Slashdot Mirror

After it fails, if you are lucky, your country's soft Socialism is rejected — as happened in Scandinavia, even if Sanders' fans don't know it.

If you aren't lucky, it is replaced by the hard Communism...

To sustain enough steam to power the world you would need, not unsurprisingly, the entire world's current supply of oil, gas, nuclear fission, solar, wind, hydro, etc. Because... that's pretty much what we use it to do (I'm excluding all losses here, for simplicity).

One you achieve fusion, you can literally power the entire world from 867 tonnes of hydrogen per year. That's maybe a shipping container full of hydrogen. Something we can pull out of the ocean.

For reference, we would need to burn 12 billion tonnes of oil, 10.4 billion tonnes of gas or even 7000 tonnes of uranium to do the same.

Pretty much the only thing more powerful is complete utilisation of E=mc^2 - merging antimatter and matter and capturing the blast. You'd only need 3 tonnes of antimatter to power the world in that instance.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/s...

Fusion, if it can be made to work, could power the entire world from one power station. Of course, that's not what would happen - we'd just end up USING UP all that energy and every country would have half a dozen of them. We'd end up synthesising rare materials and doing all the things we can't currently do because of the sheer amount of energy they require, rather than actually just settle on current usage coming from one place.

But it literally is an order of magnitude more energy than the nuclear reactors we have now, which are orders of magnitude more energy than even coal and oil, which are orders of magnitude more energy than anything else.

And it looks like we could viably do it inside the next century or so.

With that amount of energy, you could easily obliterate the planet, or fire things into space like they were paper planes.

China alone is responsible for more than 1/2 of the plastic in the oceans
As shown by Edgar, Americans are #16 in 2016. Not even close to the top of the most CO2 per capita. In fact, Americans went from #7 in 2000 with more than 20 tonnes to #16, in 2016 with 15.5 tonnes.
However, Chinese went from near the bottom, i.e. 100-150, in 1990 with 1.97 tonnes, to #41 in 2016 with 7.4 tonnes
By end of 2018, you Chinese should be somewhere in the upper 20s, while Americans will likely be in the lower 20.

Even better, would be a map showing which nations are actually taking CO2 serious and doing something about it.
Here is the growth/decline of CO2 per capita from 1990-2016. We see Chinese emissions grew by 5-10 tonnes per capita, while Americans fell by 1-5 tonnes per capita.

Caffeinated Bacon(Crimson Tsunami) quit lying you bloody git.

it could be easily falsified. Climate scientists compare data to models all the time to check how well the models do.So far, the models are holding up rather well.

Nonsense. They have had to throw away all the most alarmist models/datasets.
Some of the early ones were so bad the first gnat exhale of CO2 would have led to inevitable venus like conditions. They just like to pretend they never published those now.

The earliest of the convective-radiative models using accurate measurements of infrared absorption-- that is to say, the ancestor of today's GCMs-- was Manabe and Wetherald 1967. Over the fifty years of data since the model was published, guess what? the theory is pretty well matching measurements.

  https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/

  https://climategraphs.wordpress.com/2017/11/06/evaluating-the-prediction-of-manabe-and-wetherald-1967/

  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/19/global-warming-accurate-prediction-1972/

The U.S. was not the first to impose tariffs. Even if you don't like Trump he is 100% correct right when he complains about tariffs from the EU and China being in place for years that are heavily weighted against the U.S.

What you are probably thinking about is reading recently about China raising new tariffs - but that does not mean they did not already have plenty to begin with.

What you and others not familiar with the by now ancient world of tariffs do not realize is, just how weak a hand China has... they will eventually capitulate. Just as Canada did.

China Emits More Carbon Dioxide Than The U.S. and EU Combined
And that is before adding in the new coal plants that China is adding before 2020, which will be more than what U.S. does. China will then emit more than the entire west or what EU combined with 2x U.S..

Bloody gits like you have your head in a bog and do not care one bit about the globe.

what am i talking about? The fact you can buy tons of counterfeit goods from amazon https://www.forbes.com/sites/w...

but now not legitimately refurbished apple products.

RT other FA about this, fool. This is about no longer being able to buy from non-legit refurbishers, but instead only from authorized resellers.

Hopefully, Apple will continue to push on this, and get Amazon to stop selling all the shabby "Genuine Apple" Chargers that overvolt your laptop, Batteries that last 6 months, Adapters that are barely (or less) compatible (or just plain shoddy), cables that break, etc.

That has gotten SO bad that I don't recommend anyone looking for those items to look on Amazon. It really is THAT bad.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/a...

what am i talking about?
The fact you can buy tons of counterfeit goods from amazon
https://www.forbes.com/sites/w...

but now not legitimately refurbished apple products.

Amazon isn't "99% of the online market". In fact, it is tiny compared to Ali, which dwarfs Amazon, its closest competitor, with reported sales of $74.4 Billion for fiscal 2013"

Ali "dwarfs Amazon, its closest competitor, with reported sales of $74.4 Billion for fiscal 2013". And it's only become relatively bigger compared to Amazon since then.

The biggest part of online shopping is not happening on Amazon. They are becoming a niche player in that sphere.

Please provide citations to substantiate your assertion that any Tesla factory is failing to perform, or that Tesla has hired bad people.

From the 30 seconds of investigation I've found, Tesla does seem to be meeting production targets, although it has taken longer than anticipated. Tesla's production targets have always been very aggressive:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

Tesla does seem to be succeeding where many short sellers have been predicting failure.

The production facility in a giant tent in the parking lot was the idea of a Tesla engineer. That gentleman was recently promoted because his idea is paying off.

Elon has also personally hired the engineers at SpaceX, so he does seem to be doing something right in building and managing a good team, so your comment is a little confusing.

Are you sure you aren't just a bitter short-seller? I see that TSLA hit 355 today, nearing it's all time high. So whatever you think about Tesla's failures in CEO management and hiring, the market seems to be rather happy with Tesla overall.

I don't work for Sprint (or any ISP/network provider) but it really seems like a lot of these tests are specifically designed to find anything that looks like "throttling a 'competitor'" and as a result the vast majority of them are likely false positives or due to other factors. Remember how ISPs were "unfairly throttling Netflix?" Yeah, it was largely made up/staged, _by Netflix itself_ in order to prove that "oh noes!, we we urgently need strict net neutrality this instant!" (so Netflix could hog a huge block of bandwidth without any need to, you know, actually pay for hogging it), but hardly anyone bothered reporting on that part because it's not a juicy conspiracy by an evil ISP to destroy our network freedom and harm its competition, and that's the only narrative we're allowed to push.

Look, I can see some positives to net neutrality, but at the same time, I get really sick of people trying to ram it down my throat (and give ISPs an excuse to raise my rates yet again) because of alleged abuses, many of which have turned out to be completely unfounded.

And before someone says "citation needed:" here's one of the few that bothered to actually report on it.

No need to argue, we have data!

Samsung is rumored to drop the headphone jack in the S10

As far as I see it, OnePlus includes a USB-C adapter in the box and that's good enough. You probably only use one set of headphones with a headphone jack. Hotglue that sucker on and be done with it.

But, let's be honest... are people used to an open system like OnePlus - which encourages mods, releases the kernel source code, provides easy unlocking of the bootloader, etc....and all without voiding the warranty, going to flock to a closed Samsung phone because it has a HEADPHONE JACK? No. They're just going to go to USB-C headphones or wireless and be done with it. The headphone jack doesn't provide a superior audio experience. It just means you can use $2 ear buds you have stuck in a drawer somewhere. It's really time to move on

Intel, circa 2017: "We cannot figure out how to successfully engineer 10nm wafers. Our tick-tock strategy is stalled, and we cannot design chips that are any faster. What should we do?"
Intel Solution: "MORE CORES!"

Intel, circa 2018: "AMD just released Ryzen, and it's destroying us in benchmarks. Anyone figure out that 10nm thingie yet?"
Intel Solution: "Nope. But we did add MORE CORES!"

Now must be a great time to be an Intel engineer.

You should tell them that, what with the highest median income in the country. They seem to be doing just fine.

Meanwhile in Kansas. I mean, when even Forbes calls you out on going too far into trickle down...

I don't think anyone threw in the pot though. I think they smelled the shit-sandwich that would be tax breaks and subsidies in exchange for very, very few jobs. You need Scott Walker grad levels of corruption to get away with that. It's like the Olympics. It's a disaster all around unless you tell them to take a hike and make them pay for their own stuff like everybody else does.

With a simple quick search:

GM Calls For National Electric Vehicle Policy, Says EVs Should Be 25% Of All New Cars By 2030

That wasn't so hard now was it?

There are levels of prison, some don't even have fences.

https://www.forbes.com/2006/04...

This guy is gonna find out how deep the hole goes tho.

From roughly 1940 to around 1980, the world did not warm; in fact over most of that period it cooled. There was a lot of concern in the 1960s about "global cooling" due to anthropogenic aerosol emissions, which is a real thing.

During of this time advanced in instrumentation, ocean chemistry (see Roger Revelle), spectroscopy and most especially computers allowed the development of models which would allowed climatologists to make predictions about the effect of aerosol emissions against other factors like CO2 driven warming. Those models predicted that CO2-based warming would overtake cooling by the 1980s. This is a particularly robust result because it correctly predicted a reversal in the current trend.

Now there are some things climate models inherently can't predict. They can't predict weather events, like El Niños or La Niñas, which are weather events that skew individual years or pairs of years warm or cool. They can't predict local weather events like cold snaps or snow storms. They can't predict the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in ten years, which depends on economic growth, technology, regulation and consumer behavior. But in general the prediction that rising CO2 correlates to rising temperature is quite robust.

They are already doing this on a regular basis to the detriment of governments every where. Currency speculation has become rampant and has a negative impact on market trading around the world.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

False. About 1.6% of the climate papers that Cook et al. examined were explicit in "man causes the majority of global warming". But then, saying 1.6% of climate scientists agree doesn't sound too good, does it? So just adjust the data - er, model - and then you can claim what you like!

So Google makes corporate net income from ad revenue based on UK users. Presumeably pays corporate income tax on that, yes? To which country? Ireland currently?

Is this going to be double taxation?

I dunno. Is it double taxation to tax my income when I earn it, then tax my income when I spend it, and by the way here's a tariff on that thing that you spent the income on? I'm mean, you're immediately equating an income tax with a services tax, so I'm merely drawing the same analogy with sales taxes and tariffs.

How is this any different from a sales tax on digital services that is collected by Google? The US got rid of the 'I don't have a business presence in that state" exception', but I haven't seen widespread concern over 'double taxation' regarding that.

The fact is, there are many sub-issues, as I said at the end of my comment. I didn't choose the one you like.

I agree that "conventional pesticides" are often "appallingly dangerous". It is a HUGE mistake, however, to restrict the investigations to conventional pesticides, in my opinion.

This article does some exploration, imperfectly in some areas: Yes, You Are Definitely Ingesting Pesticides. Here's Why It's Not A Problem. (Aug. 18, 2017)

According to the CPI The price of a cheeseburger went up from 80 to 81 cents in 1993 and then down to 78c in 1994. If you saw a 25% increase in your area it sure wasn't widespread

Generally speaking about 30% of the cost of a restaurant food item is labor So if labor costs go up by 15% it seems unlikely that would mandate a .25% price hike to break even.

If you have facts to share, please link to them.

First off - illegal immigrants don't have access to existing "socialist" programs. What makes you think they'd have access to new ones?

But they do have access to some medical benefits. Their kids go to publicly funded schools and they receive refundable child tax credits. Then there's the benefits they're not supposed to receive, but do anyways, since the burden of disproving their immigration status lies with the agency that's handing out welfare, and they're not qualified to do so.

Yeah, except it does not work the way that you want it to

" the F-150 is the best selling vehicle in the world by a long way."

WTF are you smoking fool?

Toyota Corolla, 40 million, from 1966 to present.

VW Beetle, 20 million, 1938 - 2003.

Ford F-Series (all types), 30 million, 1948 to present.

Source.

Forbes doesn't even list an F-Series in the top-13 best sellers for 2012.

Sure! I'm glad you asked.

Here.
Here.
Here.

Detroit one of the top 10 booming tech places in the US last year. Reminds me of the great Mark Knopfler line: "Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong"...

The problem is that some countries allow plastic waste in their rivers.

For example: Five Asian Countries Dump More Plastic Into Oceans Than Anyone Else Combined: How You Can Help (Apr 21, 2018)

That's correct, and water is also a greenhouse gas. Current estimates are that it accounts for about half of the temperature rise that we are seeing.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/rese...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/m...

Also, regarding how such a small amount of CO2 can make a big difference, here's a great article about it.

https://www.scientificamerican...

Wage growth is 1% account for inflation with the median weekly earnings up only 0.57% per year.
Plunged after the election? Are you blind or lying, that graph shows a nearly perfect linear decrease from 01/10 to 01/18; long before the election.
So GDP increased substantially but wage growth only beat inflation by 1%? And you think this is evidence against corporations reaping the benefits of the tax break without doing much for the rank and file why exactly?
DJIA/NASDAQ are up which is benefiting large investors, you're just making my point for me now.
You really want to argue that manufacturing is going to be anywhere near the levels it based on that growth? At the rate it grew it would take decades to reach where it was before the crash that started in 2000.

So let's see, your argument consisted of ignoring context, then lying, then listing 3 items that you didn't realize supported my complaint about the tax cuts, then made an argument that ignored absolute numbers, and to top it all off, insisted the facts actually supported your fantasy. Yup, that's a conservative argument. If you're already wealthy there's no doubt you're experiencing a great windfall in the Trump economy, but it's not trickling down this time either... shocker.

Obama was VERY clever. He claimed that 2% GDP growth was the new normal, and then triggered the 4% GDP to only happen once he got out of office. I tip my hat for his forethought

http://www.aei.org/publication...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/r....

The current big players in the car battery are in East Asia, with China rapidly becoming the dominant manufacturer. Some projections have China with 70% of the worldwide market within two years. With government subsidies and other cost advantages, batteries and especially EV batteries will be sourced largely from China. That other locales with cleaner energy exist won't matter that much. The question is how quickly China will ramp up their renewable energy availability. Estimates of renewable/nuclear energy production range from 20% to 50% by 2030.

"Some ... might ..."

Just more FUD from the petro and ICE mfgs showing how EVs are bad for everything. Sigh.

A slightly better read:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/e...

(disclaimer: I've only driven an EV for almost 5 years. We've got over 60K combined miles on our LEAF and Model S)

With a (reported) net worth of $3.1B Trump gets to move up a notch on the list of The World's Billionaires from #766 to #765.

Paul Allen was #44 with $21.7B.

And yet, we see that costs of electricity increase as solar and wind deployments increase. .

And the reason for that is of course Capitalist greed, you bloody fool. Not the cost of renewables.

Appeals to the masses didn't stop Einstein and he was correct in his rebuttal. And even your contention of 95% is actually false as the original "study" was highly flawed in methodology, to such an extent it should never be heard from again.

Currently we see models increasingly diverging from measured data, and the biggest suspect is the value used for climate sensitivity to CO2. Most models assume 3 deg C, but research shows it to be about half that.

Oh, and if you'd actually look at those linked pages, you'll finds lots of links to real published data, peer reviewed and everything.

And yet, we see that costs of electricity increase as solar and wind deployments increase. More expensive power is not generally good for people, and low cost power is key to fighting poverty.

Google is not what it seems by Julian Assange. Hey, remember when Wikileaks was popular? Before they started talking about Gamergate and Hillary Clinton? Then suddenly no one followed them anymore and you never heard about them again.

As Google Spins, So Does Silicon Valley. Google trained the public relations departments of many major Silicon Valley companies. The public relations departments control what information the executives hear from the public, controlling their decision making process by proxy.

Google leaked plans to censor the Internet for the benefit of foreign powers

Google and Facebook are working "to solve one of the Internet's pervasive problem: Trolls" with Islamists who believe that any opposition to al-Qaeda is "Islamophobia"

Google Ideas Invites Online Harassers to Talk About Online Harassment with such notables as Randi Harper, Zoe Quinn, and Rose Eveleth from Shirtgate.

Anita Sarkeesian's Feminist Frequency was part of a campaign to empower "Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities"

You do realise that you can do your own research, right?

E.g. some other resources that discussed the topic:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/q...
https://www.wired.com/2014/04/...
https://brendaneich.com/2014/0...

But there wasn't an argument to lose, merely an insight into a potential factor behind Mozilla's reduction in relevance.

Yours is the kind of narrow argument that makes me groan inside.

Given the enormous asset base (5.7 million articles in English alone, plus all of the discussion and history behind that process), and the public visibility and reach, it's pretty easy to slap a valuation on Wikipedia well north of $5B, were it commercialized in any way similar to its closest comparables.

When you're playing on such a big stage, even if you aren't commercialized to the full potential of your underlying asset, you are actually on the radar of other enterprises worth hundreds of billions of dollars. You don't necessarily need to throw your weight around (you don't have a revenue model to protect), but you also don't want to be discouraged from operating in your natural domain because you can't even afford the coffee, on the way to the limo, on the way to the fancy conference hall.

As a ratio to a putative (but defensible) capital asset base, the management cost of Wikipedia is on the order of 1.5% annually.

Oh, profligate waste! thy name is the WikiMedia Foundation.

As a net value to society, I would say the $5B valuation greatly underestimates the present state of affairs: permanently free leads to the virtuous circle of ubiquity, where the asset is repurposed in so many ways that barely anyone knows about, because each additional marginal use is too cheap to meter (the Foundation sees only the marginal bandwidth costs).

Perhaps its a paradox too great for your axe-contracted mind to absorb, but even a socialist utopia of altruistic knowledge workers requires an interface with the capitalist world where you don't get pushed around in every possible way. The price of that interface is not tied to internal models of the cost of production, it's tied to the external model of how you sit eye-to-eye at those tables with the power brokers like Google and Amazon.

Forbes Power Women 2012: #70 Sue Gardner

Wikipedia pre- and post-Sue Gardner are two completely different organizations.

When she arrived at Wikimedia, the nonprofit behind Wikipedia, in 2007, the organization had under 10 employees and was raising less than $3 million dollars annually. In 2011, Wikimedia's number of donors had increased ten times over, raising $23 million.

Gardner is focused on expanding Wikipedia's scope for readers and contributors, especially in the global South. In 2012, she partnered with Orange and Telenor, two European telecommunications companies, in a move that will provide Wikipedia free of data charges to millions of users across Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East.

Also in 2012, Gardner led the full-day Wikipedia blackout in protest against SOPA, one of the only major websites to do so.

Gardner's roots are in journalism, graduating from Ryerson University with a journalism degree and acting as head of Canada's national public broadcaster, CBC.CA, prior to joining the Wikimedia Foundation.

There are many corporations which pay $70 million to a single executive to drive those kinds of agendas forward in the world, and they justify this by looking at their bottom line, a line which Wikipedia does not have. But if you imagine a bottom line based on their assets and clout, you'd not be hopelessly out of the ballpark of multi-million dollar executive compensation packages.

News site to investigate Big Tech, aided by Craigslist founder — 23 September 2018

Now, with a $20 million gift from Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, she and her partner at ProPublica, data journalist Jeff Larson, are starting the Markup, a news site dedicated to investigating technology and its effect on society. Sue Gardner, former head of the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia, will be the Markup's executive dir

But, isn't it also true that the vast, vast majority of the polluters is energy, manufacturing, and transportation?

Actually, from what I read, one of the the largest single source of carbon pollution is cow farts,.

another link

another link

And yet another link

Some say they are worse polluters than cars.

Fossil fuel subsidies by the US run to $200 trillion a year.

If we spent one year of that on alternatives, we'd be fossil fuel free and energy independent by 2020.

The following year, we could wipe out the national debt, introduce universal incomes, revitalise education and rebuild national infrastructure and the space program.

You seem to have a few extra zeros in your subsidies number.The 2017 total was $20.5 billion. If you consider the social costs of fossil fuel use, it could be as much as $200 billion. Where did your extra orders of magnitude come from?

The IPCC is making objectively false claims about nuclear energy, and discouraging an effective and proven low carbon technology is inconsistent with their supposed goals. By adopting an ideological position, they call into question the credibility of their scientific claims as well, and risk damaging the cause. Pollution and environmental impact alone should be reason enough to phase out fossil fuels, but this lays a foundation for doubt of climate science, and an excuse for inaction. Similarly, advocates of renewables focus on promoting capacity and sales numbers, rather than energy produced and carbon abated, which are both small.

Attacking Nuclear As Dangerous, New IPCC Climate Change Report Promotes Land-Intensive Renewables

Well coal's future may be uncertain but wishful thinking on the internet will likely outlive us all.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

Globally, coal is even more alive. "Think the Big Banks Have Abandoned Coal? Think Again." Even a solar magazine admits: "China to add 259 GW of coal capacity, satellite imagery shows." For reference, 259 GW is more than twice the amount of power capacity that mighty Texas has FROM ALL SOURCES.

Now Asia - which accounts for close to 80% of total global coal usage - is increasingly turning to the U.S. to supply coal. We are still the world's third largest coal producer. The U.S. supplies both types, met coal to produce steel and steam coal to produce electricity. "U.S. coal exports increased by 61% in 2017 as exports to Asia more than doubled."

The U.S. has a 360-year supply of coal to bolster our expanding export market. The trade war with the U.S. however, could have China looking to expand domestic supply, and the country's coal production caps have been found to be "technically infeasible."

The fact is that both China (65%) and India (75%) are hugely dependent upon coal-based electricity, which will be needed in even bigger quantities to lift their low Human Development Index closer to those in the West, where universal electricity access has more people living better and longer. Can you really blame them? "The Statistical Connection Between Electricity and Human Development."

And the top selling EVs in East Asia - are not Tesla. And Nio already outsells Telsa in the high-end/luxury market in China.

Well, it has been almost a week since we last rehashed this topic, so let's do a review. There is no ONE criterium that makes someone a contractor or employee. The IRS has a 20 point checklist (listed below). Uber meets some of the criteria, and doesn't meet others. But it is a checklist, not a scorecard. So does that mean their drivers are employees? Answer: Maybe.

Since this is a California labor law case, and labor law outside of civil rights and unionization issues still remains a matter of state law, that checklist means very little.

Instead, to prove that an employee is an independent contractor, an employer must show:

(A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and

(B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business; and

(C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.

Otherwise known as the ABC Test. Does that mean that the drivers are employees? I'd take that bet.

Is this temperature graph showing the temperature data before or after NOAA's retroactive 'corrections' to the temperature record? It's curious that all the corrections make historical temperatures colder and recent temperatures warmer. Almost as if they needed to fudge the data so that the 'global warming crisis' wouldn't fizzle out in the face of lack of evidence.