And the /other/ solution?
Stop the ridiculous proliferation of .name suffixies which businesses need to defensively register simply to stop others from getting them...
6899 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... how well these cars are going to be able to deal with narrow side roads in British cities where there are vehicles going in both directions, but with cars parked on both sides meaning there's only room for one at a time and it's necessary for someone to back up into a gap to let the other vehicle through etc...
... what if it *had* been something suspicious and the Police had just dismissed it or failed to investigate?
It was only a short time ago that two people died because Stirling Police didnt follow up on reports of a car accident, leaving a woman to lie there for three days before she was discovered. What if this hadn't been "a bag of animal bones", but evidence was lost because it wasn't deemed to be important?
I think you've rather missed my point which was exactly *that* just because someone might say "I don't use it, why should I pay for it?" ignores the fact that they still *benefit* from it.
We benefit from a non-commercial BBC, not least because if the BBC *did* go commercial, it would suck a huge amount of advertising revenue away from other broadcasters, thus reducing choice.
> Unlike you I do not need sock puppets.
I await your evidence that I have *EVER* used a sock puppet account with... well, I was going to say "bated breath", but actually I won't be holding my breath because there is no such evidence.
"non-existant problems"?
Hmm, how long ago was it that doctors were prescribing antibiotics for colds and other viral infections, even when they knew that they would have no beneficial effect, simply to get patients out of their waiting rooms? And what about parts of the world where you can buy antibiotics over the counter without prescription, take a few, feel better and not finish the course, thus helping resistant bacterial strains? And the only people objecting are those like the enviroMentalists (Oh, ho ho! Gosh, isn't that a clever name?) saying "Maybe this isn't a good idea", to which the pharmaceutical companies reply "whatever" and keep raking in the money?
As for Massive Debts, I'm sure we'll disagree on this, but personally I think the way to make a country's finances secure is not to keep building on the roof whilst undermining the foundations. Still, who cares when, to quote Douglas Adams, nobody is poor, at least nobody worth speaking of.
But the point is that these *weren't* problems until they got out of hand and then, suddely, the whole situation changed.
You may be happy to dismiss this as "ideology" (whilst merrily continuing with your own ideology), but some of us are not so casual as to say "hey, we've got plenty of energy, why should we worry?"
Oh, and, by the way, I do think that nuclear is a viable option, but you don't just wave a magic wand and have a nuclear power station appear, neither is it good for a country's finances when you get a foreign organisation (EDF) to build it for you with a dodgy deal that involves paying £90 billion to France and guaranteeing to pay double the price for the electricity it generates for 35 years!
PS WMDs? ROFL! You really are reaching now...
Some interesting questions, I agree.
Now here's a couple for you: How much less fuel would the USA be using if their politicians hadn't caved to the automobile industry lobbying to define SUVs as light trucks, thus exempting them from fuel economy regulations?
How much less power would people be using if, instead of using AirCon or central heating, houses were better insulated which keeps temperatures more stable? (Of course this makes houses a bit more expensive to build...)
It is not simply a case of "getting more done with the same input", but also "getting the same done with less input". It's not either/ or, it can be both.
The wise man changes his view depending on the facts. The fool changes the facts to fit his view.
In either case, as I've said before, I don't get involved in this increasingly silly and partisan argument, I'll just re-iterate the fact that we are using more energy than we ever have before and will keep on doing so, therefore we should use the energy we have more efficiently (note: this does not involve living in yurts or wearing hair shirts) that way we a) reduce emissions and b) buy ourselves sometime to get alternatives such as Fusion working.
Win-win.
Ignoring the "Nar nar ne-nar nar" tone of the article, this is what science is all about: A set of facts do not agree with expectations, so established theories are re-examined and research is done to see whether it's a statistical fluke or there's something else at work.
We now know something that we didn't know before, we have more information which we can either ignore (the "extremists" on both sides of the argument are known to do this!) or apply it to the theories and improve them.
To quote Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov