alt.energy.renewable

Fran wrote:
> On Mar 12, 5:27 am, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>> Fran wrote:

>>> Not necessarily. Perhaps those who violate will take the hint without
>>> sanction.
>> Come on Fran. Either there is enforcement or there isn't. What you are
>> doing is akin to being a little pregnant.
>
> The nuance is important, because even on the commons, there were local
> rules about how one used them.

See, rules, this has nothing to do with 'commons'.

>>> Indeed, which means that your blog is not part of the commons. Yet the
>>> general access given to unmoderated newsgroups makes them part of the
>>> commons.

>> Exactly. So thier posting is legitimate. And when you say, 'When will
>> the shills for the Global Polluters Club stop spamming our news groups
>> with disinformation?', then you are only expressing your personal
>> opinion in an interesting way?
>>
> Yes ... it's rhetorical.

Ok.

>>> There is a kind of governance of course. In some states of
>>> the US laws about cyber bullying and stalking are being developed. One
>>> can, in theory be sued for defamation. Criminal use of the medium is
>>> also possible in areas like national security, pornography etc.

>> Then usenet is _not_ a common in the classical sense.
>
> I don't see why not. What is targeted is behaviour.

Do look up the spirit of 'commons' before you pass judgment.

> Even in one's
> private space, the arm of the law applies. I can't use my home to
> engage in criminal conduct and expect indemnity from prosecution. In
> most cases, I have as much and as little indemnity as if my acts are
> in a public place. (there are some exceptions for acts that are
> specified as criminal when conducted in public but not in private, but
> the point stands).

See above. I have no time to decrypt your obfuscation.
>
>>>>> What about public roads? Are they 'our roads'? Does our imply shared
>>>>> space or owned space?

>>>> The use of the road is a privilege. The road is owned by the state.

>>> Yet anyone can use them. Pedestrians, even non-citizens don't trespass
>>> by their presence.

>> Try j-walking to test what happens to 'unfettered' freedom.
>
> That's true....

Nough said.

>>>> The
>>>> state enforces 'proper' use. The road is not a 'common' in the old
>>>> meaning of the term.
>>> Yet conceptually, the distinctions are moot. I need not have a licence
>>> to walk or ride a bicycle on public roads.
>> The distinction is clear. You can not drive on the road without
>> 'permission'.
>
> Well you can ride your bike.

Again, you can not drive on the road without permission. Why do you play
the dummy?

>>> The health of the biosphere is a top order concern...

>> It is for you. And I wrote about fisheries, air, and farming going on a
>> decade ago in other venues. But I have come to realize that humans can
>> not be 'tamed'. Do you have a car?
>
> Yes. There are two in our household.

And how much fuel, just for your cars, do you use a year?

>> And I'm not out to ask an obfuscating
>> question so much as to make a point. I'm sure you do your best. But I'm
>> also sure you use more energy than the average East Indian. Correct me
>> if I'm wrong.
>
> Doubtless. The average East Indian lives in circumstances that I find
> to be well below what is minimally necessary for human welfare....

Ahh, but they live. And you are on a pedestal. You really don't get it,
do you?

> I live
> quite a bit above it.

But bitch your head off. Do you see the hypocorism?

>>>> As far as biofuels from
>>>> crops, I think it is a sham. And I think that because of what the
>>>> numbers say.
>>> Well I don't believe biofuels are the whole answer by any means.
>>> Plainly, we humans have to start finding ways to consume less each.
>>> Biofuels could be a transitional technology, bridging the growing gap
>>> between crude oil availability and demand for it.
>> Look at the numbers and put crop fuels into context. Look at the cost of
>> food lately.
>
> It has nothing to do with biofuels, and much to do with the structures
> through which food is marketed..

Do show your study....

>>> They are, along with a number
>>> of other measures, a 'keeping wolf from the door' technology.

>> Real world, we will not be replacing oil with alternatives at any rate
>> that has meaning. When the decline gets going we are talking 1,2,3
>> million barrels a day per year. Economic growth in the world will be
>> impossible. Our economic system is ill fit for this epoch.
>
> I share much of your concern here.

But...

> I'm not throwing in the towel though. Australia has masses of highly
> insolated land, and masses of sub-potable water. We also have
> something called 'the great artesian basin' sitting underneath most of
> that desert....

I see, to hell with the rest of the world. Australia will survive after
3 billion die.

So, you are just like all the rest. Your own ass is what really counts.

Are you not special?....

Now, you should quit pretending you care......