Government setting their thumbs on the scales screws everything up. Just look at housing and tuition.

You are ignoring things like marketable skills, professionalism, competition, and negotiation. Unemployment is currently high, which puts downward pressure on wages across the board because other people will offer the same services for less. If unemployment were at 5%, the companies would pay more because they need employees to increase or maintain productivity.

If colleges churn out a bunch of "it experts," wages go down. If there are fewer skilled people available and higher demand of IT workers, wages go up.

You are also ignoring how *expensive* it is for a company to hire and keep someone employed it is. These costs go up. For example, companies could probably hire more people if healthcare costs hadn't have doubled in the past 2 years due to the Affordable Care Act. They offer health benefits to their employees to be competitive and to attract better skilled employees (AKA The same free market you are saying would push people to poverty level).

So now we *have* employment law, so it *doesn't* suck for the 99%. Quite the contrary. The poor in America are rich compared to the rest of the world. Many of the poor in the United States have cars, cell phones, TVs, etc.

This really is simple. The onus isn't on the company to pay you more, the onus is make yourself more valuable. It all starts with the individual.

Hello?

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

First, output was printed.
Then we had a CRT display. Invention!
Then we had a color CRT display. Invention!
Then we had the GUI and LCD screens. Invention!
Then we had the touch CRT / Glass. Invention!

Why is it not fair to claim the GUI the invention and all GUI elements and enhancements underneath it part of that?
That any GUI elements that leverage touch fall under the invention of the touch GUI?

Consider things like Apple's slide to unlock patent. Wouldn't that be like patenting the new ticker on the bottom of the TV?
Why are things like slide to unlock not considered purely content? What makes it any different than, say, how the weather channel shows radar images versus the local TV station?

Find out how Windows gets infected with Malware by downloading this exclusive EXE *FOR FREE*.

$250 is a *great* price point, IMHO. We know quality hardware sold for $99 ($300 loss) sells like hotcakes because of HP.

Will be interesting - especially since they're not working with Google on it... FTFA "At all".

I have a nook color and nook touch (the nook Touch is awesome) - I'll gladly add one of these. Amazon is shaking things up. Killer.

When will Apple start suing them?

Ok, I'm was geniuenly surprised and I'm probably to the last person on earth to hear about this.

Why does it take FOIA filings to get access to the documents related to Mann's paleoclimatology research? Are these relevant data or is someone just fishing? Does anybody know anything about this?

Why is it necessary that people sue each other about this? Considering how important and visible this is, wouldn't it be better to just put everything out there?

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/08/university-turns-over-some-mater.html?ref=hp

We mostly agree. But my point seems to be missed entirely - so I'll try again. It's NOT about GW - it's about what we're doing about it.

But first, I'd like to know more about how you did it for pennies per KWh? Did you build your own wind turbine or what? When I priced it solar it was *WAY* expensive and had a 10 - 14 year ROI. Fuel Cells about the same. It was *way* expensive to "go green" for me. I'm in Texas and it's been over 100 for *way* too many days and my electric bill is crazy high right now.

Anyway, I watched a debate where Lord Monckton asked some questions and I gotta say - he made a really good point. Love him or hate him, it doesn't mean his questions are any less worthy of being answered than any other.

He asked questions and made points that really made me think.

The more I seek answers to his points more the overtly reactionary jackasses accuse me of being a denier.. Which, frankly, has really opened my eyes just to how *LITTLE* the green advocates actually know and understand.

So lets talk about what action to take.

Which is my critique #1: Automatically rejecting points made by the other side of the debate simple because they are the other side of the debate doesn't help

Frankly, the green movement almost seems adverse to discussing *real* answers because they fear loosing their political football. The more I ask, the more I question, the more resistance I have to finding answers. Actions are speaking louder than words.

You seem reasonable, so these are the basic question he asked that is the quickest way to get accused of impaling babies on stakes:
- What are we going to do?
- What impact will this have on developing nations and populations?
- How will we do it?
- How much will it cost?
- Why are we doing it?
- Can we prove the costs outweigh the negatives?

I ask these questions, nobody can seem to (or is willing to) answer them or even admit they should be asked, and I have a problem with this. It is turning me into a skeptic because instead of talking about this - I'm stereotyped.

Thus, asking questions makes me a skeptic. Really. lol... and then they act like people "just don't get it"? It's like a bunch of monkeys humping a football. A lot going on but not many results.

Which is my critique #2: Our models keep failing to predict what will happen. Simple reality. We need better models so we can answer the above questions.

*NOBODY* can *PROVE* billions will die. Nobody can *PROVE* what will happen. There is no _proof_. We're not there yet.

I"m trying to be pragmatic and the hyper-reactionary political greens won't let me. They don't like my "badspeak".

Which brings me to where I am at:

Which is my critique #3: The environmental movement seems almost oblivious to the negative impact some in their movement have. And worse, refuse to even admit that there are extremists that are making the who effort look bad.

It's *EASY* to dismiss the human toll today because we're not face to face with it; but we are foolish to not account for the direct, current impact on the planet's people today. Not just making Americans take more public transportation, but ensuring that vaccinations in the Sudan are properly refrigerated. We can't do this in an affordable way today with only sustainable or green energy.

Go build a hospital powered by wind turbines and solar panels that the people of Somalia can afford.

The extremists fight against the populations of developing nations under the banner of fighting *for* the environment.

I am *NOT* OK with preventing GM crops to feed the starving. We've spliced plants to create higher yields forever. They sue to prevent them. May less rain forest would be destroyed if would share the GM crops to increase the yields on what farmland they use today?

I am *NOT* OK with telling countries cannot build coal based or nuclear power plants - *especially* those with little to no infrastructure today. They sue to prevent them.

Blindly saying no new coal plants on the planet is not just crazy, but borderline evil IMHO considering what NOT building them brings us. And we KNOW what that brings us. Famine. Death. Ignorance. Radicalism.

I say - like you, lets build *clean* power plants here. Lets make their construction and the profits from them exempt from taxes for 10 years or more.

Here's what makes me "evil" to the green movement: I say let's allow the developing nations to build power plants that use less green technology for the short term (30 - 40 years) so we can bring them to the prosperous party we're all benefiting from.

Maybe it ought to be based on GDP or something - but to sit here and act like people aren't dying and suffering because of global warming extremists' actions is a bunch of bull.

Damn - see, this is what is wrong with this whole goddamned thing and the zealots on both sides.

Who the *FUCK* said I want to protect the status quo or our hydrocarbon based economy? Frankly, the status quo sucks because a) there is tremendous injustice and b) *BOTH* extremes of this debate are equally culpable in my eyes. You are not hearing me, or you do not want to.

In inverse, are you saying you are just fine with children starving and dying of preventable diseases because you think they are not somehow worthy of the luxury of the benefiting from carbon based energy generation that would keep vaccines refrigerated? Do you justify this inhumanity because you believe billions will die based on climate models that have thus far been unable to accurately predict climate change impacts or the future in general?

See, two can play to stupid hyperbole game. So just stop.

Talk about overstating? You are vastly overstating mankind's ability to predict a extremely hard to measure chaos system as well as our ability to predict the future. Even the TOP UN scientists acknowledge they can't predict it with certainty.

I'm not overstating *anything* hugely. If you know how to search the Internet, you will find examples of extremists in the green movement doing exactly what I'm talking about. The extremists on the environmental movement advocate the banning of Chlorine, GM Crops, or Coal based power plants in the 3rd world? Yes.
What's worse, is you won't even acknowledge the suffering taking a hard line approach has on _human beings_.

The hard-core skeptics are not helping either. There are numerous examples of horrific environmental damage resulting from greed, negligence, or both.

Both sides need to wake up because they have a bunch of idiots in their midst and it hurts their credibility and only forces everyone into polarized innaction.

Incredible exhibitions of jackassery.

My argument is not about climate change - it's about what approach to take on it. We aren't able to accurately predict the impacts because we have not had enough time to measure our current guesstimates for accuracy. Regardless of approach, we should ensure the less fortunate are not bearing an unfair brunt or left holding loosing tickets of the skin color / geography lottery ticket.

That's my point. We still can't accurately predict it.

We need to temper our approach and consider the impact on everyone, not just those fortunate enough to sit in the air-conditioned condos.

You ask me a question that *cannot* be answered (what if we don't reduce CO2) and then think you somehow understand me for pointing out that it can't be answered with certainty? You think I'm not aware that we've hit peak oil? Because I'm critical of the approach and advocate for the less fortunate you get to stereotype me?

Really.

$500 oil will make renewable energies affordable for the 1st world, but if all hydrocarbon based power is eliminated in the 1st world, are you going be OK with.. say.. Somalia getting coal based power plants? If not, then how to suggest we address this in fair, humane manner than protect the freedoms of mankind?

Goddamn but people are so myopic in their thinking...

I can't answer your question about what if we don't. Can you? No?
Well, if you can't answer you own question and you know so much on the subject, how to hell do you expect other people to a) agree with you and b) accept your approach as a sound, fair, and humane solution?

You asked. I don't know. So you tell me.

If you can't, then stop acting like a hyper-political reactionary jackass and let's work on finding a solution that _works for everybody_ (which is my whole point). Because in case you haven't notice, many of those who are suffering the most from a lack of the benefits of a hydrocarbon based economy aren't anglo-saxon.

What makes the hard-core environmentalists so disgusting in my eyes is they aren't even *capable* of considering that we may need to have some type of balance in our short term approach. You'd think I was skeet-shooting with puppies for even bringing it up.

They do more harm to the environmental movement than they benefit it IMHO.

We need a solution that helps the people living and suffering *TODAY* first. If you don't agree with that, then my point about the extremist green movement being fascist is made for me. If not fascist in the "only one way" approach, then certainly aristocratic; which is equally repugnant.

The timing of this ..... Where'd I put my tinfoil? heh..

Adios Mr. Taco! :)

Well, we know plants frigging *LOVE* the stuff... so if we don't we can probably anticipate higher crop yields. Which isn't a bad thing considering the population growth on the planet.
Curbing it will further restrict of things like vaccines, health-care, education, and advanced agricultural adoption in developing nations so that's a bad thing.

CO2 may be a greenhouse gas, but we animals sort of, you know, *exhale* the stuff.

Lots of people die and starve because they don't have access to GM crops and coal powered electricity. So Unless we know *with certainty* I'm not OK telling anyone they are expendable in the name of CO2 reduction. Who knows, if they were afforded the same 1st world luxuries we are currently using, one of them might invent the next affordable green tech.

As of right now, I don't see a way to get it done without developing nations paying an extremely heavy toll.

We are all anti-nuclear now (stupid, IMHO) after Japan. The technology doesn't exist for us to have a zero CO2 impact. At least, not one we can afford (even in the 1st world).

What really hurts this whole debate is the stupidity like trying to ban Chlorine, which just so happens to be on the periodic table. CO2 is plant food - we exhale it - *fish* exhale it - the planet belches it out - it occurs naturally. Combine that with the war on GM crops and the hard-core environmental movement folks' moral authority seems to be perched on mountain of human bones and reeks more of a fascist political ideology than trying to keep rivers clean.

Does industrialization increase CO2? Probably. But so do volcanoes.

And ultimately - we get into this whole "denier" vs "believer" debate with both sides trying to dismiss everything the other side says in its entirety. Which is abject stupidity, IMHO.

The "we must do something, anything because the toll of inaction will be too high" argument seems hollow and overtly reactionary. They said the oceans would rise by 2009. Now they say they have *NO FUCKING IDEA*. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

I've come to the conclusion that nobody really knows for sure. Data indicates something is happening and there could be a correlation with industrialization. But so far, the models created based on the presumption of the association keep breaking down and their predictions don't play out as expected.

Therefore, IMHO, this reaffirms that we can't predict the future. Making changes now seem sort of pointless in regards to CO2 because a) we don't have an affordable alternative and b) what alternatives we do have are "not allowed".

So What will it cost if we don't? You tell me.
Until we are able to accurately model what will happen, we're just shooting randomly and the costs are so incredible and the prediction accuracy is so poor, credibility alone doesn't justify it.

How do we reduce CO2? What will it cost to do it?

Slashdot sucks during election years because everything becomes a political attack, incredible demonstrations of stupidity, or ad hominem accusations of trying to kill us all because of perceived badspeak. :(

Anything that could potentially drive the cost of 3D printing down is a win, IMHO!

I seem to remember that the tectonic plate in that region is about to begin a downward slope into the Pacific?

Do we know if the plate where Australia resides moves any slower or faster than others?