Ah but sometimes they can indeed defy history and well-established precedent. Sometimes a company reaps massive success from a boneheaded anti-consumer move that has failed many times before. Like Apple's walled-garden computing.
The problem with this theory is that under it, we can't tell the difference between the effectiveness of mass surveillance and that of a magic terrorist-repelling rock.
What's frightening is that you'd choose a crazy bigoted egomaniac over a fairly unremarkable Democrat who has become the devil incarnate to right-wingers somehow. I never understood the incredible amount of hate that US conservatives have for Hillary. Since she's a huge war-hawk by Dem standards, you'd think they might even find her more tolerable.
Yes, shrinking rapidly, but they still wield the most political power in the most powerful country on the planet. The only group that rivals their power is the 0.01%.
You joke, but his thinking is exactly as sophisticated as what you parody. He thinks that Bill Gates is "in charge of the computers" and would be able to "close up the Internet" to keep those nasty terrorists off.
He's an angry little child in an old man's body. He's never had to learn anything beyond lemonade-stand-level business skills, which have been sufficient for making money by throwing his inherited wealth around.
And here is your typical Trump supporter, fiscally cartoon-conservative and socially a closeted pseudo-nazi. They hate the shit out of every aspect of social progress and have a monstrous persecution complex, even though they're virtually all straight white Christian Americans, the most privileged and powerful group in the known universe.
They hate that social progressiveness restrains and effectively muzzles their many potent prejudices, and they hate when science and evidence disagree with their stupid gut feelings on other issues.
And Trump is a giant nuclear double-middle-finger to progressiveness and facts, who promises to finally give them what they want, to run their country based on their many potent prejudices and uninformed gut feelings.
Who says that renewable energy won't be affordable? Wind is already cheaper than coal in some countries, even without subsidies, solar is close behind and advancing rapidly. Soon market forces will make your desire to use dirty energy too expensive. Why do you want the Africans and Indians to have to pay more for dirty energy?
Ah, "the future will solve it," a very dangerous attitude - it's a self-defeating prophecy, even if it may well come true. So we must assume that it will not come true.
So as long as they escape global warming with their lives it's A-OK?
What if there was a new form of power that slowly released a poisonous gas into the atmosphere, generally not concentrated enough to cause a problem but in some places the dangerous concentrations happen to accumulate due to geographic features. One of those places just happens to be your house. The early health effects are noticable and you're able to abandon your home with your life. Any ethical problem there or will you just suck it up?
So you see no ethical problem with any amount of GHG emissions, in other words. Would a billionaire who ran coal power plants to smelt aluminum into giant cubes just because he thought it was fun be doing anything unethical?
More broadly, do you see anything unethical about the consumption or abuse of common resources in general, or is this eclipsed by the same ethical blind spot?
Intel coolers are more than adequate unless you are going crazy with overclocking
Or if you want to use passive or liquid cooling, or if you just want to put some bling in your PC case...not that there's anything wrong with overclocking. Many Intel CPUs explicitly support it.
That sounds like a massive oversimplification, I doubt all generators are piston engines or have similar efficiency. Turbine generators are almost 90% efficient. It's a massive win in terms of CO2 and other emissions either way, unless you're charging the EV from a nearly all-coal power source without up-to-date emissions equipment.
The problem is that the market doesn't give a fuck if helium is as cheap as air or $10m for a tiny glass vial full of it that sits in a billionaire's curio cabinet. Either counts as the market "providing," and the latter scenario could occur if sources are sufficiently scarce - which, again, the market can do nothing about. The reserve selloff could actually lead to even more wasteful behavior like the natural gas industry venting helium as mentioned further up the page.
I've read otherwise... at some point you end up with runaway global warming that builds on itself...
I'd hate to think we'd cause enough global warming to get near those points. Certainly we don't need to worry about runaway warming within plausible scenarios of <4C.
I don't think 2 degrees C is remotely achievable, but time will tell. I think we'll pass 3 degrees C without too much trouble. The problem is for all the improvements, more and more people are rising up from poverty and joining the middle class, they all have a larger carbon footprint every year.
They won't need to recreate past first-world mistakes to join the middle class - they should be able to skip straight to contemporary forms of power and transportation like the middle-class can afford in other places. The poor in many places harvest trees for fuel, which isn't a fossil fuel release, but it delays and reduces the capacity for natural carbon storage (and some European countries are unfortunately using wood-burning power stations as well these days). If they're not poor anymore they can stop doing this.
Tripling wind and solar is nice, but if you grow coal use by 20% in the same time, you haven't really accomplished much, if the goal was to cut carbon by 50%.
Why would coal grow by 20%, especially as it becomes one of the most expensive and disliked power sources?
Carbon sequestration hasn't been done yet because the technology is new, the need for it is fairly new, and more importantly, because too many people share your viewpoint.
There's no good situation/bad situation breakover point with climate change. It's a sliding scale that gets worse as we go further from pre-industrial conditions. The 2C mark is just a target on that scale that looks achievable. 3C+ will be significantly worse than 2C, and 1C (where we are now) is worse than zero. The ship isn't sunk until the planet is completely uninhabitable, so you're yelling to abandon ship not long after a survivable hull breach.
They sure are mobile, look at the Syrian refugee crisis. That's the first taste of the kind of mobility that will be needed on greater and greater scales with climate change.
We can roll back the point of no return through carbon sequestration - I think the "point of no return" concept is doing more harm than good. It makes people accept inevitability rather than take action. Carbon harvested from the atmosphere combined with renewable power can also be used to produce carbon-neutral synthetic gasoline for those old cars.
People won't have to put solar up, power companies will gladly build solar farms and sell you solar electricity for the madly expensive price of about what your electricity currently costs.
Well good news! People don't eat uranium, carbon fiber or semiconductor materials, so my plan won't starve people! I was thinking about nuclear, wind and solar rather than running the planet on ethanol. You know what will starve people though? The droughts and floods that come with climate change. Those and other natural disasters HURT PEOPLE.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah but sometimes they can indeed defy history and well-established precedent. Sometimes a company reaps massive success from a boneheaded anti-consumer move that has failed many times before. Like Apple's walled-garden computing.
The problem with this theory is that under it, we can't tell the difference between the effectiveness of mass surveillance and that of a magic terrorist-repelling rock.
Terrorist attacks not stopped by mass internet surveillance:
Boston Bombers. Downloaded a terrorist publication containing bomb plans from the Internet, tweeted about upcoming attacks in coded language.
Anders Breivik: Discussed violent extremist leanings online
November 2015 France attackers: Spoke freely about their plans in plaintext SMS
2015 San Bernadino Shooters: Met and discussed jihadist leanings through various social media.
Even if you put the horrendous privacy issues aside, this shit clearly doesn't work. Shut it down.
I didn't specify men or women...so straight white Christian American women are included. Although I would like to see a source for your info.
Browser Learnings of Public Key for make benefit glorious nation of Kazakhstan!
What's frightening is that you'd choose a crazy bigoted egomaniac over a fairly unremarkable Democrat who has become the devil incarnate to right-wingers somehow. I never understood the incredible amount of hate that US conservatives have for Hillary. Since she's a huge war-hawk by Dem standards, you'd think they might even find her more tolerable.
Yes, shrinking rapidly, but they still wield the most political power in the most powerful country on the planet. The only group that rivals their power is the 0.01%.
You joke, but his thinking is exactly as sophisticated as what you parody. He thinks that Bill Gates is "in charge of the computers" and would be able to "close up the Internet" to keep those nasty terrorists off.
He's an angry little child in an old man's body. He's never had to learn anything beyond lemonade-stand-level business skills, which have been sufficient for making money by throwing his inherited wealth around.
And here is your typical Trump supporter, fiscally cartoon-conservative and socially a closeted pseudo-nazi. They hate the shit out of every aspect of social progress and have a monstrous persecution complex, even though they're virtually all straight white Christian Americans, the most privileged and powerful group in the known universe.
They hate that social progressiveness restrains and effectively muzzles their many potent prejudices, and they hate when science and evidence disagree with their stupid gut feelings on other issues.
And Trump is a giant nuclear double-middle-finger to progressiveness and facts, who promises to finally give them what they want, to run their country based on their many potent prejudices and uninformed gut feelings.
Those octagon-like corners might be a good way to get around Apple's patent on rounded corners. Could've saved Samsung half a billion dollars.
"Accidentally installing the OS." Now there's a computer problem that nobody would've predicted!
So the government shouldn't get any credit for setting up laws that incentivize renewable power, or investing directly in it?
Who says that renewable energy won't be affordable? Wind is already cheaper than coal in some countries, even without subsidies, solar is close behind and advancing rapidly. Soon market forces will make your desire to use dirty energy too expensive. Why do you want the Africans and Indians to have to pay more for dirty energy?
Ah, "the future will solve it," a very dangerous attitude - it's a self-defeating prophecy, even if it may well come true. So we must assume that it will not come true.
So as long as they escape global warming with their lives it's A-OK?
What if there was a new form of power that slowly released a poisonous gas into the atmosphere, generally not concentrated enough to cause a problem but in some places the dangerous concentrations happen to accumulate due to geographic features. One of those places just happens to be your house. The early health effects are noticable and you're able to abandon your home with your life. Any ethical problem there or will you just suck it up?
So you see no ethical problem with any amount of GHG emissions, in other words. Would a billionaire who ran coal power plants to smelt aluminum into giant cubes just because he thought it was fun be doing anything unethical?
More broadly, do you see anything unethical about the consumption or abuse of common resources in general, or is this eclipsed by the same ethical blind spot?
Intel coolers are more than adequate unless you are going crazy with overclocking
Or if you want to use passive or liquid cooling, or if you just want to put some bling in your PC case...not that there's anything wrong with overclocking. Many Intel CPUs explicitly support it.
That sounds like a massive oversimplification, I doubt all generators are piston engines or have similar efficiency. Turbine generators are almost 90% efficient. It's a massive win in terms of CO2 and other emissions either way, unless you're charging the EV from a nearly all-coal power source without up-to-date emissions equipment.
Furthermore, producing fuel for ICE vehicles requires more electricity than EVs need to run. So even if more fossil fuel were being used "directly" the supply chain gains should make up for it.
The problem is that the market doesn't give a fuck if helium is as cheap as air or $10m for a tiny glass vial full of it that sits in a billionaire's curio cabinet. Either counts as the market "providing," and the latter scenario could occur if sources are sufficiently scarce - which, again, the market can do nothing about. The reserve selloff could actually lead to even more wasteful behavior like the natural gas industry venting helium as mentioned further up the page.
I've read otherwise... at some point you end up with runaway global warming that builds on itself...
I'd hate to think we'd cause enough global warming to get near those points. Certainly we don't need to worry about runaway warming within plausible scenarios of <4C.
I don't think 2 degrees C is remotely achievable, but time will tell. I think we'll pass 3 degrees C without too much trouble. The problem is for all the improvements, more and more people are rising up from poverty and joining the middle class, they all have a larger carbon footprint every year.
They won't need to recreate past first-world mistakes to join the middle class - they should be able to skip straight to contemporary forms of power and transportation like the middle-class can afford in other places. The poor in many places harvest trees for fuel, which isn't a fossil fuel release, but it delays and reduces the capacity for natural carbon storage (and some European countries are unfortunately using wood-burning power stations as well these days). If they're not poor anymore they can stop doing this.
Tripling wind and solar is nice, but if you grow coal use by 20% in the same time, you haven't really accomplished much, if the goal was to cut carbon by 50%.
Why would coal grow by 20%, especially as it becomes one of the most expensive and disliked power sources?
Looks like they'll settle for an email address and a bunch of fake info ;-) but yeah it's odd that they don't give out the information freely...
Carbon sequestration hasn't been done yet because the technology is new, the need for it is fairly new, and more importantly, because too many people share your viewpoint.
There's no good situation/bad situation breakover point with climate change. It's a sliding scale that gets worse as we go further from pre-industrial conditions. The 2C mark is just a target on that scale that looks achievable. 3C+ will be significantly worse than 2C, and 1C (where we are now) is worse than zero. The ship isn't sunk until the planet is completely uninhabitable, so you're yelling to abandon ship not long after a survivable hull breach.
Wind power is already the cheapest in some countries and solar is close behind, and closing in fast.
I guess you could say I'm smoking knowledge, and I encourage you to light up a nice fat joint of it ;-)
They sure are mobile, look at the Syrian refugee crisis. That's the first taste of the kind of mobility that will be needed on greater and greater scales with climate change.
We can roll back the point of no return through carbon sequestration - I think the "point of no return" concept is doing more harm than good. It makes people accept inevitability rather than take action. Carbon harvested from the atmosphere combined with renewable power can also be used to produce carbon-neutral synthetic gasoline for those old cars.
People won't have to put solar up, power companies will gladly build solar farms and sell you solar electricity for the madly expensive price of about what your electricity currently costs.
Well good news! People don't eat uranium, carbon fiber or semiconductor materials, so my plan won't starve people! I was thinking about nuclear, wind and solar rather than running the planet on ethanol. You know what will starve people though? The droughts and floods that come with climate change. Those and other natural disasters HURT PEOPLE.