OT: Carbon credits

Have you considered cashing yerself in fer carbon credits?

nb

Reply to
notbob
Loading thread data ...

Thanks for proving my point.

Reply to
Revivul

Thanks for proving my point.

Reply to
Revivul

What point? I gave up halfway thru yer mastubatory blather.

nb

Reply to
notbob

And ... thanks for proving it just that much more thoroughly.

Reply to
Revivul

PDFTFT!

Reply to
Doug Miller

Hm.

And how, exactly, do I constitute a "troll?"

Apparently, it's one who holds a different opinion, huh?

Thanks for ... proving my point.

Reply to
Revivul

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:27:08 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone scrawled the following:

I recall tmitd (doesn't deserve caps) but don't recall the saying. I _like_ it! I just wish everyone would stop replying to the trolls, no matter how on-topic it might be. Most are just hot button presses and don't need to be addressed.

I'd sleep better at night if only spamming, stupidity, and trolling were _painful_...

--============================================-- Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional. ---

formatting link
ToolyRoo(tm) and Possum(tm) Handy Pouches NOW AVAILABLE!

Reply to
Larry Jaques

How does holding a different opinion constitute a troll.

In effect, you (pl) are saying that ... if you don't see the world in the exact same way as "We" do, then you're a troll.

There IS no better proof for my point than that.

Amazing.

Reply to
Revivul

The perfect example of a troll is the continous repetition of a tedious statement that annoys rather than intrigues.

text-book

nb

Reply to
notbob

Not to be overmuch a contrarian, but I've been thankful for all the help and support I've received here in my attempts to do exactly what I think you're saying makes no sense...

...although a bit less uncertainty would certainly be welcome. :)

Reply to
Morris Dovey

... snip of long diatribe detailing how the rest of us are a bunch of rubes because we don't agree with his much more nuanced, intellectual position. The fact that we have cited facts, pointed to documented intellectual dishonesty on the part of researchers and other foundational elements doesn't matter, we are all just reinforcing our biases.

i.e., if we all just agreed with his position, there would no longer be evidence of confirmation bias in this group.

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

Morris, you appear to be addressing this problem in the way that fits a market-based model. You are working to develop a technology that can win both its technical merits and pay for itself in a reasonable time frame. I don't think that fits the same mindset as we see from other elements that espouse development and deployment of these alternate technologies that can only be made cost-effective via the application of large subsidies. That only results in market distortion, not development of viable technology. Completely different animal.

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

That's *exactly* the basis for my work - concisely stated, thank you.

This doesn't match up with reality /quite/ so exactly as your leading statement - not because you're wrong but because subjectivity works against conciseness...

My little project _has_ required "large" subsidies - not large on a national scale, but very large to me. I've subsidized the development with materials, tooling, shop space, and man-years of effort. Others have provided (and continue to provide) subsidies in the form of essential scientific and engineering consulting/advice. A while back I went through the very objective exercise of tallying the dollar value of these subsidies and the total was scary/impressive.

There is surely at least a temptation to characterize that amount as "R&D investment", rather than "development subsidies", yes?

[ investment: n. The act of investing; laying out money or capital in an enterprise with the expectation of profit ]

The correct answer is "No, it's development subsidies". The enterprise may last as long as two more years, and expense exceeds revenue by a factor greater than four - and the probability that the enterprise will produce a positive dollar ROI in that time is realistically so close to zero as to make no difference.

Reply to
Morris Dovey

That's *exactly* the basis for my work - concisely stated, thank you.

This doesn't match up with reality /quite/ so exactly as your leading statement - not because you're wrong but because subjectivity works against conciseness...

My little project _has_ required "large" subsidies - not large on a national scale, but very large to me. I've subsidized the development with materials, tooling, shop space, and man-years of effort. Others have provided (and continue to provide) subsidies in the form of essential scientific and engineering consulting/advice. A while back I went through the very objective exercise of tallying the dollar value of these subsidies and the total was scary/impressive.

There is surely at least a temptation to characterize that amount as "R&D investment", rather than "development subsidies", yes?

[ investment: n. The act of investing; laying out money or capital in an enterprise with the expectation of profit ]

The correct answer is "No, it's development subsidies". The enterprise may last as long as two more years, and expense still exceeds revenue by a factor greater than four - and the probability that the enterprise will produce a positive ROI in that time is realistically so close to zero as to make no difference.

[oops - hit wrong button, please disregard any earlier copy]

Now let's apply the subjective warp: My *intent* is to /produce/ a long-term downward market distortion exactly _by_ demonstrating that a technology that had historically produced poor results could be improved upon and /made/ viable. The final step is to extend longevity expectations to the century mark - and, once again, I have every expectation of success (and of not being around to see the actuality).

Profitability (a positive ROI) would have been a Good Thing, but I'm not displeased to have achieved the criteria you set forth in your opening two sentences. :)

/My/ conclusion is that the "goodness" of subsidies is necessarily outcome-based, which invokes the concept of "wisdom" - to which I lay no claim.

Reply to
Morris Dovey

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.