Actually, if you look into even those sources, there is evidence of errors and corrections and possibly(though surprisingly little) tampering to promote one or another specific theology. I really wish more Christians would be brave enough to examine the sources of what they believe. I think it makes better Christians not worse ones. And honestly if you are worried examining the history and context of what you believe will make you stop believing, you probably don't believe to start with, so nothing is lost.
I'd say a better descriptive term (which allows us to include all sorts of people), is Single Issue Fanaticism. Siths... uh SIFs are not a reasonable people. Fundamentalism is merely a specific case of this disease...
I like Symbian and will be sorry to see it go. Never had a Symbian phone that wasn't robust fast and stable so far. Not an iOS fan, so my next phone will be Meego or Android..
Except that they normally make excellent hardware. My N8 has been stood on, dropped, operated at extreme temperatures and generally abused for well over a year now. I would buy a nokia for the hardware alone. And Symbian ^3 Belle is actually very nice. I reckon it could have been competitive...
Pity... Anyone know what the next best manufacturer for good solid rugged phones is?
The problem with a young earth creationist, is his faith is based on the absurd idea that the bible is literal in on all counts, infallible on all counts (usually specifically the KJV translation), and anyone who dares say otherwise is trying to destroy their faith.
Your average young earth creationist's theology is laughably simplistic and he or she lacks any knowledge of the history of the church, the science of textual criticism or even basic literary device. This is the type of person who probably failed English literature at school. You can not even reason with these people. These single issue fanatics place their faith in their theories, not in God, and as a Christian, I find that extremely disturbing. I personally have no problem with the idea of evolution at all, and know a lot of Christians who don't either or simply don't care. But then I luckily do not have to live in America. They'd probably lynch me for a heretic...:)
You miss the point. Completely. Poor you. Just because it does something useful does not automatically make it boring. I enjoy coding because coding is problem solving. The process of getting to the answer is as enjoyable - if not more so- than the answer. I have in the past solved problems that didn't need solving because it was interesting and challenging. Try not to be so cynical. You may enjoy life more.
You are highly cynical. And I think it clouds your view. I know all sorts of people who do all sorts of things just because they enjoy doing them. Sure they probably not the majority, but that doesn't make them vanish. Some of us even get paid to play with cool toys all day. Its not always like that, but I enjoy my job(both the process which does involve some coding and the enjoyment of seeing your solution actually work).
If there is one thing I've learned in my interactions with kids it is that you can't make them interested. No matter how many bells whistles and flashing lights you display. You can however encourage those who are interested.
Learn control theory and ladder logic. This is a highly challenging and fun career path. Though I've noticed sometimes traditional programmers seem to struggle somewhat with ladder logic...
In most industrial sites I go to(here in South Africa), reverse parking is mandatory. Not just from the safety aspect, but from the point of view that if the plant explodes you might get out faster(something makes me doubt this, but well...). Under normal circumstances, 100% here park forwards...
From my experience in industry, it is naive nonsense to assume that it will just work out or evolve. As someone who designs industrial systems, I'll tell you straight up if you fail to plan for the future now, you will screw it up badly. The fact is energy demand is growing and plugging a lot of power hungry(2 or 3kW minimum) plugin hybrids is going to make matters worse, not better. There is an energy crisis looming beyond fuel oil. And it is a big one. These issues need to be addressed now. Wait until you experience load shedding on a large scale. Then you'll begin to see what I'm talking about. Infrastructure doesn't just magically evolve(as you so naively suppose). It has to be planned. Designed. Constructed. Failure to think about this now, will cost big time later.
You also missed GGGGGP. The context of this thread is:
I know electric cars will generally be slower and have much lower range making the inconvenient to use but, that's not a negative that's a positive the more inconvenient the less people will tend to use them. So legislate compact, light weight electric vehicles and quite simply ban the toxic infernal combustion engine from metropolitan areas, complete total 100% ban.
In any case the scenario you suggest would still result in widespread blackouts if you got your balance wrong. Why not simply upgrade the generation/distribution system and perhaps implement a battery distribution system now? An electric car is attractive if and only if it can reasonably replace a ICE. At the moment the infrastructure is not there. If I want to go out of town in an electric car, I will quickly run out of power. If there were a battery swapping station every couple of hundred km where I could just swap to a new battery and continue my journey it would be practical. At the moment, the lack of infrastructure is the biggest issue in making people switch. Solve the important problems first. Don't legislate or ban things. Making electric vehicles attractive means widespread infrastructure. If there are only 2 places in a large city you can fill up your car, would you drive one? If there were no places on the open road?
Except they can not happen together in this case. Did you miss how reliant we are on ICEs? You can't ban them without doing serious damage to your economy unless the replacement and all it's infrastructure already exists... But go ahead, act without thinking. In all probability saner people will prevail, and you'll sit and rant. You call me uninformed? Do some math. The scope of work to upgrade a power generation/distribion system is huge. And unless it's planned properly (I.e. not done as needed in an evolutionary style) you are going to cock it up. I've seen this happen to a countrywide grid. I've also seen the value in good planning. You just give a recipe for disaster and call it a solution. While not all countries are equal, I am sure if America tries your irresponsible scheme, they'll learn the hard way.
Too lazy? I can't afford an electric vehicle, neither can my countriy's grid afford many of them, I travel a lot for work, and I can't live with the range of an electric vehicle. Or charging time. If we had, say a battery distribution system region (not just country)wide, electric vehicles were as cheap as ICEs and had the same or better range, I'd swap today. It is however simply not practical, and it is you who is too lazy to think abou the consequences of an added load on the grid. There is a huge amount of infrastructure and generating capacity which would be required for even the lightest road users to switch. But maybe these issues magically solve themselves. Just like goods magically appear on your supermarket shelves? Think a little. Because as modern humans we are very reliant on ICEs we need the infrastructure to replace them before we do so.
We're not talking about an evolution here we're talking about a major upgrade to a power generation/distribution system. This is not a small thing, no matter how much you tell yourself its an evolution. There are existing problems which should be higher priority than moving everyone to electric vehicles.
We are reduced to you making counter-claims to mine. I am not motivated enough to correct you by finding citations, but I strongly suggest you look a little deeper into these matters. Pollution does not consist solely of carbon, in case you missed it a memo somewhere. Additionally "this has been debunked" is not a coherent point. Its an unsubstantiated claim, with no visible means of support.
The facts, which are not in dispute are as follows:
1. Batteries used in cars lose a significant amount of capacity per year and therefore have a shorter lifespan than any reasonable ICE.
2. Batteries are more expensive to make and have a higher carbon footprint in manufacture than ICEs (or we would already be driving electric vehicles.), and will have to be replaced more often.
3. Distribution losses and losses in charging circuits/processes are significant.
Whether the marginal increases in efficiency from centralizing power generation justify these costs is a matter of simple maths. But I highly doubt there is some huge conspiracy going on. Tin foil remains cheap though, so, put some on your head. Maybe that will help?
No, you don't seem to get what would happen. Imagine everybody getting home from work at once and plugging in their electric cars to charge. Millions of people. Think about that a while.
In my car (2011), I get at worst 7.6l/100km (=31 or so MPG). It is petrol and probably produces less carbon than yours. On the open road (loaded), I get more like 6.5 (= 36mpg). But this is because I do drive somewhat aggressively. And you should note, if your vehicle is modified to run lean you are probably producing a lot of other (non carbon) pollutants. But your assumption about coming out ahead I think may be ignoring the little problem with the life-span of the batteries. A lithium ion battery can loose over 25% of its capacity per year. More under harsh (read fast discharge, high temperature) conditions. An electric vehicle therefore (or the important part of one) has an effective lifespan of 3 to 5 years. Your 1982 sedan has an effective lifespan of so far 20 years. Therein lies a huge difference.
And move all the smog away to where you run the big dirty radioactive coal generation plants because people are so scared of nuclear energy? Sounds about right...
Per unit of energy, those coal burning power plants are more efficient and less polluting than the internal combustion engines in cars.
So your argument doesn't follow.
More efficient? Sure. Less polluting? Highly doubtful. Coal is dirty. That is the way it is. Start doing emission controls and it will become less efficient than it is.
Besides, there's already plenty of alternative energy technology options. They just need rolling out. We're a long way from 100% renewable, but every percentage point increase is an improvement, and automatically translates into lower pollution from plug-in EVs that are already on the road.
Sure, how about we solve the problem with the world generating not enough electricity first, then add the new burden onto the grid of electric vehicles. Or maybe when demand doubles supply and distribution systems will magically double in capacity? Seriously? Have you thought this through? More electric cars now = more coal electricity now. Alternative energy options are there, but not good enough yet. Wind is unreliable. Solar plants only work during the day. Wave power damages coastlines. Whats left? Nuclear? People are too chicken.
I read somewhere that the batteries used in these cars have a bigger carbon footprint(to manufacture) than a normal vehicle over its entire lifespan...
No doubt you did. The automobile companies that are slower to get into EVs like to put out disinformation like that.
Having worked in industry I am inclined to believe it. Have you any clue how energy intensive these processes are? I deal in energy management software. Mines and processing plants are increasingly interested in the energy costs per unit of their products. And these products can be very expensive in megawatt terms to make. But to be fair, so are the components in a normal car. Much less so than stuff like platinum and lithium I'd say, but at least in my country (which actually makes fuel from coal which is to me a bit of a waste, but anyhow...) putting that load of charging on the grid, coupled with the mines and factories that run 24x7 would break the grid. Maybe your country has power to spare and you're just wasting it?
And move all the smog away to where you run the big dirty radioactive coal generation plants because people are so scared of nuclear energy? Sounds about right...
Fact is, if we want to solve the problem, we need to look at alternative energy sources before we start forcing people to electric. Otherwise all you do is shift the problem. I read somewhere that the batteries used in these cars have a bigger carbon footprint(to manufacture) than a normal vehicle over its entire lifespan... I'm too lazy to find you a citation, but I'll stick with my medium sized* engined sedan for now. It produces very little carbon and works very well for me.
*In this country that means less than 2000cc but more than 1000cc. In America I understand you guys love big engines, and would consider this small.
I find this to be the most interesting argument to go against modern scientific consensus. The reason I find it interesting is that intellects and scientest have known the earth is round for a very long time. It was mostly the Church and the public that thought the earth was flat.[dubious - citation does not support this view] The idea that the earth is round dates back 2600 years and 1700 years ago it was a given.
In your eagerness to bash the church and the public(I'm assuming you're referring to Christianity as church?), you forget how many early scientists were part of it. As far as I can see from your source, the public and the church have been aware of a round earth for an extremely long time. It isn't like a any doctrinal problems result from a round earth, so why should the church deny it? And it is likely that those of the public that thought about such things would know too. Please see this article, to understand where the your misconception lies. It (being wikipedia) is not perfect by a long shot, but its a start.
Why would a human's right be violated in that case? If another human incited it, yes(in the same way as if another human shot them), otherwise they were behaving foolishly or in the wrong place at the wrong time. A volcano/earthquake/lightning strike does not harm a human's rights. What you gonna do? Lock up a bolt of lightning and put in on trial? Whereas, a pigeon does not have any rights at all. It may have protection under the law, but no rights.
I continually fail to understand why animal rights activists (not necessarily parent poster - I don't know him) confuse and conflate animals with people, when they are so clearly different? His argument stands precisely because humans and animals are not directly comparable. Animals have (quite correctly) no rights. Animals can not infringe on your rights either, any more than lightning can.
And hyenas move in packs. Against one, you have a small chance. Against a pack... Goodbye.
Interestingly enough I wonder if you really understand what the third world is like? Its not all the same, you know. Take it from someone who lives there.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if you look into even those sources, there is evidence of errors and corrections and possibly(though surprisingly little) tampering to promote one or another specific theology. I really wish more Christians would be brave enough to examine the sources of what they believe. I think it makes better Christians not worse ones. And honestly if you are worried examining the history and context of what you believe will make you stop believing, you probably don't believe to start with, so nothing is lost.
I'd say a better descriptive term (which allows us to include all sorts of people), is Single Issue Fanaticism. Siths... uh SIFs are not a reasonable people. Fundamentalism is merely a specific case of this disease...
I like Symbian and will be sorry to see it go. Never had a Symbian phone that wasn't robust fast and stable so far. Not an iOS fan, so my next phone will be Meego or Android..
Except that they normally make excellent hardware. My N8 has been stood on, dropped, operated at extreme temperatures and generally abused for well over a year now. I would buy a nokia for the hardware alone. And Symbian ^3 Belle is actually very nice. I reckon it could have been competitive...
Pity... Anyone know what the next best manufacturer for good solid rugged phones is?
The problem with a young earth creationist, is his faith is based on the absurd idea that the bible is literal in on all counts, infallible on all counts (usually specifically the KJV translation), and anyone who dares say otherwise is trying to destroy their faith.
Your average young earth creationist's theology is laughably simplistic and he or she lacks any knowledge of the history of the church, the science of textual criticism or even basic literary device. This is the type of person who probably failed English literature at school. You can not even reason with these people. These single issue fanatics place their faith in their theories, not in God, and as a Christian, I find that extremely disturbing. I personally have no problem with the idea of evolution at all, and know a lot of Christians who don't either or simply don't care. But then I luckily do not have to live in America. They'd probably lynch me for a heretic... :)
Oh, for mod points! Bore the bastards to death then charge them engineering rates for your time.... I like it.
You miss the point. Completely. Poor you. Just because it does something useful does not automatically make it boring. I enjoy coding because coding is problem solving. The process of getting to the answer is as enjoyable - if not more so- than the answer. I have in the past solved problems that didn't need solving because it was interesting and challenging. Try not to be so cynical. You may enjoy life more.
You are highly cynical. And I think it clouds your view. I know all sorts of people who do all sorts of things just because they enjoy doing them. Sure they probably not the majority, but that doesn't make them vanish. Some of us even get paid to play with cool toys all day. Its not always like that, but I enjoy my job(both the process which does involve some coding and the enjoyment of seeing your solution actually work).
If there is one thing I've learned in my interactions with kids it is that you can't make them interested. No matter how many bells whistles and flashing lights you display. You can however encourage those who are interested.
Learn control theory and ladder logic. This is a highly challenging and fun career path. Though I've noticed sometimes traditional programmers seem to struggle somewhat with ladder logic...
In most industrial sites I go to(here in South Africa), reverse parking is mandatory. Not just from the safety aspect, but from the point of view that if the plant explodes you might get out faster(something makes me doubt this, but well...). Under normal circumstances, 100% here park forwards...
From my experience in industry, it is naive nonsense to assume that it will just work out or evolve. As someone who designs industrial systems, I'll tell you straight up if you fail to plan for the future now, you will screw it up badly. The fact is energy demand is growing and plugging a lot of power hungry(2 or 3kW minimum) plugin hybrids is going to make matters worse, not better. There is an energy crisis looming beyond fuel oil. And it is a big one. These issues need to be addressed now. Wait until you experience load shedding on a large scale. Then you'll begin to see what I'm talking about. Infrastructure doesn't just magically evolve(as you so naively suppose). It has to be planned. Designed. Constructed. Failure to think about this now, will cost big time later.
You also missed GGGGGP. The context of this thread is:
I know electric cars will generally be slower and have much lower range making the inconvenient to use but, that's not a negative that's a positive the more inconvenient the less people will tend to use them. So legislate compact, light weight electric vehicles and quite simply ban the toxic infernal combustion engine from metropolitan areas, complete total 100% ban.
In any case the scenario you suggest would still result in widespread blackouts if you got your balance wrong. Why not simply upgrade the generation/distribution system and perhaps implement a battery distribution system now? An electric car is attractive if and only if it can reasonably replace a ICE. At the moment the infrastructure is not there. If I want to go out of town in an electric car, I will quickly run out of power. If there were a battery swapping station every couple of hundred km where I could just swap to a new battery and continue my journey it would be practical. At the moment, the lack of infrastructure is the biggest issue in making people switch. Solve the important problems first. Don't legislate or ban things. Making electric vehicles attractive means widespread infrastructure. If there are only 2 places in a large city you can fill up your car, would you drive one? If there were no places on the open road?
Except they can not happen together in this case. Did you miss how reliant we are on ICEs? You can't ban them without doing serious damage to your economy unless the replacement and all it's infrastructure already exists... But go ahead, act without thinking. In all probability saner people will prevail, and you'll sit and rant. You call me uninformed? Do some math. The scope of work to upgrade a power generation/distribion system is huge. And unless it's planned properly (I.e. not done as needed in an evolutionary style) you are going to cock it up. I've seen this happen to a countrywide grid. I've also seen the value in good planning. You just give a recipe for disaster and call it a solution. While not all countries are equal, I am sure if America tries your irresponsible scheme, they'll learn the hard way.
Too lazy? I can't afford an electric vehicle, neither can my countriy's grid afford many of them, I travel a lot for work, and I can't live with the range of an electric vehicle. Or charging time. If we had, say a battery distribution system region (not just country)wide, electric vehicles were as cheap as ICEs and had the same or better range, I'd swap today. It is however simply not practical, and it is you who is too lazy to think abou the consequences of an added load on the grid. There is a huge amount of infrastructure and generating capacity which would be required for even the lightest road users to switch. But maybe these issues magically solve themselves. Just like goods magically appear on your supermarket shelves? Think a little. Because as modern humans we are very reliant on ICEs we need the infrastructure to replace them before we do so.
We're not talking about an evolution here we're talking about a major upgrade to a power generation/distribution system. This is not a small thing, no matter how much you tell yourself its an evolution. There are existing problems which should be higher priority than moving everyone to electric vehicles.
We are reduced to you making counter-claims to mine. I am not motivated enough to correct you by finding citations, but I strongly suggest you look a little deeper into these matters. Pollution does not consist solely of carbon, in case you missed it a memo somewhere. Additionally "this has been debunked" is not a coherent point. Its an unsubstantiated claim, with no visible means of support.
The facts, which are not in dispute are as follows:
1. Batteries used in cars lose a significant amount of capacity per year and therefore have a shorter lifespan than any reasonable ICE.
2. Batteries are more expensive to make and have a higher carbon footprint in manufacture than ICEs (or we would already be driving electric vehicles.), and will have to be replaced more often.
3. Distribution losses and losses in charging circuits/processes are significant.
Whether the marginal increases in efficiency from centralizing power generation justify these costs is a matter of simple maths. But I highly doubt there is some huge conspiracy going on. Tin foil remains cheap though, so, put some on your head. Maybe that will help?
No, you don't seem to get what would happen. Imagine everybody getting home from work at once and plugging in their electric cars to charge. Millions of people. Think about that a while.
In my car (2011), I get at worst 7.6l/100km (=31 or so MPG). It is petrol and probably produces less carbon than yours. On the open road (loaded), I get more like 6.5 (= 36mpg). But this is because I do drive somewhat aggressively. And you should note, if your vehicle is modified to run lean you are probably producing a lot of other (non carbon) pollutants. But your assumption about coming out ahead I think may be ignoring the little problem with the life-span of the batteries. A lithium ion battery can loose over 25% of its capacity per year. More under harsh (read fast discharge, high temperature) conditions. An electric vehicle therefore (or the important part of one) has an effective lifespan of 3 to 5 years. Your 1982 sedan has an effective lifespan of so far 20 years. Therein lies a huge difference.
And move all the smog away to where you run the big dirty radioactive coal generation plants because people are so scared of nuclear energy? Sounds about right...
Per unit of energy, those coal burning power plants are more efficient and less polluting than the internal combustion engines in cars.
So your argument doesn't follow.
More efficient? Sure. Less polluting? Highly doubtful. Coal is dirty. That is the way it is. Start doing emission controls and it will become less efficient than it is.
Besides, there's already plenty of alternative energy technology options. They just need rolling out. We're a long way from 100% renewable, but every percentage point increase is an improvement, and automatically translates into lower pollution from plug-in EVs that are already on the road.
Sure, how about we solve the problem with the world generating not enough electricity first, then add the new burden onto the grid of electric vehicles. Or maybe when demand doubles supply and distribution systems will magically double in capacity? Seriously? Have you thought this through? More electric cars now = more coal electricity now. Alternative energy options are there, but not good enough yet. Wind is unreliable. Solar plants only work during the day. Wave power damages coastlines. Whats left? Nuclear? People are too chicken.
I read somewhere that the batteries used in these cars have a bigger carbon footprint(to manufacture) than a normal vehicle over its entire lifespan...
No doubt you did. The automobile companies that are slower to get into EVs like to put out disinformation like that.
Having worked in industry I am inclined to believe it. Have you any clue how energy intensive these processes are? I deal in energy management software. Mines and processing plants are increasingly interested in the energy costs per unit of their products. And these products can be very expensive in megawatt terms to make. But to be fair, so are the components in a normal car. Much less so than stuff like platinum and lithium I'd say, but at least in my country (which actually makes fuel from coal which is to me a bit of a waste, but anyhow...) putting that load of charging on the grid, coupled with the mines and factories that run 24x7 would break the grid. Maybe your country has power to spare and you're just wasting it?
And move all the smog away to where you run the big dirty radioactive coal generation plants because people are so scared of nuclear energy? Sounds about right...
Fact is, if we want to solve the problem, we need to look at alternative energy sources before we start forcing people to electric. Otherwise all you do is shift the problem. I read somewhere that the batteries used in these cars have a bigger carbon footprint(to manufacture) than a normal vehicle over its entire lifespan... I'm too lazy to find you a citation, but I'll stick with my medium sized* engined sedan for now. It produces very little carbon and works very well for me.
*In this country that means less than 2000cc but more than 1000cc. In America I understand you guys love big engines, and would consider this small.
I find this to be the most interesting argument to go against modern scientific consensus. The reason I find it interesting is that intellects and scientest have known the earth is round for a very long time. It was mostly the Church and the public that thought the earth was flat.[dubious - citation does not support this view] The idea that the earth is round dates back 2600 years and 1700 years ago it was a given.
In your eagerness to bash the church and the public(I'm assuming you're referring to Christianity as church?), you forget how many early scientists were part of it. As far as I can see from your source, the public and the church have been aware of a round earth for an extremely long time. It isn't like a any doctrinal problems result from a round earth, so why should the church deny it? And it is likely that those of the public that thought about such things would know too. Please see this article, to understand where the your misconception lies. It (being wikipedia) is not perfect by a long shot, but its a start.
Why would a human's right be violated in that case? If another human incited it, yes(in the same way as if another human shot them), otherwise they were behaving foolishly or in the wrong place at the wrong time. A volcano/earthquake/lightning strike does not harm a human's rights. What you gonna do? Lock up a bolt of lightning and put in on trial? Whereas, a pigeon does not have any rights at all. It may have protection under the law, but no rights.
I continually fail to understand why animal rights activists (not necessarily parent poster - I don't know him) confuse and conflate animals with people, when they are so clearly different? His argument stands precisely because humans and animals are not directly comparable. Animals have (quite correctly) no rights. Animals can not infringe on your rights either, any more than lightning can.
And hyenas move in packs. Against one, you have a small chance. Against a pack... Goodbye.
Interestingly enough I wonder if you really understand what the third world is like? Its not all the same, you know. Take it from someone who lives there.
I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice this....
How could you possibly miss a Uranus joke? Seriously?
Opera mobile has been pretty stable for me.. Give it a try.
Forgive my failed attempt to bring you back on topic in a poor attempt at humour.