Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Larger bill for customer = losing customers.
What kind of place do you live in? Where I live you have exactly TWO choices. 1. You get your electricity from the company all of your neighbors do. 2. You generate your own electricity. And option 2 only works for those that are willing to do with very little power or for those with a lot of money. Far as I know that is the situation in most of the world where electricity is available in some 'normal' fashion.
harold aptroot wrote:
Besides if they have any brains at all over there they have been saving up for the upgrade ever since the previous upgrade.
You really don't understand economics. I don't care where you get your power - it still costs money. If that wasn't the case there everyone would have all the power they could use. To do an "upgrade" it costs money. To do maintenance it costs money. To pay people to monitor it is costs money. To generate it is costs money. This is true for every single type of power (including ones that do not realistically exist like solar panel and fusion.) The fact that you don't understand where that money comes from in your situation doesn't change the fact that it still costs money. And when you attempt a major change in an economic system it WILL have ramifications far beyone what is visible from just the initial change.
-
jschell wrote:
If an alternative comes along that is 'better' then the market will drive that conversion. Could be electric, could be hydrogen, could be fusion. Could be a cultural change the removes the need for powered transportation.
This is the basis of capitalsm however, industries were smaller then. When talking about the car industry it has literlly billions of lives and trillions of dollars at stake. No leader in the industry can afford (espeacially after the last few years) to venture out and find the 'better' tech. And even if they could 'better' tech does not necessarily win. Not only that, the car industry is so coupled with the oil industry what makes you think they want anything to change? Just because I and everyone else wants a 'better' car does not make it magically appear. It is a step and repeat process. And sometimes we have to force the industry to make the change because they are fat greedy ba$tard$.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
This is the basis of capitalsm however, industries were smaller then. When talking about the car industry it has literlly billions of lives and trillions of dollars at stake. No leader in the industry can afford (espeacially after the last few years) to venture out and find the 'better' tech. And even if they could 'better' tech does not necessarily win.
Nonsense. As an example computers in a real sense didn't exist 40 years ago for most people. But there are countless business activitities that existed then and still exist. The fact that it doesn't happen in one year doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And things that are really are 'better' do win. When it is measurably better in the aspects that the majority of the market looks for then it does win. Marginal products fail because they are not winners overall.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Not only that, the car industry is so coupled with the oil industry what makes you think they want anything to change?
The market doesn't work like that. If a company that creates gasoline cars came up with a 'better' electric car, one that actually was better, then they would jump at the chance to start making them. Which is EXACTLY what would happen if they came up with a 'better' gasoline powered car. The problem is not that anyone is suppresing something. The problem is nothing that is actually better.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
And sometimes we have to force the industry to make the change because they are fat greedy ba$tard$.
Which only proves exactly what I said. If there was something better then the demand would drive the sales. They would make money because they would have something better to sell. The problem is that, as I already said, the current product offerings are NOT better. In all likelyhood they are worse overall based on all characteristics that market looks at. The fact that a small segment of the market is looking at one single characteristic of the electric car does NOT in any way make it overall better.
-
jschell wrote:
Because, in the the US, the power grid is running at close to max capacity almost everywhere.
That would mean the US does not build a 'new' distribution grid but actually extends it. Which it does so anyways. Arguing against putting something on the electrical grid because it will overload it is like saying we should have 2 different internets because it will help bandwidth.
jschell wrote:
What?
First it is a matter of adding not switching. Adding costs more.
Second, and again, if the cars were substantially 'better' then the need would drive politics. They are not 'better' in almost all ways. Thus politics is only relevant in that a solution that isn't better is being pushed.'Better'. Now thats an interesting word. Better by what? Better because it produces more power? Nope that dont' matter. Better because it is cleaner? Nope... Hmmm so what gets a new power plant up and running. Some Politician says its 'better' to his followers and it is voted in because of that. Then pushes the agenda through. If that politician claims that sacrificing chickens to the Thunder god Thor is a better means to produce electricity, and his voters buy into it, we will soon have thousands of chicken sacrificing power plants. Wether they produce electricity or not... Well that is actually irelevant. The point is politics alone gets the prize here.
jschell wrote:
Not even close.
Not even close. Most people base their decisions on factors like initial cost, power, brand name, previous experience, recommendations, maintenace costs etc. And for most 'normal' people the first factor, initial cost, is going to be the most significant factor.
The fact that some people buy green and some people avoid green is no more satistically relevant than that some people only buy motorcycles.Did you read what I wrote? Because you just re-itterated it with out my 'outliers' remark. The range of people we are talking about is the extremes (the outliers). All those imbetween care about other markers, of which the most important is cost. Which as I pointed out is why the tax subsidies work. I may be out 8K this year, but if I get it back in April and my car costs $200 less to drive a month its a no brainer (that is why Hyrbid took the market share they did.. Full e
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
That would mean the US does not build a 'new' distribution grid but actually extends it.
That makes no sense. You don't just add a new wire to existing towers to send more electricity.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
The point is politics alone gets the prize here.
Conspiracy theory nonsense. A substantial reason that the USSR collapsed was due to the inability for the political structure to keep up with the consumer demand for amentities for the modern world. Consumer demand - pure and simple. And there is no evidence that electric cars are substantially overall better than gasoline cars versus the electric when one considers the entire domain of the consumer market. Niche != All.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I may be out 8K this year, but if I get it back in April and my car costs $200 less to drive a month its a no brainer
Operating cost is not the same as purchase price for most people. Not even close.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
you are already comming out ahead with an electric car.
You represent a market of one. Nothing you said suggests you understand the concerns of the overall market.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
A) Millions of inefficient gas generators (Also known as "Internal Combustion Engines"), each designed to minimize weight and noise, and only checked once a year when the owner brings their vehicle in for an inspection.
You know less about cars than GW. The car is checked for road worthyness ever year, in some coutries two, but its engine is checked at every service as specified by the manufaturer, you know them, they are those dedicated engineers who actually design them for maximum efficiency and output as well as weight and noise (noise which is controled by the government by the way). The car worthyness check is government controled, the equpment to carry out the test is government regulated, and the individual doing the test government licensed. So sorry, what was that you were sayinog about the benefits of power stations as opposed to car engines? :laugh:
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
government ... government ... government
The answer to life the universe and everything. ;P
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
That would mean the US does not build a 'new' distribution grid but actually extends it.
That makes no sense. You don't just add a new wire to existing towers to send more electricity.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
The point is politics alone gets the prize here.
Conspiracy theory nonsense. A substantial reason that the USSR collapsed was due to the inability for the political structure to keep up with the consumer demand for amentities for the modern world. Consumer demand - pure and simple. And there is no evidence that electric cars are substantially overall better than gasoline cars versus the electric when one considers the entire domain of the consumer market. Niche != All.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I may be out 8K this year, but if I get it back in April and my car costs $200 less to drive a month its a no brainer
Operating cost is not the same as purchase price for most people. Not even close.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
you are already comming out ahead with an electric car.
You represent a market of one. Nothing you said suggests you understand the concerns of the overall market.
You are really bad at debate aren't you. The only thing you have done is say that makes no sence and claim conspiracy theory.
jschell wrote:
That makes no sense.
You don't just add a new wire to existing towers to send more electricity.Power Grids For Dummies[^] Read it. Then come back here and tell me how I am wrong about they do not need a new distribution grid, they need to only expand it (which is done anyways because we are always consuming more power).
jschell wrote:
Conspiracy theory nonsense.
A substantial reason that the USSR collapsed was due to the inability for the political structure to keep up with the consumer demand for amentities for the modern worldFor one that is speculation. Another is that the USSR over extended themselves. Another is they played a game they were guarenteed to loose, the Arms Race[^]. All speculation and also irrelevant. The USSR was a socialist state and politics were ENTIRELY different. You can not compare politics of a Democracy to that of a socialist state.
jschell wrote:
Consumer demand - pure and simple.
Thats funny, cause I seem to remember consumers demanding cheaper more efficient vehicles decades ago... But then again I also remember seeing high demand for broadband access and mobile internet access both of which are tightly controlled by a few companies each of which shafts the consumer base, regardless of their demand. Supply and Demand only works if the industries are enterable. This type of industry is not enterable by other parties. You will not wake up tomorrow and here about a new vehicle start up. You will wake up and see how you are being raked over the oil fields by big oil.
jschell wrote:
And there is no evidence that electric cars are substantially overall better than gasoline cars versus the electric when one considers the entire domain of the consumer market.
Niche != All."Better". There you go
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
This is the basis of capitalsm however, industries were smaller then. When talking about the car industry it has literlly billions of lives and trillions of dollars at stake. No leader in the industry can afford (espeacially after the last few years) to venture out and find the 'better' tech. And even if they could 'better' tech does not necessarily win.
Nonsense. As an example computers in a real sense didn't exist 40 years ago for most people. But there are countless business activitities that existed then and still exist. The fact that it doesn't happen in one year doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And things that are really are 'better' do win. When it is measurably better in the aspects that the majority of the market looks for then it does win. Marginal products fail because they are not winners overall.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Not only that, the car industry is so coupled with the oil industry what makes you think they want anything to change?
The market doesn't work like that. If a company that creates gasoline cars came up with a 'better' electric car, one that actually was better, then they would jump at the chance to start making them. Which is EXACTLY what would happen if they came up with a 'better' gasoline powered car. The problem is not that anyone is suppresing something. The problem is nothing that is actually better.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
And sometimes we have to force the industry to make the change because they are fat greedy ba$tard$.
Which only proves exactly what I said. If there was something better then the demand would drive the sales. They would make money because they would have something better to sell. The problem is that, as I already said, the current product offerings are NOT better. In all likelyhood they are worse overall based on all characteristics that market looks at. The fact that a small segment of the market is looking at one single characteristic of the electric car does NOT in any way make it overall better.
jschell wrote:
Nonsense.
As an example computers in a real sense didn't exist 40 years ago for most people. But there are countless business activitities that existed then and still exist.
The fact that it doesn't happen in one year doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
And things that are really are 'better' do win. When it is measurably better in the aspects that the majority of the market looks for then it does win. Marginal products fail because they are not winners overall.Do you live under a rock? Things that are 'better' have no guarentee of winning. Simple case Directory of Technology for some very large company is approached by 2 very smart engineers. The engineers both have a similar idea about media storage. The director recals that engineer 1 has a really hot wife and would like to have dinner with them. Aproves engineer 1 request and says "Lets talk about it over dinner with the wives shall we?" In this case no consumers were ever involved. There is no telling wether the first engineers idea is better than the second. Yes, very simple case but this case shows how some approvals have nothing to do with the raw idea. There is such a thing in the world as nepotism and favortism. Another simple example. Tiny garage start up company creates a new phone that has the ability turn lead into gold. Big super company catches wind of this and quickly makes a phone that can turn stinky crap into not so stinky crap and advertises the 'crap' out of it. In case you did not hear, the lead to gold phone just was not better... Right? This situation is of course just made up, but actually occurs quite often (no lead to gold, but still) in industries on the verge of merges/takeovers.
jschell wrote:
The market doesn't work like that. If a company that creates gasoline cars came up with a 'better' electric car, one that actually was better, then they would jump at the chance to start making them.
Which is EXACTLY what would happen if they came up with a 'better' gasoline powered car.
The problem is not that anyone is suppresing something. The problem is nothing that is actually better.Oh wise one you are so right... Wait, let me see. I do recall when I was growing up article about individuals that were making electric cars on their own. Didn't cost them much either. Granted very smart fel
-
So you have no opinoins worth anything about anything other than what you have studied, or acchieved some kind of medal for? (Be it some publicaitons or so) Oh, and by the way, I am merely repeating the opinoins of climate scientists, so I gues you have to accept what I say then. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
-
So you think Chiropractic is phoney do you? How about the number of patients referred to Chiropractors by MDs (in the UK I know of many cases of this)?
============================== Nothing to say.
Chiropractic is B.S. when they do things like 1) sell homeopathy, vitamins and other crap 2) perform cervical manipulations (especially without giving due informed consent for risk of vertebral artery dissection and stroke) 3) advise on medical issues unrelated to their field, such as alternative vaccination schedules or eschewing vaccinations etc. 4) offer routine 'adjustments' and diagnose 'subluxations' 5) imply that 'disease is based in the spine' etc. Chiropractic is evidence based when they 6) perform spinal manipulation for lower back pain And that's about it. Pseudodoctors with 4 year pseudodegrees practicing pseudomedicine for gullible patients with big wallets. Spinal manipulation could just as easily be done by physiotherapists without all the hullaballoo.
- F
-
IPCC 4/5ths of factors affecting climate have a "Very low level of scientific understanding" http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/2001syr/large/06.01.jpg[^] So that means none of them actually know what they are talking about either. In which case I agree with you entirely. :) Come back at me when you have something worth arguing against. That was too easy.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
You are really bad at debate aren't you. The only thing you have done is say that makes no sence and claim conspiracy theory.
jschell wrote:
That makes no sense.
You don't just add a new wire to existing towers to send more electricity.Power Grids For Dummies[^] Read it. Then come back here and tell me how I am wrong about they do not need a new distribution grid, they need to only expand it (which is done anyways because we are always consuming more power).
jschell wrote:
Conspiracy theory nonsense.
A substantial reason that the USSR collapsed was due to the inability for the political structure to keep up with the consumer demand for amentities for the modern worldFor one that is speculation. Another is that the USSR over extended themselves. Another is they played a game they were guarenteed to loose, the Arms Race[^]. All speculation and also irrelevant. The USSR was a socialist state and politics were ENTIRELY different. You can not compare politics of a Democracy to that of a socialist state.
jschell wrote:
Consumer demand - pure and simple.
Thats funny, cause I seem to remember consumers demanding cheaper more efficient vehicles decades ago... But then again I also remember seeing high demand for broadband access and mobile internet access both of which are tightly controlled by a few companies each of which shafts the consumer base, regardless of their demand. Supply and Demand only works if the industries are enterable. This type of industry is not enterable by other parties. You will not wake up tomorrow and here about a new vehicle start up. You will wake up and see how you are being raked over the oil fields by big oil.
jschell wrote:
And there is no evidence that electric cars are substantially overall better than gasoline cars versus the electric when one considers the entire domain of the consumer market.
Niche != All."Better". There you go
-
jschell wrote:
Nonsense.
As an example computers in a real sense didn't exist 40 years ago for most people. But there are countless business activitities that existed then and still exist.
The fact that it doesn't happen in one year doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
And things that are really are 'better' do win. When it is measurably better in the aspects that the majority of the market looks for then it does win. Marginal products fail because they are not winners overall.Do you live under a rock? Things that are 'better' have no guarentee of winning. Simple case Directory of Technology for some very large company is approached by 2 very smart engineers. The engineers both have a similar idea about media storage. The director recals that engineer 1 has a really hot wife and would like to have dinner with them. Aproves engineer 1 request and says "Lets talk about it over dinner with the wives shall we?" In this case no consumers were ever involved. There is no telling wether the first engineers idea is better than the second. Yes, very simple case but this case shows how some approvals have nothing to do with the raw idea. There is such a thing in the world as nepotism and favortism. Another simple example. Tiny garage start up company creates a new phone that has the ability turn lead into gold. Big super company catches wind of this and quickly makes a phone that can turn stinky crap into not so stinky crap and advertises the 'crap' out of it. In case you did not hear, the lead to gold phone just was not better... Right? This situation is of course just made up, but actually occurs quite often (no lead to gold, but still) in industries on the verge of merges/takeovers.
jschell wrote:
The market doesn't work like that. If a company that creates gasoline cars came up with a 'better' electric car, one that actually was better, then they would jump at the chance to start making them.
Which is EXACTLY what would happen if they came up with a 'better' gasoline powered car.
The problem is not that anyone is suppresing something. The problem is nothing that is actually better.Oh wise one you are so right... Wait, let me see. I do recall when I was growing up article about individuals that were making electric cars on their own. Didn't cost them much either. Granted very smart fel
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Directory of Technology for some very large company is approached by 2 very smart engineers. The engineers both have a similar idea about media storage. The director recals that engineer 1 has a really hot wife and would like to have dinner with them. Aproves engineer 1 request and says "Lets talk about it over dinner with the wives shall we?
Specious. In any number of ways. First overall market demands are not driven by a single decision in any way shape or form. Second normally on average in the scenario you depicted there is no real right answer. The two presentations will not have a specific winner. Thus one is about the same as the other. When there is a significantly and obviously better solution your fantasy 'Director' will make the right decision because there is a reason that person is a 'Director' in the first place. Or perhaps you are just claiming that everyone making any significant decision is absolutely corrupt and absolutely stupid.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Tiny garage start up company creates a...
Another fantasy example which ignores the breadth and depth of the market such as automobiles. There are potentially thousands of sources for innovative products. And innovative products do not just appear magically out of nowhere, they rest on a vast infrastructure of existing ideas/products.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
but the point is that the OIL industry has been sitting on technology for decades because they are milking the system.
I see. Presumably all this incredible future technology originated in Area 51 as well. Probably kept secret all these years from foreign nationals by the very same security systems that obscure Area 51 itself.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Oh it doesn't work like that right? Ever heard of De Beers[^]?
Not sure how this proves your point. Diamonds are singularly unique mineral. Not a manufactured product. Are you claiming that there is in fact a significantly 'better' diamond out there? And I certainly don't see any vast conspiracies in place which obscures the fact that they buy up new diamond sources and keep the demand artificially high.
-
Plenty of choices here, of course they all use the same lines so it's actually kind of weird, but you can choose which company you get electricity from - obviously it's all the same electricity so it's more of a financial construct.
jschell wrote:
The fact that you don't understand where that money comes from in your situation doesn't change the fact that it still costs money.
It matters a lot where the money comes from; if it has to come form the govt then it's bad because that means they'll economize on health care and education, but if it comes directly from people there's really no change.
harold aptroot wrote:
It matters a lot where the money comes from; if it has to come form the govt then it's bad because that means they'll economize on health care and education, but if it comes directly from people there's really no change.
It DOES NOT MATTER. You might think that one just prints more money and that is how governments pay for stuff but that is NOT how it works. Money is a representational fiction for the real economic manifestation in the modern world. The bigger something it is the more it it 'costs' the economy to create it.
-
Science is willing to admit its limitations; you, not being a scientist, not knowing any scientists, having no relevant education, and not being accountable in the slightest for your empty opinions, are not.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Science is willing to admit its limitations;
And yet encourage the implementation of policy based on that understanding. Which you will find is the principle objectionof the sceptics.
Fisticuffs wrote:
not being a scientist
No, I am an engineer (Mech Aero and Software), who applies logic to all problems.
Fisticuffs wrote:
not knowing any scientists
Really? :)
Fisticuffs wrote:
having no relevant education
This rules out Einstein then, no?
Fisticuffs wrote:
and not being accountable in the slightest for your empty opinions
Unfortunately the scientists behind the AGW scam are not either.
Fisticuffs wrote:
are not
Since I am not a scientist of course I don't have to admit to sceintific limitations. I see logic has failed you there. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Chiropractic is B.S. when they do things like 1) sell homeopathy, vitamins and other crap 2) perform cervical manipulations (especially without giving due informed consent for risk of vertebral artery dissection and stroke) 3) advise on medical issues unrelated to their field, such as alternative vaccination schedules or eschewing vaccinations etc. 4) offer routine 'adjustments' and diagnose 'subluxations' 5) imply that 'disease is based in the spine' etc. Chiropractic is evidence based when they 6) perform spinal manipulation for lower back pain And that's about it. Pseudodoctors with 4 year pseudodegrees practicing pseudomedicine for gullible patients with big wallets. Spinal manipulation could just as easily be done by physiotherapists without all the hullaballoo.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
sell homeopathy
Thats a homeopath, not a chirppractor. In fact the AECC does not teach homeopathy.
Fisticuffs wrote:
vitamins
I see, so vitamins are crap are they? Lack of Ascorbic acide does not cause scurvy, vitamin D rickets? Have you published any papers on this or are your opinions just empty?
Fisticuffs wrote:
perform cervical manipulations (especially without giving due informed consent for risk of vertebral artery dissection and stroke)
Malpractice is unfortunately common in all medical fields but does not negate its efficacy.
Fisticuffs wrote:
advise on medical issues unrelated to their field, such as alternative vaccination schedules or eschewing vaccinations
Not taught by the AECC.
Fisticuffs wrote:
offer routine 'adjustments' and diagnose 'subluxations'
Entirely necessary and beneficial in many cases.
Fisticuffs wrote:
imply that 'disease is based in the spine'
etc.This is not taught by the AECC.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Spinal manipulation could just as easily be done by physiotherapists
And very effective they are too.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
So you have no opinoins worth anything about anything other than what you have studied
That's correct.
- F
-
harold aptroot wrote:
It matters a lot where the money comes from; if it has to come form the govt then it's bad because that means they'll economize on health care and education, but if it comes directly from people there's really no change.
It DOES NOT MATTER. You might think that one just prints more money and that is how governments pay for stuff but that is NOT how it works. Money is a representational fiction for the real economic manifestation in the modern world. The bigger something it is the more it it 'costs' the economy to create it.
What the hell what kind of economy did you have in highschool?
jschell wrote:
You might think that one just prints more money and that is how governments pay for stuff but that is NOT how it works.
In the US it works that way, and that's why the country is being demoted to 3rd world. Good luck with that. Here in the EU there's only so much the govt the can spend, and they're already spending all of it so anything extra will mean leaving sick people to die and breeding a generation that didn't receive any education worth mentioning - because that's what this stupid backwards rightwing govt likes. If people pay direct instead of through tax, they just have a couple of euro's less savings or in extreme cases maybe they'll cancel their vacation to Spain. But neither of that would happen, electricity companies can't afford to raise prices unless they start price fixing.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Science is willing to admit its limitations;
And yet encourage the implementation of policy based on that understanding. Which you will find is the principle objectionof the sceptics.
Fisticuffs wrote:
not being a scientist
No, I am an engineer (Mech Aero and Software), who applies logic to all problems.
Fisticuffs wrote:
not knowing any scientists
Really? :)
Fisticuffs wrote:
having no relevant education
This rules out Einstein then, no?
Fisticuffs wrote:
and not being accountable in the slightest for your empty opinions
Unfortunately the scientists behind the AGW scam are not either.
Fisticuffs wrote:
are not
Since I am not a scientist of course I don't have to admit to sceintific limitations. I see logic has failed you there. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
This rules out Einstein then, no?
I'm going to have to stop you there. Albert Einstein was awarded a PhD in physics in 1905 by the University of Zurich.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Directory of Technology for some very large company is approached by 2 very smart engineers. The engineers both have a similar idea about media storage. The director recals that engineer 1 has a really hot wife and would like to have dinner with them. Aproves engineer 1 request and says "Lets talk about it over dinner with the wives shall we?
Specious. In any number of ways. First overall market demands are not driven by a single decision in any way shape or form. Second normally on average in the scenario you depicted there is no real right answer. The two presentations will not have a specific winner. Thus one is about the same as the other. When there is a significantly and obviously better solution your fantasy 'Director' will make the right decision because there is a reason that person is a 'Director' in the first place. Or perhaps you are just claiming that everyone making any significant decision is absolutely corrupt and absolutely stupid.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Tiny garage start up company creates a...
Another fantasy example which ignores the breadth and depth of the market such as automobiles. There are potentially thousands of sources for innovative products. And innovative products do not just appear magically out of nowhere, they rest on a vast infrastructure of existing ideas/products.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
but the point is that the OIL industry has been sitting on technology for decades because they are milking the system.
I see. Presumably all this incredible future technology originated in Area 51 as well. Probably kept secret all these years from foreign nationals by the very same security systems that obscure Area 51 itself.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Oh it doesn't work like that right? Ever heard of De Beers[^]?
Not sure how this proves your point. Diamonds are singularly unique mineral. Not a manufactured product. Are you claiming that there is in fact a significantly 'better' diamond out there? And I certainly don't see any vast conspiracies in place which obscures the fact that they buy up new diamond sources and keep the demand artificially high.
jschell wrote:
Specious. In any number of ways.
First overall market demands are not driven by a single decision in any way shape or form.
Second normally on average in the scenario you depicted there is no real right answer. The two presentations will not have a specific winner. Thus one is about the same as the other. When there is a significantly and obviously better solution your fantasy 'Director' will make the right decision because there is a reason that person is a 'Director' in the first place. Or perhaps you are just claiming that everyone making any significant decision is absolutely corrupt and absolutely stupid.Market demand has nothing to do with it. You have proposed that if consumers demand 'better' technology it will come. I have pointed out a simple fictious yet plausable case where a technology would be surpressed, not because it is a worse item but merely because individual humans can and do impact technology. Everyone in the world does not have to be dumb or corrupt to make this true. Only one person.
jschell wrote:
Another fantasy example which ignores the breadth and depth of the market such as automobiles. There are potentially thousands of sources for innovative products. And innovative products do not just appear magically out of nowhere, they rest on a vast infrastructure of existing ideas/products.
Again, you missed the point. Wether this case exists or not is not the point. It is IF it can exist. If it can exist it shows a simple case of where technology can be invented and not brought to consumers. It has nothing to do with consumer demand. That is the point.
jschell wrote:
I see. Presumably all this incredible future technology originated in Area 51 as well. Probably kept secret all these years from foreign nationals by the very same security systems that obscure Area 51 itself.
So because one proposes that an industry is savy enough to lock down market control it brings in all global conspiracies?? Is it so hard to imagine that an industry with more money than most countries would want to ensure their future? Is it so hard to believe that the top executives ethics are questionable that they would not only do this but possible even direct illegal (blackmail, murder, etc) measures to protect themselves? Oh wait.. Thats right, C
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Then come back here and tell me how I am wrong about they do not need a new distribution grid,
You are going to have to point out exactly what in that site contradicts what I said.
It is actually the opposite. You have to find a fact showing that the whole network will need to be rebuilt as you claimed. This site shows how the power plants output power is all merged into the same network. And you didnt respond to anything else.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
It matters a lot where the money comes from; if it has to come form the govt then it's bad because that means they'll economize on health care and education, but if it comes directly from people there's really no change.
It DOES NOT MATTER. You might think that one just prints more money and that is how governments pay for stuff but that is NOT how it works. Money is a representational fiction for the real economic manifestation in the modern world. The bigger something it is the more it it 'costs' the economy to create it.
Your responce here makes no sence. Harold's point is as long as the Government does not demand the power companies to expand they will do it themselves. They will then either penny pinch internally in one of the millions of ways companies raise money e.g. Reduce Waist Reduce Overhead costs Pay Caps etc. etc. Or they will raise the peak costs. This is the standard anyways. Simply put, pay for what you use. If the government however mandates their expansion they will demand compensation AND they will raise peak costs. Therefore the populace will pay doubly, in the form of utilties and in taxes. I mean honestly, what you are saying about governments just print money etc doesn't even make sence. Harold said if it comes directly from the people (i.e. higher utility bills) there is no change. And what the heck does money being a representation of economy have to do with this? Are you just typing for the sake of typing now?
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
