Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (124164)	9/18/2000 7:35:05 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571245

Ted, I am sorry that you have such biased view on public solutions. It seems you have come to believe that only the private sector can perform a useful service and closed off to any other possibility. I don't think I said that. Just this weekend I was in the park with my wife and my daughter, we were wondering how the private sector would handle the need for parks. The world is waiting; actually has been waiting for some time now. [for fission and fusion] Fission is here, and the only reason we have the acid rain / asthma from burning coal with traces of sulfur is because of environmentalists, short sighted pandering politicians and scaremongers in the media. Because of this, there is a belief that nuclear energy is at a dead end, and not enough resources are being allocated to perfecting it. With fusion, it just depends how urgently we need it. Just add 10 years to the time the urgent need materializes. You don't think we are capable of making good mass transit but we accomplished the above so easily....spoken liken a visionary scientist, right?!! The difference is there is money to be made (doing what I described). Mass transit is a non-profit zone, and as long as it is, the odds for improvements are against it. At least in America. The US government at all levels seems to have this unusual ability of attracting the worst employees. Providing services to government is an absolute nightmare as well. Our company was invited to submit a bid for a government contract, and after reading about all of the paperwork needed, about invading the privacy of our employees in order to satisfy all the racial / ethnic reporting that the idiots in the governmetn requires, we determined that the additional overhead was more that the value of the contract, and we did not bid. In order to get a contract from this particular government, you had to sign that you deplore the current government of Burma, and that, in case you open a branch in Northern Ireland, you will give some special treatment to Catolics. I didn't know if I should laugh or cry as I was reading this. They are wonderful but they seem to be mostly focused on creating more exotic toys. Well, the future generation of AMD toys will be low power, so both of us will be happy. <g> I am too....especially those people who think humanity is all powerful and can heal the wounds inflicted on our ecology with the wave of a semi chip. <g> I think there is a "dirty" industrial stage that economies need to go through to become rich and clean. The US is past that stage, and we are increasingly richer and cleaner. I just don't know how the poor countries can make the leap without going through the dirty stage. Joe

To: tejek who wrote (124164)	9/18/2000 8:17:31 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571245

- Joe - "You have to look at both sides of the balance sheet. The costs of achieving the "overall good" can suck all the "good" out of the equation in this process. If the resources are deployed inefficiently, it means that these same resources are withheld from achieving some other "good" somewhere else, probably more good more efficiently." I am sorry that you have such biased view on public solutions. It seems you have come to believe that only the private sector can perform a useful service and closed off to any other possibility. I do strongly believe that private sector solutions are usually (not always) more efficient then the public sector, but I am not closed off to the idea that public sector solutions can be useful or even efficient. Joe does not say anything in his post that states or implies he feels that either. What he does say (and I strongly agree with it) is that you have to look at what else can be achieved with the resources. If you spend a billion dollars on a decently run government program that isn't based on a stupid idea then you are likely to achieve some positive results. Those positive results however do not automatically mean that the government program was a good idea. Even if there is no direct negative results (and there often is) there is the indirect result that the billion dollars is spent on one thing and not on another. The resources could in many cases have also produced positive results in the private sector most likely many small positive results as the billion was spent in small chunks rather then on one big project. These small but numerous positive results are hard to measure esp. because in the situation where you have spent the $1bil. on a government project they are hypothetical. The money was spent on the government project and not on other things. On the other hand the shiny new result of the billion dollar project is very visible and everyone can point to it and be proud of their achievement and use it as an argument to ask for more money so they can repeat this achievement even if it may not be as good as other possible uses for the money. But the oil is not irreplaceable! In fact, it will be replaced by another source of energy within our lifetimes. We can not replace oil and its many uses easily. It will requires numerous other resources to take up the slack. I believe it is better to use it efficiently so that future generations have "the real thing" instead of a 1000 substitutions. Joe may be optimistic about the "in our lifetimes" but in the long run it will not be particularly hard. The technology and economy supported by the use of the oil will develop and pay for the alternatives. As long as it happens slowly and when it makes economic sense rather then being forced by inflexible regulation. Much older societies frequently used wood as fuel, and for buildings and ships and such. Wood is renewable but not at the pace that they used it. In some cases there were local ecological disasters because of deforestation or economic disasters because of the supply of wood running low but in the long technology and economic strength and sophistication grew so that wood could be imported and then supplanted as a fuel. Later coal became a primary fuel. It is a very polluting fuel (at least without modern anti-pollution devices) and it could have (and perhaps was by a few) been argued that ripping up the ground and burning coal was damaging the environment and that we should not damage the world that our descendents will inherit. But the wealth and technology that burning coal allowed increased our comfort and our life spans and allowed us to figure out how to use cleaner fuels such as oil (or even cleaner natural gas), and develop ways to reduce the pollution that burning coal would create. The wealth created by burning oil has caused our wealth and technology to advance still more. We can see alternatives that currently are not price effective. In the future as our technology for exploiting these alternatives improves (and the cost of oil goes up as it becomes more scarce) these alternatives will make sense and will be implemented on a large scale. If we produce enough energy cheap enough then it might make sense to artificially create oil (if it is mostly gone by this time) to use for petrochemicals. There are so many possibilities out there. Fission is here, today, fusion will be here within our lifetimes. The world is waiting; actually has been waiting for some time now. Not a lot of time. Fusion wasn't even seriously thought of when my mother was born. I don't think that too much effort was put in to trying to develop it when I was born. If it takes another 50 years it takes another 50 years. That is not an extremely long time when you are talking about major changes in the world economy. In the mean time if oil becomes to expensive the supply of alternatives will increase and the demand for oil will be pushed down. The problem will become more serious if governments try to artificially force down the price of oil (increasing demand and decreasing supply) but unless that happens in a big way, the problem should not be catastrophic. You don't think we are capable of making good mass transit but we accomplished the above so easily....spoken liken a visionary scientist, right?!! Having a good mass transit system is not just a technical or even organizational issue. It involves politics and labor issues and the simple fact that people want the connivance and flexibility of having control over their own transportation. People want to be able to go where they want when they want by the route they want. It's kind of hard for public transportation to provide that. With enough energy and the technology of a century or two from now it would probably be easier to build things like Joe posted about, then to get people to act according to some big plan to promote efficient transportation and minimize pollution. In the long run, baring totalitarian methods, its is easier to change the physical world, buildings and energy supplies or even climate, then it is to change people. People are unpredictable and often stubborn. companies you invest in are developing technologies that people did not even dream about just a few years ago. They are wonderful but they seem to be mostly focused on creating more exotic toys You don't think there are strong practical benefits from these "toys"? Tim

To: tejek who wrote (124164)	9/18/2000 9:07:43 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571245

Ted... Re.<I am sorry that you have such biased view on public solutions. It seems you have come to believe that only the private sector can perform a useful service and closed off to any other possibility.<<<< Unfortunately, the public sector, including government and public employee unions have become so self serving that any concern for efficiency is dwarfed by the rules and job protectionism. It has gotten so bad, now outright bribery is called a political donation. Over the weekend, there were reports that donars to Hillery's campaign were given overnight stays at white house and Camp David. And this is for just a senate seat; presidential campaigns are worse.Politicians routinely lie about anything and everything. We seem to have twice as many strikes in public employee unions; and worse, during strikes the teachers union members have upbraided the students because the parents didn't support their wage demands causing a war between the parents and teachers; two groups who have to work together.. And their demands aren't going to stop because they have us right by the billfold and they aren't going to let go. <<<<<We can not replace oil and its many uses easily. It will requires numerous other resources to take up the slack. I believe it is better to use it efficiently so that future generations have "the real thing" instead of a 1000 substitutions.<<< This is true if by easily you also mean cheaply. We will not run out of hydrocarbon sources,coal,oil,natural gas, shale oil, tar sand. for 500 yrs. The problem is not running out but rather the cost of getting the hydrocarbons to market. Oil prices have been way too cheap for competing sources so far, and that is why we probably should have a national gas tax, in order to give alternatives a chance. We will need them eventually, why not start now. <<<You don't think we are capable of making good mass transit but we accomplished the above so easily....spoken liken a visionary scientist, right?!!<< Ted, finding other sources of oil are far easier than fixing the public transportation system. Right now there is no system that has worked. Even a diehard eviromentalist like Scumbia fled the country rather than put up with the alternative, public transportation, or a bicycle. Your occasional tyrsts on a train sound good, but do they really do that much to help the enviroment. Amtrak will be nothing more than a trip to the past, rather than a drive to the future. If trains hauling freight can't compete with trucks, how would a train hauling people survive. <I am too....especially those people who think humanity is all powerful and can heal the wounds inflicted on our ecology with the wave of a semi chip. <g><<<<< Many of the answers to our problem are already known; cost and politics keep us from implementing the solutions. Nuclear fission probably will have to play a bigger part, but the enviromentalists would rather live with smog from coal plants. Breeder reactors could clean up a lot of the plutonium in the old warheads and diluted plutonium in barrels from Washington, and power plant swimming pools. Tar sands and coal could provide all of the oil we need. But its going to take time and money. We need to start now, but alas, its not going to happen. We probably have a better chance of AMD going to the moon tomorrow (TM-niceguy), than seeing a reasonable start on alternate fuels within 10 yrs.