silly, we'll just abolish the right to a trial by jury and have the death penalty for accidental killings. You think anyone's stupid enough to be reckless with a rifle if that's the consequence?
Lisa: But then you'll have a totalitarian government!
Skinner: Ah, but that's the easy part -- then we just vote in a new constitution.
Don't worry -- you can still feel morally superior to people living with a quarter of the space (indoor and outdoor) by pointing out how you use CFL's, while they don't.
I'm already accustomed to video sites not working when I use FireFox. Yes, even after allowing Javascript. So this would pretty much be par for the course.
(Here it comes: "J00 LIAR! J00 just didn't d/l the lastest version from last night!")
Yep, like clockwork, environmentalists can come up with an excuse why anything other than micromanaging developed economies according to their dictates won't save the planet from global warming, only THEY know the way.
Since this plan allows for expensive solutions, why not put the trees on artificial floating islands in the Pacific? I bet you already have a story about why any blockage of sunlight over the Pacific would DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT. I want to hear this one.
Very well put. Although, fair warning: people will exaggerate what you said to make it look like you claimed no one ever does anything unless there's a monetary gain behind it, which is neither true, nor necessary for your claim. People will certainly work for free in some cases, but is it always enough for these epidemics? And when it's not, how do you get them to? There's the rub.
1) Founder leaving, 2) advance notice he'll be leaving, 3) 10% stake, 4) most stocks are valued at half their current price for purposes of valuing as collateral, 5) capital gains tax. Okay, not a 99.9% loss ... but a big hit.
Btw, what does "near retirement" mean? Did you mean "near 65"? People always seem to carry on like you're legally obligated or morally entitled to retire at that age.
I'd be pissed too if i was indonesia.
Pissed about what? That Indonesian scientists couldn't find a cure? That a lot of people don't work for free? That the people who do work for free (or for charitable causes) didn't succeed?
I'd be unhappy in their case too, but who's really to blame? "No good deed goes unpunished", they say.
It's not that simple. A lot of people think that because he owns X shares of MS, and a share is currently trading at Y, he has $X*Y. That's not true. For the founder and long-time head to quit, and to sell ~10% of the shares would significantly depress the value. Remember, as an insider he must report his sales, which could trigger a selloff. He might finish with a mere $50 million.
You want to run to China with a suitcase every time you need to have a secure transaction?
;-)
No. If I needed to give someone in China the new encryption key, I'd simply put my own lock -- which only I have the key to -- on the suitcase. Then I'd ship it to him. Then he'd put his own lock on it (i.e., now it has my and his lock), and ship it back. Then I'd remove my lock and ship it to him. Then he'd remove his lock and open it.
Or something like that
Probably a flaming torch, or something similar, but to be honest how often in modern society are you likey to end up confused.
;-)
When someone talks about a "pointing a torch".
I cannot remember the last time I saw someone wandering around at night with fire on a stick, as opposed to an electric "flashlight"
What about when someone's going to commit soccer, er, football-related arson?
In Britain, we call what you Americans call a flashlight a torch.
So then what do you call the torches that have a big fire on top, when you need to be clear you're not talking about a flashlight?
Which means, look at them all you want, just don't crack the casing open and point a torch inside.
Torches can't really be pointed, they just throw off light in all directions. Do you mean a flashlight?
The problem is that closing the gate (passing the law) is most likely an excuse not to pursue the horses (spammers) that have already escaped (violated users' privacy), even though previously existing lassos (laws) are sufficient to capture (prosecute) them.
Close the gate, sure, but don't disband the posse that's going after the horses!
Question from someone who's clueless about the intricacies of the internet: Is it possible to get your data better treatment under such a protocol by falsely labeling it? Or would that be pointless since no priority ruleset would be strictly better than another?
Two years in jail for a non-violent crime?
Am I the only one sick and tired of this method of trivializing crimes? "Oh, it's non-violent, I guess it's not so bad." You really think all violent crimes are worse than all non-violent crimes? Then tell ya what: slapping me in the face is a violent crime. I would gladly be slapped in the face in return for just 10% of the costs a spammer imposes on the rest of us.
The watchmen watchmen.
I know, I know, "and who watches the watchmen watchmen?" Watchmen watchmen watchmen watch watchmen watchmen.
I mean how difficult is it to get that Resident evil 4 has ZERO Zombies?
Thanks for the spoiler, jerkoff.
Then there's all the extradition hassle...
"Eh, we're not aboot to extradite someone over thar just for trespassin'."
If you put it on a banner close to the center of the front facade, it will be hard to remove in the photograph. If they blur it or cut it out, "Hey, what's up with this spot in the middle of the picture?" If they paste their own text over it, "Hey, why did you put the text right over the front of the house?"
Of course, one will also look like a dork for having such a banner on one's house, but hey -- who defines himself based on his house, anyway? Oh, wait...
(On a side note, I just want to mention that a co-worker saw a picture she took for work, on ebay being sold as a poster. "Photographer: unknown." She's sinced talked to the legal department. So don't be so sure the owner won't find out.)
No, but it might mean you're gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
There isn't anything wrong with it. (There is, of course, something wrong with liking bingo in between the ages of 8 and 65.)
*please mod informative, please mod informative*
A real bomb is never designed to make itself presentable/noticable.
... I'm just parking my cheap car here to do some business in that store a few blocks away! ... it *looks* like the kind they use in car bombings. ... just checking.
You asked for it:
*Terrorist parks small cheap car and walks away.*
Cop: Hey, you, did you just part a car filled with explosives?
Terrorist: No
Cop: Hm
Terrorist: Officer, give me a little credit here. If I were going to blow up a building, I wouldn't make the bomb *look* like the kind of thing a terrorist uses! I'd put it in a car no one's gonna pay any attention to!
Cop: Oh, okay
Terrorist: *stupid cop*
Sorry, didn't realize they were only referring to the next-gen version of the engine. I know, I know, "Please read the summary before responding. It's fun. It's like reading, but ... of the summary."