I agree with you about not oil and the vile assholes who sell it. I'm sure ordinary people everywhere would prefer an affordable solution that could replace it, but even with massive subsidies the alternatives aren't competitive. Once they are competitive people will rush to them and they'll get the benefit of the doubt.
And remember, a lot (most I guess) of the oil consumed here comes from here. If we suddenly had an alternative that could displace the oil regime it would be a good thing in the big picture, but it would be massively disruptive and a lot of innocent people would be ruined. That's one reason it's a good thing that this will take a while to happen. Larry Seltzer Contributing Editor, PC Magazine [email protected] http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/ -----Original Message----- From: Michael Collins [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 5:25 PM To: Larry Seltzer Cc: Dan Kaminsky; funsec Subject: Re: [funsec] climate gate and programming bugs Depends on what your definition of unaffordable is. I personally don't like the idea of my cash going to fund regimes that are hostile to the enlightenment, public agnosticism, and women wearing pants. I mean, even without the whole global warming issue and, ye gods, the *stench*. A Tesla Roadster is the same price as a 911 turbo, although the 911 has better pickup. If you want a halfway solution, buy a Volt - they'll be affordable, and I figure in another 8 years or so, you probably won't even hear the term 'hybrid' anymore, because everything'll be hybrid. On Dec 10, 2009, at 4:50 PM, Larry Seltzer wrote: > Anybody would prefer an affordable Tesla. The problem is that they're > not, and they won't be any time soon. Do you think the solution is to > make gasoline-based cars unaffordable as well? > > Larry Seltzer > Contributing Editor, PC Magazine > [email protected] > http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Collins [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 4:32 PM > To: Dan Kaminsky > Cc: Larry Seltzer; funsec > Subject: Re: [funsec] climate gate and programming bugs > > 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 >> <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > > > Mike Collins [email protected] _______________________________________________ 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.
