You seem to know more about this. I was involved in some R&D with liquid/liquid extraction of radioisotopes but don't know much about fission itself. Recycling is very easy though.
>Climatologists agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Yeah, no shit, really? that's not the issue here)
>EU and China are so advanced
>Drumpf just wants more money
>US will regret not paying trillions of dollars for literally nothing
I could be wrong, but it sure seems like you know absolutely shit about climate change and the Paris accord. From where I sit it looks like a do-nothing agreement (less than 0.05C impact over 100 years) that would have cost trillions of dollars for what, exactly? How does paying money to the developing world help the climate? Do you think all those 3rd world kings and rulers are going to use that money responsibly to combat climate change? I can think of any number of projects that would be a far more useful investment: solar farms, updating ourselves on nuclear fuel rod recycling like France does, improved/expanded fracking for natural gas, the list is innumerable. Why waste your money on Paris exactly? Please enlighten all of us why this is the best use of our money.
Nuclear is almost the expensive way to produce power there is. What is this obsession with nuclear? It only makes sense when you're prepared for massive amounts of taxpayer subsidy.
Nuclear is expensive in a large part due to the cost of fuel and waste handling. Both costs can be reduced dramatically by implementing fuel rod recycling like is done in most other countries. Currently we take the "spent" rods (which are still 95% fissible material) and dissolve them in giant acid vats, vitrified, and must be treated as highly radioactive waste for 1000's of years. Instead, we could be recycling them and producing only low-grade non-radioactive waste. We don't because of nonproliferation treaties, not a lack of capability. France uses nuclear as it's primary power source and already recycles its fuel.
This change, combined with safer and more efficient modern reactor designs could make nuclear far cheaper than it is today. Good luck reaching high penetration of wind/solar without a baseload power source. Nuclear seems like a good option given it doesn't directly emit CO2.
Nice link. The author of the article self-admittedly represents oil and gas companies and his sole link to the "devastating" costs of the agreement is a "report" issued by the Heritage Foundation.
In what way is the Paris accord scientific, exactly? Were you aware that the changes proposed in the actual agreement bring us nowhere near the 2C goal? In fact, implementing all of the changes in the agreement leads to a ~0.05C cooling by 2100 compared to business as usual using the IPCC models (95% of which over-predict warming as observed to present date). Source:http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises The rest of the 2C goal assumes as of yet unspecified regulations/changes. In other words, the cost of committing to Paris accomplishes just about nothing. Pulling out of Paris accord is a fantastic idea. Why would you want to take our shitty economy and chop it's balls off to the point it collapses so you can pay extra taxes? Why not spend that money on natural gas expansion, fixing our infrastructure, researching more efficient green power sources, you get the picture. You and everyone else needs to face the fact that green energy will NEVER compete until it is a good investment. That is the revolution we need, once we have that the world will no longer have to subsidize and will actually BEG for more green power. Until then, what you need to do is go to China and tell their emerging middle class they can't have cars, manufactured goods, energy, and all the other things that come with fossil fuels. Then go to India and tell them the same thing. Then go to Africa and tell them the same thing. Etc. Because if they don't buy in, you're pissing in the ocean. You just need to be patient: cheap green power will come, look at the solar cost learning curve. Module cost decreases by 20% per doubling of installed capacity. This will be the trend that ultimately causes a green revolution, not Paris. Solar will be cheaper than conventional power in a few years - decade maybe. Until then, good riddance to the Paris accord. Next we need to figure out storage, but that's still a ways off.
I agree with the post, he should have left it to a vote instead of going at it unilaterally, but who cares. The Paris accord is absolute shite.
Here's another idea, why not keep our money and spend it on developing natural gas and reducing the cost and danger of nuclear by undoing the regulations that prohibit fuel rod recycling. That would do more for reducing CO2 emissions than throwing our dollars into a U.N. black hole ever will.
Paris accord is a scam, designed to extract money from wealthy countries and siphon it to god only knows where. Good riddance.
On the contrary, anyone who is well informed should realize the Paris deal does just about nothing to stop or slow the greenhouse effect. It is aimed at reducing warming to 2C, but nearly all of the reduction comes from unspecified "future changes." The deal in it's current form would reduce warming by less than 0.1C by 2100 *if* everyone were to meet all of the deadlines and sustain them through 2100. You need to face the fact that the 14TW of power our civilization needs will not be supplied by subsidized power, we cannot afford it. This is what's going to happen: green energy (solar, wind, maybe even nuclear or fusion) will eventually become cheaper than conventional energy without subsidies - when that happens the entire world will *beg* for green energy sources. We're already on that trajectory, solar for example becomes about 20% cheaper for each doubling of installed capacity. It's called a learning curve, and the curve has been followed by the solar industry since the early 1970's with only a couple slight deviations. Same with batteries, which will be needed to store energy from intermittent green power sources. Give it time, industry will solve this problem.
Must be all that classical training. The two samples were as different as night and day to my ear. They should do a blind test and see how many people can pick the real vs AI composition.
I recommend anyone go to the TFA website and click on the two music samples, one written by a computer and one written by vivaldi. One sounds beautiful and one is repetitive and annoying. I correctly picked out the vivaldi one right away and I suspect most other people can as well. Machine composers are not ready if this is a demo of where they are today.
Read the other posts in this thread replying to grandparent. I think it's safe to say an increase in willingness to go into debt for college combined with availability of loans for college students is to blame for tuition increases, not a lack of govt funding.
Nope, sorry. I know that is how people like to sell it, but that's not how it works. State universities have their tuition controlled by a board of regents and funding regulated by the state and those states have been cutting and cutting and cutting. If you are interested, go and get the numbers from any of them you wish. Being public, they have to have their books open. Also realize it isn't like they can charge a lot and pocket the money like a private business. Again, the books are open, you are welcome to go and see where the money goes.
I work at a state university so I've seen it happen. Year after year the state kept cutting the universities' allocation. I don't mean "cutting the rate of increase" or even "not increasing it" I mean outright saying "You have $500 million less from us than you did last year." The response from the universities has been to make cuts where they can, try to bring in more private research dollars, and to skyrocket tuition. It turns out that the facilities, computers, materials and people you need are not cheap, the dollars have to come from somewhere.
Tuition has skyrocketed for *private* colleges too. Your argument doesn't hold any water.
As A Gen-Xer, I gotta say that the Millenials are doing a helluva lot better job at living than our generation ever did. Lay off 'em.
Instead of demanding better conditions for yourself you want the Millennials to suffer? I know that's not what you said, but it's the sentiment you're expressing. I hear it over and over and over again.
Reading and rereading the parent, I have no idea where you got that sentiment. Sure you're not imagining things instead of hearing it over and over again? Did you reply to the wrong comment?
You got it backwards, the cost of higher ed is high because student enrollment is up and the large quantity of federal higher ed loans. Think of it this way, if you ran a $1/slice pizza shop and all your customers started showing up holding $1 federal pizza vouchers, you'd conclude that you could raise the price to more than $1 and still get plenty of customers right? It works the same way with federal loans and college tuition.
There is such a thing as free money, rich people are proof of it. Nobody's job is worth millions every year.
Bullshit. There absolutely are people who have great influence in their work and can affect market valuations, profits, and expenses to the tune of millions of dollars and significantly more. Just because your job isn't worth millions doesn't mean nobody's is.
Accuracy of a test can be deceiving when the base rate is lower than the inaccuracy of the test. In other words, if the accuracy of this test is 97% and the base rate of arrythmia is 2.5% (wikipedia) then false positives will outnumber true positives meaning that if your phone says you have arrythmia, there's about a 55% chance it's right, not a 97% chance. Take 350,000,000 people. 2.5% or 8,750,000 have arrythmia. 8,487,500 (97%) will recieve a correct positive reading. 262,500 (3%) will have a false negative reading. Of those without arrythmia, 341,250,000 people, 97% (341,250,000 people) will recieve a correct negative reading. 3% (10,237,500 people) will receive a false positive diagnosis. The false positives outnumber the correct positives by about 1.2:1.
Yeah, except for that time when Russia lost 14 million lives in the fight against the Nazis and saved Europe. If the Nazis had taken Russia we'd all be speaking German.
Oceania have always been our sworn ally. If the security level around Macron's campaign was of a high level then it would lend some evidence to a "state backed super hacker".
Completely different from the MO in the interference with the U.S. election, which was apparently some trojan contained in a fake "software update" that the DNC admin fell for.
Then, sure, why not the keyboard is probably a plant. Or, like in the real world, Macron's campaign might have had the shittest security available (like the dude from the DNC) and the "hack" could have been some spotty teenager for shits and giggles.
Yep
Sometimes the simplest answer works... (probably worth pointing out that this doesn't weaken your argument against the shrill sounding GP).
The simplest sounding answer works sometimes, sure. But evaluating "what is the simplest solution" is no way to investigate. You have to look at MO, patterns, evidence...
Who's looking at this in a vacuum? You didn't go back far enough. The U.S. and Russia have had an adversarial relationship going back to the Bolshevik revolution, but the U.S. has always been the aggressor. We bombed Japan with nukes even after their Navy was obliterated and couldn't go on the offensive. Why? To show Russia our new toy. Then after WWII we formed NATO, which sits on Russia's doorstep. We made allies with Germany, the war with whom cost Russia 14 million lives. We kept subs and planes flying around Russia nonstop during much of the cold war. Gorbachev offered to give up their nuclear arsenal in exchange for limits on our missile defense, but Reagan refused because it would end his "star wars" program. It goes on like this. The U.S. is the architect of our poor relationship with Russia. You'd put it past the deep state to implicate them in electioneering? This is just another game for us to play. What does Russia have to gain by partaking in activities obvious to even you that would destabilize NATO? They're already panicking and pointing the finger as anyone could have guessed would happen, clearly Russia has not benefitted. But it's not according to Russia's plan, it's the U.S. deep state who wants two things: 1. Le Pen to lose and 2. more evidence that Russia is rigging elections.
So you don't think Russia has something to gain by a pack of Euroskeptics taking over major European countries? And this is hardly the first accusation laid against Russia in this regard.
And you don't think anyone has something to gain by implicating Russia in hacking elections?
Just how many of these hacks are going to have to happen before we all finally admit that Moscow is still the enemy of the West, that where it has no hope in hell of over economically or militarily dominating the Western alliance, it can try destabilize Western countries and the alliance itself.
Well it took 1 for you apparently. What kind of "hacker" doesn't know about VPNs and woudn't buy a new keyboard? The fact that a Russian ISP was involved and a cyrillic keyboard screams "fake." Nonetheless, I'm sure the "Russian hackers" will continue until everyone in the West is screaming for Putin's head and witch hunts are commonplace. Convenient.
What do you mean "at it again?" If you're talking about the U.S. election, the only "hacking" (it wasn't hacking) against Hillary was someone who guessed Podesta's password, which was "password" and stole their emails. The stolen emails are probably related to the sudden murder of former disgruntled DNC staffer Seth Rich, which was ruled a robbery despite the fact that he was shot in the back of the head while in his car and no items were apparently stolen from the crime scene.
I used to recycle all my depositable items, which used to mean putting them in a big bag and handing them over to be weighed after which you'd get your money back. However, in CA most places don't even take depositable items. It's such a hassle to get your deposit back that I started just dumping them in the recycle bin. Now I've learned that the city mixes recyclables with garbage and puts it all in the same landfill. Way to go, CA. Way to go.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to know more about this. I was involved in some R&D with liquid/liquid extraction of radioisotopes but don't know much about fission itself. Recycling is very easy though.
>EU and China are so advanced
>Drumpf just wants more money
>US will regret not paying trillions of dollars for literally nothing
I could be wrong, but it sure seems like you know absolutely shit about climate change and the Paris accord. From where I sit it looks like a do-nothing agreement (less than 0.05C impact over 100 years) that would have cost trillions of dollars for what, exactly? How does paying money to the developing world help the climate? Do you think all those 3rd world kings and rulers are going to use that money responsibly to combat climate change? I can think of any number of projects that would be a far more useful investment: solar farms, updating ourselves on nuclear fuel rod recycling like France does, improved/expanded fracking for natural gas, the list is innumerable. Why waste your money on Paris exactly? Please enlighten all of us why this is the best use of our money.
Nuclear is almost the expensive way to produce power there is. What is this obsession with nuclear? It only makes sense when you're prepared for massive amounts of taxpayer subsidy.
Nuclear is expensive in a large part due to the cost of fuel and waste handling. Both costs can be reduced dramatically by implementing fuel rod recycling like is done in most other countries. Currently we take the "spent" rods (which are still 95% fissible material) and dissolve them in giant acid vats, vitrified, and must be treated as highly radioactive waste for 1000's of years. Instead, we could be recycling them and producing only low-grade non-radioactive waste. We don't because of nonproliferation treaties, not a lack of capability. France uses nuclear as it's primary power source and already recycles its fuel.
This change, combined with safer and more efficient modern reactor designs could make nuclear far cheaper than it is today. Good luck reaching high penetration of wind/solar without a baseload power source. Nuclear seems like a good option given it doesn't directly emit CO2.
http://www.anl.gov/articles/nuclear-fuel-recycling-could-offer-plentiful-energy
Oh fuck off.
LOL sad. Also, not an argument.
Nice link. The author of the article self-admittedly represents oil and gas companies and his sole link to the "devastating" costs of the agreement is a "report" issued by the Heritage Foundation.
Sigh.
So you have no actual argument then?
You obviously haven't read the agreement. It includes massive costs to the participants.
In what way is the Paris accord scientific, exactly? Were you aware that the changes proposed in the actual agreement bring us nowhere near the 2C goal? In fact, implementing all of the changes in the agreement leads to a ~0.05C cooling by 2100 compared to business as usual using the IPCC models (95% of which over-predict warming as observed to present date). Source:http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises The rest of the 2C goal assumes as of yet unspecified regulations/changes. In other words, the cost of committing to Paris accomplishes just about nothing. Pulling out of Paris accord is a fantastic idea. Why would you want to take our shitty economy and chop it's balls off to the point it collapses so you can pay extra taxes? Why not spend that money on natural gas expansion, fixing our infrastructure, researching more efficient green power sources, you get the picture. You and everyone else needs to face the fact that green energy will NEVER compete until it is a good investment. That is the revolution we need, once we have that the world will no longer have to subsidize and will actually BEG for more green power. Until then, what you need to do is go to China and tell their emerging middle class they can't have cars, manufactured goods, energy, and all the other things that come with fossil fuels. Then go to India and tell them the same thing. Then go to Africa and tell them the same thing. Etc. Because if they don't buy in, you're pissing in the ocean. You just need to be patient: cheap green power will come, look at the solar cost learning curve. Module cost decreases by 20% per doubling of installed capacity. This will be the trend that ultimately causes a green revolution, not Paris. Solar will be cheaper than conventional power in a few years - decade maybe. Until then, good riddance to the Paris accord. Next we need to figure out storage, but that's still a ways off.
Yes, because paying trillions of dollars in carbon taxes to *maybe* lower the temperature by 0.1C 100 years from now is such a great use of money.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/05/31/on-paris-climate-agreement-the-president-is-doing-the-right-thing-the-wrong-way/
I agree with the post, he should have left it to a vote instead of going at it unilaterally, but who cares. The Paris accord is absolute shite.
Here's another idea, why not keep our money and spend it on developing natural gas and reducing the cost and danger of nuclear by undoing the regulations that prohibit fuel rod recycling. That would do more for reducing CO2 emissions than throwing our dollars into a U.N. black hole ever will.
Paris accord is a scam, designed to extract money from wealthy countries and siphon it to god only knows where. Good riddance.
On the contrary, anyone who is well informed should realize the Paris deal does just about nothing to stop or slow the greenhouse effect. It is aimed at reducing warming to 2C, but nearly all of the reduction comes from unspecified "future changes." The deal in it's current form would reduce warming by less than 0.1C by 2100 *if* everyone were to meet all of the deadlines and sustain them through 2100. You need to face the fact that the 14TW of power our civilization needs will not be supplied by subsidized power, we cannot afford it. This is what's going to happen: green energy (solar, wind, maybe even nuclear or fusion) will eventually become cheaper than conventional energy without subsidies - when that happens the entire world will *beg* for green energy sources. We're already on that trajectory, solar for example becomes about 20% cheaper for each doubling of installed capacity. It's called a learning curve, and the curve has been followed by the solar industry since the early 1970's with only a couple slight deviations. Same with batteries, which will be needed to store energy from intermittent green power sources. Give it time, industry will solve this problem.
Must be all that classical training. The two samples were as different as night and day to my ear. They should do a blind test and see how many people can pick the real vs AI composition.
I recommend anyone go to the TFA website and click on the two music samples, one written by a computer and one written by vivaldi. One sounds beautiful and one is repetitive and annoying. I correctly picked out the vivaldi one right away and I suspect most other people can as well. Machine composers are not ready if this is a demo of where they are today.
Read the other posts in this thread replying to grandparent. I think it's safe to say an increase in willingness to go into debt for college combined with availability of loans for college students is to blame for tuition increases, not a lack of govt funding.
Nope, sorry. I know that is how people like to sell it, but that's not how it works. State universities have their tuition controlled by a board of regents and funding regulated by the state and those states have been cutting and cutting and cutting. If you are interested, go and get the numbers from any of them you wish. Being public, they have to have their books open. Also realize it isn't like they can charge a lot and pocket the money like a private business. Again, the books are open, you are welcome to go and see where the money goes.
I work at a state university so I've seen it happen. Year after year the state kept cutting the universities' allocation. I don't mean "cutting the rate of increase" or even "not increasing it" I mean outright saying "You have $500 million less from us than you did last year." The response from the universities has been to make cuts where they can, try to bring in more private research dollars, and to skyrocket tuition. It turns out that the facilities, computers, materials and people you need are not cheap, the dollars have to come from somewhere.
Tuition has skyrocketed for *private* colleges too. Your argument doesn't hold any water.
As A Gen-Xer, I gotta say that the Millenials are doing a helluva lot better job at living than our generation ever did. Lay off 'em.
Instead of demanding better conditions for yourself you want the Millennials to suffer? I know that's not what you said, but it's the sentiment you're expressing. I hear it over and over and over again.
Reading and rereading the parent, I have no idea where you got that sentiment. Sure you're not imagining things instead of hearing it over and over again? Did you reply to the wrong comment?
You got it backwards, the cost of higher ed is high because student enrollment is up and the large quantity of federal higher ed loans. Think of it this way, if you ran a $1/slice pizza shop and all your customers started showing up holding $1 federal pizza vouchers, you'd conclude that you could raise the price to more than $1 and still get plenty of customers right? It works the same way with federal loans and college tuition.
There is such a thing as free money, rich people are proof of it. Nobody's job is worth millions every year.
Bullshit. There absolutely are people who have great influence in their work and can affect market valuations, profits, and expenses to the tune of millions of dollars and significantly more. Just because your job isn't worth millions doesn't mean nobody's is.
I avoid Google products whenever I can. Give me Firefox/Opera/IE/etc any day over Chrome.
Accuracy of a test can be deceiving when the base rate is lower than the inaccuracy of the test. In other words, if the accuracy of this test is 97% and the base rate of arrythmia is 2.5% (wikipedia) then false positives will outnumber true positives meaning that if your phone says you have arrythmia, there's about a 55% chance it's right, not a 97% chance. Take 350,000,000 people. 2.5% or 8,750,000 have arrythmia. 8,487,500 (97%) will recieve a correct positive reading. 262,500 (3%) will have a false negative reading. Of those without arrythmia, 341,250,000 people, 97% (341,250,000 people) will recieve a correct negative reading. 3% (10,237,500 people) will receive a false positive diagnosis. The false positives outnumber the correct positives by about 1.2:1.
In fact, there might have been no hack at all. It could be a "false flag" to distract from Macron's recent financial revelations.
But we have always been at war with Russia.
Yeah, except for that time when Russia lost 14 million lives in the fight against the Nazis and saved Europe. If the Nazis had taken Russia we'd all be speaking German.
Oceania have always been our sworn ally. If the security level around Macron's campaign was of a high level then it would lend some evidence to a "state backed super hacker".
Completely different from the MO in the interference with the U.S. election, which was apparently some trojan contained in a fake "software update" that the DNC admin fell for.
Then, sure, why not the keyboard is probably a plant. Or, like in the real world, Macron's campaign might have had the shittest security available (like the dude from the DNC) and the "hack" could have been some spotty teenager for shits and giggles.
Yep
Sometimes the simplest answer works... (probably worth pointing out that this doesn't weaken your argument against the shrill sounding GP).
The simplest sounding answer works sometimes, sure. But evaluating "what is the simplest solution" is no way to investigate. You have to look at MO, patterns, evidence...
Who's looking at this in a vacuum? You didn't go back far enough. The U.S. and Russia have had an adversarial relationship going back to the Bolshevik revolution, but the U.S. has always been the aggressor. We bombed Japan with nukes even after their Navy was obliterated and couldn't go on the offensive. Why? To show Russia our new toy. Then after WWII we formed NATO, which sits on Russia's doorstep. We made allies with Germany, the war with whom cost Russia 14 million lives. We kept subs and planes flying around Russia nonstop during much of the cold war. Gorbachev offered to give up their nuclear arsenal in exchange for limits on our missile defense, but Reagan refused because it would end his "star wars" program. It goes on like this. The U.S. is the architect of our poor relationship with Russia. You'd put it past the deep state to implicate them in electioneering? This is just another game for us to play. What does Russia have to gain by partaking in activities obvious to even you that would destabilize NATO? They're already panicking and pointing the finger as anyone could have guessed would happen, clearly Russia has not benefitted. But it's not according to Russia's plan, it's the U.S. deep state who wants two things: 1. Le Pen to lose and 2. more evidence that Russia is rigging elections.
Wow, gullible.
So you don't think Russia has something to gain by a pack of Euroskeptics taking over major European countries? And this is hardly the first accusation laid against Russia in this regard.
And you don't think anyone has something to gain by implicating Russia in hacking elections?
Just how many of these hacks are going to have to happen before we all finally admit that Moscow is still the enemy of the West, that where it has no hope in hell of over economically or militarily dominating the Western alliance, it can try destabilize Western countries and the alliance itself.
Well it took 1 for you apparently. What kind of "hacker" doesn't know about VPNs and woudn't buy a new keyboard? The fact that a Russian ISP was involved and a cyrillic keyboard screams "fake." Nonetheless, I'm sure the "Russian hackers" will continue until everyone in the West is screaming for Putin's head and witch hunts are commonplace. Convenient.
What story do you believe?
What do you mean "at it again?" If you're talking about the U.S. election, the only "hacking" (it wasn't hacking) against Hillary was someone who guessed Podesta's password, which was "password" and stole their emails. The stolen emails are probably related to the sudden murder of former disgruntled DNC staffer Seth Rich, which was ruled a robbery despite the fact that he was shot in the back of the head while in his car and no items were apparently stolen from the crime scene.
I used to recycle all my depositable items, which used to mean putting them in a big bag and handing them over to be weighed after which you'd get your money back. However, in CA most places don't even take depositable items. It's such a hassle to get your deposit back that I started just dumping them in the recycle bin. Now I've learned that the city mixes recyclables with garbage and puts it all in the same landfill. Way to go, CA. Way to go.
OK, but make sure to pay the 50% leaving town tax!!