Although I agree with most advantages you list for biking in the gym, we should also list the advantages of real biking outside:
1. The fresh air and/or the lack of sweaty people right next to you. 2. You can see your surroundings. You can check out the scenery and you get a chance to get to know where you live. 3. It can actually get you from A to B. Like from home to work. And back. 4. You do not have a contract for 1 year with your bicycle. You just own it forever. And you can use it as much as you like. 5. Did I already mention that you can see new places? A route of 100 km can really give you endless possibilities... and it takes forever to exhaust all of them.
p.s. I disagree with your points 3 and 4. You can choose your route so that you stay relatively close to home in case you're getting too tired. In the most simple scenario, you can just drive circles around your house. You can also just bring lunch with you, and stop and rest when you get too tired. You can add small loops, or small sideroads to your route, you can make it just slightly longer quite easily.
Re:CNC frosting / fudge / etc is old stuff in the
on
3D Chocolate Printer
·
· Score: 1
Are you sure the really important part is not perhaps "3D"? I've seen cakes with all kinds of images printed on them, but all in 2D. They were basically just photographs printed with colored sweet stuff. All 3D things like a wedding couple that you find on a wedding cake were pre-made in factories and placed on top.
-- I'm waiting for a 3D beer printer. Oh, wait, it's called a beer tap.
Let's assume that a barrel of oil (equivalent) energy costs 1000 dollar - instead of the normal 100. The US army brings it to its destination in expensive convoys. Let's also assume that the infrastructure costs as much as the energy: 2000 dollar/barrel of oil equivalent energy. (The result of both is probably more).
Then they would consume 10 million barrels of oil equivalent per year, or about 1.2 billion kg of oil, or about 5*10^16 J/yr, or about 1.6 GW in energy...
Which seems an awful lot.
Then again, we must realize that the US employs lots of people (not just their own soldiers), and probably provides housing for even more. Could it be possible that they house 1 million people: soldiers, supporting units, Blackwater, but also local forces, local police and all necessary bureaucracy? Then we're just talking about 1.6 kW of power per person... which seems not unreasonable. It's just the result of lots of people, and very expensive energy.
-- Just a back of the envelope calculation. If you arrive at the same order of magnitude, then we agree.
Careful readers do not focus on the whales only. The previous posts did focus on the whales only, but never mentioned the climate. If you now wish to change the topic here, and discuss the climate, it would be fair to include the 2nd topic of the article too: algae.
The real story are the algae. Algae weren't hunted to extinction 800,000 years ago. But their reappearance in the Northern Atlantic is likely a climate-related issue.
is there any chance that Google will sell the unblurred pictures to third parties in the future?
Who in their right fucking mind gives a shit? You're asking the police to quash a perfectly legal operation because someone might have an unblurred picture of a complete stranger and might sell that to someone who might piece together who is in the photo (amidst billions of photos/people) and said third party might use it for some unspecified underhanded purpose.
Tin foil hat much?
No, I'm not talking about one single picture. Nobody in the 'right fucking mind gives a shit'. And I also do not wish to obstruct police investigations.
I'm talking about Google being (perhaps) able to sell pictures of a couple billion people... They can sell the rights to all the streetview pictures at once. And that has a commercial interest. And it can get coupled to Facebook or another huge website (where you can tag your friends). Suddenly large companies have even more interesting information for targeted advertisements. Once such information becomes available in bulk (that's the keyword: bulk) it is interesting for many different purposes.
And why do I care about privacy? Not only because I hate advertisements. Reason is simple: because it's nobody's business except me.
You make a fair point that the pictures are only available to Google's own face recognition technologies... and until now not to third party technologies.
My sloppy investigation indeed did not tell me whether the unblurred pictures or the blurred pictures (or both) are stored at Google's servers. Do you know by any chance? In other words: is there any chance that Google will sell the unblurred pictures to third parties in the future?
Although similar complaints have been heard for the last couple of years, Google keep pretending they do not understand it. Arguments like "but we only take pictures of public areas" are just silly and besides the point. Google ignore the fact that there is a massive difference between a public place being public and a public place being available to everyone on the internet (including data gathering servers, and all kinds of face recognition technologies).
And anyway, they accidentally take lots of pictures of not-so-public places because open doors/windows offer a glimpse into private houses and companies.
Google also always place the responsibility for pointing out what cannot be put on the internet with other people/companies/authorities. It's like the checkbox saying 'no, I don't want advertisement', which if left unchecked will get you on some spam email list. Right now, other people/companies/authorities spend a lot of time (and time = money) to get pictures off the internet. I think that Google should be paying for that time spent.
Then came some skeptics, and all was well. And the discussion was between scientists. Then came some denialists, and all was not well. The discussion was now between politicians. Now come the death threats, and all is getting worse. The discussion is now between activists. What's next? Violence? And a 'discussion' between armies?
I'm so glad to see that a lack of knowledge does not hold the world back from taking violent action.
-- Is there any record of a scientist who threatens a religious leader for not agreeing with the Books of Science?
Many people outside Germanty cannot imagine that sustainable energy can actually work. But:
1. The Germans actually produce the wind turbines and solar panels themselves. So if someone purchases a wind turbine, that money is pumped into their own economy. 2. Sustainable energy does have a payback time.
The decision to quit nuclear isn't some tree-hugging green fantasy. The economies that decide to go big in sustainable energy are Germany (well known for its car industry, and for beer) and China (mass producing everything). These aren't some fluffy empty economies. They actually produce stuff for the world.
Exactly. The real question is whether the USA wants to go to war. They'll find an excuse anyway for blaming the other.
And I seriously doubt that a single 'act of cyber war' will lead to military retribution against a sovereign nation. It might if the sovereign nation is rather insignificant... but it's not gonna happen if it's China, India or Russia... and hopefully not of it's any allied country, like the one I happen to live in.
Well... Human brains indeed cannot deal with speeds over 75 mph on ancient roads... we've had to build huge nearly straight roads where you have an excellent view and where you can anticipate things half a mile ahead. If we would be going 75 mph on roads of the quality of the 1800's, we'd all be dead within a year.
Humans adapt their surroundings a lot faster than they'll adapt their own brains.
In such a post-apocalyptical world no ones going to care about a little nuclear waste winding up in the ocean when there's a zombie ripping their face off to get to their delicious brains.
Exactly what I said then: we're only looking at our own life spans and a little bit more. After that, we don't care.
I for one am happy that the ancient Roman empire hasn't left a couple of nuclear or toxic dumps across Europe... even though the Dark Ages may be considered a post-apocalyptical era, compared to the organization or the Romans.
So, is TFA using strong words, or is the nuclear industry generally using euphemisms for their problems? You can't deny either of them. And the truth lies in the middle.
The comments here once again show that people only look for the duration of their own lifespans (or perhaps a little more) regarding the storage of nuclear waste.
Nuclear storage must be done in a place which is inherently safe. Which is safe without human intervention in the next decades/centuries/millenia. You can't dump it somewhere and make a plan to "build a dike if need be". Who will guarantee that a dike will be built if need be in 250 years from now? Or 2500 years from now?
Of course the second it actually works the greens will be dead set against it. Gotta be some obscure critter living out in that desert ya know,
Although I like your sense of humor, and I partially agree with you, I would like to ask you to differentiate between green entrepreneurs (people like the guys who want to build this solar plant, who aren't about maximizing profit, but are still practical and realistic) and the nature freaks who are just unreasonable.
If you RTFA, then you would notice that the US government doesn't actually pay for this. It's a private enterprise that takes the loan... all the US government does is guarantee that this (admittedly high risk) investment will be paid back. And please note that the high risk doesn't so much come from the technology, but more from the regulations and utilities (like cables and the electricity network which will need a 110 MW upgrade at certain places). So, that guarantee means in practice that power lines will be built/improved at a fraction of the cost of the power plant, and regulations will be made... The US government is not gonna pay all that money.
If you have a business case which gets the 'fucking' water back in that lake (and will make profit), then I'm sure you will get a guarantee from the government too.
This is just another news item for the tabloids. Nothing new, except that nobody ever got the flight records yet. Next week the same media will report on another party by Paris Hilton, most likely.
... but if Google's founders can't fly to Tahiti to watch an astronomical event, then who can?
Google (as a company) is doing quite a lot for the development and implementation of sustainable energy, and the guys (as private persons) even seem to plant some trees (or something) to compensate for the fuel they burn.
I think that if you want to accuse Google of something evil, it has to be on the privacy front, not the pollution part. So, I think it's reasonable to be apologetic.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it's just all important? And maybe there's not much of a storyline, just a list of facts?
Anyway, it sounds like mandatory reading for all future politicians: either as a warning or as a guidebook.
It took a couple thousand NASA scientists, a couple billion dollars... but now we know. Yes, it blends.
Although I agree with most advantages you list for biking in the gym, we should also list the advantages of real biking outside:
1. The fresh air and/or the lack of sweaty people right next to you.
2. You can see your surroundings. You can check out the scenery and you get a chance to get to know where you live.
3. It can actually get you from A to B. Like from home to work. And back.
4. You do not have a contract for 1 year with your bicycle. You just own it forever. And you can use it as much as you like.
5. Did I already mention that you can see new places? A route of 100 km can really give you endless possibilities... and it takes forever to exhaust all of them.
p.s. I disagree with your points 3 and 4. You can choose your route so that you stay relatively close to home in case you're getting too tired. In the most simple scenario, you can just drive circles around your house. You can also just bring lunch with you, and stop and rest when you get too tired. You can add small loops, or small sideroads to your route, you can make it just slightly longer quite easily.
Are you sure the really important part is not perhaps "3D"?
I've seen cakes with all kinds of images printed on them, but all in 2D. They were basically just photographs printed with colored sweet stuff. All 3D things like a wedding couple that you find on a wedding cake were pre-made in factories and placed on top.
-- I'm waiting for a 3D beer printer. Oh, wait, it's called a beer tap.
Let's assume that a barrel of oil (equivalent) energy costs 1000 dollar - instead of the normal 100. The US army brings it to its destination in expensive convoys.
Let's also assume that the infrastructure costs as much as the energy: 2000 dollar/barrel of oil equivalent energy. (The result of both is probably more).
Then they would consume 10 million barrels of oil equivalent per year, or about 1.2 billion kg of oil, or about 5*10^16 J/yr, or about 1.6 GW in energy...
Which seems an awful lot.
Then again, we must realize that the US employs lots of people (not just their own soldiers), and probably provides housing for even more. Could it be possible that they house 1 million people: soldiers, supporting units, Blackwater, but also local forces, local police and all necessary bureaucracy? Then we're just talking about 1.6 kW of power per person... which seems not unreasonable. It's just the result of lots of people, and very expensive energy.
-- Just a back of the envelope calculation. If you arrive at the same order of magnitude, then we agree.
Careful readers do not focus on the whales only. The previous posts did focus on the whales only, but never mentioned the climate. If you now wish to change the topic here, and discuss the climate, it would be fair to include the 2nd topic of the article too: algae.
The real story are the algae. Algae weren't hunted to extinction 800,000 years ago. But their reappearance in the Northern Atlantic is likely a climate-related issue.
is there any chance that Google will sell the unblurred pictures to third parties in the future?
Who in their right fucking mind gives a shit? You're asking the police to quash a perfectly legal operation because someone might have an unblurred picture of a complete stranger and might sell that to someone who might piece together who is in the photo (amidst billions of photos/people) and said third party might use it for some unspecified underhanded purpose.
Tin foil hat much?
No, I'm not talking about one single picture. Nobody in the 'right fucking mind gives a shit'. And I also do not wish to obstruct police investigations.
I'm talking about Google being (perhaps) able to sell pictures of a couple billion people... They can sell the rights to all the streetview pictures at once. And that has a commercial interest. And it can get coupled to Facebook or another huge website (where you can tag your friends). Suddenly large companies have even more interesting information for targeted advertisements. Once such information becomes available in bulk (that's the keyword: bulk) it is interesting for many different purposes.
And why do I care about privacy? Not only because I hate advertisements. Reason is simple: because it's nobody's business except me.
You make a fair point that the pictures are only available to Google's own face recognition technologies... and until now not to third party technologies.
My sloppy investigation indeed did not tell me whether the unblurred pictures or the blurred pictures (or both) are stored at Google's servers. Do you know by any chance? In other words: is there any chance that Google will sell the unblurred pictures to third parties in the future?
Although similar complaints have been heard for the last couple of years, Google keep pretending they do not understand it. Arguments like "but we only take pictures of public areas" are just silly and besides the point.
Google ignore the fact that there is a massive difference between a public place being public and a public place being available to everyone on the internet (including data gathering servers, and all kinds of face recognition technologies).
And anyway, they accidentally take lots of pictures of not-so-public places because open doors/windows offer a glimpse into private houses and companies.
Google also always place the responsibility for pointing out what cannot be put on the internet with other people/companies/authorities. It's like the checkbox saying 'no, I don't want advertisement', which if left unchecked will get you on some spam email list. Right now, other people/companies/authorities spend a lot of time (and time = money) to get pictures off the internet. I think that Google should be paying for that time spent.
But will it blend?
In the beginning, there was only climate science.
Then came some skeptics, and all was well. And the discussion was between scientists.
Then came some denialists, and all was not well. The discussion was now between politicians.
Now come the death threats, and all is getting worse. The discussion is now between activists.
What's next? Violence? And a 'discussion' between armies?
I'm so glad to see that a lack of knowledge does not hold the world back from taking violent action.
-- Is there any record of a scientist who threatens a religious leader for not agreeing with the Books of Science?
Many people outside Germanty cannot imagine that sustainable energy can actually work. But:
1. The Germans actually produce the wind turbines and solar panels themselves. So if someone purchases a wind turbine, that money is pumped into their own economy.
2. Sustainable energy does have a payback time.
The decision to quit nuclear isn't some tree-hugging green fantasy. The economies that decide to go big in sustainable energy are Germany (well known for its car industry, and for beer) and China (mass producing everything). These aren't some fluffy empty economies. They actually produce stuff for the world.
I just cannot understand why it gets ignored.
Worms Armageddon... I'm an expert at throwing sheep. It's only a matter of time until I need that in real life... I just know it.
If the pentagon attacks itself, it will also feel its wrath!
Mwaahahahaha!
Exactly.
The real question is whether the USA wants to go to war. They'll find an excuse anyway for blaming the other.
And I seriously doubt that a single 'act of cyber war' will lead to military retribution against a sovereign nation. It might if the sovereign nation is rather insignificant... but it's not gonna happen if it's China, India or Russia... and hopefully not of it's any allied country, like the one I happen to live in.
Well... with the current boycots imposed by (mostly) NATO, there is not too much business with countries with free internet anyway.
I guess they can always build one or two glass fibre cables to hook up to Russia and China, who do still trade with them...
Well... Human brains indeed cannot deal with speeds over 75 mph on ancient roads... we've had to build huge nearly straight roads where you have an excellent view and where you can anticipate things half a mile ahead. If we would be going 75 mph on roads of the quality of the 1800's, we'd all be dead within a year.
Humans adapt their surroundings a lot faster than they'll adapt their own brains.
In such a post-apocalyptical world no ones going to care about a little nuclear waste winding up in the ocean when there's a zombie ripping their face off to get to their delicious brains.
Exactly what I said then: we're only looking at our own life spans and a little bit more. After that, we don't care.
I for one am happy that the ancient Roman empire hasn't left a couple of nuclear or toxic dumps across Europe... even though the Dark Ages may be considered a post-apocalyptical era, compared to the organization or the Romans.
So, is TFA using strong words, or is the nuclear industry generally using euphemisms for their problems? You can't deny either of them. And the truth lies in the middle.
The comments here once again show that people only look for the duration of their own lifespans (or perhaps a little more) regarding the storage of nuclear waste.
Nuclear storage must be done in a place which is inherently safe. Which is safe without human intervention in the next decades/centuries/millenia.
You can't dump it somewhere and make a plan to "build a dike if need be". Who will guarantee that a dike will be built if need be in 250 years from now? Or 2500 years from now?
Of course the second it actually works the greens will be dead set against it. Gotta be some obscure critter living out in that desert ya know,
Although I like your sense of humor, and I partially agree with you, I would like to ask you to differentiate between green entrepreneurs (people like the guys who want to build this solar plant, who aren't about maximizing profit, but are still practical and realistic) and the nature freaks who are just unreasonable.
If you RTFA, then you would notice that the US government doesn't actually pay for this. It's a private enterprise that takes the loan... all the US government does is guarantee that this (admittedly high risk) investment will be paid back.
And please note that the high risk doesn't so much come from the technology, but more from the regulations and utilities (like cables and the electricity network which will need a 110 MW upgrade at certain places). So, that guarantee means in practice that power lines will be built/improved at a fraction of the cost of the power plant, and regulations will be made... The US government is not gonna pay all that money.
If you have a business case which gets the 'fucking' water back in that lake (and will make profit), then I'm sure you will get a guarantee from the government too.
Would you trust a 15 year old WiFi with outdated software, on a poorly maintained vehicle?
This is just another news item for the tabloids. Nothing new, except that nobody ever got the flight records yet.
Next week the same media will report on another party by Paris Hilton, most likely.
... but if Google's founders can't fly to Tahiti to watch an astronomical event, then who can?
Google (as a company) is doing quite a lot for the development and implementation of sustainable energy, and the guys (as private persons) even seem to plant some trees (or something) to compensate for the fuel they burn.
I think that if you want to accuse Google of something evil, it has to be on the privacy front, not the pollution part. So, I think it's reasonable to be apologetic.