$43B was the total cost of the project. This figure is the amount being contributed by the government. Private investment makes up most of the rest.
The so-called blowout (about $1.4B, or 4%), is because NBNCo signed a deal with Optus to migrate all their cable customers. So costs will go up, because they're now installing fibre to more premises, but of course revenues will go up because they'll have more customers. Overall, projected returns increased slightly to 7.1%.
Doesn't stop the media jumping on any cost increase as a "blowout" though.
The first thing it would find was its own scanning code, and before you know it your AV system has decided that it is itself an unacceptable risk, and has self-quarantined.
Ludlam fiercely opposed the proposed data retention laws, but said he backed this reform to police power
Read it again; that's a paraphrase, not a direct quote. Maybe you should try and track down his actual words, so you can read what he really said in context.
Also, this law isn't about intercepting actual communications (they already have wiretap laws that allow them to do that). This is about obtaining ISP records - IP addresses and so forth - not the actual data being transferred.
I certainly agree that we don't want more online surveillance, and there's no question it will be abused. But in your posts you're leaping to incorrect conclusions like it's an Olympic event. Slow down, learn more about it, then your rage need not be so blind. And go bark up the red and blue trees, not the green one; they're a lot more on your side (in this at least) than the mainstream parties.
Maybe you should read a little more on the subject, rather than jumping all over a single out-of-context quote. From that article I linked:
[The bill passed] despite vehement protests from the Greens, who argued strongly that the bill was “yet another” unnecessary expansion of the Government’s surveillance powers in Australia.
Seems to me you should be pissed off at the Gov and Coalition, since they're the ones who passed it, while the Greens were the ones arguing against it. But I can see from your other comments that you're really just looking for an excuse to jump to some conclusions about one of your favourite targets of prejudice.
Actually, the Greens voted against it, and tried to have it amended to increase oversight, to narrow the scope of when data can be collected, and to provide a way to refuse data requests from foreign nations with inadequate privacy safeguards. These amendments were voted down by both the Government and the Coalition.
This is much less sweeping than previous proposals. ISPs don't have to start retaining data until asked by authorities (for a specific person), and they can't actually get that data without a warrant.
OTOH, it now requires us to give foreign governments (co-signers of the Budapest Convention, including the US) the right to ask for similar access; "international cooperation to the widest extent possible" with their investigations.
There's a whole world of content outside of music, and nearly all of it is still heavily locked down with DRM. Most ebooks and virtually all video content spring to mind.
Apple has introduced new products with lower resolution than the competition in the past.
But more importantly, when the iPad introduced the new 4:3 aspect and new 1024x768 resolution (that wasn't a multiple of an existing device), it required explicit support from apps (which generally involved a new purchase), or you got stuck with a crude pixel-doubled version of existing phone apps.
If this isn't iPad-standard 4:3, will it be iPhone-standard 3:2? Or will it require a third new category of apps? Come to that, if the new iPhone is a taller 16:9, maybe the iPad Mini will match that - and the rumoured 640x1136 resolution as well?
iOS doesn't have the most flexible of display APIs, so the choices seem to be "use a multiple of a current device, or rebuild ALL the apps!"
They really are everywhere, particularly the Ica/Nazca region. There are well-known fields like Chauchilla, where there's a few very well-preserved mummies sitting in a whole field of miscellaneous bones and fabrics mixed in with the rocks. (Side note: They're all sitting out in the open, with only a simple roof covering them, and even that was only added recently after a few drops of rain fell one year. The Atacama is dry.)
And then there are minor burial areas scattered all over the place. Our guide pointed out a few caves by the side of the road in passing, some of which had been partially bulldozed when they built the road. You could see human bone fragments mixed in with the roadside rubble.
Muller says only that hurricane numbers in the US are decreasing. The studies I linked show a trend of increasing observed numbers over the last 150 years, one of which correlates this with AGW, but later studies show that improved observation techniques are more likely the cause of the trend. No definite conclusion can be drawn yet. Thus, "scaremongering" about increased hurricane numbers is premature, and quite possibly misguided.
Muller does not say anything about hurricane intensity, as much as you'd like to think so. Emanuel 2005 shows that hurricane intensity is "highly correlated" with sea surface temperature, which Muller's own work shows is increasing, so he'd need strong evidence to the contrary to believe as you do.
Given that Elsner 2008 also observes that strong hurricanes are getting stronger, there's very good evidence to believe that the frequency of hurricane-related disasters will increase, and nothing Muller has actually said (you know, in words) indicates that he doubts this.
Well, it seems most likely that he is referring to the list of specific issues in the very next paragraph, of which two are about current and past hurricanes. But I won't repeat what I just wrote.
There may well be other issues he's referring to, but without any more specific quotes, it's pointless speculation.
Yup. And if you keep reading, where he mentions specifics (Katrina, number of hurricanes etc), it's quite true that none of those are being observed today in connection with climate change. His only point about a future event (Himalayan glaciers melting) was originally referred to by the IPCC report, but long ago retracted (science at work!).
None of which invalidates the linked observations & projections being made by climatologists, despite your attempt to construe that. What he actually says about the future is:
I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years... that same warming could take place in less than 20 years [if China continues its rapid growth]
I have no idea how you twisted all that into "serious doubts that hurricanes and other disasters will be the result". Preconceived bias, I suppose.
I know, right? I point out the distinction between what he actually said and your assumption of his views of the future, and I link to a half-dozen scientific studies that show your assumption is contrary to current observations anyway - all in one short post.
Of course, if you can point us at some future observations that you think might be more appropriate to the discussion, we'd all be most interested - particularly in where you got your time machine.
He's right in saying we can't reliably say today that this or that effect we just experienced is definitively caused by climate change (and few if any climatologists have claimed that). But he said nothing about future effects - and there is strong evidence to correlate climate change with increasing strength of storms.
This [advantages vs disadvantages] is a discussion that doesn't seem to happen much.
While it's true this discussion hasn't been covered by the media much, that's mostly because so many people seem stuck at the "it's not human-caused" stage, or worse, at the "it's not warming at all" stage.
But it's certainly been studied in the scientific literature. There are a huge number of factors that could go either way of course, but that link (though far from being a comprehensive survey) summarises a number of studies of both positives and negatives. Opportunities were also considered (alongside risks) by the IPCC WGII.
Evidence aside, it seems reasonable to assume that, even assuming equal advantages and disadvantages, the disruption of the status quo and the significant costs of rapid adaptation, both for humans as well as the rest of the ecosystem, would result in a net negative. We would hope to see positive results greatly outweigh the negative for it to be worth allowing climate change to continue, but that is far from certain, and the studies that I've seen tend to show the opposite.
The Yellowstone Caldera by itself throws off more thermal energy each minute than, converted to electrical energy, the world requires.
Contains a crapload of thermal energy, certainly, but throws off more than 2TW? Citation?
The Yellowstone Caldera is about 55 by 72 km, or about 4e9 square metres. Divide that into 2TW, and you're claiming that every square metre of Yellowstone is radiating a constant average of over 500W. Seems excessive.
Define "TOO LATE". Temperatures have already risen, so it's too late to avoid any change at all. It's also too late to prevent further rises, as the planet has been accumulating an energy excess for years, and will keep rising for a while even if we halt all emissions overnight.
It may now be too late to avoid hitting a 2-degree rise, which has been internationally agreed-upon as a significant threshold before things get unpleasant - but even this depends on how drastic our action is. Is it too late to avoid tipping points like the methane Clathrate Gun? Time will tell, but the process has already started.
Slashdot Mirror
$43B was the total cost of the project. This figure is the amount being contributed by the government. Private investment makes up most of the rest.
The so-called blowout (about $1.4B, or 4%), is because NBNCo signed a deal with Optus to migrate all their cable customers. So costs will go up, because they're now installing fibre to more premises, but of course revenues will go up because they'll have more customers. Overall, projected returns increased slightly to 7.1%.
Doesn't stop the media jumping on any cost increase as a "blowout" though.
The first thing it would find was its own scanning code, and before you know it your AV system has decided that it is itself an unacceptable risk, and has self-quarantined.
Ludlam fiercely opposed the proposed data retention laws, but said he backed this reform to police power
Read it again; that's a paraphrase, not a direct quote. Maybe you should try and track down his actual words, so you can read what he really said in context.
Also, this law isn't about intercepting actual communications (they already have wiretap laws that allow them to do that). This is about obtaining ISP records - IP addresses and so forth - not the actual data being transferred.
I certainly agree that we don't want more online surveillance, and there's no question it will be abused. But in your posts you're leaping to incorrect conclusions like it's an Olympic event. Slow down, learn more about it, then your rage need not be so blind. And go bark up the red and blue trees, not the green one; they're a lot more on your side (in this at least) than the mainstream parties.
Maybe you should read a little more on the subject, rather than jumping all over a single out-of-context quote. From that article I linked:
[The bill passed] despite vehement protests from the Greens, who argued strongly that the bill was “yet another” unnecessary expansion of the Government’s surveillance powers in Australia.
Seems to me you should be pissed off at the Gov and Coalition, since they're the ones who passed it, while the Greens were the ones arguing against it. But I can see from your other comments that you're really just looking for an excuse to jump to some conclusions about one of your favourite targets of prejudice.
Actually, the Greens voted against it, and tried to have it amended to increase oversight, to narrow the scope of when data can be collected, and to provide a way to refuse data requests from foreign nations with inadequate privacy safeguards. These amendments were voted down by both the Government and the Coalition.
This is much less sweeping than previous proposals. ISPs don't have to start retaining data until asked by authorities (for a specific person), and they can't actually get that data without a warrant.
OTOH, it now requires us to give foreign governments (co-signers of the Budapest Convention, including the US) the right to ask for similar access; "international cooperation to the widest extent possible" with their investigations.
There's a whole world of content outside of music, and nearly all of it is still heavily locked down with DRM. Most ebooks and virtually all video content spring to mind.
Apple has introduced new products with lower resolution than the competition in the past.
But more importantly, when the iPad introduced the new 4:3 aspect and new 1024x768 resolution (that wasn't a multiple of an existing device), it required explicit support from apps (which generally involved a new purchase), or you got stuck with a crude pixel-doubled version of existing phone apps.
If this isn't iPad-standard 4:3, will it be iPhone-standard 3:2? Or will it require a third new category of apps? Come to that, if the new iPhone is a taller 16:9, maybe the iPad Mini will match that - and the rumoured 640x1136 resolution as well?
iOS doesn't have the most flexible of display APIs, so the choices seem to be "use a multiple of a current device, or rebuild ALL the apps!"
VTOL drone delivery system? Don't worry; they're on it.
An excellent talk about it was given at Google's Solve for X.
They really are everywhere, particularly the Ica/Nazca region. There are well-known fields like Chauchilla, where there's a few very well-preserved mummies sitting in a whole field of miscellaneous bones and fabrics mixed in with the rocks. (Side note: They're all sitting out in the open, with only a simple roof covering them, and even that was only added recently after a few drops of rain fell one year. The Atacama is dry.)
And then there are minor burial areas scattered all over the place. Our guide pointed out a few caves by the side of the road in passing, some of which had been partially bulldozed when they built the road. You could see human bone fragments mixed in with the roadside rubble.
Dunno; how much coffee do they usually drink in the LoC?
That would be equivalent to 0.00277 fully-loaded 747s per Olympic swimming pool.
For sarcastic computers, I always liked Orac from Blake's 7.
By comparison, an average cup of coffee contains roughly 100mg, or a concentration of 400,000,000 ng/L.
Woolly Mammoth?
Almost as cool, easier to find viable DNA, and good practice (just in case).
Sometimes there's a third, even deeper, level and that one is the same as the top surface.
Like a pie!
may very well
There you go; pure speculation on your part.
Muller says only that hurricane numbers in the US are decreasing. The studies I linked show a trend of increasing observed numbers over the last 150 years, one of which correlates this with AGW, but later studies show that improved observation techniques are more likely the cause of the trend. No definite conclusion can be drawn yet. Thus, "scaremongering" about increased hurricane numbers is premature, and quite possibly misguided.
Muller does not say anything about hurricane intensity, as much as you'd like to think so. Emanuel 2005 shows that hurricane intensity is "highly correlated" with sea surface temperature, which Muller's own work shows is increasing, so he'd need strong evidence to the contrary to believe as you do.
Given that Elsner 2008 also observes that strong hurricanes are getting stronger, there's very good evidence to believe that the frequency of hurricane-related disasters will increase, and nothing Muller has actually said (you know, in words) indicates that he doubts this.
It's amusing, actually, watching people desperately reinterpreting the data or loudly rubbishing the messenger, all the while demonstrating even more strongly the same flaws in method that they're attempting to accuse the scientific community of.
What exactly do you think he is referring to?
Well, it seems most likely that he is referring to the list of specific issues in the very next paragraph, of which two are about current and past hurricanes. But I won't repeat what I just wrote.
There may well be other issues he's referring to, but without any more specific quotes, it's pointless speculation.
Yup. And if you keep reading, where he mentions specifics (Katrina, number of hurricanes etc), it's quite true that none of those are being observed today in connection with climate change. His only point about a future event (Himalayan glaciers melting) was originally referred to by the IPCC report, but long ago retracted (science at work!).
None of which invalidates the linked observations & projections being made by climatologists, despite your attempt to construe that. What he actually says about the future is:
I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years... that same warming could take place in less than 20 years [if China continues its rapid growth]
I have no idea how you twisted all that into "serious doubts that hurricanes and other disasters will be the result". Preconceived bias, I suppose.
I know, right? I point out the distinction between what he actually said and your assumption of his views of the future, and I link to a half-dozen scientific studies that show your assumption is contrary to current observations anyway - all in one short post.
Of course, if you can point us at some future observations that you think might be more appropriate to the discussion, we'd all be most interested - particularly in where you got your time machine.
what is attributed to climate change
His present tense vs your future tense:
will be the result
He's right in saying we can't reliably say today that this or that effect we just experienced is definitively caused by climate change (and few if any climatologists have claimed that). But he said nothing about future effects - and there is strong evidence to correlate climate change with increasing strength of storms.
This [advantages vs disadvantages] is a discussion that doesn't seem to happen much.
While it's true this discussion hasn't been covered by the media much, that's mostly because so many people seem stuck at the "it's not human-caused" stage, or worse, at the "it's not warming at all" stage.
But it's certainly been studied in the scientific literature. There are a huge number of factors that could go either way of course, but that link (though far from being a comprehensive survey) summarises a number of studies of both positives and negatives. Opportunities were also considered (alongside risks) by the IPCC WGII.
Evidence aside, it seems reasonable to assume that, even assuming equal advantages and disadvantages, the disruption of the status quo and the significant costs of rapid adaptation, both for humans as well as the rest of the ecosystem, would result in a net negative. We would hope to see positive results greatly outweigh the negative for it to be worth allowing climate change to continue, but that is far from certain, and the studies that I've seen tend to show the opposite.
The Yellowstone Caldera by itself throws off more thermal energy each minute than, converted to electrical energy, the world requires.
Contains a crapload of thermal energy, certainly, but throws off more than 2TW? Citation?
The Yellowstone Caldera is about 55 by 72 km, or about 4e9 square metres. Divide that into 2TW, and you're claiming that every square metre of Yellowstone is radiating a constant average of over 500W. Seems excessive.
Define "TOO LATE". Temperatures have already risen, so it's too late to avoid any change at all. It's also too late to prevent further rises, as the planet has been accumulating an energy excess for years, and will keep rising for a while even if we halt all emissions overnight.
It may now be too late to avoid hitting a 2-degree rise, which has been internationally agreed-upon as a significant threshold before things get unpleasant - but even this depends on how drastic our action is. Is it too late to avoid tipping points like the methane Clathrate Gun? Time will tell, but the process has already started.
"The end" may not be nigh, but trillions of dollars in climate-related costs are.