[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Buffet on the surface appears to be a hypocrite; having exploited capitalism to his benefit while preaching socialism. That said, I tend to believe the conviction of what he says; that he'd be fine living in the wealth redistributed and lower output economy which he advocates for. As an example, I was against the $8k federal first-time homebuyer credit, would have rather it didn't exist, yet still took advantage of it.

All products have end of life on support, and software especially has a shortened lifespan due to the rapidly changing nature of it. You can't get support on a Model A, either. What about all those screwed people that would otherwise be served perfectly well by their Model A? BTW- end of life doesn't mean a product self-destructs, it just means that engineering resources are no longer devoted to development, and "parts" will be discontinued. There's still the aftermarket to support popular products.

I've never read anything by Rand. Do you really believe based on my comments that Libertarians would welcome me in their ranks? I've been scolded on this forum for having comments that don't fit the Libertarian philosophy. In my view, being unwelcome in any extreme end of a spectrum is a sign that I'm seeking objectivism and not religious devotion to a group.

Compasion not tempered by reason is counterproductive to the purpose of compassion. It's the overprotective mom (or dad), and overprotective government, or counterproductive "help" that enables bad behavior and dependency rather than seeing bad behavior as the enemy of the person. Sympathy for tragedy does not necessary require action. If someone falls to their death from the 5th floor of a building, I can feel terrible while not demanding that all buildings be ground level and no higher.

We have some delusion that with proper regulation, we can solve every problem. We're all destined to tragedy and death regardless of advancements. Absolutely everything in this universe is temporary, and will fade to oblivion.

... and you're catching on to my proclivity towards sarcasm. My trolling is intended to elicit an examined response. There's no point in complaining about something without advocating as specifically as possible how things could be better. Since I'm no subject matter expert, the extent of my "solution" is for the government to identify the maximum acceptable level of emissions, and implement taxation at a rate that will bring them safely below that level. I'm always prompting for your specific solutions, but instead get vague replies like treating GW like WWII.



If the BNSF railroad loads of coal stopped altogether, there would be no measurable benefit in terms of forestalling global warming, or measuring fewer ppm of CO2. Your prophetic predictions may come true, but giving a more precise time frame and way to tell when the prediction has come true would lend credence to it. Something like, "by 2025, there will be a per capita increase in mortality due to malnutrition".

It's difficult to generally be worried, and easy to be specifically worried.

I've given you specifics before.I never got any feedback.What would be the point?
I can waste my time elsewhere.