MacCoaster
Oct 12, 06:23 PM
ddtlm:
Thanks. I do know gcc a bit, but I really need complete instructions...
i.e. What to do with the .asm. What to do with the .c. What to do with them both to finally bind those. The linker ld? The only time I've ever used ld was in my little OS development... it's been months since I've touched that.
Thanks. I do know gcc a bit, but I really need complete instructions...
i.e. What to do with the .asm. What to do with the .c. What to do with them both to finally bind those. The linker ld? The only time I've ever used ld was in my little OS development... it's been months since I've touched that.
Cappy
Oct 9, 12:09 PM
Faster this, faster that. Software here, software there. Upgrade this, upgrade that. Blah! Blah! Blah!
I like computers just as much as the next geek but when you break it all down what can't you do with computers and OS's from even 5 years ago that you can today? In truth the only real benefits are that Windows and Mac systems are faster and more stable than they used to be. For Macs to make any inroads more innovation is the key. They cannot compete on price/performance and never will. Moving to x86 could help of course. Note that most people don't buy Macs because of price and not because of performance issues.
So with this in mind if you set aside the small contingent that truly needs faster Macs for their jobs in professional settings, the Mac really needs lower prices and more innovation. Do that and Apple will have a winner that they would need to open up the clone market again just to be able to make enough of them.
Frankly this whole benchmark argument is stupid for most of the people here. Benchmarks should be used as nothing more than a guide and you should have multiple sources if you want to base a purchasing decision from them alone. Too many people treat them as the end all be all.
I like computers just as much as the next geek but when you break it all down what can't you do with computers and OS's from even 5 years ago that you can today? In truth the only real benefits are that Windows and Mac systems are faster and more stable than they used to be. For Macs to make any inroads more innovation is the key. They cannot compete on price/performance and never will. Moving to x86 could help of course. Note that most people don't buy Macs because of price and not because of performance issues.
So with this in mind if you set aside the small contingent that truly needs faster Macs for their jobs in professional settings, the Mac really needs lower prices and more innovation. Do that and Apple will have a winner that they would need to open up the clone market again just to be able to make enough of them.
Frankly this whole benchmark argument is stupid for most of the people here. Benchmarks should be used as nothing more than a guide and you should have multiple sources if you want to base a purchasing decision from them alone. Too many people treat them as the end all be all.
leekohler
Mar 25, 03:39 PM
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
more...
.Andy
Apr 26, 05:45 PM
Sadly, the bun was stolen from its glass preservation case.
Or it vanished in a miracle.
For the bread has risen.
Or it vanished in a miracle.
For the bread has risen.
jared_kipe
Mar 18, 04:07 PM
More like the wrath-of-Jobs! :rolleyes:
Same thing.
Same thing.
more...
Peterkro
Mar 13, 10:27 PM
Can you use nuclear warheads to disperse a tsunami?
With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.
I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave? :)
All you would do is create another Tsunami (as well as considerable fallout problems).Tsunamis in the ocean are by and large only a few centimetres in height but travel at about 500 mph when thy come to the shelfs near land all that energy is compressed going from a few centimetres to 30 metres or so the force of which destroys pretty much everything that isn't rock in it's path.
( I must go to bed I can't believe I posted a reply to that)
With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.
I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave? :)
All you would do is create another Tsunami (as well as considerable fallout problems).Tsunamis in the ocean are by and large only a few centimetres in height but travel at about 500 mph when thy come to the shelfs near land all that energy is compressed going from a few centimetres to 30 metres or so the force of which destroys pretty much everything that isn't rock in it's path.
( I must go to bed I can't believe I posted a reply to that)
more...
Iscariot
Mar 24, 11:34 PM
exactly, subtract the gangs, the mentally unstable, the non-Catholics and the inconclusively because the victim was homosexual and see where we are
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
more...
mdntcallr
Sep 20, 12:36 AM
Sounds like a very cool device.
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
But to be honest, I am hoping this is just one device of many TV integrated services for apple.
ie,
1- more dvr hdtv functionality
2- hdmi output in 1080p for television of computer and hdtv content
3- blu-ray drive for movies and for data use
4- Apple Televisions/monitors (yes tv's with speakers and hdmi inputs in addition to computer inputs)
5- Itunes movie shop with HDTV Rentals, not have to purchase everything, but instead be able to rent with unlimited views for 1 week. and viewing window can start when user initiates, ie, download lots of movies for a trip, then go view
well i can always hope. :-)
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
SuperCachetes
Mar 26, 12:46 AM
Matthew can go F himself.
Ha. A friend and I were sitting in a predominantly gay bar (with amazing happy hour specials) one afternoon and came up with a catchphrase for those who came in and wrinkled their noses at the clientele: "F your Christ." The sheer in-your-face-ness was glorious. ;)
Your religion has no place in our laws, we do not live in a christian nation. Get over it.
Exactly. Things written in a book about being blessed and receiving a reward in heaven mean diddly to the proceedings of the nation. Closer to the OP topic, neither do Catholic views on sexual behavior.
I cited that verse for Catholics, not for the Catholic Church's critics.
Hard to tell that, when you quote one of the critics in your post. :rolleyes:
Ha. A friend and I were sitting in a predominantly gay bar (with amazing happy hour specials) one afternoon and came up with a catchphrase for those who came in and wrinkled their noses at the clientele: "F your Christ." The sheer in-your-face-ness was glorious. ;)
Your religion has no place in our laws, we do not live in a christian nation. Get over it.
Exactly. Things written in a book about being blessed and receiving a reward in heaven mean diddly to the proceedings of the nation. Closer to the OP topic, neither do Catholic views on sexual behavior.
I cited that verse for Catholics, not for the Catholic Church's critics.
Hard to tell that, when you quote one of the critics in your post. :rolleyes:
more...
Piggie
Apr 9, 07:30 PM
It's quite obvious what Apple are doing.
They're not going to make a console as such because it's a cumbersome solution. What they'll do is continue to improve and expand their current iOS platform and the games involved.
The "console" solution they're working on is quite simple. Airplay. If the rumours are true about Apple trying to licence the tech and if we go by the relatively cheap Apple TV iteration the future is staring you in the face.
Your iPhone, iPod or iPad will become the console or the controller in the tradition console sense. Games will be sent wirelessly without lag to the TV where others can join in with their own iOS devices. The devices can change depending on the game and the flexibility of the touch screen. Once you've finished you take your iOS device with you and carry on playing on the go.
Apple will never make a traditional games console. It isn't in their DNA to make something so vulgar. They'll simply integrate experiences into a whole. Airplay is the way they'll do it in regards to the TV.
Should Cell Phones Be even
more...
hand-held cell phone use
more...
posses cell phones while
more...
Cell Phones and School
more...
of cell phones in school
![Cell Phones In School. cell phones”, [the school]](http://www.chinasmack.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/china-hebei-middle-school-bans-mobile-phones-560x373.jpg "cell phones”, [the school]")
cell phones”, [the school]
more...
to use cell phones as part
more...
use cell phones at school,
prohibits cell phone use
more...
more...
more...
more...
more...
They're not going to make a console as such because it's a cumbersome solution. What they'll do is continue to improve and expand their current iOS platform and the games involved.
The "console" solution they're working on is quite simple. Airplay. If the rumours are true about Apple trying to licence the tech and if we go by the relatively cheap Apple TV iteration the future is staring you in the face.
Your iPhone, iPod or iPad will become the console or the controller in the tradition console sense. Games will be sent wirelessly without lag to the TV where others can join in with their own iOS devices. The devices can change depending on the game and the flexibility of the touch screen. Once you've finished you take your iOS device with you and carry on playing on the go.
Apple will never make a traditional games console. It isn't in their DNA to make something so vulgar. They'll simply integrate experiences into a whole. Airplay is the way they'll do it in regards to the TV.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 26, 12:04 AM
Are you serious? That's a horrible thing to say. They should deprive themselves of sex because your 2000 year old book says so? That's crap. God made them born that way, for what? Just to torture them for their whole lives? I hope you understand that this makes no sense. And as for the catholic church recognizing that they are born that way and do not choose it, that's a load of crap. If you believe that, then you are seriously misguided. If god is so loving, wouldn't he have made them born heterosexual so they could live a normal life and have sex with members of the opposite gender? Why would god make someone gay? Your logic is so flawed im having a hard time expressing myself in words.
Priests can't even follow their vows of chastity yet they expect it of Catholic lay people too�divorcees and homosexuals. Never worked, never will.
Lay people, snicker.
Priests can't even follow their vows of chastity yet they expect it of Catholic lay people too�divorcees and homosexuals. Never worked, never will.
Lay people, snicker.
more...
R.Perez
Mar 13, 03:48 PM
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
None of the studies I have read proposing this, have suggested the sort of ecological impact you are implying. This is pure, unadulterated, BS.
None of the studies I have read proposing this, have suggested the sort of ecological impact you are implying. This is pure, unadulterated, BS.
more...
h'biki
Mar 20, 05:33 PM
Likewise, the BILLIONS of songs "stolen" vs. purchased on iTMS speaks volumes about people's feeling about DRM, RIAA, and these laws you speak so highly of..
I suspect it probably has more to do with the fact the music is free than it has to do with ideology. People were pirating music way before the RIAA and DRM became 'evil'. They're the justification for piracy, not the reason.
Piracy is an economic behaviour. I can point you to plenty of impartial (ie not funded by anyone) studies on this. In order to stop piracy you have to compete with it. Both sides are dressing it up as some kind of moral war, but it (mostly) isn't.
I suspect it probably has more to do with the fact the music is free than it has to do with ideology. People were pirating music way before the RIAA and DRM became 'evil'. They're the justification for piracy, not the reason.
Piracy is an economic behaviour. I can point you to plenty of impartial (ie not funded by anyone) studies on this. In order to stop piracy you have to compete with it. Both sides are dressing it up as some kind of moral war, but it (mostly) isn't.
more...
The DRis
Mar 18, 12:16 PM
http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-news/755094-t-cracking-down-mywi-tethering.html
They're bluffing and hoping to get those high data users off of their unlimited data plans by having them forget to call in and opt out. So just stay on your toes.
Dirty Mother*Bleeping* bandits.
Eff em all. Use the data.
They're bluffing and hoping to get those high data users off of their unlimited data plans by having them forget to call in and opt out. So just stay on your toes.
Dirty Mother*Bleeping* bandits.
Eff em all. Use the data.
more...
levitynyc
Apr 8, 10:37 PM
I got far more enjoyment out of Infinity Blade for 6 dollars than I did out of Pilot Wings Resort 3DS for 40 dollars...just sayin.
rstansby
Mar 18, 05:01 AM
I don't think it is a bad thing for AT+T to prevent people from tethering to a laptop on an unlimited cell phone plan. Those people are just taking advantage of the system, and wasting bandwidth that the rest of us could use.
As far as I'm concerned it is the same as going to an all you can eat restaurant and sharing your food between two people, while only paying for one. It isn't a serious crime, but it is stealing, and you know that if you get caught you will have to stop. I'm not going to feel bad for these people that are using 5+GB per month.
As far as I'm concerned it is the same as going to an all you can eat restaurant and sharing your food between two people, while only paying for one. It isn't a serious crime, but it is stealing, and you know that if you get caught you will have to stop. I'm not going to feel bad for these people that are using 5+GB per month.
more...
JoeG4
Mar 14, 04:09 AM
I'm kinda dumbfounded that electrical use in the US would be climbing when:
* Lighting, computers, insulation, and hvac systems have all been dramatically improved in the last 20 years. Dramatically.
* Our population growth rate.. oh wait. all those ****** people on the internet that act like you've gotta be ****** around and having kids all the time or you're a loser....
nevermind!
* Lighting, computers, insulation, and hvac systems have all been dramatically improved in the last 20 years. Dramatically.
* Our population growth rate.. oh wait. all those ****** people on the internet that act like you've gotta be ****** around and having kids all the time or you're a loser....
nevermind!
more...
balamw
Sep 21, 12:27 AM
I was assuming this "family of four" included younger kids (possibly one age 4 and one age 9). ...They do watch a boatload of TV. Between the two of them they could easily watch 8 different series.
In my experience, video on demand is exactly what younger kids want. My boys (3 and 5, so not that far off your model family) watch more than their share of TV, but they tend to be quite "clumpy" in what they watch since they've grown up with PVRs all their life, they tend to watch lots of the same show, and rewatch things over and over. For instance tonight we were treated to 3 back-to-back episodes of "The Batman" from a recently released DVD and one episode of "Teen Titans" from the TiVo. I don't have to keep buying those shows, since once purchased or recorded, I have them. Tomorrow will be the younger one's choice, so my guess is we get to watch the Wiggles on DVD for the umpteenth time.
I do buy some shows on DVD of from iTunes just to get them off the PVR, to reward the content provider for things we enjoy, and create some space for new stuff to be recorded. For instance I bought two seasons worth of Dora The Explorer (49 shows) for $60.This works out to an average cost per episode of $1.22. On DVD they sell 4 episodes for $10-$16 which means a minimum cost per episode of $2.50, and up to $4. I no longer have to TiVo these and have them at my fingertips.
I would assume they each have one or two daily show(s) that they like to watch (which is where I was counting most of the monthly cost). For example, "The Daily Show" is $20 a month multiplied by 3 different shows, equals $60/month. Plus, it would also be expected that they should watch a few series (probably at least 5 between the two).
You're also still way off on your prices. The "multi-pass" for The Daily Show or Colbert is $9.99 for 16 shows (i.e. 4 weeks Monday-Thursday). You don't pay $2/show for them unless you're a masochist. Note also that you don't pay anything for half of the year since they are in reruns about half the time, so it works out to ~$60/year per show. (BTW What's the third TDS show? I guess I haven't been watching lately. :o)
News and sports are a completely different matter though.
B
In my experience, video on demand is exactly what younger kids want. My boys (3 and 5, so not that far off your model family) watch more than their share of TV, but they tend to be quite "clumpy" in what they watch since they've grown up with PVRs all their life, they tend to watch lots of the same show, and rewatch things over and over. For instance tonight we were treated to 3 back-to-back episodes of "The Batman" from a recently released DVD and one episode of "Teen Titans" from the TiVo. I don't have to keep buying those shows, since once purchased or recorded, I have them. Tomorrow will be the younger one's choice, so my guess is we get to watch the Wiggles on DVD for the umpteenth time.
I do buy some shows on DVD of from iTunes just to get them off the PVR, to reward the content provider for things we enjoy, and create some space for new stuff to be recorded. For instance I bought two seasons worth of Dora The Explorer (49 shows) for $60.This works out to an average cost per episode of $1.22. On DVD they sell 4 episodes for $10-$16 which means a minimum cost per episode of $2.50, and up to $4. I no longer have to TiVo these and have them at my fingertips.
I would assume they each have one or two daily show(s) that they like to watch (which is where I was counting most of the monthly cost). For example, "The Daily Show" is $20 a month multiplied by 3 different shows, equals $60/month. Plus, it would also be expected that they should watch a few series (probably at least 5 between the two).
You're also still way off on your prices. The "multi-pass" for The Daily Show or Colbert is $9.99 for 16 shows (i.e. 4 weeks Monday-Thursday). You don't pay $2/show for them unless you're a masochist. Note also that you don't pay anything for half of the year since they are in reruns about half the time, so it works out to ~$60/year per show. (BTW What's the third TDS show? I guess I haven't been watching lately. :o)
News and sports are a completely different matter though.
B
CAWjr
Mar 18, 11:05 AM
I can't blame AT&T one bit for trying to protect their network. And as some have already said, those who are trying to game the system are hurting those of us who are being honest by bloating the network unnecessarily.
more...
HBOC
Mar 11, 01:44 AM
Scary. The videos they are showing are just incredible. Hopefully the worst of it is over and the loss of life is minimal.
My thoughts and prayers are with everyone over there.
I am betting the death toll is going to be in the tens of thousands, but let's hope I am horribly wrong.
My thoughts and prayers are with everyone over there.
I am betting the death toll is going to be in the tens of thousands, but let's hope I am horribly wrong.
more...
Huntn
Apr 25, 12:45 PM
Comma added, because my brain was starting to hurt. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
No not really especially when power is often held by those placing themselves in the position of interpreting what God thinks and wants...
I do think it was a bad call when God decided that strapping on explosives and blowing up the local market and it's customers was appropriate. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
No not really especially when power is often held by those placing themselves in the position of interpreting what God thinks and wants...
I do think it was a bad call when God decided that strapping on explosives and blowing up the local market and it's customers was appropriate. ;)
Peterkro
Mar 13, 04:14 PM
really ?
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)
wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences
I grew up in a country where even a right wing government won't entertain the idea of nuclear power,where one of it's major allies (the U.S.) are not allowed to bring naval vessels into territorial waters because they will not reveal if nuclear weapons/propulsion are involved.Which has just suffered a major earthquake and as far as I know is the only country that is a nuclear free zone.To New Zealanders this policy is totally sacrosanct.Guess what they are doing fine.
(by the way 70% of electricity production is from renewables)
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)
wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences
I grew up in a country where even a right wing government won't entertain the idea of nuclear power,where one of it's major allies (the U.S.) are not allowed to bring naval vessels into territorial waters because they will not reveal if nuclear weapons/propulsion are involved.Which has just suffered a major earthquake and as far as I know is the only country that is a nuclear free zone.To New Zealanders this policy is totally sacrosanct.Guess what they are doing fine.
(by the way 70% of electricity production is from renewables)
more...
takao
Mar 15, 07:30 AM
Irresponsible politicking. Trading off the nation's future for the short term expediency of a group of politicians. Disgraceful.
nuclear power hadn't got a long term future in germany before this event though. the discussion is only about the running time of existing nuclear plants (after all 6 reactors were originally destined to be shut down originally in the 2010-2013 time frame)
the politicking here will be that after the elections the reactors will be turned _on_ again .. against the will of the voting population
nuclear power hadn't got a long term future in germany before this event though. the discussion is only about the running time of existing nuclear plants (after all 6 reactors were originally destined to be shut down originally in the 2010-2013 time frame)
the politicking here will be that after the elections the reactors will be turned _on_ again .. against the will of the voting population
more...
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?
more...
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий