Hehe...apparently 20 rooms, 8 bathrooms, a guest house and 221,000 kwh / year of electricity, which I'm sure is used to power Al Gore's weather-predicting supercomputer.
Try inviting a President or other dignitary or hold appreciable events in a 2 bedroom and get the same desired result. The people at that level aren't going to take you seriously. You do know what level this is operating at right? Intended audience? Manpower required? You think it's just him sitting in his bi ol house with all the lights on...haha
I think you dislike the guy on a personal level and continually choose not to reevaluate the decision you've already made of him years ago.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Regardless of Gore's personal actions (I have no idea whether the charges against him are legit or not), it does not make his message or his film any less relevant.
Regardless of Gore's personal actions (I have no idea whether the charges against him are legit or not), it does not make his message or his film any less relevant.
Try inviting a President or other dignitary or hold appreciable events in a 2 bedroom and get the same desired result. The people at that level aren't going to take you seriously. You do know what level this is operating at right? Intended audience? Manpower required? You think it's just him sitting in his bi ol house with all the lights on...haha
Hehe...no, I don't think that. I think that house is empty a lot of the time. And it is.
But I stand corrected. One simply cannot be taken seriously without 20 bedrooms. And now that I think about, the 8 bathrooms seems like too little.
I think you dislike the guy on a personal level and continually choose not to reevaluate the decision you've already made of him years ago.
I do dislike the guy on a personal level. And I reevaluate that decision quite often.
1. becos i know random house wouldn't let anyone but themselves publish joseph heller's novels.
But they do. Unauthorized publications are big business throughout the world as well as here in America.
2. the thing is, the art could be worth more than $.02, it's just that somebody else is taking it... it could be that the average worth of your book to readers is $9, but this person can make photocopies and sell them for $8 and make thousands of dollars on something worth thousands of dollars while you, the creator of the book starves to death.
Starves to death? Let's try not to get too crazy here.
Again, if someone else can print your book and sell it for $8, then that copy probably isn't worth $9. If you desire to extract $9 from your book, you have to figure out the best way to do that, be it through contractual agreements, technology or added value.
3. their products would not be sold at worth, they would be sold at the bare minimum of the cost of production without regard to the actual value. as i noted above, even if someone thinks something is worth $10, they're not going to pay $10 to the original author when they can pay $5 to the guy who copied it, esp if they dont even know who the author is. bands can get around this becos they play live concerts that allow them to earn money beyond the actual song on cd. authors can't really do the same. for that matter, how would you feel if someone advertised as pearl jam, promoted a show, and you bought a ticket and went to find out that it wasn't ed and the group but some impersonators. do you think the people touring as lynyrd skynyrd now are lynyrd skynyrd? it's ripe for deception. i guess id draw a line between patents and intellectual property law basically.
These examples are bizarre. Why do you think, in the absence of patent/ip law, suddenly anyone who calls themselves Pearl Jam would be thought of as Pearl Jam?
Look, you're trying in all these examples to simply protect profit for a person who hasn't even achieved it yet and has no right to claim it as their own. Protecting profit, in reality, is protecting people's bank accounts, meaning to protect the profit they've already earned.
... until someone invents an energy free "snap your fingers" method of campaigning the entire world...what to do?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Again, if someone else can print your book and sell it for $8, then that copy probably isn't worth $9. If you desire to extract $9 from your book, you have to figure out the best way to do that, be it through contractual agreements, technology or added value.
that's the point... without any sort of intellectual property protection, you cannot contract around that. whatever contract you work out is worthless becos third parties can just take your work and auction it off without regard to your contract. you're talking about different values... there's buyer value, seller value, and production value. buyers might be very willing to buy your product at $9 and buyers and sellers might agree that it is worth that price, but the cost to print the artform might only be $1. that does not mean the art is worth that. a car is worth considerably more than the sum of its parts and art is the same way. a cd costs pennies but the music on it is where the value is. this simply means someone is undercutting you on your product. it means that artists will never be able to support themselves becos in order to make any money at all, they wil only be able to charge pennies over the cost of production or risk being undercut by someone else who is bootlegging their work. there is no way contracts or technology can get around this and you can't really "add value" to a novel or a song that will prevent someone else from bootlegging it.
These examples are bizarre. Why do you think, in the absence of patent/ip law, suddenly anyone who calls themselves Pearl Jam would be thought of as Pearl Jam?
Look, you're trying in all these examples to simply protect profit for a person who hasn't even achieved it yet and has no right to claim it as their own. Protecting profit, in reality, is protecting people's bank accounts, meaning to protect the profit they've already earned.
becos there would be no way to tell who the real pearl jam is. it would amount to buyer deception... telling them "oh yeah, this is pearl jam alright, the real deal. all their songs." and you don't realize until you've bought the ticket or cd that you just gave some nerd with a computer your money and pearl jam will never see a cent. you cannot support the artist becos with so much bootlegging, you'd never know which copy goes to the artist. technology means the bootleg version of ten would be indistinguishable from the real copy of ten.
im trying in all these example to talk about how we're not going to scuttle the arts. they have achieved a profit-worthy product but others will steal their work or dilute its value to render it valueless. the arts as we know it would disappear if there was no way to protect against plagiarism becos all the great artists would be unable to produce their art. they'd all be working at mcdonald's 60 hours a week and too tired to create.
Dude, he's not plugging the planes and limos into the kitchen outlet.
I guess he should buy and maintain his own personal electric green fleet of transportation.
Maybe they'll invent zero emission teleportation to other countries at some point. gotta start somewhere
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I guess he should buy and maintain his own personal electric green fleet of transportation.
Maybe they'll invent zero emission teleportation to other countries at some point. gotta start somewhere
Hahahaha, that'll be the day, lol.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
that's the point... without any sort of intellectual property protection, you cannot contract around that. whatever contract you work out is worthless becos third parties can just take your work and auction it off without regard to your contract. you're talking about different values... there's buyer value, seller value, and production value. buyers might be very willing to buy your product at $9 and buyers and sellers might agree that it is worth that price, but the cost to print the artform might only be $1. that does not mean the art is worth that. a car is worth considerably more than the sum of its parts and art is the same way. a cd costs pennies but the music on it is where the value is. this simply means someone is undercutting you on your product. it means that artists will never be able to support themselves becos in order to make any money at all, they wil only be able to charge pennies over the cost of production or risk being undercut by someone else who is bootlegging their work. there is no way contracts or technology can get around this and you can't really "add value" to a novel or a song that will prevent someone else from bootlegging it.
becos there would be no way to tell who the real pearl jam is. it would amount to buyer deception... telling them "oh yeah, this is pearl jam alright, the real deal. all their songs." and you don't realize until you've bought the ticket or cd that you just gave some nerd with a computer your money and pearl jam will never see a cent. you cannot support the artist becos with so much bootlegging, you'd never know which copy goes to the artist. technology means the bootleg version of ten would be indistinguishable from the real copy of ten.
im trying in all these example to talk about how we're not going to scuttle the arts. they have achieved a profit-worthy product but others will steal their work or dilute its value to render it valueless. the arts as we know it would disappear if there was no way to protect against plagiarism becos all the great artists would be unable to produce their art. they'd all be working at mcdonald's 60 hours a week and too tired to create.
I don't completely disagree with what you're saying here, aside for some of the sillier analogies being portrayed as a norm or the idea that you cannot possibly "add value" to things that can't be copied. But all of those things you mention would be possible and practiced, just as they're possible and practiced today.
But again, you're proclaiming a protection or profit as a moral justification here, which doesn't make any logical sense. Ownership is a moral justification, and theft stands opposed to that. Protecting profit in the forms of revenue that hasn't been granted to you yet is to claim ownership of something you don't own, which would be theft, and I can't make peace with that. Based on your reasoning, I could easily force you to buy my business's products, even if you don't want them or need them. In fact, based on your reasoning, all your property truly is owed to the men who invented a) the plow and b) the wheel, the foundations of civilization without which none of things you have would be possible.
You're claiming that we would "scuttle" the arts. Again, since the arts and profit from them predate patents and copyrights and "intellectual property", I disagree. In fact, intellectual property protections, taken to their logical end, forbid people like Eddie Vedder from playing the guitar in the first place.
I don't completely disagree with what you're saying here, aside for some of the sillier analogies being portrayed as a norm or the idea that you cannot possibly "add value" to things that can't be copied. But all of those things you mention would be possible and practiced, just as they're possible and practiced today.
But again, you're proclaiming a protection or profit as a moral justification here, which doesn't make any logical sense. Ownership is a moral justification, and theft stands opposed to that. Protecting profit in the forms of revenue that hasn't been granted to you yet is to claim ownership of something you don't own, which would be theft, and I can't make peace with that. Based on your reasoning, I could easily force you to buy my business's products, even if you don't want them or need them. In fact, based on your reasoning, all your property truly is owed to the men who invented a) the plow and b) the wheel, the foundations of civilization without which none of things you have would be possible.
You're claiming that we would "scuttle" the arts. Again, since the arts and profit from them predate patents and copyrights and "intellectual property", I disagree. In fact, intellectual property protections, taken to their logical end, forbid people like Eddie Vedder from playing the guitar in the first place.
yes, but prior to patents, the arts were supported by oral tradition mainly, as far as i undertand. minstrels and whatnot.
im not trying to justify anything morally. but to an extent i feel an artist should have some ownership rights over their ideas. it's not like a manufacturing process produces a product that can be possessed and sold as valuable. it is the idea itself that has value and that kinda distinguishes it from patenting an invention in my mind. but then, i've always been of the artistic persuasion. anyway, the more i think about, the less sure i am that it'd be catastrophic to the arts, but it's still a concern. and to the extent that it would kinda destroy corporate industry as we know it, i think it'd be worth it
How come it hasn't been mentioned that Gore's bill is increased due to the optional use of green power?
because it's easier for some just to hate
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I also saw this morning where they get their power from an energy source that uses renewable resources or something like that and they also said they are in the process of updating the home and adding solar panels. I don't like Al Gore that much as a politician but it sounds like he is trying. I think you have to look at this for what it is, more political crap that happens by the other side (by both republicans and democrats) when ever someone is in the news for something positive.
yeah, i heard that on the news, too...they said the electricity he uses is more expensive than normal electricity b/c he uses 'green electricty' from things like wind turbines and other things...not sure how much that would offset the bill, 20 rooms does seem a bit excessive
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
How come it hasn't been mentioned that Gore's bill is increased due to the optional use of green power?
Man, I keep saying it!
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
yeah, i heard that on the news, too...they said the electricity he uses is more expensive than normal electricity b/c he uses 'green electricty' from things like wind turbines and other things...not sure how much that would offset the bill, 20 rooms does seem a bit excessive
TVA regulates rates at 7.380¢ per kWh
How much does it cost? You can buy green power in 150-kilowatt-hour blocks (about 12 percent of a typical household's monthly energy use). Each block will add $4 to your monthly power bill. Green power cost more because the technology used to capture these renewable resources is more expensive than traditional power generation methods. http://www.nespower.com/green_power_switch.aspx
221,000 kWh / 150 * $4 = $5,893.00
221,000 kWh * 7.380¢ = $16,309.80
Check the math, that's what I got. Took me a while to figure it out though. So it's $16,309.80 for 221,000 kWh of energy plus $5,893.00 for using Green Energy. So his annual bill should be roughly $22,202.80
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization, issued a press release late Monday:
Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.
Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.
this has nothing to do with his documentary, and yea turn the lights off more
this has nothing to do with making a documentary film
please quit with your swiftboat attack of something irrelevant to an oscar winning film
Hehe....how is the "Oscar" relevant then??
Anyway, relax. I'm not trying to take anything away from the film. Certainly An Inconvenient Truth should be taken for what it's worth, Al Gore's electricity usage not withstanding.
How come it hasn't been mentioned that Gore's bill is increased due to the optional use of green power?
It has been mentioned, at least somewhere here.
Signing up for TVA's "Green Power Switch" doesn't mean you're only using green power. The TVA has green power infrastructure that feeds into the grid and everyone uses that power. Paying the optional premium subsidizes the cost of that infrastructure and Al Gore should be applauded for doing that. However, if only 400 households used the same amount of electricity as Al Gore, the entire output of their "Green Power Switch" would be consumed. Al Gore's response wants to pretend that he's only using Green Power. The fact of the matter is that 60% of Al Gore's power usage comes from fossil fuels, just like everyone else on that grid.
ffg, after catching up on this thread, it seems to me your problem is with Al Gore and not necessarily the issue at hand. I don't think anyone is giving Gore a free pass. It almost appears that you'd rather be wasteful, just to 'stick it to' Al Gore. Earlier, you attempted to make the case that all environmentalists were scare mongers & you posted a statement made by Gore to make your point. You summarized by saying that the environmentalists were 'anti-technology' and this was an attempt to take away your 'freedoms' thus your ability to survive. Now, if that isn't scare mongering, I don't know what is. Coming at the issue from that angle makes your argument seem disingenuous.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
ffg, after catching up on this thread, it seems to me your problem is with Al Gore and not necessarily the issue at hand.
Yes. I've said that numerous times. My problem is with Al Gore. And the issue at hand is Al Gore's electricity usage, not An Inconvenient Truth.
I don't think anyone is giving Gore a free pass. It almost appears that you'd rather be wasteful, just to 'stick it to' Al Gore.
Hehe..."stick it to Al Gore"??? I don't think some posts on a message board can really qualify as sticking it to Al Gore, but ok.
And no, I rather not be wasteful.
Earlier, you attempted to make the case that all environmentalists were scare mongers & you posted a statement made by Gore to make your point.
Evironmentalists, in a generalized sense, are easily classified as scaremongers baraka. There's no way around that -- just look at their own language and statements. I certainly don't believe environmentalism is bad, or that it need be based on fear. But the tactics of many environmentalists and the overall "environmentalist movement" are primarily based on fear.
You summarized by saying that the environmentalists were 'anti-technology' and this was an attempt to take away your 'freedoms' thus your ability to survive. Now, if that isn't scare mongering, I don't know what is. Coming at the issue from that angle makes your argument seem disingenuous.
I'm certainly not trying to be disingenuous here, nor am I trying to send the message that people should fear environmentalists. People shouldn't fear environmentalists, and that's the point I'm making (or at least trying to make).
Look, there are people here everyday who say 'George Bush is a fearmonger'. And those people are correct. Are you going to accuse those people of also being fearmongers, just because they are trying to advise others not to give themselves over to the doomsday proclamations there?
The environmentalist movement has long fought against technology. I think that's the ultimate example of biting your nose to spite your face. And I think it's unwise. But it's not something to be approached fearfully. It's something to be approached rationally.
Yes. I've said that numerous times. My problem is with Al Gore. And the issue at hand is Al Gore's electricity usage, not An Inconvenient Truth.
Hehe..."stick it to Al Gore"??? I don't think some posts on a message board can really qualify as sticking it to Al Gore, but ok.
And no, I rather not be wasteful.
Evironmentalists, in a generalized sense, are easily classified as scaremongers baraka. There's no way around that -- just look at their own language and statements. I certainly don't believe environmentalism is bad, or that it need be based on fear. But the tactics of many environmentalists and the overall "environmentalist movement" are primarily based on fear.
I'm certainly not trying to be disingenuous here, nor am I trying to send the message that people should fear environmentalists. People shouldn't fear environmentalists, and that's the point I'm making (or at least trying to make).
Look, there are people here everyday who say 'George Bush is a fearmonger'. And those people are correct. Are you going to accuse those people of also being fearmongers, just because they are trying to advise others not to give themselves over to the doomsday proclamations there?
The environmentalist movement has long fought against technology. I think that's the ultimate example of biting your nose to spite your face. And I think it's unwise. But it's not something to be approached fearfully. It's something to be approached rationally.
Well then forget Al Gore...Do you think I was suprised to read about Gore's electricity usage? No, I wasn't. But I do feel that he is not the only celebrity that does not practice what he preaches. This is nothing new. Don't let your dislike of an individual ruin your ability to look at an issue objectively and certainly do not manifest the same behavior that you detest.
I know what you are saying about 'movements'. It sad, because most causes start off as a great thing, then they are poisoned by agendas and self-righteousness. This usually leads to people not taking the issue seriously, which is counter-productive.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Well then forget Al Gore...Do you think I was suprised to read about Gore's electricity usage? No, I wasn't. But I do feel that he is not the only celebrity that does not practice what he preaches. This is nothing new. Don't let your dislike of an individual ruin your ability to look at an issue objectively and certainly do not manifest the same behavior that you detest.
I completely agree. I certainly don't think this is surprising, new, or unique in any way. However, the hypocrisy of so-called leaders, visionaries and progressives is very much worthy of notice. It further demonstrates the severe lack of principle within the system, and the tragedy of witless morons sitting around waiting for saviors to problems they can solve for themselves, right now.
I know what you are saying about 'movements'. It sad, because most causes start off as a great thing, then they are poisoned by agendas and self-righteousness. This usually leads to people not taking the issue seriously, which is counter-productive.
Precisely. And that is sad because the issue isn't what should be called into question. But when Jesus robs the collection plate, you start to wonder what the church is all about to begin with.
I completely agree. I certainly don't think this is surprising, new, or unique in any way. However, the hypocrisy of so-called leaders, visionaries and progressives is very much worthy of notice. It further demonstrates the severe lack of principle within the system, and the tragedy of witless morons sitting around waiting for saviors to problems they can solve for themselves, right now.
Much more worthy of notice? Hardly.......I think it is a waste of time and energy to narrow your focus on something so insignificant. How about not letting the likes of Gore get to you and muddy what is important. Focus on what you want, not on what you don't want. I dislike Bill O'Reilly, but I applaud Jessica's law. I'm not going to stop my support just because O'Reilly is championing the cause.
Precisely. And that is sad because the issue isn't what should be called into question. But when Jesus robs the collection plate, you start to wonder what the church is all about to begin with.[/quote]
I don't think your analogy is very good, but I get what you're saying. See my response above.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Much more worthy of notice? Hardly.......I think it is a waste of time and energy to narrow your focus on something so insignificant. How about not letting the likes of Gore get to you and muddy what is important. Focus on what you want, not on what you don't want. I dislike Bill O'Reilly, but I applaud Jessica's law. I'm not going to stop my support just because O'Reilly is championing the cause.
This is good advice. I don't disagree. It cuts both ways though. To often the rejection or acceptance of issues include the personalities attached to it.
Comments
Try inviting a President or other dignitary or hold appreciable events in a 2 bedroom and get the same desired result. The people at that level aren't going to take you seriously. You do know what level this is operating at right? Intended audience? Manpower required? You think it's just him sitting in his bi ol house with all the lights on...haha
I think you dislike the guy on a personal level and continually choose not to reevaluate the decision you've already made of him years ago.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
An Inconvenient Truth, indeed.
"Do as I say, not as I do."
Hehe...no, I don't think that. I think that house is empty a lot of the time. And it is.
But I stand corrected. One simply cannot be taken seriously without 20 bedrooms. And now that I think about, the 8 bathrooms seems like too little.
I do dislike the guy on a personal level. And I reevaluate that decision quite often.
But they do. Unauthorized publications are big business throughout the world as well as here in America.
Starves to death? Let's try not to get too crazy here.
Again, if someone else can print your book and sell it for $8, then that copy probably isn't worth $9. If you desire to extract $9 from your book, you have to figure out the best way to do that, be it through contractual agreements, technology or added value.
These examples are bizarre. Why do you think, in the absence of patent/ip law, suddenly anyone who calls themselves Pearl Jam would be thought of as Pearl Jam?
Look, you're trying in all these examples to simply protect profit for a person who hasn't even achieved it yet and has no right to claim it as their own. Protecting profit, in reality, is protecting people's bank accounts, meaning to protect the profit they've already earned.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Dude, he's not plugging the planes and limos into the kitchen outlet.
that's the point... without any sort of intellectual property protection, you cannot contract around that. whatever contract you work out is worthless becos third parties can just take your work and auction it off without regard to your contract. you're talking about different values... there's buyer value, seller value, and production value. buyers might be very willing to buy your product at $9 and buyers and sellers might agree that it is worth that price, but the cost to print the artform might only be $1. that does not mean the art is worth that. a car is worth considerably more than the sum of its parts and art is the same way. a cd costs pennies but the music on it is where the value is. this simply means someone is undercutting you on your product. it means that artists will never be able to support themselves becos in order to make any money at all, they wil only be able to charge pennies over the cost of production or risk being undercut by someone else who is bootlegging their work. there is no way contracts or technology can get around this and you can't really "add value" to a novel or a song that will prevent someone else from bootlegging it.
becos there would be no way to tell who the real pearl jam is. it would amount to buyer deception... telling them "oh yeah, this is pearl jam alright, the real deal. all their songs." and you don't realize until you've bought the ticket or cd that you just gave some nerd with a computer your money and pearl jam will never see a cent. you cannot support the artist becos with so much bootlegging, you'd never know which copy goes to the artist. technology means the bootleg version of ten would be indistinguishable from the real copy of ten.
im trying in all these example to talk about how we're not going to scuttle the arts. they have achieved a profit-worthy product but others will steal their work or dilute its value to render it valueless. the arts as we know it would disappear if there was no way to protect against plagiarism becos all the great artists would be unable to produce their art. they'd all be working at mcdonald's 60 hours a week and too tired to create.
I guess he should buy and maintain his own personal electric green fleet of transportation.
Maybe they'll invent zero emission teleportation to other countries at some point. gotta start somewhere
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Hahahaha, that'll be the day, lol.
I don't completely disagree with what you're saying here, aside for some of the sillier analogies being portrayed as a norm or the idea that you cannot possibly "add value" to things that can't be copied. But all of those things you mention would be possible and practiced, just as they're possible and practiced today.
But again, you're proclaiming a protection or profit as a moral justification here, which doesn't make any logical sense. Ownership is a moral justification, and theft stands opposed to that. Protecting profit in the forms of revenue that hasn't been granted to you yet is to claim ownership of something you don't own, which would be theft, and I can't make peace with that. Based on your reasoning, I could easily force you to buy my business's products, even if you don't want them or need them. In fact, based on your reasoning, all your property truly is owed to the men who invented a) the plow and b) the wheel, the foundations of civilization without which none of things you have would be possible.
You're claiming that we would "scuttle" the arts. Again, since the arts and profit from them predate patents and copyrights and "intellectual property", I disagree. In fact, intellectual property protections, taken to their logical end, forbid people like Eddie Vedder from playing the guitar in the first place.
yes, but prior to patents, the arts were supported by oral tradition mainly, as far as i undertand. minstrels and whatnot.
im not trying to justify anything morally. but to an extent i feel an artist should have some ownership rights over their ideas. it's not like a manufacturing process produces a product that can be possessed and sold as valuable. it is the idea itself that has value and that kinda distinguishes it from patenting an invention in my mind. but then, i've always been of the artistic persuasion. anyway, the more i think about, the less sure i am that it'd be catastrophic to the arts, but it's still a concern. and to the extent that it would kinda destroy corporate industry as we know it, i think it'd be worth it
because it's easier for some just to hate
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
yeah, i heard that on the news, too...they said the electricity he uses is more expensive than normal electricity b/c he uses 'green electricty' from things like wind turbines and other things...not sure how much that would offset the bill, 20 rooms does seem a bit excessive
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Man, I keep saying it!
TVA regulates rates at 7.380¢ per kWh
How much does it cost? You can buy green power in 150-kilowatt-hour blocks (about 12 percent of a typical household's monthly energy use). Each block will add $4 to your monthly power bill. Green power cost more because the technology used to capture these renewable resources is more expensive than traditional power generation methods.
http://www.nespower.com/green_power_switch.aspx
221,000 kWh / 150 * $4 = $5,893.00
221,000 kWh * 7.380¢ = $16,309.80
Check the math, that's what I got. Took me a while to figure it out though. So it's $16,309.80 for 221,000 kWh of energy plus $5,893.00 for using Green Energy. So his annual bill should be roughly $22,202.80
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
NEXT
please quit with your swiftboat attack of something irrelevant to an oscar winning film
Hehe....how is the "Oscar" relevant then??
Anyway, relax. I'm not trying to take anything away from the film. Certainly An Inconvenient Truth should be taken for what it's worth, Al Gore's electricity usage not withstanding.
I don't like Al Gore. Get used to it.
It has been mentioned, at least somewhere here.
Signing up for TVA's "Green Power Switch" doesn't mean you're only using green power. The TVA has green power infrastructure that feeds into the grid and everyone uses that power. Paying the optional premium subsidizes the cost of that infrastructure and Al Gore should be applauded for doing that. However, if only 400 households used the same amount of electricity as Al Gore, the entire output of their "Green Power Switch" would be consumed. Al Gore's response wants to pretend that he's only using Green Power. The fact of the matter is that 60% of Al Gore's power usage comes from fossil fuels, just like everyone else on that grid.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
oh wait it wasnt
Yes. I've said that numerous times. My problem is with Al Gore. And the issue at hand is Al Gore's electricity usage, not An Inconvenient Truth.
Hehe..."stick it to Al Gore"??? I don't think some posts on a message board can really qualify as sticking it to Al Gore, but ok.
And no, I rather not be wasteful.
Evironmentalists, in a generalized sense, are easily classified as scaremongers baraka. There's no way around that -- just look at their own language and statements. I certainly don't believe environmentalism is bad, or that it need be based on fear. But the tactics of many environmentalists and the overall "environmentalist movement" are primarily based on fear.
I'm certainly not trying to be disingenuous here, nor am I trying to send the message that people should fear environmentalists. People shouldn't fear environmentalists, and that's the point I'm making (or at least trying to make).
Look, there are people here everyday who say 'George Bush is a fearmonger'. And those people are correct. Are you going to accuse those people of also being fearmongers, just because they are trying to advise others not to give themselves over to the doomsday proclamations there?
The environmentalist movement has long fought against technology. I think that's the ultimate example of biting your nose to spite your face. And I think it's unwise. But it's not something to be approached fearfully. It's something to be approached rationally.
Well then forget Al Gore...Do you think I was suprised to read about Gore's electricity usage? No, I wasn't. But I do feel that he is not the only celebrity that does not practice what he preaches. This is nothing new. Don't let your dislike of an individual ruin your ability to look at an issue objectively and certainly do not manifest the same behavior that you detest.
I know what you are saying about 'movements'. It sad, because most causes start off as a great thing, then they are poisoned by agendas and self-righteousness. This usually leads to people not taking the issue seriously, which is counter-productive.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I completely agree. I certainly don't think this is surprising, new, or unique in any way. However, the hypocrisy of so-called leaders, visionaries and progressives is very much worthy of notice. It further demonstrates the severe lack of principle within the system, and the tragedy of witless morons sitting around waiting for saviors to problems they can solve for themselves, right now.
Precisely. And that is sad because the issue isn't what should be called into question. But when Jesus robs the collection plate, you start to wonder what the church is all about to begin with.
Much more worthy of notice? Hardly.......I think it is a waste of time and energy to narrow your focus on something so insignificant. How about not letting the likes of Gore get to you and muddy what is important. Focus on what you want, not on what you don't want. I dislike Bill O'Reilly, but I applaud Jessica's law. I'm not going to stop my support just because O'Reilly is championing the cause.
Precisely. And that is sad because the issue isn't what should be called into question. But when Jesus robs the collection plate, you start to wonder what the church is all about to begin with.[/quote]
I don't think your analogy is very good, but I get what you're saying. See my response above.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
This is good advice. I don't disagree. It cuts both ways though. To often the rejection or acceptance of issues include the personalities attached to it.