151 comments on Clinton's New Energy and Climate Policy
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
151 comments on Clinton's New Energy and Climate Policy
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Pessimism of the Intellect; Optimism of the Will.”
—Antonio Gramsci
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
Do you have a point you'd like to make? I do not understand your complaint about software costs. Why would anyone buy software?
Buying support on software, I can understand. But pay for software that is defective by design?
Because not all valuable software is free.
Because not all non-free software is defective by design.
And, sometimes, defective software is the best there is, and is better than nothing.
You sound like you're parroting the standard anti-Microsoft line; there's a world of non-free software outside of Windows and Office.
Because not all valuable software is free.
Huh? What are you trying to say?
And, sometimes, defective software is the best there is, and is better than nothing.
Having nothing or having something that is broken and defective, and you are claiming that it is better to use a broken tool?
Interesting view - that one should pay for crap.
You sound like you're parroting the standard anti-Microsoft line;
You just keep taking a swing and missing in this thread. 1st on small business, now this.
I'm answering your question.
People buy software because they find pieces of software which (a) have value to them, and (b) are for sale. Not all pieces of software are both (i.e., software might not have value and/or might be free rather than for sale), but for many people software exists which is indeed both.
Sometimes, yes.
A few years ago, used OpenOffice's spreadsheet to do some statistical analysis. It had some bugs in it that were irritating, but did not invalidate the result, and hence using it was better than doing the calculations by hand.
Or, for a more visceral example, consider a hammer with a broken handle. It's cleaerly a broken tool, but I'd certainly rather use that to try driving in a nail than use my hand. Broken tools are often better than no tools at all.
Interesting view, but not my view, suggesting you've misunderstood what I'm saying.
All I'm saying here is that if a piece of software's value is greater to a person than its (total) cost, it makes sense for them to use it. If that's not true - if, for example, it's so buggy as to be practically useless and is quite expensive, then my logic is that they should not use the software.
I suggest you re-read the thread, then. I haven't said anything about small business in this thread, so you appear to be somewhat confused.