Elemental Forums
So what I want to know is: Where can I buy my warship and who wants to be on my crew?
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="729" id="3404466"] Well anyway... I'm really outta this topic. You people are thinking too much in terms of economics, instead of in terms of a weighting of both economics AND risk. Or rather... not risk, but expected value which is: the risk times the potential for disaster. And nuclear plants end up waaaaay high on the risk/expected value scale.[/quote] But I thought AGW was the end of days? That's what we've been told over and ov
GalCiv3 Forums
If Legendary Heroes is any indication (given that it is their most recent major game) there will also be periodic content DLCs for $5 each.
[quote who="charon2112" reply="2" id="3404552"] Please god no tactical combat. combat viewer all the way.[/quote] I have a feeling this is going to be one the most hotly argued points around.
[quote who="Ekko_Tek" reply="730" id="3404468"] I doubt you have actually read the evidence for it then. [/quote] More nonsensical rubbish to delegitamize your opponents opinion simply because they disagree with you. [quote who="Ekko_Tek" reply="730" id="3404468"] AGW is not an "industry". I agree with you from my limited reading that nuclear power is one of the best options - thorium based nuclear reactors to be precise. There is no rea
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="725" id="3404445"] Well ok... this discussion with you is completely pointless and I'm outta here. Just wait a few decades until more data are gathered. Maybe it'll become clearer then. I think it's already pretty clear... by then it should be fucking obvous. A few decades probably won't hurt much. Maybe it'll get a bit warmer here in the Netherlands.[/quote] I'm fine with doing nothing, bu
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="723" id="3404431"] Pff, Kantok, you're being ridiculous. You're pulling all kinds of crap arguments from your ass to see how "economically wrong" it is. Don't you get it ... this is NOT about economics alone. It's also about SURVIVAL. OF COURSE it will cost money. You prefer to go on like we are now and do nothing, nothing at all. You've already given up before we've started. But well... giv
Looking forward to it.
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="721" id="3404337"] Quoting Kantok, reply 720Or, more succinctly, eventually you run out of other people's money. You don't, as long as you have enough people that are "free" to work on the problem. The economy will only be damaged if there is: 1. a shortage of people 2. a shortage of resources. Point 2 might be more of a problem, especially in the beginning. Later on, part of the supply pr
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="719" id="3404316"] Sure we can afford it. Does it really matter at that point? The money will keep flowing anyway... and even if you pay more for energy, you will also ask a higher salary so all is cool. And as long as there is no actual shortage in energy, things will just flow along. [/quote] What happens when "other people" run out of money? Flows between source and sink can only exist when th
[quote who="Jafo" reply="717" id="3404298"] Quoting Kantok, reply 715Any nation outside the richest in the world simply can't afford these solutions Er...no-one can afford a solution - because no-one wants to disadvantage themselves in a global economy....hence the global willingness to deny the existence of the problem. When you're on 'the express elevator to hell....going down' ....sit back, smile...and enjoy the ride...[/quote] Mayb
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="713" id="3404285"] I've mentioned the German way, of investing heavily in solar panels. [/quote] So Germany, one of the richest countries on the planet with one of the healthiest economies on the planet, gets ~5% of their electricity from solar by investing huge amounts of money in the project and setting a timeline that goes out to the end of the century? That's your solution to this world ending problem?
[quote who="Jafo" reply="711" id="3404283"] There are only 2 options, neither of which has a snowflake's chance in hell of being adopted. 1. ZPG. 2. Price [tax] ALL 'polluters' out of viability. I DID say neither has a hope.[/quote] Fair enough. I shouldn't have been so broad in my declaration that no one offered solutions, because I think you've mentioned those before (though going back through 29 pages of posts to
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="707" id="3404229"] It's a tax... who cares. The governments need money, they tax everything and everyone. And governments lie about everything to everyone when it suits their purpose, that's nothing new either so who cares what they say, most of it is bullshit anyway. [/quote] So it's a tax that is collected and applied to... what, exactly? Nothing specific. Nothing tangible that you could evaluate for su
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="709" id="3404244"] Taxes are never fair... well anyway we're living in a democracy and the next government may well undo all the work of the previous government. That's how it goes ... there's so much wasted effort but still it's one of the best systems around. I'm overall pretty happy to live in a democracy: because despite all the lying, the false promises and the bureaucracy, citizens are still taken care
[quote who="Cykur" reply="686" id="3403969"] One more thing, if you don't want either fossil fuel OR nuclear, what are YOU suggesting. Maybe I missed it somewhere in all the reams of posts. Other energy sources have limitations. Hydro and geothermal are excellent sources of power, but they can only be developed in areas where they are available. Hydro already supplies something like 16% of the worlds power. Solar and wind are not reliable in all ar
Elemental Forums
[quote who="Alstein" reply="27" id="3403413"] I meant 60% of the popular vote. [/quote] I say this without intending to be disrespectful at all, because I think we (you and I specifically) have had or taken part in some interesting discussions around this place. This is a terrible, dreadful idea. It undermines the entire strength of the US constitution. The writings of the framers make it clear that they feared tyranny of the majo
Elemental Forums
[quote who="Chibiabos" reply="58" id="3404196"] 40s, 14th amendment ... do you make yourself take drug tests, Frogboy? Federal laws have always superceded state laws, from the very founding of the nation, long before the 40s (presuming you mean the 1940s). There were fights regarding this throughout the 1700s when we first founded to the 1800s. Probably one of the most notorious amendments smiting "state rights" was the 13th amendment abolishing slavery, in direct
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="606" id="3403173"] That's a major assumption, you're *assuming* that technology will solve everything for you. However, technology will also create problems. Just like solar panels may (or may not) become cheaper, coals plants will also become cheaper, and the digital revolution may (or may not) put increasing pressure on the resources of pure silicon, making it more expensive and thus leading to more expensive solar panels. [/quote]<
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="603" id="3403100"] So anyway, that global warming thing. How's that working out?[/quote] Not well at all. It got into a fight with 1970s global cooling, but then they both died during the Malthusian catastrophe. Unfortunately there are no records of any of it because they all got lost in the "End of History." /shrug
[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="592" id="3403024"] Nope. I think that a HELL of a lot of progressives want to cut spending to stuff like defense and use that money elsewhere. Progressives also generally want to do things like get rid of fossil fuel subsidies in favor of subsidies on renewables. So you are just demonstrably wrong. Progressives consistently and repeatedly propose solutions other than higher taxes. [/quote] Just because you want to us
[quote who="Borg999" reply="586" id="3402862"] You and Brad keep on saying "taking money away from other people" or "using other peoples money", but that's what taxes are. Whether it's to buy new military equipment, subsidize school lunches or bridge maintenance. I guess my question is: when are taxes just taxes, and at what point do taxes transform into "taking money away from people". From your perspective, what's the break point?[/quote] <p
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="584" id="3402820"] The only real question is, do you want to pay for averting a far-away disaster now, or are you selfish and do you want future generations to pay for it[/quote] See this is the problem with AGW true believers. If you disagree with the scripture you must be greedy or selfish or stupid or a puppet for some evil super group bent on world domination and the eradication of all puppies. You must bow down to the IPCC altar or you
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="580" id="3402775"] Quoting Krazikarl, reply 577 Quoting Frogboy, reply 573Sure. But where do you want to draw the line? I think that this was determined a bit over 200 years ago. Its the Constitution. If you can get enough votes, you can get the government to do what you want. Unless its prohibited by the Constitution. Forcing people to buy Start8 would probably be ruled unconstitutional, electric car subsi
[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="577" id="3402753"] What do you want? I don't have a number, and I don't think that anybody does. The price is that many less businesses will have to retool to be "greener". This is expensive, which will make them will make products more expensive for consumers and make many businesses less competitive. Governments will probably have to spend money on stuff like infrastructure (power grids!), which will require some