The NRA stance is easily disproven by a simple examination of the facts. I'm saying that if my stance is wrong, a simple examination and presentation of the proper evidence would disprove it.
Also, in order for it to be a conspiracy theory, there has to be an actual conspiracy involved. Advocating for a solution to pollution is not a conspiracy; it's part of their job. Saying that they're advocating for a solution to pollution is a conspiracy theory is like saying the police will give you a ticket for something is a conspiracy theory. Or that doctors say you shouldn't consume a material because it will probably kill you is a conspiracy theory.
As for the mental leap: It's not that difficult. Take a look at everything I've said, then go ahead and read the linked section. Keep track of how much of what I said matches up. If you want more specific, just read sections 8.7-8.10 (stop when you hit 8.11). Barely any reading at all, and you can see what I have said so far backed up by plain text from the IPCC itself. All I'm doing is pointing out an answer to why it is they left something out and saying it's most likely right based on how they addressed everything else.
Not how discourse works.
You made a claim, you have to actually prove it, not demand others disprove it.
I presented evidence to prove it. Now others have to disprove that evidence. Which is how discourse works.
So, where is the evidence that my evidence is wrong?
Not how discourse works.
You made a claim, you have to actually prove it, not demand others disprove it.
I presented evidence to prove it. Now others have to disprove that evidence. Which is how discourse works.
So, where is the evidence that my evidence is wrong?
You've presented evidence that did not in any way back up your assertion.
Let's say that I asserted that you owed me a million dollars.
I then present to you a bottle of bleach with a mustache drawn on and say "see? proof positive."
Everyone who looks at my "evidence" thinks I've gone nuts, but I stick to my guns and insist that it's proof of my claim.
Ergo, you owe me a million dollars. Pay up, son.
As for the mental leap: It's not that difficult. Take a look at everything I've said, then go ahead and read the linked section. Keep track of how much of what I said matches up. If you want more specific, just read sections 8.7-8.10 (stop when you hit 8.11). Barely any reading at all, and you can see what I have said so far backed up by plain text from the IPCC itself. All I'm doing is pointing out an answer to why it is they left something out and saying it's most likely right based on how they addressed everything else.
Yep, that's the best way to pursue discourse. Suggest that people who disagree with you are dumb or haven't looked over the evidence.
Maybe, JUST MAYBE, since no one else can see what you see, it's on you not us?
As for the mental leap: It's not that difficult. Take a look at everything I've said, then go ahead and read the linked section. Keep track of how much of what I said matches up. If you want more specific, just read sections 8.7-8.10 (stop when you hit 8.11). Barely any reading at all, and you can see what I have said so far backed up by plain text from the IPCC itself. All I'm doing is pointing out an answer to why it is they left something out and saying it's most likely right based on how they addressed everything else.Yep, that's the best way to pursue discourse. Suggest that people who disagree with you are dumb or haven't looked over the evidence.
Maybe, JUST MAYBE, since no one else can see what you see, it's on you not us?
No insult was written into my post. I neither stated people are dumb nor implied they had not read the evidence. I'm providing a quick walk-through on my thought process to show how I got to my conclusion.
Now, have you done what I suggested? If so and it did not lead there, then you have a point. If not, then you are arguing without having done a full examination of the evidence. If you believe that such is meant to be an insult to your intelligence, then you must keep in mind you are dealing with someone whose thought processes are not normal and who has had to do this before just so people could understand the logic I am using. It usually leads to them, once they understand the logical processes that led up to it, properly formulating a reply which shows some flaw within my argument and brings it down. So the idea of walking you through my thought process is not an insult, but outright admitting that you do not follow the same logical paths that I do; that is not a fault on your end, nor is it ever implied to be one.
Note I am not apologizing for it.
And I feel the evidence I have presented is sufficient to prove my point, considering I am the only one presenting any instead of just making assertions. If you feel it is insufficient, then prove it. One quote showing my logic was wrong will suffice; the entirety of the logic itself is built upon an understanding of the text in its entirety. Having one part wrong makes the entire conclusion wrong.
I will admit I'm wrong when shown evidence I am. If no one replies, I will simply assume people got tired and stopped arguing. I gain nothing by "winning" an argument; it does not show the inherent flaw within the logic. If people disprove what I say, I will simply admit it and move on.
Not how discourse works.
You made a claim, you have to actually prove it, not demand others disprove it.
I presented evidence to prove it. Now others have to disprove that evidence. Which is how discourse works.
So, where is the evidence that my evidence is wrong?
You've presented evidence that did not in any way back up your assertion.
Let's say that I asserted that you owed me a million dollars.
I then present to you a bottle of bleach with a mustache drawn on and say "see? proof positive."Everyone who looks at my "evidence" thinks I've gone nuts, but I stick to my guns and insist that it's proof of my claim.
Ergo, you owe me a million dollars. Pay up, son.
Which I then refute by turning around and citing contract law. And leaving you having to argue whether or not I have a contract with you.
Here's the thing: The only thing I've said the IPCC has said is crazy is the idea of banning petroleum; the rest is written within their actual report. Nothing I said about them avoiding stating anything about petroleum being eliminated is crazy; that is section 8.9. Nor is them saying that everything they did cover is a failure for reducing transport-related CO2 output; that is the opening of section 8.9. The idea that everything they do cover will likely fail is also not crazy; that is section 8.9.
So it's one of two choices... Either the solution to reduce CO2 levels from transportation is the one item they didn't cover, or the IPCC is admitting we have simply failed. Which do you think is more likely?
Not how discourse works.
You made a claim, you have to actually prove it, not demand others disprove it.
I presented evidence to prove it. Now others have to disprove that evidence. Which is how discourse works.
So, where is the evidence that my evidence is wrong?
What evidence ? You only presented your interpretation of a text (and a quite far-fetched one).
I respectfully decline to disprove anything you haven't proven in the first place. If I had, I would only point out the fact that IPCC doesn't advocate the complete ban of IC cars, anywhere, anywhen. Easy as pie !
With your chain of twisted logic, you could as easily claim that what the IPCC really want is a generalization of vegetarianism, and the amss slaughter of cows as well-known producers of methane.
See how the IPCC doesn't even broach the subject ? --> must be their master plan !
With that sort of (counter)intuitive leap, you are quite close to the realm of conspiracy theory. Seeing hidden plans and agendas does that to you.
EDIT: the IPCC doesn't cover the idea of a petroleum ban because it's completely unrealistic. We don't have at the moment magic solutions to replace it completely as a source of power, reducing its consumption would already be a major victory in the current context (where the biggest polluters, China and the USA, aren' exactly heading towards a reduction of their fossil fuel needs).
EDIT : of course you don't apologize, and don't need to. I don't feel insulted, and you are entitled to your opinions. I just don't share your conclusions and contest your logic. No hard feelings from my part.
So it's one of two choices... Either the solution to reduce CO2 levels from transportation is the one item they didn't cover, or the IPCC is admitting we have simply failed. Which do you think is more likely?
Here's the thing. Neither of those choices is them actually advocating a ban on fossil fuels.
And you have a rather silly false dichotomy. Yes, they conclude that measures taken thus far have not had a significant impact. That's about a thousand miles from saying we shouldn't improve upon those incentives.
No insult was written into my post.As for the mental leap: It's not that difficult. Take a look at everything I've said, then go ahead and read the linked section. Keep track of how much of what I said matches up. If you want more specific, just read sections 8.7-8.10 (stop when you hit 8.11). Barely any reading at all, and you can see what I have said so far backed up by plain text from the IPCC itself. All I'm doing is pointing out an answer to why it is they left something out and saying it's most likely right based on how they addressed everything else.Yep, that's the best way to pursue discourse. Suggest that people who disagree with you are dumb or haven't looked over the evidence.
Maybe, JUST MAYBE, since no one else can see what you see, it's on you not us?
I'll take your word that no insult was intended, but read your own words you quoted "It's not that difficult." and "then go ahead and read the linked section."
Hey man, at least I own up to when I'm being jerky.
Hint: I'm always a jerk.
Not how discourse works.
You made a claim, you have to actually prove it, not demand others disprove it.
I presented evidence to prove it. Now others have to disprove that evidence. Which is how discourse works.
So, where is the evidence that my evidence is wrong?
What evidence ? You only presented your interpretation of a text (and a quite far-fetched one).
I respectfully decline to disprove anything you haven't proven in the first place. If I had, I would only point out the fact that IPCC doesn't advocate the complete ban of IC cars, anywhere, anywhen. Easy as pie !
With your chain of twisted logic, you could as easily claim that what the IPCC really want is a generalization of vegetarianism, and the amss slaughter of cows as well-known producers of methane.
See how the IPCC doesn't even broach the subject ? --> must be their master plan !
With that sort of (counter)intuitive leap, you are quite close to the realm of conspiracy theory. Seeing hidden plans and agendas does that to you.
I also posted the text and the links I say support that interpretation. In grand total, I've relied on over 100 pages of text to support that position.
And, once again, it's not the definition of a conspiracy theory. A hidden agenda doesn't make a conspiracy theory when it comes to politics; it just makes someone normal. And nine times out of ten, the hidden agenda is mind-boggling dullness. And, really, advocating a solution to ongoing pollution is a pretty poor hidden plan for a group whose job includes advocating solutions to pollution. It would be like a doctor having a hidden plan to make people healthier!
So saying they are advocating a solution to ongoing pollution is a conspiracy theory or near it... that is flat-out ridiculous. Even if someone is wrong about them advocating the solution, the advocating of the solution itself cannot be a conspiracy theory due to the fact it happens to be their job. So if it is a conspiracy theory, I have a few hundred pages of other conspiracy theories that are titled "Assessment Report 5."
Besides, everyone knows what the IPCC's "master plan" is; it's spelled out in their document where they identify what the group is for.
But, since you want to discuss interpretations...
Pop open the document link I gave (the first one of the three) and scroll down to section 8.9. Notice that they cover all scenarios as they exist now, then notice they state we will fail to stop CO2 levels from transportation rising before 2050. Then notice they specifically do not mention anything about banning petroleum, and go on to say it will continue dominance until 2050 at the minimum. Then note they go on to imply that it is likely we will simply fail to have any mitigation at all (mitigation only shown under the best, most unrealistic scenario). Feel free to verify these statements are accurate before proceeding farther into my post.
Now, consider this... The IPCC is effectively saying that we have failed, but they have also left one item out. So we are facing the choice that it is either the one thing they didn't discuss or that humanity has simply failed. Which do you think is more likely?
I cannot accept the failure possibility. Not yet.
You should accept the possibility of failure, because so far it's what we got.
If they advocated the ban of petroleum, they could say it. They don't, so they don't advocate it. What about that ?
What you believe in is a purposeless "conspiracy", with a unnefarious hidden agenda.
Occam razor : what makes more sense between
1) the IPCC hides their benevolent master plan because they feel that it would be the best way to steer humanity towards it;
and 2) there is no hidden plan, and they don't talk about a petrol ban because it would be unfeasible, in the same league as teleportation booths as a transportation alternative ?
So it's one of two choices... Either the solution to reduce CO2 levels from transportation is the one item they didn't cover, or the IPCC is admitting we have simply failed. Which do you think is more likely?Here's the thing. Neither of those choices is them actually advocating a ban on fossil fuels.
And you have a rather silly false dichotomy. Yes, they conclude that measures taken thus far have not had a significant impact. That's about a thousand miles from saying we shouldn't improve upon those incentives.
There's a common political strategy of advocating for a position by disproving all of the other possibilities. I've used it before myself.
In this case, you have the IPCC not discussing one solution, but saying that everything else is not working and going on to say that even in their best-case scenario for those options, they still likely don't work. And they're calling for improvements on the current system not to prevent disaster or even impact it any time in this half of the century, but for mitigating post-2050 disasters or post-2100 disasters.
They are assuming we improve upon our incentives... and saying it still likely won't work.
That's a classic example of arguing for a position by eliminating everything else. Which is why I think they are using that strategy.
I never said they were saying we shouldn't improve upon incentives. Just that, realistically, we're not doing it for anything anyone currently alive will likely ever see the benefits of.
And that's the issue. They're saying we failed and all we can do is brace future generations for the impact. But, there's this solution they didn't even discuss...
No insult was written into my post.As for the mental leap: It's not that difficult. Take a look at everything I've said, then go ahead and read the linked section. Keep track of how much of what I said matches up. If you want more specific, just read sections 8.7-8.10 (stop when you hit 8.11). Barely any reading at all, and you can see what I have said so far backed up by plain text from the IPCC itself. All I'm doing is pointing out an answer to why it is they left something out and saying it's most likely right based on how they addressed everything else.Yep, that's the best way to pursue discourse. Suggest that people who disagree with you are dumb or haven't looked over the evidence.
Maybe, JUST MAYBE, since no one else can see what you see, it's on you not us?
I'll take your word that no insult was intended, but read your own words you quoted "It's not that difficult." and "then go ahead and read the linked section."
Hey man, at least I own up to when I'm being jerky.
Hint: I'm always a jerk.
You'll have to PM me an analysis of it. I look at it and don't see any problems with it; I use it all of the time with people without problems and other people use it with me without problems. So my own biases combined with a certain amount of defensiveness from some of the allegations dealt with up to this point are coloring how I am perceiving it at this point.
I'll admit my wording was probably jerky. But I can't see it.
To step away from that whole IPCC argument there's one thing EVs still have to find a solution to, which is one of the things that would currently prevent me from owning one - even though it would easily cover any driving needs I have (also apart from the fact that I don't have the money to buy one, let alone a regular gasoline (or diesel) car).
I live in an "apartment complex" (not sure what else to call it), so I have no garage or similar place to plug it in. A 200 feet extension cord out my second floor window and across the lawn, walkway and parking lot isn't quite feasible.
You should accept the possibility of failure, because so far it's what we got.
If they advocated the ban of petroleum, they could say it. They don't, so they don't advocate it. What about that ?
What you believe in is a purposeless "conspiracy", with a unnefarious hidden agenda.
Occam razor : what makes more sense between
1) the IPCC hides their benevolent master plan because they feel that it would be the best way to steer humanity towards it;
and 2) there is no hidden plan, and they don't talk about a petrol ban because it would be unfeasible, in the same league as teleportation booths as a transportation alternative ?
The problem with Occam's Razor is that it produces a false logical path. Specifically, it does with the idea that the simplest answer is the correct one.
Neither science nor politics have operated in that way for at least a century.
For example, take evolution; it happens to be what best fits the evidence we have. Problem: It doesn't meet the Occam's Razor test because it is actually the most complex of the available options. It is, combined, an explanation involving billions of changes crossing billions of years of history and more species than we can count; even the explanation for the evolution of the heart involves a complex series of alterations and changes over time. A lot of those changes are based, in part, upon assumptions as to what led up to them.
If I were to go by Occam's Razor, I would outright reject AR5 in its entirety due to the simple fact it is the most complex answer to the question at hand. And of the answers, AR5 also relies the most upon assumptions.
Politics is even worse. So, so much worse >.<
Keep in mind that Occam's Razor often backs options that are absurd or simply false because they usually have the least number of assumptions, and Occam's Razor values the lesser number of assumptions.
But, to apply it to this case... The answer becomes scary. The general tone of the entirety of AR5 doesn't fit earlier IPCC works. Nor does the tone of the section on transport match up to the tone in the Summary for Policy Makers. SPM has a tone of "we must act, and we must do it now" while the section on Transport has a tone of, "It doesn't matter, we failed, may as well do our best to see our children survive." Yet at the same time, they outright advocate that we can do something to prevent it... but give no options as to what that is.
The tone doesn't fit the words. And these are people who have made their careers off writing these words to give the exact impression and conclusion they want. So, I applied Occam's Razor and came up with a simple conclusion: There's something they're not directly stating. Thus the hunt for it.
So, which is simpler?
1. There is something they are not directly stating. It is a position they hold.
Or
2. They stated everything. We failed. Everything we do won't help us in the least. Our best efforts will be a failure. Best we can do is mitigate for those yet to be born. And even if we try to mitigate, we'll probably fail anyway because of all of this stuff we don't know.
And, in the way you present it, #1 is actually simpler; it involves the lesser number of assumptions. #1 only has 3 assumptions (hidden plan, benevolent plan, best way to steer humanity), while #2 has 5 assumptions (no hidden plan, no plan at all, petrol ban is unfeasible, petrol ban is unrealistic, report covers all feasible options). By Occam's Razor, the option you feel the most absurd is the option that we should hold.
To step away from that whole IPCC argument there's one thing EVs still have to find a solution to, which is one of the things that would currently prevent me from owning one - even though it would easily cover any driving needs I have (also apart from the fact that I don't have the money to buy one, let alone a regular gasoline (or diesel) car).
I live in an "apartment complex" (not sure what else to call it), so I have no garage or similar place to plug it in. A 200 feet extension cord out my second floor window and across the lawn, walkway and parking lot isn't quite feasible.
Since I've worked for one of the "Big 3", I can attest that this point more than any other has hampered the EV development in America.
It's not the grid, nor the infrastructure, it's the the average American Household.
I remember a study that estimated that less than 40% of Americans had access to a garage that could support charging of a fully electric vehicle.
The magic number in the car Buisness for "appeal" on new models is actually closer to 60%. That's not a guaranteed sale, that's a "they'd consider it".
On the upside, Open Source Patents for EVs is a massive step forward. So massive that some companies will immediately start to play with them in R&D only to not be behind. And I mean the "Big 6" here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Occam's razor is obviously not a simple thing to understand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with Occam's Razor is that it produces a false logical path. Specifically, it does with the idea that the simplest answer is the correct one.
As others have alluded, that's a problem only with the crippled, twisted version that you're presenting. Occam's Razor states that the simplest explanation that still takes into account all of the evidence is more likely to be correct. Note the evidence part, and the part about probability vs. certainty.
The problem with Occam's Razor is that it produces a false logical path. Specifically, it does with the idea that the simplest answer is the correct one.As others have alluded, that's a problem only with the crippled, twisted version that you're presenting. Occam's Razor states that the simplest explanation that still takes into account all of the evidence is more likely to be correct. Note the evidence part, and the part about probability vs. certainty.
Which does not refute anything I said. Just because a hypothesis takes into account all of the evidence does not mean that it best fits all of the evidence; evolution is an example of that. There are other hypotheses besides evolution that take into account the evidence and which are simpler, but they do not fit the evidence the best. Which is why Occam's Razor is not applied. And also why it is that science does not hold the Razor as irrefutable.
Also, that bit about assumptions is pretty commonly accepted.
Also, note that science does not operate on certainty. So the idea of certainty does not apply to science unless you are slipping outside of scientific standard.
I did not use the Razor incorrectly or some twisted version of it. I just used it in a way most people are not familiar with and pointed out that an essential assumption about it isn't actually true.
No, you misused Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor has nothing to do with the simplest ANSWER, but rather the answer that makes the fewest ASSUMPTIONS.
It's literally the second sentence of the wiki article you linked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with Occam's Razor is that it produces a false logical path. Specifically, it does with the idea that the simplest answer is the correct one.As others have alluded, that's a problem only with the crippled, twisted version that you're presenting. Occam's Razor states that the simplest explanation that still takes into account all of the evidence is more likely to be correct. Note the evidence part, and the part about probability vs. certainty.Which does not refute anything I said. Just because a hypothesis takes into account all of the evidence does not mean that it best fits all of the evidence; evolution is an example of that. There are other hypotheses besides evolution that take into account the evidence and which are simpler, but they do not fit the evidence the best. Which is why Occam's Razor is not applied. And also why it is that science does not hold the Razor as irrefutable.
Also, that bit about assumptions is pretty commonly accepted.
Also, note that science does not operate on certainty. So the idea of certainty does not apply to science unless you are slipping outside of scientific standard.
I did not use the Razor incorrectly or some twisted version of it. I just used it in a way most people are not familiar with and pointed out that an essential assumption about it isn't actually true.
I would like to hear a single other hypotheses that takes in all the evidence that supports evolution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because a hypothesis takes into account all of the evidence does not mean that it best fits all of the evidence; evolution is an example of that.
Only if you're using "take into account" to mean "ignore" or "misrepresent." Most of the rest of the world does not.
No, you misused Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor has nothing to do with the simplest ANSWER, but rather the answer that makes the fewest ASSUMPTIONS.
It's literally the second sentence of the wiki article you linked.
What.
Please go back to the post where I used it and look for the word "assumption" or its plural. Because the people stating I misused it are stating that it is the simplest explanation, not the explanation with the least amount of assumptions. While I had been stating that an explanation is simplest and citing the amount of held assumptions.
Because the people stating I misused it are stating that it is the simplest explanation, not the explanation with the least amount of assumptions.
Which, in context, are more or less equivalent. "Simplest" =/= "most dumbed down."
Also, you have a number of assumptions, not an "amount" of them.
Just because a hypothesis takes into account all of the evidence does not mean that it best fits all of the evidence; evolution is an example of that.Only if you're using "take into account" to mean "ignore" or "misrepresent." Most of the rest of the world does not.
You mean, like how the IPCC took the evidence on Kilimanjaro melting into account?
The thing to keep in mind is that Occam's Razor doesn't state that the answer it backs must be the correct answer. Or the best answer. Or the answer that accurately explains all of the evidence. Just that it has to use the least amount of assumptions. That's all it measures.
Because the people stating I misused it are stating that it is the simplest explanation, not the explanation with the least amount of assumptions.Which, in context, are more or less equivalent. "Simplest" =/= "most dumbed down."
Also, you have a number of assumptions, not an "amount" of them.
Amount noun
1a : the total number or quantity : aggregate
Irontruth is arguing the difference between "simplest" and "least amount of assumptions" in his reply; in my post where I brought them up, I did use them as the same thing.
You mean, like how the IPCC took the evidence on Kilimanjaro melting into account?
Read the article you linked. "the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades." I.e., someone ran off at the mouth, someone else wrote it down, and others looked at it and retracted it. It's not an example of sinister cherry-picking of evidence, however much you would like it to be. And it's definitely not an instance of Occam's Razor in any way, shape, or form, so I have no idea why you'd even cite that in a reply.
Re: number vs. amount, you're using your definition incorrectly (which, I suppose, is par for the course for you). Google "amount vs. number" and read a few of the many, many results that will spell it out for you.
Overall, I'm starting to get the impression you're simply arguing just to be arguing, not because you have anything with any merit to present.
You mean, like how the IPCC took the evidence on Kilimanjaro melting into account?Read the article. "the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades." I.e., someone ran off at the mouth, someone else wrote it down, and others looked at it and retracted it. It's not an example of sinister cherry-picking of evidence, however much you would like it to be. And it's definitely not an instance of Occam's Razor in any way, shape, or form, so I have no idea why you'd even cite that in a reply.
I never said that it was an example of cherry-picking data.
Also, it's my argument that the IPCC itself doesn't use Occam's Razor for putting together the Assessment Reports; but, instead, that they rely upon information that best fits the reports, even if it relies highly upon assumptions. You had challenged, earlier, my assertion about how Occam's Razor applies and argued about my claims as to how it is used. That link is brought up as evidence that it's not actually in use. I used one specifically because it does go ahead and show a weakness in how they run fact-checking and provides a base for continued discussion on the subject.
Also, I am trying to guide this back to discussion related to the report itself. Someone brought up Occam's Razor to refute an argument I made. I highlighted some of the flaws in it and that I used it to arrive at that stance. I'm hoping we eventually get back to that so it can be dealt with before we move back to my original (and, probably, now deleted) argument.
Re: number vs. amount, you're using your definition incorrectly (which, I suppose, is par for the course for you). Google "amount vs. number" and read a few of the many, many results that will spell it out for you.
Overall, I'm starting to get the impression you're simply arguing just to be arguing, not because you have anything with any merit to present.
I used the word correctly. It's used in those cases where you can measure something, but cannot necessarily count those items on a practical level. That I did count them does not make the usage irrelevant; counting the number of grains of sugar does not negate that you still use "amount" when speaking of a measurement of sugar. Given the typical scientific theory uses (if I remember this correctly; I might be off) a minimum of 150 assumptions just to begin with and typically adds dozens more on top of that, the counting of assumptions is impractical at best; typically, any counting of assumptions is left only to the major assumptions, all the while ignoring the more common ones due to those more common ones typically being essential for science to even work. So far, those assumptions work; however, they remain both untested and untestable at this time, so science typically ignores the idea that they might not work due to inability to actually gather data on the subject.
If I were arguing to be arguing, I would just start a thread on paladin restrictions and state they should be done away with. I wouldn't spend all of this time looking up dictionary definitions, term definitions, news stories, and citing passages from a science summary document. It's far too much work.
I am arguing because I am hoping to refine my knowledge. However, to date, that isn't working. Which is making me sigh. I hate it when I come up with something that isn't refuted. It irks me for months. It implies the flaw in the logic that I feel is there isn't a flaw at all, and the part of myself dedicated to ego regulation will be driven nuts by it.
It implies the flaw in the logic that I feel is there isn't a flaw at all
All of the implications seem to be at odds with your feeling.
And, grammar-wise, it's still a number of assumptions, because each assumption is a discrete unit. We don't have words for aggregate masses of assumptions or fractional assumptions, so "amount" cannot be applied to them. Regardless of how impractical it is to count grains of sugar, it can be done, so you have a number of grains of sugar. You only have an "amount" of sugar when dealing with other units: cups, grams, or whatever. And, yes, that would be a number of cups constituting an amount of sugar. English is a goofy language, but it's still the one we're (ostensibly) attempting to communicate in.
You have a point.
Man, this thread is a real knee-slapper.
Man, this thread is a real knee-slapper.
+1. Boggles the mind.
So Tesla "released" some patents to the public. This is meaningless in law as the company has not formally dedicated the patents to the public by way of filing the appropriate papers at the USPTO, or at the Patent Offices of any other countries in which the patents have counterparts.
Maybe Tesla's strategy is to gull some people into using their technology so that Tesla can sue them later?
Or filing paperwork takes time and they announced their intention to get the good press release now.
Do you always assume malice when laziness would suffice?
So Tesla "released" some patents to the public. This is meaningless in law as the company has not formally dedicated the patents to the public by way of filing the appropriate papers at the USPTO, or at the Patent Offices of any other countries in which the patents have counterparts.
Maybe Tesla's strategy is to gull some people into using their technology so that Tesla can sue them later?
Read the blog post again. They "release" them for all to use in the spirit of Open Source philosophy and won't sue anyone as long as people play by those rules - the "in good faith" stipulation (e.g. don't try to patent anything derived from them and counter-sue others due to this).
Read the blog post again. They "release" them for all to use in the spirit of Open Source philosophy and won't sue anyone as long as people play by those rules - the "in good faith" stipulation (e.g. don't try to patent anything derived from them and counter-sue others due to this).So Tesla "released" some patents to the public. This is meaningless in law as the company has not formally dedicated the patents to the public by way of filing the appropriate papers at the USPTO, or at the Patent Offices of any other countries in which the patents have counterparts.
Maybe Tesla's strategy is to gull some people into using their technology so that Tesla can sue them later?
But is any of that legally binding?
Could they wait until someone develops a car using their patents and then "unrelease" them?
I'm pretty sure public statements that you wont sue anyone using them in good faith would be considered legally binding. It is effectively a verbal contract made publicly.
Here is a link to the sort of thing you can do to augment the range of your EV when needed.
Just plug in this tender, and shazam ! Your compact 15 K$ EV car has the autonomy of a quite more expensive Tesla. It's not yet available, but would be rented 10 € (12$) a day, with an additionnal 9$ fee per hour of effective use.
It's the sort of thing that could be useful if you only do long-range travels for vacations, or no more than once a month.
I'm pretty sure public statements that you wont sue anyone using them in good faith would be considered legally binding. It is effectively a verbal contract made publicly.Read the blog post again. They "release" them for all to use in the spirit of Open Source philosophy and won't sue anyone as long as people play by those rules - the "in good faith" stipulation (e.g. don't try to patent anything derived from them and counter-sue others due to this).So Tesla "released" some patents to the public. This is meaningless in law as the company has not formally dedicated the patents to the public by way of filing the appropriate papers at the USPTO, or at the Patent Offices of any other countries in which the patents have counterparts.
Maybe Tesla's strategy is to gull some people into using their technology so that Tesla can sue them later?
But is any of that legally binding?
Could they wait until someone develops a car using their patents and then "unrelease" them?
The magic words are "promissory estoppel." This should be a particularly clear-cut example because both the existence and the terms of the promise are public.
Of course, some disclaimers apply. None of the above is meant as legal advice, different jurisdictions have different interpretations, Google is not a substitute for an expensive Harvard Law School education, not all buyers will qualify for the best rates, you should see your dentist twice a year, keeping your tires properly inflated will improve your gas mileage, and most importantly, tell your family that you love them at least once a day. And don't base important business decisions on what an illithid on the Internet types.
Here is a link to the sort of thing you can do to augment the range of your EV when needed.
Just plug in this tender, and shazam ! Your compact 15 K$ EV car has the autonomy of a quite more expensive Tesla. It's not yet available, but would be rented 10 € (12$) a day, with an additionnal 9$ fee per hour of effective use.
That seems expensive (I can rent an actual gasoline car for that money), but I'm sure the price will come down in time. Alternatively, it seems simply to be a gasoline generator, which I can buy myself for about a thousand dollars (apparently the Tesla Roadster draws about 13 kW, which is big but not unreasonable for a towed generator. A Nissan Leaf draws less than 4 kW, which I can pick up for less than $500 US).
That seems expensive (I can rent an actual gasoline car for that money), but I'm sure the price will come down in time. Alternatively, it seems simply to be a gasoline generator, which I can buy myself for about a thousand dollars (apparently the Tesla Roadster draws about 13 kW, which is big but not unreasonable for a towed generator. A Nissan Leaf draws less than 4 kW, which I can pick up for less than $500 US).Here is a link to the sort of thing you can do to augment the range of your EV when needed.
Just plug in this tender, and shazam ! Your compact 15 K$ EV car has the autonomy of a quite more expensive Tesla. It's not yet available, but would be rented 10 € (12$) a day, with an additionnal 9$ fee per hour of effective use.
Renting a car costs much more than 12$ here (with a rapid search I got prices three to five times that, mostly with a limited mileage).
If renting a car is dirt cheap in the USA, I suppose this kind of apparatus makes no economic sense.
Also, if you put a gasoline generator in your trunk, you would have to find another place or your luggage and learn to drive with open windows (or holding your breath...) :)
I think we would be more likely to see hotswapping batteries in the near future.
I think we would be more likely to see hotswapping batteries in the near future.
Or liquid ones : just drain the used up liquid, pour in a fully charged one, and zoom away !
For the moment, they have much less energy density though.
Yeah, but it's not $12/day, it's $12, plus $9/hr of drive time. You'd need this for long hauls, so no limited mileage and you'd probably be putting quite a few hours of driving time on it.
Doing some math, the gadget officially gives you about a 600km range, so call it 400 miles. That's between six and eight hours driving time depending upon conditions (and also upon speed); given that EV proponents always assume low driving speeds, I'd probably call it closer to eight than to six.
So that's a base $12 fee plus $72/day in hourly fees is $84/day. Simply opening the local Enterprise site suggests I could get a full-size car for less than $40.
Now, if I simply wanted to rent this toy for a week-long trip to Grandma's house, so the idea was I would use this to drive there and back, but not use it during the week, I'd only have to pay the hourly fee two days out of seven, and it's not as expensive.
Having said this, I'm sure that the price could and would go down with economies of scale and competition. Right now, it looks like the breakeven point on costs is about ten days of use (e.g., if I take a two-day trip every other month, I'd be better off in year 1 buying a generator and a cheap trailer). This means that if demand were there, every lawn mower store will also sell generators mounted on cheap trailers, which means the company will probably need/want to lower prices.
Keep in mind that towing an electric generator behind the car is going to reduce energy efficiency; in other words, it will need to use more electricity to keep up to the same speeds as when you don't have the trailer.
Also, wouldn't towing around a gasoline-burning controlled-combustion power source defeat the purpose of buying a car that doesn't use a gasoline-burning controlled-combustion power source?