Posts by markuzick

Jony Ive: Flattered by rivals' designs? Nah, its 'theft'

The man's a fool:

by admitting his anger and fear of being copied, he has inadvertently endorsed his competition's offerings - to all but brand conscious snobs - as means for people on a limited budget to attain the same value for less of their scarce funds. His only rational response would have been to show supreme confidence in his own alleged creativity and innovation by dismissing the competition as beneath concern or threat. That he would shoot off his mouth, verbally shooting himself in the foot, only betrays his own lack of confidence in the real value of his brand, in his own worth and in his company's future.

MasterCard stings PayPal with payment fee hike

Which will it be named:

Poogle or Gaypal?

Prof: Save up fossil fuel reserves to fight the next ice age

Anthropogenic global warming is a myth.

http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2008_09/contoski-warming.html

Either some other means of staving off the next ice age will be devised or humanity will have to adapt to change.

Isn't adaptation what man is best at?

I'm a sceptic now, says ex-NASA climate boss

Now I'm Saddend

I've just reread the article to which I gave a link in my last post and now I'm not so sure that carbon emissions will save us from the next ice age. AGW fear mongering had the unintended effect of giving me some hope for temperature stability. Now I doubt a hypothesis that had given me a measure of comfort.

http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2008_09/contoski-warming.html

An Interesting Article

http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2008_09/contoski-warming.html

In the letters section of the next issue some impressive attempts were made to debunk this article. To me, his reply was even more impressive than the original article. Unfortunately, a link to the letters section isn't available.

@Mark

I've already said that I believe in AGW but:

1. I believe that it's probably beneficial.

2. I've read many articles that plausibly (to myself at least) debunk the claim that the earth is warming to a statistically meaningful extent and while there are other hypothosises, such as greater cloud cover that accompanies greater temperature that mitigates warming, I have some problems with them. E.g., why didn't cloud cover prevent global warming in past climate cycles?

To me, the more plausible explanation is that AGW is counterbalancing a cooling trend, but I don't pretend to know any of this for a fact and I'm sceptical that anyone has anything more certain than, at best, an opinion on the subject or in a worse case, a dogmatic certainty.

3. You are conveniently ignoring that the burden of proof that I required of you consisted of four parts,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTING MYSELF:

1. significant impact upon global temperature caused by human activities that release CO2,

2. that this impact is harmful, (I believe that it is probably a beneficial counter to catastrophic cooling.)

3. that their interference will not cause greater harm than good

4. and that people, if informed, are too stupid and evil to address the issue on a voluntary basis.(Cynicism about people is often a projection of one's own character upon others.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

but the first part, even if you or I could prove it, is not sufficient cause for a power grab.

@Mark

QUOTE:

[ And what do you think lobbyists are? They are how commercial interests get included in the political system. In fact, as can be seen with the recent Labour Lords case, they ensure a common and widespread corruption in the political process.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is a corrupt political process, one that is based on aggression or the initiation of force (the state), that creates the perverse incentives and moral hazards that leads to the corruption of individuals and businesses through a process of the survival of the fittest (the most corrupt) within a system that is the moral equivalent of a criminal gang.

What else would you expect from a corporation, which, after all, is a creature of the state, than to use the state to maximise its profit and protect itself from competition.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE:

[ So anti-AGW screed is, if your reason for denying AGW is merely "politicians are corrupt and involved" is just as corrupt.]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's funny, because I believe in AWG, but only as a very plausible but, so far, unsubstantiated hypothesis.

My complaint is about the use of panic mongering as a tool to grab power that is so typical of politicians and bureaucrats.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE:

[You are then left with, as with any jury duty, the evidence.

Who has most of it, who has to backtrack or counter their previous arguments and all that jazz that leads a jury of peers to find for one side or the other?

If you want to be skeptical, act like a juror in a murder case.

a) The murderer would say they didn't do it, even if they did. So they'll never bring up anything proving guilt.

b) The prosecution are there to say he did it, whether he did or not. That's why they're called "the prosecution". So they would never bring up anything that proves innocence.

And, even though BOTH SIDES are biased and corrupt, still we decide to arrest people for acts we never saw, purely on the balance of evidence.

So where is the evidence on both sides? Are the anti side consistent in their counters? No. So when the know what's wrong, why not SHOW it? Without that, they have no evidence.]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The burden of proof lies solely upon those whose justification for the exercise of aggression to suppress the peaceful activities of people are the claim that there is:

1. significant impact upon global temperature caused by human activities that release CO2,

2. that this impact is harmful, (I believe that it is probably a beneficial counter to catastrophic cooling.)

3. that their interference will not cause greater harm than good

4. and that people, if informed, are too stupid and evil to address the issue on a voluntary basis.(Cynicism about people is often a projection of one's own character upon others.)

@Mark

[ Tell me were there IS a free market.]

Everywhere and to whatever extent that people trade and cooperate on a voluntary basis. The free market is a component of all societies, even if it is often forced underground.

[ Grey imports illegal. Copyright, patent and trade secret used to hide information from the supposed informed consumer. Lies and hidden agendas from the accountants and C*O.]

[ Laws passed to ensure or help these companies.]

Your examples are all caused by state interference into the workings of (legitimate) voluntary government (The individuals and their organizations that comprise the free market.), or outright fraud that is abetted by the pretence that the state is there to protect its subjects.

[And all the actors you wish to see "fix" this are concentrating on what's profitable THIS QUARTER. How the hell are we to expect them to take a 10-year view of things? At least a political party can think about two or three terms of office into the future. Companies? Nope.]

First of all: I don't want the future climate fixed unless there is actual proof that it needs fixing. If there is AGW, then it is very likely the reason that we haven't had an overdue ice age yet.

Secondly: For profit enterprises are not "all the actors" in the free market. Non profit organizations devoted to scientific research and the arts, education, political reform and human or even animal welfare, as well as consumers who are informed by these groups and who can think ahead a lot further than a couple of terms into the future are the ones to do any fixing if it's needed.

Thirdly: The greater the component of free market governance in a society, the wealthier and therefore the more likely it is that its members have the luxury of concerning themselves about things that go beyond day to day survival as well as the economic and technical prowess to address their concerns. Economic impoverishment doesn't help the environment.

@ Anonymous Coward

Just like when the state involves itself in religion as long as the state is involved in science it will always be corrupted by political machinations, so don't hold your breath waiting for your wish to come true.

RE: MARK >heavy and clumsy hand of the state? <

>>By Mark Posted Saturday 31st January 2009 11:54 GMT

You mean the one that paid off the greedy and grasping hand of the Free Market billions for lying and scheming? You would leave the actions to someone whose only legal needs are the next quaterly report to the shareholders???<<

Yes. That's the one, but I would hardy describe a state controled banking system as "free market". The financial crisis is a perfect example of the inevitable results of a meddlesome and heavy handed intrusion of the state into the marketplace.

Do you want to see a climate crises that rivals the financial crises? Then just put the state in charge of the climate with a mandate to "Do something about it.". We'll be lucky if any of us gets out it alive.

To Colin:

Sorry. I didn't mean to single you out. Your analogy of global warming to a speeding bus coming at me reads very much like much of the other panic mongering that is being presented by the "green" statists commenting here.

Also: Fossil fuels are not running out. They are simply becoming more difficult and therefore more expensive to replenish (although coal may be the exception this trend for now). At some point "green energy" will make economic sense. With some luck, enough CO2 will have been released by that time to indefinitely forestall a new ice age with far more catastrophic consequences than warming would bring.

In the meantime, it's foolish to advocate actions by the heavy and clumsy hand of the state to prevent hypothetical senarios, when we are unable to see the big picture.

Colin is confused. He's also ready to panic.

The Earth is at the tail end of a warm period and is overdue for the next ice age.

One interpretation of the current situation is that if there is significant AGW, then the would be onset of an ice age has saved us from global warming.

Another interpretation is that, given the validity of AGW, then AGW has saved us from the coming ice age.

Any action rashly taken to stave off some hypothetical disaster, without further understanding of the consequences, is likely to bring forth a real disaster. It is imperative to stick to the principle of " First, do no harm."

Panic is never the answer. Unfortunately, panicking the herd is the way the state consolidates power. The problem is political, not environmental.

Based upon the sorry track record of "state governance

" of human affairs, the only reasonable expectation of "state management of the environment" is corruption in the form of a further consolidation of wealth and power at the expense of the liberty and standard of living of the individuals who comprise society and damage to the environment through its mismanagement .

State governance is government by fiat, in other words it's the rule of brute force or the condition of anarchy. "Anarchy" pretty much sums up the chaos, corruption, injustice, warfare, hate-mongering and destructive waste that is entailed by the rule of the "community of states" that lord over the nations of the world. The state is a mockery of the true government of individuals agreeing to rules on a voluntary basis, to protect and promote their common interests.

Legitimate government is commonly seen in the form of business enterprises and voluntary social organizations. They are, to the extent to which they are voluntary, an extension of self government and are collectively referred to as "the free market".

If anthropogenic warming is:

1. proven to be a significant factor in global warming

2. and if it can be shown that this is detrimental for humanity,

then it's only legitimate organizations within the free market that will have any hope of dealing with it.

I don't believe that either #'s 1 or 2 are proven yet.

I suspect that #1may be true, but I favor the theory that anthropogenic warming has forestalled an overdue ice age, thereby enabling the continuation and evolution of civilized society. Maybe it should be called "anthropogenic temperature stabilization" instead.