miles01110
May 2, 09:11 AM
lol
10 years and finally a malware attack.
Still unreal.
:D
Actually there's been malware for OS X since it was introduced. There is malware for every operating system.
Nothing can defend against user stupidity.
10 years and finally a malware attack.
Still unreal.
:D
Actually there's been malware for OS X since it was introduced. There is malware for every operating system.
Nothing can defend against user stupidity.
bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 08:48 AM
Those "servers": each server has two Intel Quad-Core Processors running at 50W, 24GB of memory and a 120GB disk drive. Sounds like a nicely packed PC doesn't it?
It doesn't take a smart person to prune information out to support their claim, while redacting information which doesn't. Why didn't you include the full spec?
"Weta Digital uses HP�s BladeSystem c7000 chassis with BL2x220 server modules, with redundant HP Virtual Connect networking modules, full HP redundant thermal logic power supplies and fans, redundant management modules, each server had two Intel L5335 50w processors, 24GB memory and a mixture of 60GB and 120GB hard disk drives."
Most definitely NOT PCs. Sorry, try again.
It doesn't take a smart person to prune information out to support their claim, while redacting information which doesn't. Why didn't you include the full spec?
"Weta Digital uses HP�s BladeSystem c7000 chassis with BL2x220 server modules, with redundant HP Virtual Connect networking modules, full HP redundant thermal logic power supplies and fans, redundant management modules, each server had two Intel L5335 50w processors, 24GB memory and a mixture of 60GB and 120GB hard disk drives."
Most definitely NOT PCs. Sorry, try again.
Photics
Apr 9, 09:47 AM
You know how stereoscopic vision works, right?
I know how the 3DS works, but it was still fun to try. :D
Basically, the 3DS has an 800 x 240 display. It's using double the pixels to recreate the 3D effect, by creating the same image twice, but slightly adjusted to mimic three dimensions.
I think this is a horrible design choice, as the graphics looked blocky to me. I think Apple made the better decision. The extra resolution on the Retina Displays is used to make the graphics more crisp. I think it looks great! A sharper screen makes it more pleasant to use my iPhone, where the 3D effect made it more uncomfortable to use the 3DS.
Before you point out the mote in our eyes, remove the plank from your own.
If I had a plank in my eye, the 3D effect on the 3DS would be useless anyway. :p
I know how the 3DS works, but it was still fun to try. :D
Basically, the 3DS has an 800 x 240 display. It's using double the pixels to recreate the 3D effect, by creating the same image twice, but slightly adjusted to mimic three dimensions.
I think this is a horrible design choice, as the graphics looked blocky to me. I think Apple made the better decision. The extra resolution on the Retina Displays is used to make the graphics more crisp. I think it looks great! A sharper screen makes it more pleasant to use my iPhone, where the 3D effect made it more uncomfortable to use the 3DS.
Before you point out the mote in our eyes, remove the plank from your own.
If I had a plank in my eye, the 3D effect on the 3DS would be useless anyway. :p
flopticalcube
Apr 15, 12:28 PM
I agree with WestonHarvey1. The lifestyle of the Catholic and that of a member of the LGBT community is not easily reconcilable, if at all. Then again, it's not reconconcilable with an ever increasing portion of the population so I feel the problem lies with the church, and not the community at large. Shame how such a noble project has been pulled OT by religion but it does tend to do sh:t like this.
After G
Sep 12, 08:05 PM
I don't watch TV - the market for it is not me ... TV these days is too full of crap. No DVR because I don't want to save crap.
My watching model is: I watch it once, I know what happened, I don't care for keeping it. Because of this, I don't buy DVDs. I don't want to pay $20 for a watch-once movie. And most of the $5-11 deals aren't. The theater is a better offer for me, but the environment sucked a long time ago, and still does.
Hmm ... I find myself doing more with the computer ... and less everywhere else. Sounds like I fit right in to the iTV demographic, that "digital hub" thing.
My watching model is: I watch it once, I know what happened, I don't care for keeping it. Because of this, I don't buy DVDs. I don't want to pay $20 for a watch-once movie. And most of the $5-11 deals aren't. The theater is a better offer for me, but the environment sucked a long time ago, and still does.
Hmm ... I find myself doing more with the computer ... and less everywhere else. Sounds like I fit right in to the iTV demographic, that "digital hub" thing.
warmseth
Apr 12, 11:28 PM
Ugh... you guys speak as if you are all full-time film editors...
The new features are amazing! The hall that they presented at, well they were pretty much all "pros" in the industry. They were all pretty much PSYCHED about these features..
For what it's worth, I'm a film production major...
I AM a full time film editor and I'm very disappointed by the imovie-esque move. There were a slew of features that REAL editors have been asking for for YEARS (better media management, better multi-user shared projects, and (FOR GOD'S SAKE) better trimming ability. Apple said "nah, f that" and just made iMovie with many of FCP's pro features.
The new features are amazing! The hall that they presented at, well they were pretty much all "pros" in the industry. They were all pretty much PSYCHED about these features..
For what it's worth, I'm a film production major...
I AM a full time film editor and I'm very disappointed by the imovie-esque move. There were a slew of features that REAL editors have been asking for for YEARS (better media management, better multi-user shared projects, and (FOR GOD'S SAKE) better trimming ability. Apple said "nah, f that" and just made iMovie with many of FCP's pro features.
Apple OC
Apr 24, 01:53 PM
I invite you to demonstrate how Islam is a threat to freedom and democracy.
should we start with the freedom of choices for women?
should we start with the freedom of choices for women?
Peterkro
Mar 13, 03:01 PM
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
That is not true at all,it's not a binary choice.As I've said before the most effective answer in the short term is to stop wasting energy unnecessarily.Given the lead time and cost overruns on Nuclear plants it's not economically viable:
"The period before 2030 forecasts nuclear power to be using the existing technology of fissile reactors, with more advanced technologies coming online after 2030 (See Figure IVA.2.).
The 2030 IEA Reference forecast follows a �business as usual� scenario. In this forecast, nuclear power trails alternative methods of power generation by approximately 3 to 1, and thus declines in percent of total electricity produced from 16% to 10%. In the IEA Alternative Policy forecast, nuclear power grows at a more rapid rate, but it is outpaced by alternative power generation technologies, declining from 16% to 14% of total electricity generated. The Alternative Policy case assumes that there is an effort to curtail global warming that includes measures to boost the role of nuclear power."
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
That is not true at all,it's not a binary choice.As I've said before the most effective answer in the short term is to stop wasting energy unnecessarily.Given the lead time and cost overruns on Nuclear plants it's not economically viable:
"The period before 2030 forecasts nuclear power to be using the existing technology of fissile reactors, with more advanced technologies coming online after 2030 (See Figure IVA.2.).
The 2030 IEA Reference forecast follows a �business as usual� scenario. In this forecast, nuclear power trails alternative methods of power generation by approximately 3 to 1, and thus declines in percent of total electricity produced from 16% to 10%. In the IEA Alternative Policy forecast, nuclear power grows at a more rapid rate, but it is outpaced by alternative power generation technologies, declining from 16% to 14% of total electricity generated. The Alternative Policy case assumes that there is an effort to curtail global warming that includes measures to boost the role of nuclear power."
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
sinsin07
Apr 9, 08:50 AM
Totally agree. The other day I was in the queue at the grocery store and some dude was playing some noob game on his iOS phone... I was like "dude, you should be playing that on a PS3" and he was all "yeah but where would I plug it in and set-up the TV?" and I was like "just use the NGP" and he said "Great, where can I buy that?"
Men Short Hairstyles short
curly hair styles men, medium
Asian Hairstyles For Men
hairstyles 2011 for men.
Men#39;s Hairstyles Trends 2010
Hairstyles 2011 Men Medium
Men Haircuts Pictures 2011
2011 Summer Men Hair Styles
Celebrity Hairstyles 2011,2011
hairstyles 2011 for men
dethmaShine
May 2, 09:17 AM
And it begins...
I'z scared :(
lol
That's the same FUD every time we hear about a new malware attack on OS X.
I'z scared :(
lol
That's the same FUD every time we hear about a new malware attack on OS X.
CalBoy
Apr 15, 11:09 AM
Personally, I think it's great. However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers. That said, props to the employees.
Is telling young people not to commit suicide and have hope for the future really something that anyone can object to? I mean I see what you're getting at (and it's already evident in this thread), but isn't it sad when something that should be so uncontroversial is made an issue?
Unless the people who are posting such negative things in this thread would prefer dead gay teenagers to living gay teenagers.
Is telling young people not to commit suicide and have hope for the future really something that anyone can object to? I mean I see what you're getting at (and it's already evident in this thread), but isn't it sad when something that should be so uncontroversial is made an issue?
Unless the people who are posting such negative things in this thread would prefer dead gay teenagers to living gay teenagers.
archipellago
May 2, 04:07 PM
by default and design, Windows has been more secure than OSX for years now...Google it...!
Apple has no clue on security, never has had....
their 4% worldwide marketshare (or it might be less) keeps them safe and even if they weren't the user base is too small to be significant in the malware space.
A good (russian/chinese) coder can infect as many Windows machines in a week as Apple sell Macs in a year!!!
Wait for the first real iOS bust, it's coming...... so much money out there to hackers to make it work.
Apple has no clue on security, never has had....
their 4% worldwide marketshare (or it might be less) keeps them safe and even if they weren't the user base is too small to be significant in the malware space.
A good (russian/chinese) coder can infect as many Windows machines in a week as Apple sell Macs in a year!!!
Wait for the first real iOS bust, it's coming...... so much money out there to hackers to make it work.
g.fabian
Apr 9, 09:54 AM
Great news. Bring on more Infinity Blade-esque games! :D
Ehh.. I was pretty geeked out about how stunning the graphics were but to be honest, they need to come out with a peripheral controller or SOMEthing because with the touchscreen, the dynamic of the games are SOOOO limited..
Ehh.. I was pretty geeked out about how stunning the graphics were but to be honest, they need to come out with a peripheral controller or SOMEthing because with the touchscreen, the dynamic of the games are SOOOO limited..
BillHarrison
Sep 12, 04:28 PM
Which cost what, five times what this will cost? The stuff you have will never go mainstream, it's way too expensive.
Because that would be far more expensive, with little potential to get cheaper. Something based on a full computer would never get cheap enough to really catch on.
Whoa there! Setting up a media center / 360 extender setup is far from 5x the price of the iTV. As a matter of fact, the 360 is the SAME price as the iTV, 299$.
You of course will need a media center pc to make this work, but you need a pc/mac to make the iTV work as well, so thats an added expense on either side.
Oh, did I mention the 360 plays some REALLY fun games? (Dead rising :D)
Actually I could probably do both methods for around the same price, (900 ish) but with the Media Center you get true TIVO capability, all from your couch. Trust me, it works, and it works well.
That said, I applaud apple for trying, but they have a ways to go in this area. One of the things keeping me from the big switch.
Because that would be far more expensive, with little potential to get cheaper. Something based on a full computer would never get cheap enough to really catch on.
Whoa there! Setting up a media center / 360 extender setup is far from 5x the price of the iTV. As a matter of fact, the 360 is the SAME price as the iTV, 299$.
You of course will need a media center pc to make this work, but you need a pc/mac to make the iTV work as well, so thats an added expense on either side.
Oh, did I mention the 360 plays some REALLY fun games? (Dead rising :D)
Actually I could probably do both methods for around the same price, (900 ish) but with the Media Center you get true TIVO capability, all from your couch. Trust me, it works, and it works well.
That said, I applaud apple for trying, but they have a ways to go in this area. One of the things keeping me from the big switch.
Hellhammer
Mar 13, 01:39 PM
I didn't say that they didn't have the need (though I'm betting that they'll turn to green energy, in larger part, when they begin the rebuilding process; solar, wind, etc...).
I just questioned how well thought out the idea was to build these plants in an area that is highly susceptible to volcanic activity.
Roscoe Wind Farm, which is the largest wind farm in the world, provides only 781.5 MW of power while Fukushima I for example, provides 4.7 GW (over six times as much). That wind farm takes 400km^2 so a wind farm that could replace the Fukushima I would take 2400km^2.
The largest solar power plant provides only 97 MW so even worse.
In the end, earthquake like this doesn't happen that often. Hopefully Japan and other countries learn from this and improve their protection against earthquakes.
I just questioned how well thought out the idea was to build these plants in an area that is highly susceptible to volcanic activity.
Roscoe Wind Farm, which is the largest wind farm in the world, provides only 781.5 MW of power while Fukushima I for example, provides 4.7 GW (over six times as much). That wind farm takes 400km^2 so a wind farm that could replace the Fukushima I would take 2400km^2.
The largest solar power plant provides only 97 MW so even worse.
In the end, earthquake like this doesn't happen that often. Hopefully Japan and other countries learn from this and improve their protection against earthquakes.
Soculese
Sep 21, 10:58 AM
If it contains a HDD (a fact I am not entirely convinced of), I doubt it would be used for recording TV shows.
Programming such a device with a basic remote like the ones Steve Jobs previewed would be near-to-impossible.
If Apple did introduce the ability to record TV shows (which I also doubt), I believe it would be at the computer, only to be streamed to the iTV later.
OK, the tivo has a remote, but I NEVER use it to pick programs to record. I use the tivo.com website to do this. I would think that since the iTV will connect via wireless to your computer that you could do the same with it.
Programming such a device with a basic remote like the ones Steve Jobs previewed would be near-to-impossible.
If Apple did introduce the ability to record TV shows (which I also doubt), I believe it would be at the computer, only to be streamed to the iTV later.
OK, the tivo has a remote, but I NEVER use it to pick programs to record. I use the tivo.com website to do this. I would think that since the iTV will connect via wireless to your computer that you could do the same with it.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 06:32 PM
Maybe not in the New Testament, but certainly in the Old.
Nope, not in the Old Testament either. There is a recounting of events which say what happened, but there is no commandment from God to "urge the believers to battle. If there are among you 20 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 200...... And if there are among you 100 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 1000 of those who have disbelieved...(qur'an 8:65) to this day.
The New Testament Abrogates the Old Testament anyway, so it's not relevant to Christians.
Nope, not in the Old Testament either. There is a recounting of events which say what happened, but there is no commandment from God to "urge the believers to battle. If there are among you 20 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 200...... And if there are among you 100 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 1000 of those who have disbelieved...(qur'an 8:65) to this day.
The New Testament Abrogates the Old Testament anyway, so it's not relevant to Christians.
Apple OC
Apr 22, 10:02 PM
Most Atheists do not preach at others to not believe ... they just do not buy into the concept that religious people hang onto.
almost every religious group will try to convince people to believe in some Mythical God ... even referring to it as spreading the word of God.
almost every religious group will try to convince people to believe in some Mythical God ... even referring to it as spreading the word of God.
citizenzen
Apr 27, 08:55 AM
It doesn't make sense for a supreme being to require the employ of man to begin with. There's the real fallacy.
By the same measure, any human endeavor can be said to be inspired by God.
And seeing how many athletes celebrate after making a score, it would seem that might be the case. ;)
Citizenzen, did you read the second pdf document about what happened in Lanciano, Italy?
Yes. What part of it is a result of a scientific study?
By the same measure, any human endeavor can be said to be inspired by God.
And seeing how many athletes celebrate after making a score, it would seem that might be the case. ;)
Citizenzen, did you read the second pdf document about what happened in Lanciano, Italy?
Yes. What part of it is a result of a scientific study?
bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 01:06 PM
No I understand quite well. Your example leads me to believe you don't.
People didn't wear, display, or carry their internet connection in public, they did the iPod.
Why do you think White headphones, and MP3 players of similar look / shape & form factor became popular (from other manufacturers mind you) after the iPod became popular? Likely because it was a popular look / gadget that many people wanted.
A fad rarely includes items of technology, but sometimes it does. The subject of the iPod being a fad isn't something just I created / think, it has been discussed for a few years now, especially since the introduction of the iPhone.
Cheers
Yeah, you still don't understand what a fad is. Wow.
People didn't wear, display, or carry their internet connection in public, they did the iPod.
Why do you think White headphones, and MP3 players of similar look / shape & form factor became popular (from other manufacturers mind you) after the iPod became popular? Likely because it was a popular look / gadget that many people wanted.
A fad rarely includes items of technology, but sometimes it does. The subject of the iPod being a fad isn't something just I created / think, it has been discussed for a few years now, especially since the introduction of the iPhone.
Cheers
Yeah, you still don't understand what a fad is. Wow.
maccompaq
Nov 12, 07:56 AM
All of my people are on AT&T so I cannot switch, because of the mobile to mobile calling feature. AT&T has a strong signal where I live, and I really like my iPhone4, so switching would not make sense. Even with all the dropped calls, I just redial and continue on.
I am sure that when many of the iPhone users switch to Verizon, the AT&T experience will improve.
I am sure that when many of the iPhone users switch to Verizon, the AT&T experience will improve.
robbieduncan
Mar 14, 12:12 PM
While the idea is ridiculous Lewis Carroll (who was a mathematician amongst other things:rolleyes:) did some work on the problem and in a fictional work came up with this:
"In Chapter 7 of Lewis Carroll's 1893 book Sylvie and Bruno. The fictional German professor, Mein Herr, proposes a way to run trains by gravity alone. Dig a straight tunnel between any two points on Earth (it need not go through the Earth's center), and run a rail track through it. With frictionless tracks the energy gained by the train in the first half of the journey is equal to that required in the second half. And also, in the absence of air resistance and friction, the time of the journey is about 42 minutes (84 for a round trip) for any such tunnel, no matter what the tunnel's length."
f
It's a cool idea but the frictionless materials to build the tracks from don't exist outside physics exam papers :(
"In Chapter 7 of Lewis Carroll's 1893 book Sylvie and Bruno. The fictional German professor, Mein Herr, proposes a way to run trains by gravity alone. Dig a straight tunnel between any two points on Earth (it need not go through the Earth's center), and run a rail track through it. With frictionless tracks the energy gained by the train in the first half of the journey is equal to that required in the second half. And also, in the absence of air resistance and friction, the time of the journey is about 42 minutes (84 for a round trip) for any such tunnel, no matter what the tunnel's length."
f
It's a cool idea but the frictionless materials to build the tracks from don't exist outside physics exam papers :(
JoEw
Jan 20, 11:22 PM
i really divided on the matter i think android has a possibility of surpassing iphone market share only because android platform is on more then just 1 smart phone. However iphone is simplistic and has the app store which has way more developer backing then android does at the moment. Mainly because there is money to made from the app store where android simply does not have enough popularity for developers to make money from its store. I think the biggest thing hurting the iphone is the fact that it is locked on ATT. I think it needs to be on all major US cell networks or at least on verizon.
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?