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: combjelly who wrote (317343)	12/27/2006 5:06:41 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1583523

BTW - I'm not really a supporter of the "One Percent Doctrine", at least not of the more extreme interpretations of it. I don't support the idea that any cost, any level of effort, is justified to stop a one percent chance of a WMD terrorist attack. Now a quite large level of effort may be justified, but you have to consider costs and benefits when your thinking about anti-terrorism as well, not just when discussing global warming.

To: combjelly who wrote (317343)	12/31/2006 4:17:18 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1583523

"What kind of logic haggles over cost when what's at risk is the world and its ecology as we know it?" What is the risk? Now if you take Cheney's One Percent Doctrine, then we should be all over this. But apparently that only applies to terrorism, so we should be more skeptical. So we invade other countries to the tune of maybe a trillion dollars or more on the off chance that it might reduce terrorism threats, but we need rock solid proof before we commit any effort at all to containing global warming. Rightie logic.....its killing us!