Odd you should say that. When I was growing up in Canada, there used to be a "Baby Bonus"...a cheque the government sent every month, with the amount based on how many kids you had. It was a big country with a small work force. At some point, corporations persuaded them it would be better to simply import trained adults than to go to all the trouble of birthing, growing and schooling them, and the Baby Bonus is no more.
I would bet it's based on loss to the economy of a healthy worker plus the cost of health care for somebody with heart/lung problems, and probably some other stuff that hasn't occurred to us.
I went to Pale Moon. I used to like Firefox because of the add-ons. When they started the stream of constant updates, each one seemingly intended to make it more and more like Chrome, I lost patience.
Like many, many others, I've gone and I won't be back.
An overwhelming majority of experts said a mass market electric car would fail. If they didn't say it directly to Musk himself, they certainly made their opinions known publicly.
Sometimes the movie/mass media tropes are all that remain when somebody expresses a more complex and nuanced view.
And sometimes, simplistic as they may be, such tropes are basically right. I especially like the one about the guy with a vision who goes out and does exactly what he says he's going to do, despite everybody telling him it can't be done.
You explained exactly why I trust people like them to understand the implications of AI, and the possibility of its emergence, a lot more than I trust people deeply involved in the field. The comments critical of my post centre on the idea that AI experts would know best because they are specialists.
Yet that argument works equally well when applied on a more granular level. Anybody who has ever been at a meeting attended by an engineer, a cognitive psychologist and a software specialist knows it can sometimes seem they don't even speak the same language, much less understand the concepts their colleagues' approach to the subject.
I read the summary. I don't think people involved in AI are the ones who will grasp the implications of what they do.
Hawking has pushed physics to the point where it almost becomes philosophy. Gates and Musk have profoundly changed society using a blend of technological prowess, social engineering, and business acumen. I think when push comes to shove, they're the ones who see the big picture and they're the ones who will point out that real AI actually exists while people in the field are still saying, "Wait...it can't possibly have done that".
Using low-hanging fruit as an example: "experts" had snuffed out the whole idea of an electric car. The list of reasons why it would be impossible to manufacture them on any large scale was long and comprehensive. Then Musk came along and forced the major manufacturers and their experts to either get into the game or get left behind.
You can't point to any one innovation that made mass production of electric cars possible. Batteries had to get better. Governments had to decide a change toward electric cars was desirable and worth backing. The cost of gasoline had to keep trending generally upward. Solar power had to become a factor in generating electricity on and off the grid. There had to be enough risk-takers to provide a market for first generation electric vehicles. And then Musk had to come up with a whole distribution network, because established dealers weren't all that interested in having a car needing entirely new infrastructure on their lots.
Musk obviously saw ways to take advantage of existing conditions in a wide variety of areas, or force them into existence. Hardly a decade after he decided to make electric cars a reality, almost every major auto manufacturer in the world offers at least one 100% electric model for sale.
And every step of the way, the experts said it couldn't be done.
So a law professor whose primary gift seems to be self promotion summarily dismisses the concerns of some of the greatest thinkers/doers of the last half century.
Is there a reason why we should pay any attention to this arrogant twat?
Whenever you adopt this kind of new technology (or a novel application of older technology, for that matter), you have to be prepared for screw-ups. It goes with the territory. This was definitely a one of those, but if LockState is telling the truth, they're putting everything they have into fixing the problem. I would bet they'll also take steps to make sure this situation doesn't come up again.
I'm a lot less tolerant of situations where large, well-established software/hardware manufacturers cause major problems thanks to buggy updates, especially when the updates are jammed down the user's throat. How many horror stories have we heard about major security problems going unfixed for months after they were reported?
If you couldn't find anything relevant, it's because you didn't look.
But thank you for answering the question, finally. At last you admit you believe solar, wind and other renewable generation must compete without subsidies against one of the most heavily subsidized energy sectors on the planet...fossil fuels. It would appear you decided that because these fossil fuel subsidies have persisted for decades and are still in place, they're somehow grandfathered in, and shouldn't count. We'll leave the health care costs picked up by the taxpayer thanks to fossil fuel emissions for another day.
Thank you for making it clear that you do not, in fact, favour a level playing field, but one where the established giants keep suckling on the taxpayer teat, but renewables deserve no such opportunity.
Fossil fuels will still lose, it will just take longer.
You could have saved yourself a lot of writing if you'd just admitted right off the bat that you believe subsidies for oil, coal and gas are fine, but subsidies for wind, solar, and geothermal must be denied because...um...whatever it is that allows you to maintain such a textbook case of cognitive dissonance.
You're really falling behind, here. First of all, any of those links adequately address the original point...that fossil fuels have been subsidized forever, but people like you only get your knickers in a twist when renewable generation gets a tiny fraction of those taxpayer dollars thrown its way.
You should probably use your formidable Google skills to check out "no true Scotsman"...which is the fallacy you've been trying to perpetrate.
I have to admit, though, your belief that the United States has ever been a capitalist nation rather than an oligarchy is truly amusing. Thank you for that.
Now answer the question: Do fossil fuels get a pass when people whine about "subsidized" renewable energy?
2. You seem to believe cash in a savings account and investment in property or businesses are the same, which they are not. Currencies tend to depreciate in value over time.
So the fact remains, the cost of using fossil fuels has been kept artificially low for decades thanks to subsidies and because many of the real costs have been externalized. Meanwhile, the cost of solar generation just keeps going down...and there's every reason to believe it will continue to do so. You can't just blame it on China, I'm afraid, though they're certainly one of the main reasons why the cost of an actual solar panel has declined more than 92% since the mid-1970's (Bloomberg). Fossil fuels, of course, have gone in the other direction.
Not that any of this matters, in a sense. We're getting to the point where pretty soon unsubsidized solar generation will be cheaper than (still subsidized) fossil fuel generation.
First of all, according to the guy's own data, you're looking at a 4.8% ROI after 20 years. Anybody who complains about that is an idiot.
Second, solar panel manufacturers offer warranties that will be in the range of 80% of original output after 25 years. Maintenance isn't really an issue. They're built to last. Where I live, solar panels stand up just fine, and our weather makes yours look like a joke.
So how 'bout next time you make the teensy little bit of effort needed to inform yourself rather than expecting everybody else to do your work for you.
So answer the question: does the fossil fuel sector get a pass with respect to subsidies? Even if you try to quibble about the amount (which would be unwise, because it's probably conservative), it's a plain fact that the entire fossil fuel sector has been suckling at the public teat with nary a peep from people who whine constantly about how renewable energy is "sponsored by the government". And it's been doing so for nearly a century.
Did you even look at your own link? It appears to contradict what you're saying. Here...let me help you:
"Despite recent cuts by the government to the Feed-in Tariff, plummeting solar costs mean that solar panels are still cost effective and will deliver earnings and savings of around £8,080 over 20 years on average.
"Although solar panels under the old Feed-in Tariff in 2015 used to earn households around £13,450 over 20 years, falling solar costs mean that in 2016 typical return on investment for solar panels is a healthy 4.8% over 20 years."
And where does one find this "free market" you speak of? Do the $5 TRILLION in subsidies given to fossil fuel corporations get counted, or do they just get a pass for some reason?
On the list of states with the most industrially-caused air pollution, Texas is third. California, which has a bigger economy, doesn't even crack the Top 20.
But hey, breathable air is for hippies and tree huggers, right?
I guess you weren't aware that the option you mention has already been taken away in a fashion clearly intended to send a message. People who don't toe the Trump line have either been shuffled off to irrelevant jobs, pushed into resigning the way they tried to do with Priebus and Sessions, or just fired.
Slashdot Mirror
Odd you should say that. When I was growing up in Canada, there used to be a "Baby Bonus"...a cheque the government sent every month, with the amount based on how many kids you had. It was a big country with a small work force. At some point, corporations persuaded them it would be better to simply import trained adults than to go to all the trouble of birthing, growing and schooling them, and the Baby Bonus is no more.
I would bet it's based on loss to the economy of a healthy worker plus the cost of health care for somebody with heart/lung problems, and probably some other stuff that hasn't occurred to us.
Springsteen wrote it, my friend. He actually wrote it for Elvis, who unfortunately died before he could record it.
Look it up.
...to an America near you.
Romeo and Juliet, Samsung and Delilah...ooh-ooh, FIRE.
Do you know what a "fishing expedition" is? Do you know why courts all over the free world, and also in America, forbid them?
I see you believe two wrongs make a right. You must be a conservative.
I went to Pale Moon. I used to like Firefox because of the add-ons. When they started the stream of constant updates, each one seemingly intended to make it more and more like Chrome, I lost patience.
Like many, many others, I've gone and I won't be back.
I suppose you believe Musk was always an electric car expert, and that Gates is a brilliant coder.
An overwhelming majority of experts said a mass market electric car would fail. If they didn't say it directly to Musk himself, they certainly made their opinions known publicly.
I love the distinction you described in your last sentence. I suspect a lot of people won't understand that it's a perfectly valid one.
In either case, I suspect, we would have to deal with the thing as a self-aware being.
Sometimes the movie/mass media tropes are all that remain when somebody expresses a more complex and nuanced view.
And sometimes, simplistic as they may be, such tropes are basically right. I especially like the one about the guy with a vision who goes out and does exactly what he says he's going to do, despite everybody telling him it can't be done.
Recognize anybody like that in this discussion?
Thanks for that.
You explained exactly why I trust people like them to understand the implications of AI, and the possibility of its emergence, a lot more than I trust people deeply involved in the field. The comments critical of my post centre on the idea that AI experts would know best because they are specialists.
Yet that argument works equally well when applied on a more granular level. Anybody who has ever been at a meeting attended by an engineer, a cognitive psychologist and a software specialist knows it can sometimes seem they don't even speak the same language, much less understand the concepts their colleagues' approach to the subject.
Not even close. My need for ego gratification is almost as massive as my intelligence. One short comment isn't nearly enough.
But thank you. Every little effort is appreciated.
I read the summary. I don't think people involved in AI are the ones who will grasp the implications of what they do.
Hawking has pushed physics to the point where it almost becomes philosophy. Gates and Musk have profoundly changed society using a blend of technological prowess, social engineering, and business acumen. I think when push comes to shove, they're the ones who see the big picture and they're the ones who will point out that real AI actually exists while people in the field are still saying, "Wait...it can't possibly have done that".
Using low-hanging fruit as an example: "experts" had snuffed out the whole idea of an electric car. The list of reasons why it would be impossible to manufacture them on any large scale was long and comprehensive. Then Musk came along and forced the major manufacturers and their experts to either get into the game or get left behind.
You can't point to any one innovation that made mass production of electric cars possible. Batteries had to get better. Governments had to decide a change toward electric cars was desirable and worth backing. The cost of gasoline had to keep trending generally upward. Solar power had to become a factor in generating electricity on and off the grid. There had to be enough risk-takers to provide a market for first generation electric vehicles. And then Musk had to come up with a whole distribution network, because established dealers weren't all that interested in having a car needing entirely new infrastructure on their lots.
Musk obviously saw ways to take advantage of existing conditions in a wide variety of areas, or force them into existence. Hardly a decade after he decided to make electric cars a reality, almost every major auto manufacturer in the world offers at least one 100% electric model for sale.
And every step of the way, the experts said it couldn't be done.
So a law professor whose primary gift seems to be self promotion summarily dismisses the concerns of some of the greatest thinkers/doers of the last half century.
Is there a reason why we should pay any attention to this arrogant twat?
Whenever you adopt this kind of new technology (or a novel application of older technology, for that matter), you have to be prepared for screw-ups. It goes with the territory. This was definitely a one of those, but if LockState is telling the truth, they're putting everything they have into fixing the problem. I would bet they'll also take steps to make sure this situation doesn't come up again.
I'm a lot less tolerant of situations where large, well-established software/hardware manufacturers cause major problems thanks to buggy updates, especially when the updates are jammed down the user's throat. How many horror stories have we heard about major security problems going unfixed for months after they were reported?
If you couldn't find anything relevant, it's because you didn't look.
But thank you for answering the question, finally. At last you admit you believe solar, wind and other renewable generation must compete without subsidies against one of the most heavily subsidized energy sectors on the planet...fossil fuels. It would appear you decided that because these fossil fuel subsidies have persisted for decades and are still in place, they're somehow grandfathered in, and shouldn't count. We'll leave the health care costs picked up by the taxpayer thanks to fossil fuel emissions for another day.
Thank you for making it clear that you do not, in fact, favour a level playing field, but one where the established giants keep suckling on the taxpayer teat, but renewables deserve no such opportunity.
Fossil fuels will still lose, it will just take longer.
You could have saved yourself a lot of writing if you'd just admitted right off the bat that you believe subsidies for oil, coal and gas are fine, but subsidies for wind, solar, and geothermal must be denied because...um...whatever it is that allows you to maintain such a textbook case of cognitive dissonance.
You're really falling behind, here. First of all, any of those links adequately address the original point...that fossil fuels have been subsidized forever, but people like you only get your knickers in a twist when renewable generation gets a tiny fraction of those taxpayer dollars thrown its way.
You should probably use your formidable Google skills to check out "no true Scotsman"...which is the fallacy you've been trying to perpetrate.
I have to admit, though, your belief that the United States has ever been a capitalist nation rather than an oligarchy is truly amusing. Thank you for that.
1. Take your pick:
https://www.iisd.org/gsi/fossil-fuel-subsidies
http://grist.org/climate-energy/imf-says-global-subsidies-to-fossil-fuels-amount-to-1-9-trillion-a-year-and-thats-probably-an-underestimate/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/fossil-fuel-subsidies-7-percent-global-economy/
Now answer the question: Do fossil fuels get a pass when people whine about "subsidized" renewable energy?
2. You seem to believe cash in a savings account and investment in property or businesses are the same, which they are not. Currencies tend to depreciate in value over time.
So the fact remains, the cost of using fossil fuels has been kept artificially low for decades thanks to subsidies and because many of the real costs have been externalized. Meanwhile, the cost of solar generation just keeps going down...and there's every reason to believe it will continue to do so. You can't just blame it on China, I'm afraid, though they're certainly one of the main reasons why the cost of an actual solar panel has declined more than 92% since the mid-1970's (Bloomberg). Fossil fuels, of course, have gone in the other direction.
Not that any of this matters, in a sense. We're getting to the point where pretty soon unsubsidized solar generation will be cheaper than (still subsidized) fossil fuel generation.
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/12/is-this-the-best-solar-chart-yet/
Even Scientific American gets it:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/the-price-of-solar-is-declining-to-unprecedented-lows/
The Google is weak in this one...
First of all, according to the guy's own data, you're looking at a 4.8% ROI after 20 years. Anybody who complains about that is an idiot.
Second, solar panel manufacturers offer warranties that will be in the range of 80% of original output after 25 years. Maintenance isn't really an issue. They're built to last. Where I live, solar panels stand up just fine, and our weather makes yours look like a joke.
http://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/
Third, the staggering size of fossil fuel subsidies is a matter of record in many, many places. Here's an easy one:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/07/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-a-staggering-5-tn-per-year?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Facebook
So how 'bout next time you make the teensy little bit of effort needed to inform yourself rather than expecting everybody else to do your work for you.
So answer the question: does the fossil fuel sector get a pass with respect to subsidies? Even if you try to quibble about the amount (which would be unwise, because it's probably conservative), it's a plain fact that the entire fossil fuel sector has been suckling at the public teat with nary a peep from people who whine constantly about how renewable energy is "sponsored by the government". And it's been doing so for nearly a century.
Did you even look at your own link? It appears to contradict what you're saying. Here...let me help you:
"Despite recent cuts by the government to the Feed-in Tariff, plummeting solar costs mean that solar panels are still cost effective and will deliver earnings and savings of around £8,080 over 20 years on average. "Although solar panels under the old Feed-in Tariff in 2015 used to earn households around £13,450 over 20 years, falling solar costs mean that in 2016 typical return on investment for solar panels is a healthy 4.8% over 20 years."
And where does one find this "free market" you speak of? Do the $5 TRILLION in subsidies given to fossil fuel corporations get counted, or do they just get a pass for some reason?
On the list of states with the most industrially-caused air pollution, Texas is third. California, which has a bigger economy, doesn't even crack the Top 20.
But hey, breathable air is for hippies and tree huggers, right?
I guess you weren't aware that the option you mention has already been taken away in a fashion clearly intended to send a message. People who don't toe the Trump line have either been shuffled off to irrelevant jobs, pushed into resigning the way they tried to do with Priebus and Sessions, or just fired.
https://www.thenation.com/article/donald-trump-and-ryan-zinke-are-purging-climate-scientists-for-telling-the-truth/
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/05/politics/trump-battle-science-epa-energy-climate/index.html
"Then there is the leaked news some googlers and google managers use black lists to block conservatives from joining some teams and promotions."
This will be difficult to prove. I hear they simply made it a requirement that people joining those teams must have three-figure IQ's.