But it's so much more *fun* to protect current business models and outmoded energy production techniques rather than grab a brave new future, Dan.
Seriously, I don't understand, even apart from the climate change issue while people are so happy to keep sending money to the custodians of the two shrines and continue the operation of petroleum cracking plants. Those bastards stink like three graves invading your nasal cavity. I appreciate the sweet pickup of a nice V8 as the next man, but I'll happily buy a Tesla when they're affordable. On Dec 9, 2009, at 4:49 PM, Dan Kaminsky wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Larry Seltzer > <la...@larryseltzer.com> wrote: > >> The reality is that for a whole bunch of reasons, a lot of stuff > just isn't available. If you want it, if you want to reimplement > it, you get documentation in the form of a paper showing how to > achieve what is claimed. Is the paper enough? Sometimes it is, > yeah. But always? Even often? No, not at all. > > That’s as may be. If we’re expected to impose massive taxes and > regulations on the economy based on this supposedly settled science > we need to expect more in the way of proof. > > > > > It's a talking point. Delay, delay, delay, ignore reality when it's > inconvenient. > > The scientific consensus around climate change is *overwhelming*. > > _______________________________________________ > Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. > https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec > Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. Mike Collins mcoll...@aleae.com _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
