Yeah, but why should anybody care, except for a few specialists in anthropology?
So if America wants banking records of a German citizen, living in Germany, they could compel Deutschbank to provide them.
Correct. At the same time, Deutsche Bank might be violating German laws if it complies with the US order. It is the responsibility of Deutsche bank to ensure that it it can comply with all laws in the countries it chooses to do business in. And it is your responsibility as a customer to pick and choose companies to do business with that operate in the way you like.
If Microsoft loses this case, it will be a terrible precedent, and a victory for oppressive governments all around the world.
Oh, of course! Because the ability of transnational corporations to evade the laws of the countries they operate in and play one country against another would be such a grand victory for liberty! Get real.
The US government has too much power to subpoena E-mails (although European governments are even worse); that power should be limited. Allowing huge global corporations like Microsoft to escape such legal orders while private citizens would have to comply (and you would) is about the worst possible outcome.
Then they should charge for it on an hourly basis, and waive that hourly fee for big customers.
Why "should" they? They aren't in the business of handholding consumers or small customers. If you think they are wrong in their business model, stop whining and vote with your dollars instead. That's what adults do in a free market.
Of course, you whine and complain because you realize that Broadcom's business model is actually working for them.
They need to realize that big players start out as little players.
Sometimes they do, but so what? It looks like Broadcom still has a good business, as do many other companies that only deal with large customers; in a healthy, diverse market, that's a reasonable strategy for some companies. I don't see why people get so pushed out of shape about this. It's not like Broadcom is the only source you can use.
a large portion of our decisions makers have not gotten past the 'is it warming?' part of all this.
They don't need to get past that, because whether it is actually warming or not has no impact on policy. Under all IPCC scenarios, there is no need in any government-initiated policies against climate change.
If we had believed the scientists 20 years ago about the warming, we could have spent the last 20 years debating what to do about it.
The reason we didn't talk about policy 20 years ago was because it was easiest to put a stop to this nonsense by pointing out that scientists didn't even have good data (actually, they still don't in terms of extrapolation).
But the policy issues are the same: the reason nothing can be done about climate change is rooted in economics and politics. And the reason nothing should be done is because whatever we could do is likely going to end up worse for humanity than simply living with warmer termperatures.
The problem with climatologists is that they are climatologists; they are not sociologists, politicians, economists, or ethicists. Anybody who advocates following the advice of climatologists on climate change is either a charlatan or a liar.
I don't have a kill file, but you certainly are in my "stupidity alert file".
We're almost certainly going to be a lot worse off if we ignore scientists talking about what will happen under certain circumstances.
Again, where did I say that we should "ignore" them? Climate scientists have made various predictions for how climate is going to change under various emission scenarios; that is their area of expertise. It's useful information that we should pay attention to. But choosing not to act on the recommendations of climate scientists isn't "ignoring" them, it is recognizing that climate scientists lack the expertise or authority to recommend policy.
It is rational to acknowledge the emission scenarios and predictions of climate scientists and completely reject any form of government action to try to reduce emissions. In fact, I think it is the only rational position.
Go look up the costs and risks in the IPCC report; it's all there.
that advocacy tends to be based on something other than political ideology
... And the actual people whose jobs it is to actually try to understand the risks on a technical level and also the economics on a macro level aren't siding with the skeptics.
Scientists are highly political creatures, and when they engage in political advocacy, they very frequently misuse their scientific credentials.
In the end, what this comes down to is whether we, as a society, should leave these kinds of decisions to government selected experts. You may be of the opinion that we should. But if you accuse people who disagree with you of being unscientific or corrupt, you have crossed a line.
And even the cold blood bean counters are starting to do that in earnest now.
Good. When I say that "we should take no action", what I mean is that government should take no action, because government programs are going to delay whatever needs to be done. The free market (insurance companies, developers, energy companies, etc.) will respond appropriately all by itself.
This is an interesting opinion. You present it as obvious, but it is the opposite of what most people who studied this seems to think.
Most people who have studied "this" (i.e. climate change) are not economists; therefore, they lack the background and the qualifications to make informed judgments about what actions we should take in response to climate change.
This is clearly not basic economics. Is is more about estimating future risks and estimating economic cost which seems difficult to me.
The IPCC has estimated the future effects and costs. Their estimates are biased, but even taking them at face value, it is still clear from an economic point of view that the right course of action is to do nothing.
Obviously we are also debating whether global warming exists or is caused by humans. To me - as a scientist - this is a deeply worrying sign of ignorance
No, that's not what we're debating. Climate scientists and activists use accusations of ignorance, ad hominems, and straw men as a debating strategy.
The term "climate scientists and their activist friends" also indicates a bit of paranoid thinking.
I think that is a reasonably neutral way to refer to these two groups. How do you think I should refer to these two related groups that hold friendly views of each other?
I wish we would actually debate how to best deal with global warming instead of whether it exists or what causes it.
That is exactly what we are debating. And the best way of dealing with it is to ignore it, because the costs of dealing with global warming down the road are tiny compared to the costs of limiting emissions right now, for any realistic IPCC scenario. The problem is that climate scientists and their activist friends are unwilling to accept basic economics and keep making proposals outside their domain of expertise.
Really? The choices I have (and yes, I do have a few) include a service that will not provide me with really high speed access, but will not block my traffic and gives me static IP addresses.
And how does that contradict what I said? "Competition may be limited in most markets (mostly due to government regulations), but you still have a choice whether you give money to telecoms or not."
You're making the assumption that tax dollars will be used to pay to provide service.
You bet I am. That's the only reason for making these services public.
Oh, and in case you've been living under a rock for the past 100 years or so, that's (municipal bonds with user fees to cover repayment, maintenance and upgrades) how large public works projects have been successfully done over and over again.
Oh, sure! That's why we totally don't have a municipal debt crisis!
Tell you what: your town can have municipal broadband if it shows it can actually handle its finances by having a budget surplus and no debt. How about it.
I don't recall those scientists screaming from the top of their lungs
... then we were going to irreversibly fuck this planet up
No, they generally just predicted the doom of humanity, or at least their own nation, to get politicians to act their way. Predicting the doom of the entire planet is less common, but I guess all things are getting bigger and more global, including scientific FUD.
The fact that some scientists have flexible morals shouldn't be made equivalent to the fact that corporations have entirely inflexible null morals.
Corporations don't have morals, they respond to what the people actually want, as expressed by what they are willing to pay money for. The people want cheap transportation, bright lights, lots of gadgets, and entertainment, and that's what corporations deliver. That's a whole lot better than putting people with "flexible morals" in charge, in particular putting them in charge of something as dangerous as directing corporations to do things.
I never debated those things, why did you bring them up?
Of course you didn't "debate them"; you prefer to ignore them because they destroy your point that we'd be better off following the policies advocated by scientists. Given the fact that scientists have historically advocated policies that have destroyed entire nations, we should be very careful in following their advice. We should, of course, listen to what they have to say ("it's been getting warmer"), but not necessarily to their policies ("therefore, you must sharply limit carbon emissions").
I apologize, I was answering the hypothetical answer to the GPs question... You know, the one you didn't actually answer.
You didn't answer the question. You simply made an erroneous assertion.
Ya me too, I much prefer a climate that we're not evolved to survive in.
Well, I do prefer a climate that we're evolved in to survive. Which is why it would actually not be such a bad thing if the current ice age came to an end. We are currently in an ice age with rapid temperature fluctuations. That is not what mammals or primates evolved in. It's probably one of the most challenging climates in the history of the planet, short of snowball earth. I refer you to the cold temperatures and rapid temperature fluctuations that started about 7 million years ago and have been getting more and more extreme:
Conveniently, there are temperature predictions from the worst case IPCC predictions (RPC8.5) in that graph, which show you that those would merely take us back to the climate of 7 million years ago, just about pre-ice-age.
We should be so lucky. In reality, RPC8.5 is not a reasonable prediction, and humans will stop burning fossil fuels due to market forces long before that. Unfortunately, we will probably not be able to end the current ice age.
Humanity sure flourished through the Dryas events, didn't they?
Well, no, it probably was not so pleasant for humanity. Since the Dryas events were periods when a period of rapid global warming was interrupted and a previous cold climate was restored, I'm not sure in what way you think that that's an argument for keeping the climate cold. Colder temperatures are generally not a good thing.
Humanity clearly did flourish during the period of rapid global warming and sea level rise that started 20000 years ago and ended about 2000 years ago.