Rodimus Prime
Apr 21, 05:37 PM
Shhh. Your experiences are obviously the exception, since they don't conform to his viewpoints.
To be honest, the really "tech savy" ones are the ones who can and do use MULTIPLE platforms. Not just Windows, nor Mac, nor Linux, but a combination of many.
I do love his "IT guy" argument though. I just had a friend's father, 20+ years as an IT Professional, convert over to Mac after getting fed up with the Windows Virus/Malware/other random issues train.
He posted the pic of him in the Apple store looking at an iMac with the caption, "You're doing it right."
:D
I find them funny too because I can sit the example around here in around me in my class full of Computer Engineering and Computer Sciences majors and look at their phones.
The iPhone is in the minority. in a class of 30 you might have 2 iPhones which is out numbered by Android, and blackberry. Android being the most popular by far followed by blackberry then dumb phones. Then you get to iPhone.
It is not that we do not like the iPhone. We just have no in interested in the iPhone. Fair number of people I have noticed have iPads and iPods but we just do not want the iPhone. From the AT&T users for a while there was bitching about the lack of android phones.
To be honest, the really "tech savy" ones are the ones who can and do use MULTIPLE platforms. Not just Windows, nor Mac, nor Linux, but a combination of many.
I do love his "IT guy" argument though. I just had a friend's father, 20+ years as an IT Professional, convert over to Mac after getting fed up with the Windows Virus/Malware/other random issues train.
He posted the pic of him in the Apple store looking at an iMac with the caption, "You're doing it right."
:D
I find them funny too because I can sit the example around here in around me in my class full of Computer Engineering and Computer Sciences majors and look at their phones.
The iPhone is in the minority. in a class of 30 you might have 2 iPhones which is out numbered by Android, and blackberry. Android being the most popular by far followed by blackberry then dumb phones. Then you get to iPhone.
It is not that we do not like the iPhone. We just have no in interested in the iPhone. Fair number of people I have noticed have iPads and iPods but we just do not want the iPhone. From the AT&T users for a while there was bitching about the lack of android phones.
leomac08
Mar 11, 01:22 AM
Yeah that tsunami is massive. There were burning buildings floating on the surge as it rolled inland.
Not good at all.
Indeed, Tsunami of epic proportions
Saw an airport completed flooded, but no planes!!!!
My prayers go to Japan:(
Not good at all.
Indeed, Tsunami of epic proportions
Saw an airport completed flooded, but no planes!!!!
My prayers go to Japan:(
Blue Velvet
Mar 26, 02:37 PM
Ciaociao
If only.
If only.
takao
Mar 15, 04:16 AM
Here is the article to which you referred. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12740843
It fails to mention that the statistic noted, "8,217 microsieverts an hour" was measured at the front door of the damaged power plant. Link (http://www.naeil.com/news/eboard_view.asp?location=1&mn_id=3149) As was said in the article I quoted above, radiation levels decrease drastically with distance.
true but still it's way more than is acceptable for nuclear station personal.. or otherwise they wouldn't have evacuated wouldn't they ? ;)
as you say this 8.000 microSievert were recorded at the gate. Did you hear how much the maximum value was they recorded on site around the hot points ? (don't know wether that was reactor 2 or the fire involving spent fuel in reactor 4) they actually mentioned it in one of the press conferences last night:
100 mSv ....that is 100.000 microSievert or 41,5 the average yearly dosis or _twice they yearly legal limit for nuclear powerplant workers_
i don't need a reporter telling me about Sievert values. i measured them myself while i wearing a thick rubber suit.
It fails to mention that the statistic noted, "8,217 microsieverts an hour" was measured at the front door of the damaged power plant. Link (http://www.naeil.com/news/eboard_view.asp?location=1&mn_id=3149) As was said in the article I quoted above, radiation levels decrease drastically with distance.
true but still it's way more than is acceptable for nuclear station personal.. or otherwise they wouldn't have evacuated wouldn't they ? ;)
as you say this 8.000 microSievert were recorded at the gate. Did you hear how much the maximum value was they recorded on site around the hot points ? (don't know wether that was reactor 2 or the fire involving spent fuel in reactor 4) they actually mentioned it in one of the press conferences last night:
100 mSv ....that is 100.000 microSievert or 41,5 the average yearly dosis or _twice they yearly legal limit for nuclear powerplant workers_
i don't need a reporter telling me about Sievert values. i measured them myself while i wearing a thick rubber suit.
NT1440
Mar 16, 01:48 PM
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Naturally we should just hedge our bets on one right? :confused:
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Naturally we should just hedge our bets on one right? :confused:
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
Hunabku
Apr 20, 06:28 PM
I guess if you want a computer that is cheap and weak, you can get a Windows computer.
Cheap (maybe) - Weak (no) unless you're taking reliability into account.
Cheap (maybe) - Weak (no) unless you're taking reliability into account.
Multimedia
Nov 1, 10:17 AM
Clovertons to run hot until 2007 according to:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/11/01/intel_fwives_core/Oops! This makes me change my mind about buying this Fall:
"HP, and other OEMs, should have Clovertown gear ready on the 14th. Our sources inside HP say the chip is eating between 140 watts and 150 watts..." :eek:
"Intel hopes to deliver less power hungry parts in short order. CEO Paul Otellini has talked about 50W and 80W Clovertown parts set for the early part of 2007 (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/26/intel_quad-core_roadmap/)." :)
Guess I'm gonna have to be a little more patient a little longer in that case. That will be after MacWorld Expo toward the end of January then. Oh well. So much for immediate gratification. ;) Looks like waiting for the 8-core to ship with Leopard will jive with the cooler less power hungry monsters as well.
Thanks for bursting my bubble. :( I can get back to the business of another longer term wait similar to the wait for Santa Rosa or the mobile C2D MBP that's shipping now after 10 months of mobile CDs. At least it won't be that much longer. :cool: Looks like Clovertown Rev. B will be worth waiting for as well.
My apologies to all who were negatively infected by my extreeme enthusiasm for the first Clovertown release before I understood this new information. I can wait. I know some of you can't.
And I also may change my mind again when/if Apple releases a hot version first. Maybe they'll pass on the 150 watt models. Or perhaps they have real good cooling figured out. But I think I'd rather be ecological and buy what consumes less power anyway - especially in light of only another 2-3 months time.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/11/01/intel_fwives_core/Oops! This makes me change my mind about buying this Fall:
"HP, and other OEMs, should have Clovertown gear ready on the 14th. Our sources inside HP say the chip is eating between 140 watts and 150 watts..." :eek:
"Intel hopes to deliver less power hungry parts in short order. CEO Paul Otellini has talked about 50W and 80W Clovertown parts set for the early part of 2007 (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/26/intel_quad-core_roadmap/)." :)
Guess I'm gonna have to be a little more patient a little longer in that case. That will be after MacWorld Expo toward the end of January then. Oh well. So much for immediate gratification. ;) Looks like waiting for the 8-core to ship with Leopard will jive with the cooler less power hungry monsters as well.
Thanks for bursting my bubble. :( I can get back to the business of another longer term wait similar to the wait for Santa Rosa or the mobile C2D MBP that's shipping now after 10 months of mobile CDs. At least it won't be that much longer. :cool: Looks like Clovertown Rev. B will be worth waiting for as well.
My apologies to all who were negatively infected by my extreeme enthusiasm for the first Clovertown release before I understood this new information. I can wait. I know some of you can't.
And I also may change my mind again when/if Apple releases a hot version first. Maybe they'll pass on the 150 watt models. Or perhaps they have real good cooling figured out. But I think I'd rather be ecological and buy what consumes less power anyway - especially in light of only another 2-3 months time.
jaguarx
Oct 31, 02:24 AM
I've always found UBS2 HDs to be on average a little slower than FW400 but then FW800 kicks the **** out of it. If you needs the IO it's SATA through.
Chappers
Mar 11, 04:26 AM
Sadly death toll rises to 29
Having been in a big quake - I know how scary it is and hope that all their preparation helps.
Having been in a big quake - I know how scary it is and hope that all their preparation helps.
CIA
Apr 13, 12:34 AM
If it's on the App store how do you deal with volume licenses? My station has 5 seats (and growing), and each seat is a different MobileMe account (Everyone working there has their own account, makes mail and such easier.)
I haven't used the App store yet on the mac, can you buy software and have it work on different machines with different accounts? If all the machines are on the same account can you use the software at the same time? We had to buy a volume license for FCS3.
Also was there any mention if this will interface with my video toaster?
I haven't used the App store yet on the mac, can you buy software and have it work on different machines with different accounts? If all the machines are on the same account can you use the software at the same time? We had to buy a volume license for FCS3.
Also was there any mention if this will interface with my video toaster?
edesignuk
Oct 8, 08:43 AM
That is exactly the weakness of the PC platform. It turns into a zoo where the monkeys and lions roam free and the people have to live in cages... :rolleyes:...but who has the market share?
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:40 AM
I have a great one: until 1973 the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental illness until they looked at some evidence and found the only harm associated with being gay was the harm inflicted on gay people by hateful a-holes, and without the a-holes, gay people are as happy and well-adjusted as anyone else.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
sblasl
Nov 2, 08:25 PM
Sorry, still trying to get up to speed on all of this intel stuff...:o
Keleko
Apr 20, 06:46 PM
Yeah! My battery lasts for upwards of two days. Definitely not comparable at all to an iPhone.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Camera+. With the new Clarity feature it is easily the best camera app on any phone. And it doesn't come in Android.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Camera+. With the new Clarity feature it is easily the best camera app on any phone. And it doesn't come in Android.
koobcamuk
Apr 9, 01:15 AM
Oops. Looks like someone hasn't visited the App Store in like, never.
Since you're still in can you grab me a Palm Centro? I'm feelin nostalgic.
I used to have an iPhone, and I like a few of the games for it. I even liked playing them on my iPad.
Considering how the phone barely makes it through a day without being charged, a separate dedicated handheld console is a blessing to most gamers.
Most people that say iOS games are good and cheap end up spending lots more money on more iOS games than they would on a few dedicated games. Plus, I always prefer to have a physical copy... I don't like the idea of all my downloads going walkabout some day.
Oh, and try to be more mature in your reply next time please. That was uncalled for and childish.
Since you're still in can you grab me a Palm Centro? I'm feelin nostalgic.
I used to have an iPhone, and I like a few of the games for it. I even liked playing them on my iPad.
Considering how the phone barely makes it through a day without being charged, a separate dedicated handheld console is a blessing to most gamers.
Most people that say iOS games are good and cheap end up spending lots more money on more iOS games than they would on a few dedicated games. Plus, I always prefer to have a physical copy... I don't like the idea of all my downloads going walkabout some day.
Oh, and try to be more mature in your reply next time please. That was uncalled for and childish.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 04:41 PM
Has he published anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of high (or even average) standing?
That's your favorite question, isn't it, EH? ;) I'll look for a bibliography.
That's your favorite question, isn't it, EH? ;) I'll look for a bibliography.
totoum
Apr 13, 11:58 AM
Folks who are criticizing people who are expressing their concern about the new version, please read this post.
I thought it was mentioned that all keyboard shortcuts were still there so I don't get what the concern in that post is about
I thought it was mentioned that all keyboard shortcuts were still there so I don't get what the concern in that post is about
dextertangocci
Sep 12, 04:14 PM
What is up with that price???:confused: :eek:
Is it a mistake?!?!?
It is SO cheap!
Is it a mistake?!?!?
It is SO cheap!
iGary
Aug 29, 04:28 PM
I know where you're coming from, but surely it's a good thing to try and get the companies we use to improve their environmental policy? If Dell does recycle more than Apple, then maybe Apple should recycle more. If Apple's stuff lasts longer, Dell should make their stuff last longer. And yes, at the same time, we should be putting pressure on companies to reduce food packaging and use less power and fuel. I don't really see it as a competition between companies, more that if one company does something environmentally better than another, the other should try and match it, you know?
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness. :D
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness. :D
macenforcer
Jul 12, 12:17 AM
I hate to say it but since I got my macbook black I have been using winxp and not osx. XP runs faster, is compatible with all apps like photoshop and office natively and runs perfectly. I have been very impressed. So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing. (core 2 duo chip on order from buy.com)
Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X. I got the media center edition OS with the new computer I am building with dual tuner TV card. Watching tv via my xbox 360 is a dream. Mac will never be able to accomplish this task. Front row sucks.
If I bought a new mac pro (which I won't because its going to be a rippoff) I would just run XP on it.
For instance, I got two Radeon 16xPCIe X1600xt supporting crossfire with 512mb ram each from newegg for $120 each. Everything is just cheaper.
After a while you get to a point in your work where you realize seeing the neat apple OS is just not that important. Not when you can run crappy XP (which sorry to disappoint never crashes) for 1/3rd the price and 4x the speed.
Comon apple, make a media center mac and figure out a way to use PC graphics cards. After spending $500 on my Radeon 800xt with 256mb ram I wil l NEVER do it again. Not when I can get dual crossfire cards for half the price and 4x the performance.
I guess I am a half reverse switcher. Using macbook pro but XP only. LOL!
Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X. I got the media center edition OS with the new computer I am building with dual tuner TV card. Watching tv via my xbox 360 is a dream. Mac will never be able to accomplish this task. Front row sucks.
If I bought a new mac pro (which I won't because its going to be a rippoff) I would just run XP on it.
For instance, I got two Radeon 16xPCIe X1600xt supporting crossfire with 512mb ram each from newegg for $120 each. Everything is just cheaper.
After a while you get to a point in your work where you realize seeing the neat apple OS is just not that important. Not when you can run crappy XP (which sorry to disappoint never crashes) for 1/3rd the price and 4x the speed.
Comon apple, make a media center mac and figure out a way to use PC graphics cards. After spending $500 on my Radeon 800xt with 256mb ram I wil l NEVER do it again. Not when I can get dual crossfire cards for half the price and 4x the performance.
I guess I am a half reverse switcher. Using macbook pro but XP only. LOL!
Th3Crow
Apr 21, 09:13 AM
Interesting and "generic" use by Apple execs. This could be used against them, as compared to saying that our "App Store" is the largest of any of the available applications stores. Subtle, but significant.
Oooooh...quite right. A very astute observation.
Oooooh...quite right. A very astute observation.
bigwig
Oct 26, 12:58 AM
Right now FCP barely uses all four of mine.
It seriously seems that they a) haven't updated software pending an OS update, ie; leopard, to take advavtage of them or b) more cores really only helps the multi-tasking.
MacOSX scales very poorly compared to (say) Linux, Irix, or AIX, owing to its Mach underpinnings. 8 cpus won't get you much over 4 until Apple rips out the Mach guts and replaces it.
It seriously seems that they a) haven't updated software pending an OS update, ie; leopard, to take advavtage of them or b) more cores really only helps the multi-tasking.
MacOSX scales very poorly compared to (say) Linux, Irix, or AIX, owing to its Mach underpinnings. 8 cpus won't get you much over 4 until Apple rips out the Mach guts and replaces it.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 12:45 PM
For the purposes of the various arguments which try to prove the existence of God, they are all referring to the Judaeo-Christian God. The arguments try to fit in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being within a framework.... Although when I say fit it's more like shoe-horn.
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated. Either God is not powerful enough to stem the tide of "evil" in which case he's not worthy of worship, or God doesn't know we're suffering, or God knows and is powerful enough but chooses not to do anything.
You should read Spinoza's idea of God, pantheism (if you don't know it already, I'm sorry for assuming). It's the one that most appeals to me :D
It's been too long since I read any of that stuff. Regardless of their arguments, when I discuss the possible existence of a creator/god it is not specifically the God Judeo-Christian God.
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated. Either God is not powerful enough to stem the tide of "evil" in which case he's not worthy of worship, or God doesn't know we're suffering, or God knows and is powerful enough but chooses not to do anything.
You should read Spinoza's idea of God, pantheism (if you don't know it already, I'm sorry for assuming). It's the one that most appeals to me :D
It's been too long since I read any of that stuff. Regardless of their arguments, when I discuss the possible existence of a creator/god it is not specifically the God Judeo-Christian God.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar