Not really. They are leveraging valuable materials to colonize space. If everyone thought the way you do, we'd have never bothered to explore the world. Hell, it was expensive to set up mining operations in Africa and the Americas. But we did it. And those operations made enough money to build vast cities. Might as well have sneered at Columbus because he would have had to take the vast riches back and forth across the Atlantic on his little carracks.
Never mind that in many ways, it will be easier to mine in space than it is on the Earth. For one, you can pick and choose among your asteroids. For another, none of the desired minerals have been taken yet. For a third, there is no need to dig miles into the Earth. Etc. etc. Yes, it is hard to get to space. But there are limitless resources available once we are there.
You don't see a difference between aiming a meteor to take up orbit and aiming it to hit the Earth? Like the GP said, that is HARD to do, and you really have to try to get it into that range. This is why for every Tunguska, there are at least hundreds of thousands of similar sized rocks that burn up or get flung away.
Why not? An ICB takes in air from outside. Wet salty mush isn't exactly good for engine blocks either. That is currently solved with a simple air filter.
And if you are poor, then you will want to drive one of the older gas powered vehicles anyways. Why would someone who can't afford a full tank of gas be driving a new car? I've been there, believe me, but I was driving a jalopy I got for $2000.
No adult in any first world country wants for food except out of choice or mental defect.
The poorest man has access to modern medicine, sanitation, abundant calories (obesity is the plague of the poor, where is used to be the caprice of the rich), and worldwide communication networks.
A family of four on welfare and food stamps receives about $1000 a month. Convert that to silver or gold, then look back at the treasuries of those ancient kings and lords. The median income in my own home state would buy more silver than the royal family of England had in its coffers in 1200AD.
I'm sure that poor people would jump at the opportunity to have shorter lives, yet be important and POWERFUL. That was the only real advantage to being a King. You had the power to force people to do what you wanted. And, in fact, that is exactly what made those societies so poor. The restraints placed upon governments upon the founding of the US, and after the Civil War allowed freedom to ring, and the people to become rich. So rich that the poorest man was richer than ancient kings.
America started off with an import tariff that was typical for the day, and which amounted to 2% of GDP. That was the total income, and that was their total spending. Today (in 2010), the government spends 40% of GDP. China spends 20% of GDP. ,br>
But hey, feel free to get more emotional defending your weird, counterfactual view of history, as if 2% of GDP was higher or more invasive than 40% of GDP.
Unlike Communism, free markets don't need perfect implementation to work. Every single country in the world that is considered "first world" today went through a period when markets were free, and governments were teeny-tiny, like less than 10% of GDP. The US median prior to 1913 was something like 2%.
Nice absurd comment, though. You truly are a testament to proper UID selection.
So? Kids have had access to all manner of internet smut for ages now. So what effects has this had? I don't see any myself.
Maybe we don't need to go to extraordinary lengths to shelter our children from reality. It need not be any different than them seeing people using drugs, drinking alcohol, or being unspeakably violent toward each other on the television. Just sit them down and explain to them that such things are very fun for adults, but they are not for children.
But that is just me, speaking from experience. Treat a person of any age like a child, they will behave like a child, treat someone like an adult, they will behave like an adult. Of course, there must be boundaries set when dealing with children, especially younger children, but overall, 11-12 is old enough to treat someone in this way, and you SHOULD be treating them that way by 13-14 under any circumstances, as the child will do what he wants in any event at that age, but if you still treat them like a little kid, they will just resent you and hide things from you.
What about the energy spent producing the bulbs, and the energy used by the workers (their salaries come from that high priced bulb)?
You must do that type of in depth analysis to find the true costs of these things. Assuming no externalities, then price is the final arbiter of energy efficiency, because all money is eventually spent on energy of one type or another. This is why the poorest man today is richer than the greatest king of 1500 years ago--access to cheap energy.
The free market built your country from a feudalistic shit-covered landmass into a middle class paradise. Now, the mixed market (rapidly sliding toward centralized control economy) is falling apart, and the middle class that was built by the free markets of your great grandparents is at Death's door.
You suffer from collectivist thinking (what the fuck is "your ilk" supposed to mean?).
I specifically referred to fuel for that very reason. Placing artificial constrains on that market will have disastrous effects, both immediate and long term.
The possibilities for electricity production are legion, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.. The possibilities for fuel replacement for transportation are more limited, but still numerous. Thing is that creating artificial pressure at the whim of politicians will have the same disastrous effects it always does. The pressure we are already seeing is quite enough to spur investment.
I am 100% in support of thorium. But that isn't going to happen, because nuclear in general is already on the blacklist, and thorium is doubly so (as it is hated both by the LWR nukes and by anti-nuke environmentalists).
Rather, what will happen is that we will impose deadly restrictions on fossil fuels without making any real reasonable effort to allow other sources to make up the difference. Bureaucratic death spiral is underway, and they will never admit that they are wrong.
If you want to disprove an argument, you need to debate the greatest proponent, not the least, or even a middling one like Gore.
A liar can make himself appear correct with strong debate skills, while an honest man can appear to be a liar and a fool if he has poor debate skills.
To find the TRUTH, one must examine the evidence, then propose an experiment or series of experiments that can be done which will satisfy all rational parties involved (yes, there are rational people on both sides of this and all other large scale arguments). Carry out the experiment, and let the results do the talking. Allow the experiment to be repeated by both sides, and by third parties.
But that won't be done, because both sides of the argument have descended into a spiral of abuse and hate for the other. Until that spiral is broken, no rational progress is likely to be made.
Change that to "gravity MAY NOT exist", and remove all previous experience among the three, and blind them, and you have a more pertinent scenario. Throw in the fact that they could be in a vertical wind tunnel rather than diving out of a plane, and you get the metaphorical element of doubt involved with the AGW scenario.
Apparently, remediation is just a "cop-out", as I too have been repeatedly modded down for suggesting such a route.
This is an ideological war, and arguments are soldiers. If you ever propose a solution that does not involve reducing CO2 emissions, then you are on "their side", and are to be attacked by any means at your disposal.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. They are leveraging valuable materials to colonize space. If everyone thought the way you do, we'd have never bothered to explore the world. Hell, it was expensive to set up mining operations in Africa and the Americas. But we did it. And those operations made enough money to build vast cities. Might as well have sneered at Columbus because he would have had to take the vast riches back and forth across the Atlantic on his little carracks.
Never mind that in many ways, it will be easier to mine in space than it is on the Earth. For one, you can pick and choose among your asteroids. For another, none of the desired minerals have been taken yet. For a third, there is no need to dig miles into the Earth. Etc. etc. Yes, it is hard to get to space. But there are limitless resources available once we are there.
Men, flying through the air!? Ridiculous! I won't be investing in that "enterprise".
As if you had the means or the opportunity.
You don't see a difference between aiming a meteor to take up orbit and aiming it to hit the Earth? Like the GP said, that is HARD to do, and you really have to try to get it into that range. This is why for every Tunguska, there are at least hundreds of thousands of similar sized rocks that burn up or get flung away.
Someone forward this comment to some convenience store operating CEO. This is a hundred billion dollar idea right here. EASY.
Why not? An ICB takes in air from outside. Wet salty mush isn't exactly good for engine blocks either. That is currently solved with a simple air filter.
Electricity is much MUCH cheaper than gas.
And if you are poor, then you will want to drive one of the older gas powered vehicles anyways. Why would someone who can't afford a full tank of gas be driving a new car? I've been there, believe me, but I was driving a jalopy I got for $2000.
It's just water! 99% water.
With just a trace amount of LSD.
So the best way for them to gain wisdom and life experience is to shelter them and deny them life experience?
This is the logic of the majority of parents, and has been since victorian prudishness was forced upon the world.
No adult in any first world country wants for food except out of choice or mental defect.
The poorest man has access to modern medicine, sanitation, abundant calories (obesity is the plague of the poor, where is used to be the caprice of the rich), and worldwide communication networks.
A family of four on welfare and food stamps receives about $1000 a month. Convert that to silver or gold, then look back at the treasuries of those ancient kings and lords. The median income in my own home state would buy more silver than the royal family of England had in its coffers in 1200AD.
I'm sure that poor people would jump at the opportunity to have shorter lives, yet be important and POWERFUL. That was the only real advantage to being a King. You had the power to force people to do what you wanted. And, in fact, that is exactly what made those societies so poor. The restraints placed upon governments upon the founding of the US, and after the Civil War allowed freedom to ring, and the people to become rich. So rich that the poorest man was richer than ancient kings.
Yet they will be buying the electricity that is subsidizing those $60 bulbs to $20.
What the fuck are you even trying to say?
America started off with an import tariff that was typical for the day, and which amounted to 2% of GDP. That was the total income, and that was their total spending. Today (in 2010), the government spends 40% of GDP. China spends 20% of GDP.
,br> But hey, feel free to get more emotional defending your weird, counterfactual view of history, as if 2% of GDP was higher or more invasive than 40% of GDP.
Unlike Communism, free markets don't need perfect implementation to work. Every single country in the world that is considered "first world" today went through a period when markets were free, and governments were teeny-tiny, like less than 10% of GDP. The US median prior to 1913 was something like 2%.
Nice absurd comment, though. You truly are a testament to proper UID selection.
There are a wide spectrum of libertarians in the world. Some do believe in IP. I don't myself.
IMO if you can't keep it a trade secret, that is your tough luck. You can't rest on your laurels in this world.
So? Kids have had access to all manner of internet smut for ages now. So what effects has this had? I don't see any myself.
Maybe we don't need to go to extraordinary lengths to shelter our children from reality. It need not be any different than them seeing people using drugs, drinking alcohol, or being unspeakably violent toward each other on the television. Just sit them down and explain to them that such things are very fun for adults, but they are not for children.
But that is just me, speaking from experience. Treat a person of any age like a child, they will behave like a child, treat someone like an adult, they will behave like an adult. Of course, there must be boundaries set when dealing with children, especially younger children, but overall, 11-12 is old enough to treat someone in this way, and you SHOULD be treating them that way by 13-14 under any circumstances, as the child will do what he wants in any event at that age, but if you still treat them like a little kid, they will just resent you and hide things from you.
Ignorance is awesome!
What about the energy spent producing the bulbs, and the energy used by the workers (their salaries come from that high priced bulb)?
You must do that type of in depth analysis to find the true costs of these things. Assuming no externalities, then price is the final arbiter of energy efficiency, because all money is eventually spent on energy of one type or another. This is why the poorest man today is richer than the greatest king of 1500 years ago--access to cheap energy.
Most people would rather invest their own money as they see fit.
It might be different where there is competition between electric companies.
You are the very model of a modern major generalizer.
Might want to stop with the assumption that large groups of people all think and operate in the exact same way.
Boy, your UID is very appropriate.
The free market built your country from a feudalistic shit-covered landmass into a middle class paradise. Now, the mixed market (rapidly sliding toward centralized control economy) is falling apart, and the middle class that was built by the free markets of your great grandparents is at Death's door.
How much? 300ppm (0.03%) difference from pre-industrial levels isn't that much on the face of it. And again, you assume a linear or exponential trend.
You suffer from collectivist thinking (what the fuck is "your ilk" supposed to mean?).
I specifically referred to fuel for that very reason. Placing artificial constrains on that market will have disastrous effects, both immediate and long term.
The possibilities for electricity production are legion, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.. The possibilities for fuel replacement for transportation are more limited, but still numerous. Thing is that creating artificial pressure at the whim of politicians will have the same disastrous effects it always does. The pressure we are already seeing is quite enough to spur investment.
I am 100% in support of thorium. But that isn't going to happen, because nuclear in general is already on the blacklist, and thorium is doubly so (as it is hated both by the LWR nukes and by anti-nuke environmentalists).
Rather, what will happen is that we will impose deadly restrictions on fossil fuels without making any real reasonable effort to allow other sources to make up the difference. Bureaucratic death spiral is underway, and they will never admit that they are wrong.
If you want to disprove an argument, you need to debate the greatest proponent, not the least, or even a middling one like Gore.
A liar can make himself appear correct with strong debate skills, while an honest man can appear to be a liar and a fool if he has poor debate skills.
To find the TRUTH, one must examine the evidence, then propose an experiment or series of experiments that can be done which will satisfy all rational parties involved (yes, there are rational people on both sides of this and all other large scale arguments). Carry out the experiment, and let the results do the talking. Allow the experiment to be repeated by both sides, and by third parties.
But that won't be done, because both sides of the argument have descended into a spiral of abuse and hate for the other. Until that spiral is broken, no rational progress is likely to be made.
Change that to "gravity MAY NOT exist", and remove all previous experience among the three, and blind them, and you have a more pertinent scenario. Throw in the fact that they could be in a vertical wind tunnel rather than diving out of a plane, and you get the metaphorical element of doubt involved with the AGW scenario.
Apparently, remediation is just a "cop-out", as I too have been repeatedly modded down for suggesting such a route.
This is an ideological war, and arguments are soldiers. If you ever propose a solution that does not involve reducing CO2 emissions, then you are on "their side", and are to be attacked by any means at your disposal.