That earlier "technology" is unconverted in the hypothetical scenario.

Same reply to essentially same statement - http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

You're now hallucinating that the two statements are the same.

There is no step added. Existing "technologies" remain unconverted. Independently, CO2 is converted into something else - intentionally or as a good side effect of something else.

More hallucinations from you.

No conversion of machines required. Existing machines keep working unchanged to generate power, manufacture goods, etc. New machines do reverse conversion.

Ignoring numerous other factors, of course.

Idiot, it was in the context of "conversion to CO2 neutral technologies". The CO2 -> fuel conversion starts with somewhat CO2 neutral technologies. The other industries then don't have to convert.

All this even while ignoring the other factors that can cause a non-necessity of conversion to CO2 neutral technologies.

No, once reverse conversion is cheap, scalable and easy; CO2 neutral technologies are not necessary. There are other factors also which can cause this.

In this very case, there are multiple victims. I just pointed about the stupidity of one of them in my last post.

FYI the sets "victim" and "stupid(bad guy according to you)" are not disjoint.

Even if it is, not calling it a"sex crime " is not prohibited by law. Most other humans, even when discussing this event, managed to do it just fine.

If she couldn't speak about this event in a way that was non-enjoyable to the culprits, shutting the fuck up was an option.

For your limited brain, then, consider it power source neutral. Power will need to mainly come from non-carbon-fossil-fuels, or non-fossil-fuels for it to be practical. But if a miniscule amount does come from carbon fossil fuels it would not make much of a difference.

Celebrities' fault is surely involved, no? Celebrities can't do anything about other "gasbags" , but if they truly wanted less people to find the pictures, and people to enjoy the pictures less if they did find the photos, they would not have complained like this. Calling it "sex crime" must have given an enormous arousal to the perpetrators.

Most likely no, but it doesn't matter.

Ok, I have no problem disagreeing. But don't you think in this particular case, whining like she's doing is likely to be feeling good for the worst of the offenders. I thought you will appreciate this argument at least, probably got missed in other disagreements.

The fact that she is complaining about it DOES NOT make it a stupid risk. Because :
1. her complaining happened AFTER she took the risk
2. the risk was already stupid when she took it, from our point of view
3. risk was stupid from our point of view because to us the rewards don't seem worth the risk
4. it is entirely possible that the risk was worth the reward from her point of view

She can be. But it is counter-productive because :
1. The thieves will enjoy the photos all the more.
2. Takes her own (and of others who listen to her) attention away from avoiding such incidents in future
3. It will not make it stop happening.

IFF she took the risk knowingly, she reasonably cannot be mad that someone hacked because reasonable people who take risks don't blame others when they get unlucky. E.g.
1. bungee jumpers getting hurt
2. getting extra complications during heart surgery
3. people ordering new kind of exotic food in restaurants and finding it not to taste

Riding a bike where I live is very safe - I do it 8 miles everyday and I don't tell myself that I am stupid. If someone does it where it is unsafe, I would tell everyone that he stupid for riding his bike.