That would work as a way to airgap your home devices (putting it between the "smart grid" controller and your house's fuse box) but it would still allow your exact level of electricity usage to be measured live. The battery obscures this by acting as a buffer.
Depends, some manufacturers don't have factory teams and just support privateer teams who pay for everything, I think all of Aston Martin's racing is done this way, and these days almost all of Toyota's racing is done this way as well.
Ferrari supports privateer teams but they mainly operate like a factory team, even if they got there in an unusual way - the cars cost more because of the racing, but it's because they sell cars (and all that merchandise) to pay for the racing, racing to promote the cars began as, and remains a secondary goal.
I came into this thread and searched for "nepotism" and it brought me to this post...a relative of mine who worked there said it was a major problem. That and the Wii Star Wars "Swing to progress" game that flopped.
Youtube has some live video capability, I don't know if ordinary users can access it though. Youtube would shut it down fast in any case.
Terrorists will have to do something like how live sports broadcasts are pirated: Have one source, ideally going over a darknet, that is streamed to many public sites creating a game of whack-a-mole that can't be won.
Who said I wanted more? That would be OK, but on the other hand the guy who wanted a bike didn't necessarily want to pay as much. I just don't see why some fast-moving little bastard with special access should get to siphon all the value out of the transaction between us.
A curious trait that I've observed in young people, especially the so-called millenials or Gen-Y, is that they spend inordinate amounts of time agonizing over the minutia of every decision, whether important or not, because they're terrified of making suboptimal choices and regretting it later.
It's because the consequences are far greater for us than past generations. We need the most optimal outcome just to get by.
Nuclear would be needed only to fill the gaps in renewable power, most of it can be had from solar/wind. If everyone was getting most of their energy from rooftop PV it would be easy to make up the rest. And with so much room for efficiency gains I wouldn't expect energy requirements to continue increasing at the same speed.
Desert PV plants combined with rooftop PV could give a lot of surface area...my boss covered his roof with solar panels and is now only pulling 1/10th of the power from the grid he used to, and he's still giving away excess energy instead of selling it back. The house doesn't use heat or AC but is pretty similar to an average American home otherwise.
Road systems and food are highly valuable to us, we consider the cost for those acceptable.
Why would nutbags and gangsters be considered different to terrorists? When some idiot goes on a random violence spree, I don't care if it's because they think they're the Joker, they're defending their turf or they think their deity wants them to kill infidels.
So clearly, the only truly viable long term solution is to regulate emission standards so that the total emissions are below the natural sequestration rate.
You're right about this but not the next two points. Cheap and efficient solar panels (which would become the cheapest source of energy, once introduced) could provide near-zero-emissions energy which could help bring total emissions below the natural sequestration rate, or close enough that the difference could be covered by artificial sequestration.
Sufficiently cheap and efficient solar panels could solve global warming by accident.
Yep we are absolutely going to burn them all, hopefully not before humans start colonizing space...but it will all be used. Renewable-powered artificial carbon sequestration may have to be used to compensate.
The rate of natural sequestration is so slow that for the purposes of planning within the next century, we can use a fixed amount. Technically you're correct but natural sequestration is hardly fast enough to be relevant to our civilization.
How can you do it without intercepting everyone's communications? Nutbags and gangsters have killed more innocent people on US soil than terrorists over the last decade or so, and anyone could be a nutbag or gangster. Guess you have to spy on everyone to keep them safe.
Or just allow a few people to die in rare acts of violence for a free society to function. The NRA lets thousands and thousands die each year for citizens' right to keep guns in an unsafe manner (unsecured, undocumented and by blind or crazy people). Isn't privacy worth a few lives? How many do we let die each year by not locking them in padded rooms, where they'll be safe from drug abuse, prescription medication overdoses, home repair & traffic accidents? Far more.
A police state isn't made by border guards, which is what those police were, but by how the state deals with its citizens on a day to day basis.
Spying on them like a Stasi wet dream, searching them on a whim, either making them protest in "free speech zones" or having the media look away while the cops rush in to clear them, militarized police forces doing SWAT raids for nonviolent offenses or clearing houses door to door if there's a TERR'IST on the loose, temporarily detaining cryptographers and foreign politicians who stand up to the state or are friends with whistleblowers...
Totally not a police state. Goddamn now that I write that I'm second-guessing my 2015 vacation plans even more...
I would be outraged by both if you were able to do it so fast that buyers and sellers couldn't communicate directly before you intervene, using a highly expensive premium service. How would this kind of activity benefit customers and suppliers? A sliver of a second isn't valuable to either.
Not only is the anecdotal evidence pretty strong, but now we have scientific evidence: we've burned so much gas in so many combustion engines over the past century we can now measure the effect or "leftover" from that at every corner of the globe. The science tying climate change to [anthropogenic] means however, is far from bulletproof and the report itself cannot say it is anything more than "likely".
What? What other species runs combustion engines? The last sentence seems to contradict the rest of the paragraph.
Anyway, if you're going to welcome the warming you'd better be well-protected from the pests, famines, wars and refugees. You might want to check this out:
This is wrong. Not that they want to collect as much as possible while paying as little as possible, that's true, but the idea that they do so by "hedging their bets on the collection side." This would put them at a disadvantage. The more accurate their estimates, the more they can fine-tune prices to maximize profit.
When they do spew fear-based rhetoric, like the IIHS does 24/7, it's not so they can jack up rates, it's so they can make the world safer. Jacking up their rates makes them less competitive, making the world safer is good for their whole industry because the price decrease can lag behind it, and there's more profit margin to be had on safer risks.
So the insurance companies are in on it now, taking bribes from the shadowy international group of scientists perpetrating the hoax so that they'll use climate data even though intentionally using inaccurate information would be very bad for their business.
I was looking forward to seeing how this would effect the grand conspiracy theory.
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine such workplace discrimination would get the boss in similar trouble to what he would receive for firing someone who promoted homophobia.
That would work as a way to airgap your home devices (putting it between the "smart grid" controller and your house's fuse box) but it would still allow your exact level of electricity usage to be measured live. The battery obscures this by acting as a buffer.
In-app purchases and feedback reviews aren't technologies, they are concepts.
Get a nerd to do all the work, greedheads reap all the rewards. Same stuff he'd be facing on the job market.
Depends, some manufacturers don't have factory teams and just support privateer teams who pay for everything, I think all of Aston Martin's racing is done this way, and these days almost all of Toyota's racing is done this way as well.
Ferrari supports privateer teams but they mainly operate like a factory team, even if they got there in an unusual way - the cars cost more because of the racing, but it's because they sell cars (and all that merchandise) to pay for the racing, racing to promote the cars began as, and remains a secondary goal.
I came into this thread and searched for "nepotism" and it brought me to this post...a relative of mine who worked there said it was a major problem. That and the Wii Star Wars "Swing to progress" game that flopped.
I know it looks OK. I've been there before. Most places look OK.
Mod parent Insightful, hits all the good points.
Youtube has some live video capability, I don't know if ordinary users can access it though. Youtube would shut it down fast in any case.
Terrorists will have to do something like how live sports broadcasts are pirated: Have one source, ideally going over a darknet, that is streamed to many public sites creating a game of whack-a-mole that can't be won.
Who said I wanted more? That would be OK, but on the other hand the guy who wanted a bike didn't necessarily want to pay as much. I just don't see why some fast-moving little bastard with special access should get to siphon all the value out of the transaction between us.
A curious trait that I've observed in young people, especially the so-called millenials or Gen-Y, is that they spend inordinate amounts of time agonizing over the minutia of every decision, whether important or not, because they're terrified of making suboptimal choices and regretting it later.
It's because the consequences are far greater for us than past generations. We need the most optimal outcome just to get by.
Superconducting cables? It's not a new idea.
Nuclear would be needed only to fill the gaps in renewable power, most of it can be had from solar/wind. If everyone was getting most of their energy from rooftop PV it would be easy to make up the rest. And with so much room for efficiency gains I wouldn't expect energy requirements to continue increasing at the same speed.
Desert PV plants combined with rooftop PV could give a lot of surface area...my boss covered his roof with solar panels and is now only pulling 1/10th of the power from the grid he used to, and he's still giving away excess energy instead of selling it back. The house doesn't use heat or AC but is pretty similar to an average American home otherwise.
Road systems and food are highly valuable to us, we consider the cost for those acceptable.
Why would nutbags and gangsters be considered different to terrorists? When some idiot goes on a random violence spree, I don't care if it's because they think they're the Joker, they're defending their turf or they think their deity wants them to kill infidels.
So clearly, the only truly viable long term solution is to regulate emission standards so that the total emissions are below the natural sequestration rate.
You're right about this but not the next two points. Cheap and efficient solar panels (which would become the cheapest source of energy, once introduced) could provide near-zero-emissions energy which could help bring total emissions below the natural sequestration rate, or close enough that the difference could be covered by artificial sequestration.
Sufficiently cheap and efficient solar panels could solve global warming by accident.
Yep we are absolutely going to burn them all, hopefully not before humans start colonizing space...but it will all be used. Renewable-powered artificial carbon sequestration may have to be used to compensate.
The rate of natural sequestration is so slow that for the purposes of planning within the next century, we can use a fixed amount. Technically you're correct but natural sequestration is hardly fast enough to be relevant to our civilization.
How can you do it without intercepting everyone's communications? Nutbags and gangsters have killed more innocent people on US soil than terrorists over the last decade or so, and anyone could be a nutbag or gangster. Guess you have to spy on everyone to keep them safe.
Or just allow a few people to die in rare acts of violence for a free society to function. The NRA lets thousands and thousands die each year for citizens' right to keep guns in an unsafe manner (unsecured, undocumented and by blind or crazy people). Isn't privacy worth a few lives? How many do we let die each year by not locking them in padded rooms, where they'll be safe from drug abuse, prescription medication overdoses, home repair & traffic accidents? Far more.
A police state isn't made by border guards, which is what those police were, but by how the state deals with its citizens on a day to day basis.
Spying on them like a Stasi wet dream, searching them on a whim, either making them protest in "free speech zones" or having the media look away while the cops rush in to clear them, militarized police forces doing SWAT raids for nonviolent offenses or clearing houses door to door if there's a TERR'IST on the loose, temporarily detaining cryptographers and foreign politicians who stand up to the state or are friends with whistleblowers...
Totally not a police state. Goddamn now that I write that I'm second-guessing my 2015 vacation plans even more...
Came here to say this. The NSA will at most only pretend to follow orders at this point. What do they have to fear?
I would be outraged by both if you were able to do it so fast that buyers and sellers couldn't communicate directly before you intervene, using a highly expensive premium service. How would this kind of activity benefit customers and suppliers? A sliver of a second isn't valuable to either.
Not only is the anecdotal evidence pretty strong, but now we have scientific evidence: we've burned so much gas in so many combustion engines over the past century we can now measure the effect or "leftover" from that at every corner of the globe. The science tying climate change to [anthropogenic] means however, is far from bulletproof and the report itself cannot say it is anything more than "likely".
What? What other species runs combustion engines? The last sentence seems to contradict the rest of the paragraph.
Anyway, if you're going to welcome the warming you'd better be well-protected from the pests, famines, wars and refugees. You might want to check this out:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm
And this:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Global-Warming/2013/0917/New-climate-change-map-adds-a-new-factor-people
This is wrong. Not that they want to collect as much as possible while paying as little as possible, that's true, but the idea that they do so by "hedging their bets on the collection side." This would put them at a disadvantage. The more accurate their estimates, the more they can fine-tune prices to maximize profit.
When they do spew fear-based rhetoric, like the IIHS does 24/7, it's not so they can jack up rates, it's so they can make the world safer. Jacking up their rates makes them less competitive, making the world safer is good for their whole industry because the price decrease can lag behind it, and there's more profit margin to be had on safer risks.
So the insurance companies are in on it now, taking bribes from the shadowy international group of scientists perpetrating the hoax so that they'll use climate data even though intentionally using inaccurate information would be very bad for their business.
I was looking forward to seeing how this would effect the grand conspiracy theory.
It is. Lots of food gets buried in the first world, it could be given away elsewhere but getting it there isn't so easy.
What if the HF traders do all their stupid things before the rest of the market can even react?