Fossil Fuels have some key advantages. 1. Portability. You can take it, put it in container and ship it anywhere, or store it when you need it. 2. High Energy. You can get a good bang for 1 kilo of Fuel. Vs. batteries, or other forms of portable energy 3. Low tech maintenance. Fixing a problem in a fossil fuel engine is much easier then fixing a power turbine or a solar sell, we can use alternate parts if needed to. 4. Out of Sight or of Mind. Large Windmills covering the landscape, acres of solar panels, large dams... A lot of big infrastructure projects
It isn't that we couldn't go, however you need to know the tradeoffs and find ways of dealing with them.
The Elysium is not much about science but an extradition of our culture. Figuring it will end up the Haves vs Have Nots will be so split that they don't even know that they exist. This idea has been expressed in many ways for a long time. The problem comes down to the fact if you live in world with all the Haves... There will still be competition for the resources so they will still be Haves and have Nots in that sub population, then the Have Nots will try hard to have while the Haves will try to keep what they got, and we come back to the same problems we had before.
Could we really build something like that... Probably.. However it doesn't seem worth it, the Ultra Rich are Ultra Rich by not throwing their money away on frivolous things all the time. They are better off living on Earth saving money and having a good work force to control.
Well what would you store on your PC if you had a Terrabyte of data?
If you have more storage apps will find a way to make use of it. Less Cloud and more locally running. Is Cloud Computing a good thing or a bad thing now... I am getting confused.
The issue is partially do the emotional attachment we have towards our stuff.
We have a Mac We love our Mac, We have Linux we love Linux.... We like reinforcement by others that we had made the right purchasing decision. The stuff we tend to hate is the stuff we didn't have a decision or a personal investment in (Such as your work Computer)
It is very rare that we hate the products that we own, unless it is time to replace them, or we bought a lemon. Otherwise we have an emotional attachment to them and will rate them highly.
The problem I see it, is that we already passed the threshold. But we didn't know where the threshold was until we passed it. Now we just need to factor in how are we are going to adapt to the changes, not as much trying to stop it.
So I should be in a pure panic right now because of everything.
There are a lot of issues in the world to worry about. I choose not to worry about global warming, not because I don't think it is a problem, but because I have my own sets of things I worry about and feel like spending my time advocating.
I find that it is a big deal on how American Education puts such little focus on Math and Science, and passes it off as something that is OK not to know.
As far as I am concerned, if my cause got priority, the next generation would be better at math and science, be able to accept the findings about climate change. Then be able to put more pressure on our leaders to do something about it. There are too many people right now who threw lack of scientific knowledge fall pray to pseudoscience from say supporters of Oil industries, without seeing the major flaws in their reasoning, because they stated their "facts" so elegantly, and with authority.
I currently have a Wii I would like a new Console. the Wii-U sucks, the XBox One looked good until the fact that we need to pay Money to Microsoft to use a service, that I already pay a montly fee for, over an internet connection that I pay a monthly fee for.
The PS 4 does seem like a better deal. If I were Sony I would rub it in the wounds of MS a little more and release more features without the paid service.
Microsoft really dropped the ball with RT. That is the problem. They really should have added some PC Compatibility for some legacy systems. Sure you don't need to go back to windows 95 apps. But being able to run any.NET applications may have made it useful.
The Gates foundation follows a very methodological approach to charity. They calculate how much good you will get per dollar. The gates foundation sees the Cost of curing malaria vs. the Good of curing malaria is a good deal. While Internet balloons cost vs good is much less.
It isn't as much that Internet balloons are a bad idea, however the good produced from it isn't worth the cost.
The problem we have now is trying to make personal creativity profitable again.
The Copyrights and Patents were the way to solve the problem historically. The person was creative and made something they had rights to the idea. This was all fine and good because printing information or making stuff was hard, and we needed a lot of capital do such. So the creative person gets paid by the idea with the price built into the cost of producing.
The cost to produce has gotten cheaper and easier, and all we need is a digital copy of the idea and we are good to go. Supply and Demand economics has broken down. Supply has reached such a high number, that demand doesn't matter anymore, thus the cost for the information is near 0.
Copyrights and Patents and other legal stuff is a way to create an artificial price. However when natural Supply and Demand and price don't mix we get black market, the more black market for the amount of the price is off. Hence piracy.
We have a problem now. Creative Professionals needs to make a living, however the price of their ideas have reached free. So we need to really think of how to reward creative professionals. Right now we have Advertising (Add banners and popups), Begging (Asking for donation), and trying to sell a physical product that people still cannot make themselves (Quality t-Shirts, posters, toys...), sell services to support the original idea (Consulting services, concert tours...).
We hate adds, Begging (asking for donations) doesn't work if you idea while valuable isn't popular enough, selling a physical product doesn't always work there are only so many t-shirts. and people don't always need support for the original idea.
If Creative professionals are not getting the funding they need to survive they will work in less meaningful ways where their jobs will be replaced by computers and robots soon.
Things rarely every go the way it does in Science Fiction, sure some elements come true however they are never so extreme as the story make it.
Mid 20th century Sci-Fi was overly optimistic. Late 20th century Sci-Fi became overly pessimistic. The what really happens in the middle, and for the most part when it happens we don't care too much. We are no where near 1984 type of world, however there are some small elements that we need to keep an eye on. We are no where near the Jetsons, however there are technologies in today's world we wouldn't want to give up.
When you hack an attempt to create fear and terror towards your group.
Terrorism is the attempt to do an action to make people fear you. So you can try to get your point across because people are so afraid of you they have to listen or face your attacks.
These Hacking groups are trying to do just that. So yes they are "Cyber-terrorist"
Yes it is. So are words such as Capitalist, Right leaning, Left leaning, Moderate, Corporate, Not for profit, Conformists...
If you are an Activist, you could be active in a positive way, or a negative way. If you are breaking into computers to make a point, you are doing it a negative way. It is akin to the same thinking as people who have riots when something they don't like happends. Where they spend most of their time say stealing TV's then actually protesting the problem.
Yes those hackers care so much about the Constitution that they immediately judge him innocent, and skip the jury of his peers thing, if this justice does happen, they will then attack more or less randomly at any target they feel like attacking to make a point.
Not actually like using their freedom of speech to say publicly protest peacefully. But just using something rather minor as a reason to go all crazy and damaging infrastructure.
As with almost any IT Project if you have a few high up officials determined to make your project fail, they will find a way to make it fail.
These exchanges should have started development right when the law was passed. However with all political posturing and moving from court to court, and the right bashing it left and right. It made it hard to get the project going. Why start the Supreme Court will knock it down.
So in essence due to politics, not that the rule was good or not, but because of the back stabbing nature of our current political climate. Is why these things didn't come into play.
If the owner doesn't want the product, unless they are of good moral code, they will find a way to make it fail so they can say I told you so.
Gun ownership isn't as much as a Right vs Left thing, but more towards where people live. Urban vs Rural. Also Urban vs Rural is tied to the Right vs Left thing.
Democrats in more Rural areas tend to have High NRA ratings, Republicans form Urban areas tend to have lower ones.
However most Republicans come from Rural Areas and Democrats come from Urban areas.
If you live in an Urban Area, You need and see government assistance every day. Sewer/Water, Garbage Pickup, Police/Fire that less then a few minutes away... You really don't need a Gun if you live in Urban area, it really would just get you into more trouble then it will help you, if you are in danger you call the police and they can get there fast enough to help.
If you live in an Rural Area. Most of the government assistance goes to farmers, but You need to have your own wells, you need to buy from a private garbage company or drop your stuff off at the dump, Volunteer Fire, that could add 30 minutes to respond. Police that is disperse and could take a while to respond too. Having a gun, is more of a useful tool, and chances are you are not getting into trouble with it.
I live in a Rural Area and I do not own a gun. However many of my neighbors do, and it really doesn't bother me, I am fully comfortable going up to them with a riffle in their hands and talking to them.
One of the reasons why lead is popular is that amateurs can cast their own bullets with a steel pan and heat from a camping stove.
You take the old bullets clean them. Melt them down put them into molds and let them cool put new caps on them, and you are all set. If you are doing black powder shooting you don't even need the caps.
There are a lot of factors involved. Paper qualification is only part of it. Chances are they probably got the feeling that this person is a litigious bastard and didn't want them in the company. Also there is the idea of being Over Qualified meaning you will work in the job until something better comes along and you are gone at a moment notice. Sometimes you want to hire someone who is less qualified as they can have a lower starting salary and you can mold them to doing things your way.
When I did hiring, I evaluated if the person could do the job both technically and emotionally. If I felt he couldn't handle the stress of the job, or would just rub people the wrong way, I wouldn't recommend him.
Slashdot Mirror
Fossil Fuels have some key advantages.
1. Portability. You can take it, put it in container and ship it anywhere, or store it when you need it.
2. High Energy. You can get a good bang for 1 kilo of Fuel. Vs. batteries, or other forms of portable energy
3. Low tech maintenance. Fixing a problem in a fossil fuel engine is much easier then fixing a power turbine or a solar sell, we can use alternate parts if needed to.
4. Out of Sight or of Mind. Large Windmills covering the landscape, acres of solar panels, large dams... A lot of big infrastructure projects
It isn't that we couldn't go, however you need to know the tradeoffs and find ways of dealing with them.
Science Fiction. Is Fiction. Not prophecy!
The Elysium is not much about science but an extradition of our culture. Figuring it will end up the Haves vs Have Nots will be so split that they don't even know that they exist. This idea has been expressed in many ways for a long time. The problem comes down to the fact if you live in world with all the Haves... There will still be competition for the resources so they will still be Haves and have Nots in that sub population, then the Have Nots will try hard to have while the Haves will try to keep what they got, and we come back to the same problems we had before.
Could we really build something like that... Probably.. However it doesn't seem worth it, the Ultra Rich are Ultra Rich by not throwing their money away on frivolous things all the time. They are better off living on Earth saving money and having a good work force to control.
Yes I will leave it to the next generation, however I would like to make sure the next generation has better tools then I do.
Well what would you store on your PC if you had a Terrabyte of data?
If you have more storage apps will find a way to make use of it. Less Cloud and more locally running. Is Cloud Computing a good thing or a bad thing now... I am getting confused.
Just as long as you compile your kernel the right way.
The issue is partially do the emotional attachment we have towards our stuff.
We have a Mac We love our Mac, We have Linux we love Linux....
We like reinforcement by others that we had made the right purchasing decision.
The stuff we tend to hate is the stuff we didn't have a decision or a personal investment in (Such as your work Computer)
It is very rare that we hate the products that we own, unless it is time to replace them, or we bought a lemon.
Otherwise we have an emotional attachment to them and will rate them highly.
Because pending DOOOOOOM is News.
The problem I see it, is that we already passed the threshold. But we didn't know where the threshold was until we passed it. Now we just need to factor in how are we are going to adapt to the changes, not as much trying to stop it.
So I should be in a pure panic right now because of everything.
There are a lot of issues in the world to worry about. I choose not to worry about global warming, not because I don't think it is a problem, but because I have my own sets of things I worry about and feel like spending my time advocating.
I find that it is a big deal on how American Education puts such little focus on Math and Science, and passes it off as something that is OK not to know.
As far as I am concerned, if my cause got priority, the next generation would be better at math and science, be able to accept the findings about climate change. Then be able to put more pressure on our leaders to do something about it. There are too many people right now who threw lack of scientific knowledge fall pray to pseudoscience from say supporters of Oil industries, without seeing the major flaws in their reasoning, because they stated their "facts" so elegantly, and with authority.
I currently have a Wii I would like a new Console.
the Wii-U sucks, the XBox One looked good until the fact that we need to pay Money to Microsoft to use a service, that I already pay a montly fee for, over an internet connection that I pay a monthly fee for.
The PS 4 does seem like a better deal. If I were Sony I would rub it in the wounds of MS a little more and release more features without the paid service.
Yes like those Linux Zealots, who don't pay a thing, however they don't get those features that "They done need anyways"
And most of the industry. Don't forget about say 85% of the people who use Desktops and Laptops.
Microsoft really dropped the ball with RT. That is the problem. They really should have added some PC Compatibility for some legacy systems. Sure you don't need to go back to windows 95 apps. But being able to run any .NET applications may have made it useful.
The Gates foundation follows a very methodological approach to charity.
They calculate how much good you will get per dollar. The gates foundation sees the Cost of curing malaria vs. the Good of curing malaria is a good deal. While Internet balloons cost vs good is much less.
It isn't as much that Internet balloons are a bad idea, however the good produced from it isn't worth the cost.
However you missed the cultural impact that the Jetsons had on a generation of people.
The idea of the Flying car, Helping Robots, talking computers, Tube based transport, gleaming control panels with a bunch of buttons...
The stories were kids stuff... However it sparked a popular image of the future that a lot of people wanted.
The problem we have now is trying to make personal creativity profitable again.
The Copyrights and Patents were the way to solve the problem historically. The person was creative and made something they had rights to the idea. This was all fine and good because printing information or making stuff was hard, and we needed a lot of capital do such. So the creative person gets paid by the idea with the price built into the cost of producing.
The cost to produce has gotten cheaper and easier, and all we need is a digital copy of the idea and we are good to go. Supply and Demand economics has broken down. Supply has reached such a high number, that demand doesn't matter anymore, thus the cost for the information is near 0.
Copyrights and Patents and other legal stuff is a way to create an artificial price. However when natural Supply and Demand and price don't mix we get black market, the more black market for the amount of the price is off. Hence piracy.
We have a problem now. Creative Professionals needs to make a living, however the price of their ideas have reached free. So we need to really think of how to reward creative professionals.
Right now we have Advertising (Add banners and popups), Begging (Asking for donation), and trying to sell a physical product that people still cannot make themselves (Quality t-Shirts, posters, toys...), sell services to support the original idea (Consulting services, concert tours...).
We hate adds, Begging (asking for donations) doesn't work if you idea while valuable isn't popular enough, selling a physical product doesn't always work there are only so many t-shirts. and people don't always need support for the original idea.
If Creative professionals are not getting the funding they need to survive they will work in less meaningful ways where their jobs will be replaced by computers and robots soon.
This Gun controversy is summed up in Start Trek V.
We outlawed guns, so they just fashioned their own.
Yes they were.
Science Fiction is not prophecy, it is a story.
Things rarely every go the way it does in Science Fiction, sure some elements come true however they are never so extreme as the story make it.
Mid 20th century Sci-Fi was overly optimistic. Late 20th century Sci-Fi became overly pessimistic.
The what really happens in the middle, and for the most part when it happens we don't care too much.
We are no where near 1984 type of world, however there are some small elements that we need to keep an eye on.
We are no where near the Jetsons, however there are technologies in today's world we wouldn't want to give up.
When you hack an attempt to create fear and terror towards your group.
Terrorism is the attempt to do an action to make people fear you. So you can try to get your point across because people are so afraid of you they have to listen or face your attacks.
These Hacking groups are trying to do just that. So yes they are "Cyber-terrorist"
Yes it is.
So are words such as Capitalist, Right leaning, Left leaning, Moderate, Corporate, Not for profit, Conformists...
If you are an Activist, you could be active in a positive way, or a negative way. If you are breaking into computers to make a point, you are doing it a negative way. It is akin to the same thinking as people who have riots when something they don't like happends. Where they spend most of their time say stealing TV's then actually protesting the problem.
Yes those hackers care so much about the Constitution that they immediately judge him innocent, and skip the jury of his peers thing, if this justice does happen, they will then attack more or less randomly at any target they feel like attacking to make a point.
Not actually like using their freedom of speech to say publicly protest peacefully. But just using something rather minor as a reason to go all crazy and damaging infrastructure.
As with almost any IT Project if you have a few high up officials determined to make your project fail, they will find a way to make it fail.
These exchanges should have started development right when the law was passed. However with all political posturing and moving from court to court, and the right bashing it left and right. It made it hard to get the project going. Why start the Supreme Court will knock it down.
So in essence due to politics, not that the rule was good or not, but because of the back stabbing nature of our current political climate. Is why these things didn't come into play.
If the owner doesn't want the product, unless they are of good moral code, they will find a way to make it fail so they can say I told you so.
Gun ownership isn't as much as a Right vs Left thing, but more towards where people live. Urban vs Rural. Also Urban vs Rural is tied to the Right vs Left thing.
Democrats in more Rural areas tend to have High NRA ratings, Republicans form Urban areas tend to have lower ones.
However most Republicans come from Rural Areas and Democrats come from Urban areas.
If you live in an Urban Area, You need and see government assistance every day. Sewer/Water, Garbage Pickup, Police/Fire that less then a few minutes away... You really don't need a Gun if you live in Urban area, it really would just get you into more trouble then it will help you, if you are in danger you call the police and they can get there fast enough to help.
If you live in an Rural Area. Most of the government assistance goes to farmers, but You need to have your own wells, you need to buy from a private garbage company or drop your stuff off at the dump, Volunteer Fire, that could add 30 minutes to respond. Police that is disperse and could take a while to respond too. Having a gun, is more of a useful tool, and chances are you are not getting into trouble with it.
I live in a Rural Area and I do not own a gun. However many of my neighbors do, and it really doesn't bother me, I am fully comfortable going up to them with a riffle in their hands and talking to them.
The lead can be recycled into new bullets.
One of the reasons why lead is popular is that amateurs can cast their own bullets with a steel pan and heat from a camping stove.
You take the old bullets clean them. Melt them down put them into molds and let them cool put new caps on them, and you are all set. If you are doing black powder shooting you don't even need the caps.
There are a lot of factors involved.
Paper qualification is only part of it. Chances are they probably got the feeling that this person is a litigious bastard and didn't want them in the company. Also there is the idea of being Over Qualified meaning you will work in the job until something better comes along and you are gone at a moment notice.
Sometimes you want to hire someone who is less qualified as they can have a lower starting salary and you can mold them to doing things your way.
When I did hiring, I evaluated if the person could do the job both technically and emotionally. If I felt he couldn't handle the stress of the job, or would just rub people the wrong way, I wouldn't recommend him.