Talk:Khazzoom–Brookes postulate
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
written as if the postulate were true edit
The article is essentially written as if the postulate were true. To claim that energy or oil consumption rose because of greater efficiency is to commit the post-hoc fallacy.
The mention of James Watt is a crude summary of Jevons' views.
Reference [2] is to a paper by Horace Herring but the passage cited is from a paper by Brookes - not sure which one because he has published his 'accommodation' argument several times.
I will come back to this soon and suggest a more balanced treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scepticc (talk • contribs) 08:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Merge with rebound effect edit
I have a new rebound effect (conservation) article prepared, which is available to peruse at reboundeffect.blogspot.com, and i covers the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate. I suggest a merge when this new rebound effect article is up.Murrayck (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
broken links to the proponents of the postulate edit
One thing that really annoys me in Wikipedia is the prevalence of broken links to articles about people mentioned in an article. Why are the links to the articles on Daniel Khazzoom and Leonard Brookes broken??? My opinion is that there should ALWAYS be a separate biographical article about anybody who developed an idea or concept that is deemed worthy of an article. The same goes for members of bands. The primary article should be about the band's music. Biographical information belongs in separate articles for each band member. Would it be possible to get a robot to create separate articles wherever there is a broken biographical link in Wikipedia? Links in red make Wikipedia look like it's been vandalized. It's like graffiti on walls.Tetsuo (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Khazzoom–Brookes postulate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202225930/http://dse.ec.unipi.it/~luzzati/italiano/didattica/herringefficiency.pdf to http://dse.ec.unipi.it/~luzzati/italiano/didattica/herringefficiency.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)