This. Wikipedia needs to drop this idea and embrace net neutrality. Getting their own service exempted from data caps is a very short-term aid to spreading knowledge at best. Their strategy is more self-serving than noble.
He knows all about wrestling and boning on camera, and has never run even one successful megacorporation into the ground. Clearly a superior candidate.
Apart from all of the problems storing, transporting, and obtaining hydrogen (both in terms of the often fossil-based source and the difficulty of finding some to put in your car), it's about as expensive as gasoline per mile. And the cars are no cheaper either.
We get them to agree to a set of target temperatures matching a certain time period - that shouldn't be too difficult a debate. Few countries stand to benefit from warming even if considered individually, so nobody stands to benfit from inaction.
Granted, the economic incentives for clean energy aren't there right now, but is capitalism a suicide pact?
Sort of, but it would be hard to literally kill ourselves with it. This problem should sort itself out within the next 10-20 years, as long as nobody invents an enforcement droid first.
No, VoIP 911 calls shouldn't get priority. You know that "all circuits are busy" message that you sometimes get on POTS systems? That shows that resources are not infinite on it. Your POTS 911 call gets no more priority than a tween girls' inane conversation. And yet society hasn't burned down.
It can and hopefully will be the same for VoIP 911 calls over a neutral Internet. In fact it will be better - the call metadata is small enough that it should get through regardless, so emergency services will know you tried to call and therefore need some kind of help and to call you back. That won't happen right now if there are too many tween girls on the phone and you try to call 911.
Maybe if little girls read a book about Barbie happily being a developer instead of breaking computers and outsourcing coding work to cute boys, there would be more women with good developer skills?
If you don't like the choices previous generations made, you first should figure out WHY they made those choices before deciding they were wrong.
And you can learn a lot in the process of finding this out. Sometimes I wonder why nobody has tried X, I look it up and 9 times out of 10 there are good reasons, and I learn what they are instead of wasting time. Then there's the 1 time out of 10, like when I asked why nobody invented a hydraulic anti-roll system for cars that can also control squat and dive, years before FRICS was used in F1 (originally I was thinking it could get around the problem of sway bars getting bent in offroad racing).
My theory is that their mind just can't take a break from analyzing things, and the rabbit hole of the conspiracy universe gives them plenty to occupy their thoughts with, it's too tempting for them to keep out of. The complex world of conspiracies is more fun and interesting than boring ol' real life, right?
I wonder if they'd still be into it if they'd found some other hobby that requires heavy logical thinking skills instead. I notice a big chunk of amateur racers are IT guys, setting up the various systems on cars offers about as much mental challenge as you want to take on.
Addendum: Now that I think of it, if I had to choose between a politician who was a coder and one who wasn't a coder with no other information, I'd vote for the non-coder. Too high a percentage of the coders I know (or know of) are conspiracy nuts and/or egomaniac manchildren.
Was just gonna say this. I know a guy who can do all kinds of coding and believes that both evolution and climate change are not real. Another who thinks the moon landing was a hoax. Apart from these tinfoil-hatters, I also know some coders who are massive douchebags and even idiots.
Ability to code is no guarantee of good intelligence or character.
Actually, nothing is the perfect container for a vacuum. There's nothing to allow it to escape or fill it. As such the natural contents of nothing would be a vacuum - otherwise it wouldn't be nothing, would it?
The material for the quantum fluctuation was a true vacuum bubble - that's about as close to nothing as you can get. Again if we should assume that something magically appeared, "nothing" is far simpler than "universe-creating old man in the sky."
So, basically what I said, except you give to some kind of charity so you can lie to yourself about giving a damn - I'm sure the tax breaks on those donations help a lot too.
But that's what makes it easier, because the quantum fluctuation is a very simple thing that didn't have to decide to do anything, while an all-powerful universe-creating intelligence is very complex and would have to make at least one conscious decision. It's a much simpler explanation and there is at least a sliver of scientific evidence for it.
Slashdot Mirror
This. Wikipedia needs to drop this idea and embrace net neutrality. Getting their own service exempted from data caps is a very short-term aid to spreading knowledge at best. Their strategy is more self-serving than noble.
He knows all about wrestling and boning on camera, and has never run even one successful megacorporation into the ground. Clearly a superior candidate.
#! /bin/bash
read prayers
echo "Meh."
exit
Apart from all of the problems storing, transporting, and obtaining hydrogen (both in terms of the often fossil-based source and the difficulty of finding some to put in your car), it's about as expensive as gasoline per mile. And the cars are no cheaper either.
There's this thing called a "desert," you should look it up.
We get them to agree to a set of target temperatures matching a certain time period - that shouldn't be too difficult a debate. Few countries stand to benefit from warming even if considered individually, so nobody stands to benfit from inaction.
Granted, the economic incentives for clean energy aren't there right now, but is capitalism a suicide pact?
Sort of, but it would be hard to literally kill ourselves with it. This problem should sort itself out within the next 10-20 years, as long as nobody invents an enforcement droid first.
Yes, if we do it before Russia and Canada warm up :-P
We've been doing unintentional geoengineering for hundreds of years now, why would some intentional geoengineering be so bad?
Very nice car. Costs more than half a mil though 8-(
No, VoIP 911 calls shouldn't get priority. You know that "all circuits are busy" message that you sometimes get on POTS systems? That shows that resources are not infinite on it. Your POTS 911 call gets no more priority than a tween girls' inane conversation. And yet society hasn't burned down.
It can and hopefully will be the same for VoIP 911 calls over a neutral Internet. In fact it will be better - the call metadata is small enough that it should get through regardless, so emergency services will know you tried to call and therefore need some kind of help and to call you back. That won't happen right now if there are too many tween girls on the phone and you try to call 911.
Not a bad idea. The first effective enforcer bot will bring about the Oppression Singularity. It won't be pretty.
Maybe if little girls read a book about Barbie happily being a developer instead of breaking computers and outsourcing coding work to cute boys, there would be more women with good developer skills?
If you don't like the choices previous generations made, you first should figure out WHY they made those choices before deciding they were wrong.
And you can learn a lot in the process of finding this out. Sometimes I wonder why nobody has tried X, I look it up and 9 times out of 10 there are good reasons, and I learn what they are instead of wasting time. Then there's the 1 time out of 10, like when I asked why nobody invented a hydraulic anti-roll system for cars that can also control squat and dive, years before FRICS was used in F1 (originally I was thinking it could get around the problem of sway bars getting bent in offroad racing).
Or highly efficient solar cells...they still wouldn't generate power at night, but they'd be too cheap and clean to not use to the fullest.
My theory is that their mind just can't take a break from analyzing things, and the rabbit hole of the conspiracy universe gives them plenty to occupy their thoughts with, it's too tempting for them to keep out of. The complex world of conspiracies is more fun and interesting than boring ol' real life, right?
I wonder if they'd still be into it if they'd found some other hobby that requires heavy logical thinking skills instead. I notice a big chunk of amateur racers are IT guys, setting up the various systems on cars offers about as much mental challenge as you want to take on.
Addendum: Now that I think of it, if I had to choose between a politician who was a coder and one who wasn't a coder with no other information, I'd vote for the non-coder. Too high a percentage of the coders I know (or know of) are conspiracy nuts and/or egomaniac manchildren.
Was just gonna say this. I know a guy who can do all kinds of coding and believes that both evolution and climate change are not real. Another who thinks the moon landing was a hoax. Apart from these tinfoil-hatters, I also know some coders who are massive douchebags and even idiots.
Ability to code is no guarantee of good intelligence or character.
I promise not to own any car with any data collection systems not fully controlled by the end user in place.
Those who do are a mentally challenged Gordon Freeman. Also I think the plural of wepon is still wepon.
We're sending a squad up.
Actually, nothing is the perfect container for a vacuum. There's nothing to allow it to escape or fill it. As such the natural contents of nothing would be a vacuum - otherwise it wouldn't be nothing, would it?
The material for the quantum fluctuation was a true vacuum bubble - that's about as close to nothing as you can get. Again if we should assume that something magically appeared, "nothing" is far simpler than "universe-creating old man in the sky."
So, basically what I said, except you give to some kind of charity so you can lie to yourself about giving a damn - I'm sure the tax breaks on those donations help a lot too.
But that's what makes it easier, because the quantum fluctuation is a very simple thing that didn't have to decide to do anything, while an all-powerful universe-creating intelligence is very complex and would have to make at least one conscious decision. It's a much simpler explanation and there is at least a sliver of scientific evidence for it.