That is true, but toasters and puppies aren't pollution sources in and of themselves, which is what we are talking about.
Rather, what I am talking about is reducing consumption. My money flow analysis merely shows that the more money you spend, the more you pollute, regardless of what you spend your money on.
You need to go deeper. All money that is spent that isn't saved eventually goes into fuel. You see your project as being mostly labor, yet you talk about it being expensive monetarily. Who do you pay that money to? You rent a backhoe and buy fuel for it (direct pollution through fuel burn and level one indirect through the manufacture of the backhoe. The guys at the tree farm take your money and use it to buy beer and make payments on a new car (fuel costs+production costs). The brewery uses energy to maintain fermentation temperature, to ship it's products, and to pay it's employees who buy whiskey and make payments on a home (costs to heat and cool are greater than a cheaper apartment, and longer commute times use more fuel). Etc. etc. The only way to stop it is to not spend money.
Funny how you guys don't realize that you are BOTH right, and that the ENTIRE US media is complete and utter shit. There are alternatives to being R or D, but Americans for some reason think that they have to be one or the other, even though both have largely the same policies, with just a few differences on wedge issues to keep the people at each other's throats so they don't realize that they are being hosed big time.
Fact is, the Chinese are very, VERY good at cutting costs. A former colleague of mine got a number of glass lined chemical reactors from China for less than 10% of the price demanded for USED US equipment of the same specifications.
On the plus side, the chemical manufacturers there don't have to actually manufacture anything. They can just go down to the river and get whatever they need!
The US funded techs that were equal or inferior to the tech being produced in China. China has a more robust manufacturing base, and as such, the only way to beat them is with superior tech. The Germans have that, the US doesn't.
And does. It's just that you aren't the one who burns it. Pay that extra money, and it has to go somewhere. That is what people tend to miss.
The easiest way to reduce pollution is to refrain from spending money, yours or anyone else's. This is why poor countries tend to have more wildlife and less pollution.
What happens when that money takes away from other things, like food subsidy programs, and you wind up with people going hungry but marginally cleaner air.
You can look at an individual expenditure and think that it was money well spent, but that ignores greater reality.
Also note that the only way that government can drive prices down meaningfully/permanently is through investment in research. Subsidizing things goes exactly opposite, as it discourages research into improving efficiency, and in the case of electric vehicles, actually INCREASES emissions (the factories that make those vehicles don't run on solar power, nor do the mines that dig up the materials, nor do the plants that refine the metals and oil in the plastics, etc. The amount of pollution is proportional to the dollar cost, as those dollars will either go to production or to workers who spend that money on other things that have to be produced and so on.
Even solar power can be messy and polluting. You just get all the pollution up front.
Better to find a way to make solar panels out of cellophane, and at only slightly higher cost. That will lead to real improvement, rather than illusory ones conjured by subsidies.
You can have negative credibility. That is, you can go from everything you say is wrong, to everything you say is the exact opposite of the truth. See Baghdad Bob as an example.
Fox is pretty deep in the negatives already, I think. But what do I know, I haven't watched cable news in 6 years.
If option 2, then they actually destroy your puny little race.
The non-aggression principle is universal morality, more than likely. Any species that violates it is likely to tear itself to pieces before it builds its first warp drive. Conversely, any species that builds warp drives is much, MUCH more likely to be peaceful. Your only real wild cards are weird communal mind species or those with otherwise utterly and Earth-unprecedented but robust methods of thought/existence.
For the guys on ships bit, that's fine, except when the guys on shore are an advanced race. The historical parallel there is China, which had the capability to fully crush the west militarily for most of its history, but didn't feel the need to go searching for new lands. The West just got lucky that they were weak during the age of discovery.
Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by a wide margin. It just doesn't persist there very long, and people can't seem to understand the concept of an "equilibrium", especially a changing one.
Is it so much to ask him to include a variable that is clearly important to the point of rendering his model absolutely worthless if not included?
I guess it is, when leaving out said variable leaves the reader with the impression that just a wee tiny bit of warming will push the earth over the edge into becoming totally uninhabitable.
You have a strange definition of poverty. You live in North Korea or something? Most people in the West don't live in poverty, and those that do do so either by choice or through severe deficiency. Or through pride, on occasion.
There are large venues which often charge high prices for tickets, and there are medium and small venues, which tend to charge much less. If you can't pull in enough people to fill the big colosseum at the high price, you should certainly be able to fill a smaller one at a lower price. If you can't fill a bar, then you are doing it wrong, and it's time to consider a new profession.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the slippery slope. Thanks Liberals.
I read that as "Jesus raptoring up", and smiled.
Raptor Jesus went extinct for our sins.
That is true, but toasters and puppies aren't pollution sources in and of themselves, which is what we are talking about.
Rather, what I am talking about is reducing consumption. My money flow analysis merely shows that the more money you spend, the more you pollute, regardless of what you spend your money on.
You will be among the first to enter the death camps, then.
Did I say death camps? I meant happy camps...
Naturally. They didn't have any significant problems. Tightened a few bolts, added our fittings, and started production.
You need to go deeper. All money that is spent that isn't saved eventually goes into fuel. You see your project as being mostly labor, yet you talk about it being expensive monetarily. Who do you pay that money to? You rent a backhoe and buy fuel for it (direct pollution through fuel burn and level one indirect through the manufacture of the backhoe. The guys at the tree farm take your money and use it to buy beer and make payments on a new car (fuel costs+production costs). The brewery uses energy to maintain fermentation temperature, to ship it's products, and to pay it's employees who buy whiskey and make payments on a home (costs to heat and cool are greater than a cheaper apartment, and longer commute times use more fuel). Etc. etc. The only way to stop it is to not spend money.
The power doesn't have a political affiliation. The politicians who seek to control its production do.
Funny how you guys don't realize that you are BOTH right, and that the ENTIRE US media is complete and utter shit. There are alternatives to being R or D, but Americans for some reason think that they have to be one or the other, even though both have largely the same policies, with just a few differences on wedge issues to keep the people at each other's throats so they don't realize that they are being hosed big time.
"The March of Tyranny" had it right.
Not scrap value, refined raw material value.
Fact is, the Chinese are very, VERY good at cutting costs. A former colleague of mine got a number of glass lined chemical reactors from China for less than 10% of the price demanded for USED US equipment of the same specifications.
On the plus side, the chemical manufacturers there don't have to actually manufacture anything. They can just go down to the river and get whatever they need!
The US funded techs that were equal or inferior to the tech being produced in China. China has a more robust manufacturing base, and as such, the only way to beat them is with superior tech. The Germans have that, the US doesn't.
And does. It's just that you aren't the one who burns it. Pay that extra money, and it has to go somewhere. That is what people tend to miss.
The easiest way to reduce pollution is to refrain from spending money, yours or anyone else's. This is why poor countries tend to have more wildlife and less pollution.
What happens when that money takes away from other things, like food subsidy programs, and you wind up with people going hungry but marginally cleaner air.
You can look at an individual expenditure and think that it was money well spent, but that ignores greater reality.
Also note that the only way that government can drive prices down meaningfully/permanently is through investment in research. Subsidizing things goes exactly opposite, as it discourages research into improving efficiency, and in the case of electric vehicles, actually INCREASES emissions (the factories that make those vehicles don't run on solar power, nor do the mines that dig up the materials, nor do the plants that refine the metals and oil in the plastics, etc. The amount of pollution is proportional to the dollar cost, as those dollars will either go to production or to workers who spend that money on other things that have to be produced and so on.
Even solar power can be messy and polluting. You just get all the pollution up front.
Better to find a way to make solar panels out of cellophane, and at only slightly higher cost. That will lead to real improvement, rather than illusory ones conjured by subsidies.
You can have negative credibility. That is, you can go from everything you say is wrong, to everything you say is the exact opposite of the truth. See Baghdad Bob as an example.
Fox is pretty deep in the negatives already, I think. But what do I know, I haven't watched cable news in 6 years.
The truth is that Fox News gets higher ratings than Jon Stewart on a consistent basis.
I would weep for the future, but I'm not sure we have one.
Comedy, or tragedy?
Really? Not even a hundred years earlier?
If option 2, then they actually destroy your puny little race.
The non-aggression principle is universal morality, more than likely. Any species that violates it is likely to tear itself to pieces before it builds its first warp drive. Conversely, any species that builds warp drives is much, MUCH more likely to be peaceful. Your only real wild cards are weird communal mind species or those with otherwise utterly and Earth-unprecedented but robust methods of thought/existence.
For the guys on ships bit, that's fine, except when the guys on shore are an advanced race. The historical parallel there is China, which had the capability to fully crush the west militarily for most of its history, but didn't feel the need to go searching for new lands. The West just got lucky that they were weak during the age of discovery.
The difference between beings that can exist, and self-contradictory anthropomorphisms is just that.
On the nose.
Not recursive. Just hypocritical.
Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by a wide margin. It just doesn't persist there very long, and people can't seem to understand the concept of an "equilibrium", especially a changing one.
Is it so much to ask him to include a variable that is clearly important to the point of rendering his model absolutely worthless if not included?
I guess it is, when leaving out said variable leaves the reader with the impression that just a wee tiny bit of warming will push the earth over the edge into becoming totally uninhabitable.
You have a strange definition of poverty. You live in North Korea or something? Most people in the West don't live in poverty, and those that do do so either by choice or through severe deficiency. Or through pride, on occasion.
There are large venues which often charge high prices for tickets, and there are medium and small venues, which tend to charge much less. If you can't pull in enough people to fill the big colosseum at the high price, you should certainly be able to fill a smaller one at a lower price. If you can't fill a bar, then you are doing it wrong, and it's time to consider a new profession.