January 13th, 2012

DAWN

Ah, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, keeping the dream alive

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/01/12/403261/tom-donohue-pushes-civilization-ending-pollution-agenda-in-chamber-of-commerce-annual-address/

"We have 1.4 trillion barrels of oil, enough to last at least 200 years. We have 2.7 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough to last 120 years. We have 486 billion tons of coal, enough to last more than 450 years—and we need to use more of this strategic resource cleanly and wisely here at home while selling it around the world."

Burning that amount of fossil fuel would generate 444 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from the oil, 135 billion tons from the natural gas, and 1.258 trillion tons from the coal. To maintain a climate compatible with civilization all of humanity needs to limit future greenhouse pollution to less than 650 billion tons.
Far from “keeping the American Dream alive for generation after generation,” as Donohue claims, his promotion of catastrophic global warming would grant a diminished, deadly world to future generations.


That's the USA: Hire the best scientists in the world, then refuse to listen to them.

ETA: Some environmental crimes should be punishable by imprisonment or death. Too bad freedom of speech protects jokers like this from facing consequences for their destructive activities. This guy is an enemy of mankind. He should be rendered into biodiesel and burned for fuel.

Is that enough comment for you?

Friday Lulz: HORSES IS TASTY

Question!!:

Okay, so I crack jokes a lot. When I'm in a certain frame of mind I make jokes about eating things. And in the midst of such vorous humours I will joke about eating. cooking, or otherwise culinarily involving puppies, kittens, baby otters, baby humans, adult humans, seals, whales, dolphins, deer, polar bears, garden gnomes, and other assorted critters, real and imagined. Now, me being somewhat less than a great humorist, these jokes are generally received with reactions ranging from mild chuckles to eye-rolling not-again looks. But, if I so much as breathe a single syllable about eating horses, all manner of people, generally female, suddenly come out of the woodwork, spitting with rage, filled to bursting with righteous indignation, calling me an unfunny, mean-spirited disgrace of a man with no sense of decency and the sense of humor of a KGB jailer. Horses, apparently, are sacrosanct and inviolate, pure and unstained, God's favorite creation of all time, better than Jesus, wonderful animals who don't deserve my inhumane attempts at humor.

I can joke about eating kids, but not about eating horses. THIS IS STUPID. People eat horses you know. In many countries horse is a delicacy. France even has special butcher shops devoted to horse meat. Horse is, by all accounts, quite tasty, though I have not had the privilege myself, partly from lack of access, partly from fear of being dragged to the town square and beaten with riding crops by athletic young women in tight riding gear...uh, is it getting a little hot in here?

Yes! Well! Anyway! Horses! Why are they not fair game for humor??

This rant not in any way brought to you by bitter memories of the crazy ex who loved horses and hated my horse jokes and dumped me via email because Jesus told her to.


Posted via m.livejournal.com.

y
F-minus

(no subject)

This is why crucial infrastructure should never be owned by private companies. Profit motive does not always/usually/ever line up with what is best or what is most efficient for the user, especially when there is no acceptable alternative (if you want to get from Detroit to Canada this is pretty much your only choice). This problem would not have occurred if the bridge was owned by the State. Why should Moroun profit from this bridge, especially when he can't even bring himself to make essential upgrades to the thing?

(no subject)

The coming war on general-purpose computing

It's not that regulators don't understand information technology, because it should be possible to be a non-expert and still make a good law. MPs and Congressmen and so on are elected to represent districts and people, not disciplines and issues. We don't have a Member of Parliament for biochemistry, and we don't have a Senator from the great state of urban planning. And yet those people who are experts in policy and politics, not technical disciplines, still manage to pass good rules that make sense. That's because government relies on heuristics: rules of thumb about how to balance expert input from different sides of an issue.

The first part of the article is mostly history, then it gets into the above part about regulations and then concludes with the warning that it will only get worse. I think this is a reasonable analysis of the situation and I agree that a big part of the problem is dealing with copyright when you have technology that effectively eliminates it, so that you have to create a new version of copyright by fiat, rather than have the system naturally enforce it. And people want to hold onto that old system and shoehorn the new one onto it.

But just as we saw with the copyright wars, banning certain instructions, protocols or messages will be wholly ineffective as a means of prevention and remedy. As we saw in the copyright wars, all attempts at controlling PCs will converge on rootkits, and all attempts at controlling the Internet will converge on surveillance and censorship.

That's where we're headed and there isn't anything to do about it as long as the copyright holders insist on controlling things the way it's always been. We need to rethink the concept of copyright, not just how we enforce it.