true, but then again 100 million years ago the average temperature was significantly hotter, and the ocean levels were higher too.
Then, as nature has done it before, who guarantees that it's not nature that's doing it now (raising the CO2 levels)?
CO2 levels typically come from sources like volcanoes. Yes, it's possible that another big volcanic event could occur, say like the Siberian traps. The added CO2 would be the least of our problems if that happened. major temperature swings as Sulfur aerosols lower temperatures, then we'd deal with swings the other way as the CO2 does it's job.
And if not, is there any guarantee nature will not do it again in the foreseeable future? And if there's no such guarantee, or even a more than slight probability, then why bother about our own produced CO2?
We are all going to die, so why bother getting out of bed - just lie there until we're dead.
Because clearly we can't beat nature. Can we?
Nope, at least not now. but we can work at getting along with it.
It's all a matter of outlook. Many folk don't give a damn about anything that comes after them personally. And some do.
And it looks like its official, The greenhouse effect, or lack of it, has become the USA's Lysenkoism.
is "Are women and minorities mistreated more often, or are white men more tolerant of being mistreated?"
Unfortunately, there's no possible way to ask that question that won't produce an hysterical, blind hatred response from pretty much everybody.
Let's try this one.
It's possible either through basic expectations, or being sold a bill of goods, that many women are convinced both that they can have it all, and that the workplace is a place of fulfillment and happiness.
And yet, none of us actually has it all. I had as much as I could, but juggling a family life and professionalism, I really had to juggle my schedule, and work a lot of extra hours.
And just as a personal observation, so many women came into the workplace looking at it as a sprint to success. That somehow you would work hard for acouple years, then rest on your laurels. It's not a sprint - it's a marathon.
The final issue ties in with the second one. There is competition in the workplace. Not the beat someone in a sport or anger type competition, but one in which some people are willing to work harder and longer. I think this is a guy thing. I have it. If I am willing to work longer and harder, should I be punished for that? Because I have worked with women who do a very good job, but they put in 8 hours, and no more. I am convinced that they believe that competition between employees is mistreatment.
Some of this is conjecture, but all of it is based upon workplace experience. As for the cure, I am not so certain what will work. I think that males have made a lot of adjustments, but it is possible that to achieve equal success, that females might have to make the final adjustment. We always expect insant results, and perhaps meeting in the middle might expedite that.
I don't know how things work in IT specifically, but if I see someone stumbling out of the office exhausted at 1AM and a life hasn't been saved, I see a major failure of staffing, or scheduling, or otherwise someone fucking up their job.
if you want to see who is most successful in IT just watch who walks out the office's front door at 1am, exhausted, stumbling to their car.
To me it does not sound like "successful" more like "loser".
Yup, and for some people, who cannot be bothered to expend any more than a minimum effort, they believe they are the ones who are winning.
I've seen enough people like that come and go over the years.
No muchacho, they lost.
I worked hard, and as needed, and I provided for and raised a family and was involved in my family, and retired at 55 because I did put in the work, and was compensated for it. The people my age who wouldn't allow the place to " take advantage of them" are either still working, and wil be for the next 12 years, or were really big winners, and were made redundant.
Anybody that makes you be an asshole, or they won't do their job, is themselves a raging, festering, prolapsed asshole.
Exactly. There were people who thought I was an asshole - and I was to them, but they were dumasses who tried to throw up roadblocks to getting things done. And I was fucking mean when the occasion demanded it. My favorite was when someone gave me shit abot something I had to have done, and I'd give them a phone number to call. It was the director's direct line. Never a problem after that.
And upon reflection on a long career, being an asshole to them was exactly what they deserved. Some people seem to think simply doing their job was doing someone a favor. Anyone who was helpful to me? I'd run through a wall for them.
Congratulations. You've just demonstrated the anti-male bias OP was implying exists in these types of reports. That statement from TFA applies to both female and male employees who left their job.
There is a very strong anti-male bias, even when it is approached in a friendly manner - see below.
If you dig up the actual report, you'll find that men left due to unfairness/mistreatment more than women - 40% vs 31%. You read the general stat and assumed it indicated a problem with how women are treated, when in fact it's men who more often feel they're mistreated.
I'm not surprised. I know that in my setting, we had a bit of a bias in hiring women over men, they came in at the same pay as the men, and we promoted them more quickly than men. I voluntarily gave up several promotions in order for a female co worker to get a promotion - stupid quota system with promotions.
Yet - they all left. Despite preferential treatment, they quit. Getting married, having children, just going back to live with the family were typical. One engineer woman left to become a personal trainer - musta been a helluva hit to the pocket, and another opened a daycare center. Some were let go during slowdowns, in large part because if myself or the other guy were let go, more people would be hired because they usually had a distinct list of what they would or wouldn't do.Travel, Overtime, and non standard work hours were a no-no. One of the biggest problems when there were personnel conflicts? Other women.
In the end, even though I missed a number of promotions, I was paid a lot more than the others. And there were a few complaints over the years. Quickly taken care of by the boss who asked if they wanted to do what I did. No takers.
The actual report makes pretty interesting reading. The stats are all over the place. Women report experiencing or seeing more mistreatment, but reported experiencing stereotyping at roughly the same rate as men (23% vs 24% for minority men vs women, 14% vs 12 % for white/asian men vs women). The rate of unwanted sexual attention is drastically higher in the tech industry than other industries (10% vs 6%), but the rate of unwanted sexual attention reported by women is only slightly higher than by men (10% vs 8%). For bullying and harassment, white/asian women reported a lower incident rate than white/asian men (15% vs 16%). But minority women reported a substantially higher rate than minority men (13% vs 9%). You'll also notice minorities reported a lower harassment rate than whites/asians.
I highly recommend reading the actual report if you're curious about this stuff. It doesn't really fit into any of the stereotypes (hah) about male/female or white/asian vs minorities.
You get paid according to the agreement you had with your employer. If you don't like the terms of your employment then you need to renegotiate-- you have no right to complain about what you agreed to.
And we learn that showing up as late as possible, and doing as little as possible is the hot ticket. Jesus was such a commie.
In the USA they are required to keep you job (or one just like it) open. There is an expectation that the parent will return.
Contractors see these, short term, might turn perm, roles all the time.
If you believe this doesn't affect the job prospects of childbearing age women, I've got a bridge to sell you. But it _should_ affect their job prospects, just like any other real factor. The law be damned.
Yup.We had a woman who had three children over a roughly 8 year period. Took off over a year each. We were required to give her he job back.
That meant that three other women who were working as replacement lost their jobs.
And it is important, now that we talk about equal pay for equal work. I was quite dependable, and would come in early and work late, work nights and weekends, and travel. If another person of the same job description but only works 6 years out of ten, won't work more than 40 hours a week, and won't work any other times than 8 to 5, and refuses to travel, due the same compensation I am?
This is not a trivial question. Saying yes brings up a whole other set of problems, Continuity of work and needed expenditures for more employees by the employer means something. If people who do less overall work than I do, I'm outa there, because I know what I'm worth.
Or your going to be driving a Pinto running on 3 cylinders with a full tank of gas wearing oil soaked clothes in heavy traffic on the highways in hell.
Energy losses by distance will be much smaller with a focused beam (depending on the efficiency of the technology, closing on 100%).
Beaming increases the effected radiated power. It doesn't change what happens to the signal after it leaves the antenna. It obeys all the laws of physics pertaining to electromagnetic radiation.
I for one, would rather plug in my phone rather than submit myself to radiotherapy at wireless router frequencies. And where I carry my phone is perilously close to the family jewels.
Which brings up another interesting point. These devices will somehow put out high levels of power and not interfere with nearby services?
One of the problems with the computing world today is that the people who understand RF are not even in the picture, while the digital people get some strange ideas about RF. That's how we got some certifiably insane ideas like BPL or Broadband over Power Line, which had so many terrible flaws that it was simply never going to work, and the RF savvy people pointed out every flaw, but the Digital people pooh-pooed it. It even got deployed in a few locations before failing miserably along many concurrent failure modes.
tl;dr version - this ain't gonna work unless we dose everyone in the room with really unhealthy levels of electromagnetic radiation.
These "lots" of energy you are talking about are not nearly enough for a modern smartphone.
Even if you would make use of the electromagnetic radiation coming from a nuclear fusion reactor, and position your phone optimally, a harvesting panel the size of a smartphone would barely be able to gain 1W.
These ridiculous smartphone charging schemes keep coming up, and they get no less ridiculous as we go on.
Unless you are in the near field, the amount of energy you could harvest is just about none, and if you are in the near field you don't want living things in it, it you are sending out enough energy to charge phones.
It's a really bad answer to a nonexistent problem.
Just because somebody can do something doesn't mean that if there is a more efficient way to do it, you wouldn't prefer to do it that way. If a shorter route crossing the Rockies had actually been a more efficient way to transport oil than a longer pipeline not crossing the mountains, you would expect that other companies would have emulated this pipeline. But they didn't.
There is a huge amount of opposition in Canada, so more likely they are taking the path of less resistance. In addition, the poor quality crude is hard enough to pump already. Plus, the plan is to mix it with some higher quality crude to make it less asphalt road topping in nature, which they need from the USA (I'm not certain where that mixing is occurring) But that really shouldn't be the USA's problem.
I appreciate your condescending, smug response. I liked it so much I poked around and found that Kinder Morgan built a pipeline across the Canadian rockies in the 50s and expanded it in 2004. It can transport 300k barrels a day and there are proposals to triple it. For comparison, Keystone is ~500k barrels/day.
I suspect that Canada is wishing to send their bottom of the barrel quality oil though the new majick pipeline shortcut so we can deal with the damage. The tar sands have to be heated then mixed with some actual high quality crude, and pumped at high pressure just to get it through the pipelines. That's an interesting recipe.
Regardless, there is a lot of opposition to them building a new pipeline in their own country. I'm pretty certain they can't use the old ones because they would blow out.
We're already pipelining oil from Canadian tar sands through existing US pipelines, at high pressure, causing enormous oil spills. Taxpayer money cleans those up.
Exactly correct. However, perhaps that is a pretty good reason to not fscking do that?
Even now, the terribly poor crude has to be mixed with other stuff and heated, just to get it through the pipelines at high pressure.
Hey - here's a thought. Hw about Canada, refining the crude themselves?
Regardless, the Canadian Tar Sands oil is the proof that we are hitting the proverbial bottom of the barrel. It's the oil equivalent of reprocessing our shit and eating it.
Because unless you are a fan of the abiotic oil concept - essentially saying Gawd made it, do you deny that oil is going to to become so scarce that it isn't profitible to pump it any more? Do you know the conditions that produce oil are almost certainly never going to exist again, just like coal production? Or more likely, you don't care.
No, it was their backup. When it went away they should have created another one.
The problem of course, is that cloud storage was touted as a backup. So if you have to have a local backup, it kind of makes the cloud storage backup redundant and pointless.
Some people have multiple backups in different locations. That redundancy is not pointless.
That would be me. On nice hard drives that I own, and control.
That would result in population growth and a spread of wealth: there would be more people and they'd all be poorer.
I hope you know that I was employing maximum sarcasm
The minimum wage issue is not something that is a simple "this is going to put people out of work" or Inflation, INFLATION!!!!! issue.
The country has been in the hands of cryptoconservatives for long enough that the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation anyhow. Coupled with the fact that many people who might have been working in a now closed factory are now attempting to live off these minimum wage jobs, the crypto conservatives who run these places employ government social services to support them. Some outfits even give their employees tips on how to successfully suckle at the government teat.
So I laugh at the tools who declare the minimum wage as some sort of cancer, at the same time railing against the guvmint and their socialist programs. To be producers, there must be consumers. The old memes of th ehigh school student or college student at that minimum wage job is gone. Most High school students are too busy with all the activities mommy and daddy have planned for them, and a full time minimum wage job hardly pays enough for an education, much less allows time for the classes.
Should there be a minimum wage? The Libertarian in me says "Hell no!". The realist in me says it just doesn't work out that way.
It's no wonder we're seeing more and more average people question, if not stand against, science. From their perspective, it just isn't reliable any longer.
It doesn't matter if we're talking about nutrition or climate change.
Negative. The problem with food is that there is a bullshit industry built around it that has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with blaming, marketing, and agenda.
I forgot to add lies and bullshit.
All we have to do is look at advertisement. Today, we are starting to eat the healthy sugar again. A third of Americans are avoiding gluten, when only a small number are actually allergic to it. Remember how eating oatmeal was the great health food?
Then we need to talk to vegans, vegetarians, atkins and caveman people, the drink a shitload of water people, and all the other people who have decided that something something was going to make them live longer.
Time and time again average people have been told one thing based on scientific research, but then a short while later they're told that something totally contradictory to the first thing is now correct.
As far as food goes, precious little is science, and marketing and health shaming takes the lions share.
As far as science goes, bring up some of these completely contradictory science based sea changes, and we can discuss.
Science as a whole has a serious boy-who-cried-wolf problem. As scientists we need to be far more careful about the claims we're making, so that people continue to take us seriously.
And a whole lot of people are looking for an eternal truth, an unchanging universe. Religion is probably better for them, and they can reject any and all science, and that will probably satisfy their need.
We can't do what climate science did in the 1960s and 1970s, and predict imminent doom-and-gloom scenarios for the 1980s that don't come to pass, and haven't come to pass even 30 years after that.
A couple points on that. A lot of climate deniers like to bring up an article from the 1970's in time Magazine http://img.timeinc.net/time/ma... that they use as proof that scientists believed we were entering a new ice age. Scientists didn't - although I recall a really snowy winter in the Northeast. We've been treated to weird shit like this over the years, attributed to science, but actually designed to sell stuff to people. Imagine if the Cover of time had an article where the headline was "Scientists say we occasionally have a snowy and cold winter. Dramatic stuff indeed.
Now for ridiculous claims. Very few of the imminent climate doom claims have been put out by people who aren't paying attention, the equivalent of healthy food marketing.
But somehow that stuff gets translated to "In the 1970's all scientists first believe that we were in a new Ice age, then they all changed their minds and they all said we were going to be dead by the year 2000." Oddly enough, the same people often talk about the controversy in science, seamlessly shifting between the monolithic scientist meme, and the controversy as suits their argument.
An example not in the weather field is that many young earth creationists use the Piltdown man hoax to discredit all of science. The logic is Piltdown was a hoax, so the earth was created by the Abrahamic god in 4004 B.C.(E)
We can't say today that some food or substance is unhealthy and we should avoid eating it, but then a few years from now say it's healthy, and in fact we need to eat more of it.
If you ask a nutritionist, most will tell you that you need a balanced diet, one with sufficient protein and carb mix, and amounts of vitamins and minerals. Its remarkably boring. And while there have been some changes over the years, most of what you are objecting to
You're the fool. The issue is not coal per se. Even the "uneducated, uniformed nit-wits" as you so elegantly put it understand that.
Thanks for the longer reply earlier.
How many permanent jobs will be created by the pipeline, and how will the "hard hit" towns be rescued from their hit? The answer to the first question is around 50 permanent jobs, and the second one, In Pennsylvania at least, after the gas jobs went away, the communities went back to the way they were, perhaps a little worse, because a lot of businesses bought into the idea of long term jobs, and incurred debt. In North Dakota the fracking boom is over, and it ain't pretty.
This is the real issue with things like the pipeline and gas drilling. People are always promised jobs. But while the people who might work in the fields, and have images of restoring themselves to prosperity, and the businesses in the towns who think the same, the truth is it doesn't happen that way. Here's how it works for fracking, and it will work similarly for building the part of the pipeline you want that isn't built already.
A friend of my Wife's husband worked the gas fields in PA. Here's how it works:
Disclaimer - I am not against fracking, and it is one of the least invasive ways to get energy, as long as we are careful.
He answered an ad for a fracking job, and was hired as an independent contractor. He was paid pretty well, but not eligible for workmanship comp, had no health insurance, or other benefits.
He drove an hour and a half each way to a staging area in mid northern PA, and from there they were trucked to the place where they were working. As an independent contractor, the fee was set, and no day was less than 12 hours - much spent going to the well site and back.
The work consisted of either working in the fracking container - they look kind of like shipping containers on stilts, and some transported water for ponds to hold the water use for fracking.
After a well and pad for collecting the gas was completed, they'd move ot the next site.
But here's where it gets less happy. Towns near areas where a lot of fracking was going on, were in fat city for a few years. The difference in the number of gasfield workers during the drilling and infrastructure process is so dramtic that when they move out of an area, they are all gone. The workers might travel to the new site, but no one is going into the stores and eateries and motels any more. As well, some workers dropped out when the travel time became onerous. Then, after so many wells were drilled that the price of natgas dropped precipitously, the companies moved out. All back to quiet PA woods. No jobs, no people staying in hotels, and spending money in the towns.
Now I knew this was going to happen, but it appears that not many others did. It wasn't that I was so smart, just had a good memory of a previous gas boom in the late 60's early 70's. Despite my pleas, My wife's friend's husband and her bought a house and a new car. Then after 6 months, lost his job.
That oil pipeline will follw exactly the same pattern, only the jobs will be fewer during construction, and there will be a few more permanent workers when done because of the length.
At issue is a government that ignores them and ignores good things (like the keystone pipeline) in order to appease a portion of the electorate.
I see. Good to see that you know exactly what every citizen in the United states is thinking. And you were whinging about th e East Coast Elites. Brother, I've met worse egoo cases but your's is in the top 5. Once we get past your inability to focus upon anything other than political, we can go into some actual eddycation about this pipeline you want so badly.
Appease is the right word because the keystone pipeline and fracking is superior to oil drilling in Russia and SA for a whole host of reasons. The pipeline is what killed the Demo
Opinions are fine, but facts are better. An informed opinion is supported by facts or logic and therefor has some value.
Opinions without anything to support it can also be valuable in that it can open a dialog, but people have to be willing to change their opinions when presented with overwhelming evidence.
Many have no intention of changing their mind though - that's the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Open ports by themselves don't constitute a security risk.
This comment is sadly the kind of horrifically dangerous and stupid comment that permeates the Android technical community.
So I wasn't the only person who read that as absolute assholery. An open port is always a security risk.
Almost as big a risk as someone declaring it isn't a risk.
true, but then again 100 million years ago the average temperature was significantly hotter, and the ocean levels were higher too.
Then, as nature has done it before, who guarantees that it's not nature that's doing it now (raising the CO2 levels)?
CO2 levels typically come from sources like volcanoes. Yes, it's possible that another big volcanic event could occur, say like the Siberian traps. The added CO2 would be the least of our problems if that happened. major temperature swings as Sulfur aerosols lower temperatures, then we'd deal with swings the other way as the CO2 does it's job.
And if not, is there any guarantee nature will not do it again in the foreseeable future? And if there's no such guarantee, or even a more than slight probability, then why bother about our own produced CO2?
We are all going to die, so why bother getting out of bed - just lie there until we're dead.
Because clearly we can't beat nature. Can we?
Nope, at least not now. but we can work at getting along with it.
It's all a matter of outlook. Many folk don't give a damn about anything that comes after them personally. And some do.
And it looks like its official, The greenhouse effect, or lack of it, has become the USA's Lysenkoism.
is "Are women and minorities mistreated more often, or are white men more tolerant of being mistreated?"
Unfortunately, there's no possible way to ask that question that won't produce an hysterical, blind hatred response from pretty much everybody.
Let's try this one.
It's possible either through basic expectations, or being sold a bill of goods, that many women are convinced both that they can have it all, and that the workplace is a place of fulfillment and happiness.
And yet, none of us actually has it all. I had as much as I could, but juggling a family life and professionalism, I really had to juggle my schedule, and work a lot of extra hours.
And just as a personal observation, so many women came into the workplace looking at it as a sprint to success. That somehow you would work hard for acouple years, then rest on your laurels. It's not a sprint - it's a marathon.
The final issue ties in with the second one. There is competition in the workplace. Not the beat someone in a sport or anger type competition, but one in which some people are willing to work harder and longer. I think this is a guy thing. I have it. If I am willing to work longer and harder, should I be punished for that? Because I have worked with women who do a very good job, but they put in 8 hours, and no more. I am convinced that they believe that competition between employees is mistreatment.
Some of this is conjecture, but all of it is based upon workplace experience. As for the cure, I am not so certain what will work. I think that males have made a lot of adjustments, but it is possible that to achieve equal success, that females might have to make the final adjustment. We always expect insant results, and perhaps meeting in the middle might expedite that.
Is that blind hatred?
I don't know how things work in IT specifically, but if I see someone stumbling out of the office exhausted at 1AM and a life hasn't been saved, I see a major failure of staffing, or scheduling, or otherwise someone fucking up their job.
Depends on the job now doesn't it?
To me it does not sound like "successful" more like "loser".
Yup, and for some people, who cannot be bothered to expend any more than a minimum effort, they believe they are the ones who are winning.
I've seen enough people like that come and go over the years.
No muchacho, they lost.
I worked hard, and as needed, and I provided for and raised a family and was involved in my family, and retired at 55 because I did put in the work, and was compensated for it. The people my age who wouldn't allow the place to " take advantage of them" are either still working, and wil be for the next 12 years, or were really big winners, and were made redundant.
Anybody that makes you be an asshole, or they won't do their job, is themselves a raging, festering, prolapsed asshole.
Exactly. There were people who thought I was an asshole - and I was to them, but they were dumasses who tried to throw up roadblocks to getting things done. And I was fucking mean when the occasion demanded it. My favorite was when someone gave me shit abot something I had to have done, and I'd give them a phone number to call. It was the director's direct line. Never a problem after that.
And upon reflection on a long career, being an asshole to them was exactly what they deserved. Some people seem to think simply doing their job was doing someone a favor. Anyone who was helpful to me? I'd run through a wall for them.
Congratulations. You've just demonstrated the anti-male bias OP was implying exists in these types of reports. That statement from TFA applies to both female and male employees who left their job.
There is a very strong anti-male bias, even when it is approached in a friendly manner - see below.
If you dig up the actual report, you'll find that men left due to unfairness/mistreatment more than women - 40% vs 31%. You read the general stat and assumed it indicated a problem with how women are treated, when in fact it's men who more often feel they're mistreated.
I'm not surprised. I know that in my setting, we had a bit of a bias in hiring women over men, they came in at the same pay as the men, and we promoted them more quickly than men. I voluntarily gave up several promotions in order for a female co worker to get a promotion - stupid quota system with promotions.
Yet - they all left. Despite preferential treatment, they quit. Getting married, having children, just going back to live with the family were typical. One engineer woman left to become a personal trainer - musta been a helluva hit to the pocket, and another opened a daycare center. Some were let go during slowdowns, in large part because if myself or the other guy were let go, more people would be hired because they usually had a distinct list of what they would or wouldn't do.Travel, Overtime, and non standard work hours were a no-no. One of the biggest problems when there were personnel conflicts? Other women.
In the end, even though I missed a number of promotions, I was paid a lot more than the others. And there were a few complaints over the years. Quickly taken care of by the boss who asked if they wanted to do what I did. No takers. The actual report makes pretty interesting reading. The stats are all over the place. Women report experiencing or seeing more mistreatment, but reported experiencing stereotyping at roughly the same rate as men (23% vs 24% for minority men vs women, 14% vs 12 % for white/asian men vs women). The rate of unwanted sexual attention is drastically higher in the tech industry than other industries (10% vs 6%), but the rate of unwanted sexual attention reported by women is only slightly higher than by men (10% vs 8%). For bullying and harassment, white/asian women reported a lower incident rate than white/asian men (15% vs 16%). But minority women reported a substantially higher rate than minority men (13% vs 9%). You'll also notice minorities reported a lower harassment rate than whites/asians. I highly recommend reading the actual report if you're curious about this stuff. It doesn't really fit into any of the stereotypes (hah) about male/female or white/asian vs minorities.
You get paid according to the agreement you had with your employer. If you don't like the terms of your employment then you need to renegotiate-- you have no right to complain about what you agreed to.
And we learn that showing up as late as possible, and doing as little as possible is the hot ticket. Jesus was such a commie.
In the USA they are required to keep you job (or one just like it) open. There is an expectation that the parent will return.
Contractors see these, short term, might turn perm, roles all the time.
If you believe this doesn't affect the job prospects of childbearing age women, I've got a bridge to sell you. But it _should_ affect their job prospects, just like any other real factor. The law be damned.
Yup.We had a woman who had three children over a roughly 8 year period. Took off over a year each. We were required to give her he job back.
That meant that three other women who were working as replacement lost their jobs.
And it is important, now that we talk about equal pay for equal work. I was quite dependable, and would come in early and work late, work nights and weekends, and travel. If another person of the same job description but only works 6 years out of ten, won't work more than 40 hours a week, and won't work any other times than 8 to 5, and refuses to travel, due the same compensation I am?
This is not a trivial question. Saying yes brings up a whole other set of problems, Continuity of work and needed expenditures for more employees by the employer means something. If people who do less overall work than I do, I'm outa there, because I know what I'm worth.
Or your going to be driving a Pinto running on 3 cylinders with a full tank of gas wearing oil soaked clothes in heavy traffic on the highways in hell.
Hey! That's my fetish!
Energy losses by distance will be much smaller with a focused beam (depending on the efficiency of the technology, closing on 100%).
Beaming increases the effected radiated power. It doesn't change what happens to the signal after it leaves the antenna. It obeys all the laws of physics pertaining to electromagnetic radiation.
I for one, would rather plug in my phone rather than submit myself to radiotherapy at wireless router frequencies. And where I carry my phone is perilously close to the family jewels.
Which brings up another interesting point. These devices will somehow put out high levels of power and not interfere with nearby services?
One of the problems with the computing world today is that the people who understand RF are not even in the picture, while the digital people get some strange ideas about RF. That's how we got some certifiably insane ideas like BPL or Broadband over Power Line, which had so many terrible flaws that it was simply never going to work, and the RF savvy people pointed out every flaw, but the Digital people pooh-pooed it. It even got deployed in a few locations before failing miserably along many concurrent failure modes.
tl;dr version - this ain't gonna work unless we dose everyone in the room with really unhealthy levels of electromagnetic radiation.
We devolved out of pure greed.
But plugging a phone into a charger or popping it into a dock is soooooo inconvenient.
The law of er's in effect.
These "lots" of energy you are talking about are not nearly enough for a modern smartphone.
Even if you would make use of the electromagnetic radiation coming from a nuclear fusion reactor, and position your phone optimally, a harvesting panel the size of a smartphone would barely be able to gain 1W.
These ridiculous smartphone charging schemes keep coming up, and they get no less ridiculous as we go on.
Unless you are in the near field, the amount of energy you could harvest is just about none, and if you are in the near field you don't want living things in it, it you are sending out enough energy to charge phones.
It's a really bad answer to a nonexistent problem.
Sounds like American companies get a piece of oil that would route around them, then. We get revenue from this shit?
We probably get a refining fee, and use unused refinery capacity.
Just because somebody can do something doesn't mean that if there is a more efficient way to do it, you wouldn't prefer to do it that way. If a shorter route crossing the Rockies had actually been a more efficient way to transport oil than a longer pipeline not crossing the mountains, you would expect that other companies would have emulated this pipeline. But they didn't.
There is a huge amount of opposition in Canada, so more likely they are taking the path of less resistance. In addition, the poor quality crude is hard enough to pump already. Plus, the plan is to mix it with some higher quality crude to make it less asphalt road topping in nature, which they need from the USA (I'm not certain where that mixing is occurring) But that really shouldn't be the USA's problem.
It's a political triumph of the will litmus test.
I appreciate your condescending, smug response. I liked it so much I poked around and found that Kinder Morgan built a pipeline across the Canadian rockies in the 50s and expanded it in 2004. It can transport 300k barrels a day and there are proposals to triple it. For comparison, Keystone is ~500k barrels/day.
I suspect that Canada is wishing to send their bottom of the barrel quality oil though the new majick pipeline shortcut so we can deal with the damage. The tar sands have to be heated then mixed with some actual high quality crude, and pumped at high pressure just to get it through the pipelines. That's an interesting recipe.
Regardless, there is a lot of opposition to them building a new pipeline in their own country. I'm pretty certain they can't use the old ones because they would blow out.
You had built up this elaborate argument, it was based on an incorrect concept, so you do a quick repaint and it's ready to go? I don't think so.
Yeah, but he gets points for going after liberals. When in doubt, dig up some alternative facts.
We're already pipelining oil from Canadian tar sands through existing US pipelines, at high pressure, causing enormous oil spills. Taxpayer money cleans those up.
Exactly correct. However, perhaps that is a pretty good reason to not fscking do that?
Even now, the terribly poor crude has to be mixed with other stuff and heated, just to get it through the pipelines at high pressure.
Hey - here's a thought. Hw about Canada, refining the crude themselves?
Regardless, the Canadian Tar Sands oil is the proof that we are hitting the proverbial bottom of the barrel. It's the oil equivalent of reprocessing our shit and eating it.
Because unless you are a fan of the abiotic oil concept - essentially saying Gawd made it, do you deny that oil is going to to become so scarce that it isn't profitible to pump it any more? Do you know the conditions that produce oil are almost certainly never going to exist again, just like coal production? Or more likely, you don't care.
Cloud storage is their backup.
No, it was their backup. When it went away they should have created another one.
The problem of course, is that cloud storage was touted as a backup. So if you have to have a local backup, it kind of makes the cloud storage backup redundant and pointless.
Some people have multiple backups in different locations. That redundancy is not pointless.
That would be me. On nice hard drives that I own, and control.
That would result in population growth and a spread of wealth: there would be more people and they'd all be poorer.
I hope you know that I was employing maximum sarcasm
The minimum wage issue is not something that is a simple "this is going to put people out of work" or Inflation, INFLATION!!!!! issue.
The country has been in the hands of cryptoconservatives for long enough that the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation anyhow. Coupled with the fact that many people who might have been working in a now closed factory are now attempting to live off these minimum wage jobs, the crypto conservatives who run these places employ government social services to support them. Some outfits even give their employees tips on how to successfully suckle at the government teat.
So I laugh at the tools who declare the minimum wage as some sort of cancer, at the same time railing against the guvmint and their socialist programs. To be producers, there must be consumers. The old memes of th ehigh school student or college student at that minimum wage job is gone. Most High school students are too busy with all the activities mommy and daddy have planned for them, and a full time minimum wage job hardly pays enough for an education, much less allows time for the classes.
Should there be a minimum wage? The Libertarian in me says "Hell no!". The realist in me says it just doesn't work out that way.
It's no wonder we're seeing more and more average people question, if not stand against, science. From their perspective, it just isn't reliable any longer.
It doesn't matter if we're talking about nutrition or climate change.
Negative. The problem with food is that there is a bullshit industry built around it that has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with blaming, marketing, and agenda.
I forgot to add lies and bullshit.
All we have to do is look at advertisement. Today, we are starting to eat the healthy sugar again. A third of Americans are avoiding gluten, when only a small number are actually allergic to it. Remember how eating oatmeal was the great health food?
Then we need to talk to vegans, vegetarians, atkins and caveman people, the drink a shitload of water people, and all the other people who have decided that something something was going to make them live longer.
Time and time again average people have been told one thing based on scientific research, but then a short while later they're told that something totally contradictory to the first thing is now correct.
As far as food goes, precious little is science, and marketing and health shaming takes the lions share.
As far as science goes, bring up some of these completely contradictory science based sea changes, and we can discuss.
Science as a whole has a serious boy-who-cried-wolf problem. As scientists we need to be far more careful about the claims we're making, so that people continue to take us seriously.
And a whole lot of people are looking for an eternal truth, an unchanging universe. Religion is probably better for them, and they can reject any and all science, and that will probably satisfy their need.
We can't do what climate science did in the 1960s and 1970s, and predict imminent doom-and-gloom scenarios for the 1980s that don't come to pass, and haven't come to pass even 30 years after that.
A couple points on that. A lot of climate deniers like to bring up an article from the 1970's in time Magazine http://img.timeinc.net/time/ma... that they use as proof that scientists believed we were entering a new ice age. Scientists didn't - although I recall a really snowy winter in the Northeast. We've been treated to weird shit like this over the years, attributed to science, but actually designed to sell stuff to people. Imagine if the Cover of time had an article where the headline was "Scientists say we occasionally have a snowy and cold winter. Dramatic stuff indeed.
Now for ridiculous claims. Very few of the imminent climate doom claims have been put out by people who aren't paying attention, the equivalent of healthy food marketing.
But somehow that stuff gets translated to "In the 1970's all scientists first believe that we were in a new Ice age, then they all changed their minds and they all said we were going to be dead by the year 2000." Oddly enough, the same people often talk about the controversy in science, seamlessly shifting between the monolithic scientist meme, and the controversy as suits their argument.
An example not in the weather field is that many young earth creationists use the Piltdown man hoax to discredit all of science. The logic is Piltdown was a hoax, so the earth was created by the Abrahamic god in 4004 B.C.(E)
We can't say today that some food or substance is unhealthy and we should avoid eating it, but then a few years from now say it's healthy, and in fact we need to eat more of it.
If you ask a nutritionist, most will tell you that you need a balanced diet, one with sufficient protein and carb mix, and amounts of vitamins and minerals. Its remarkably boring. And while there have been some changes over the years, most of what you are objecting to
The Moon on the other hand is 2 weeks away.
And yet Apollo made it there in 2 & a bit days!
Well duh! That was 50 years years ago. Traffic is hell these days.
You're the fool. The issue is not coal per se. Even the "uneducated, uniformed nit-wits" as you so elegantly put it understand that.
Thanks for the longer reply earlier.
How many permanent jobs will be created by the pipeline, and how will the "hard hit" towns be rescued from their hit? The answer to the first question is around 50 permanent jobs, and the second one, In Pennsylvania at least, after the gas jobs went away, the communities went back to the way they were, perhaps a little worse, because a lot of businesses bought into the idea of long term jobs, and incurred debt. In North Dakota the fracking boom is over, and it ain't pretty.
This is the real issue with things like the pipeline and gas drilling. People are always promised jobs. But while the people who might work in the fields, and have images of restoring themselves to prosperity, and the businesses in the towns who think the same, the truth is it doesn't happen that way. Here's how it works for fracking, and it will work similarly for building the part of the pipeline you want that isn't built already.
A friend of my Wife's husband worked the gas fields in PA. Here's how it works:
Disclaimer - I am not against fracking, and it is one of the least invasive ways to get energy, as long as we are careful.
He answered an ad for a fracking job, and was hired as an independent contractor. He was paid pretty well, but not eligible for workmanship comp, had no health insurance, or other benefits.
He drove an hour and a half each way to a staging area in mid northern PA, and from there they were trucked to the place where they were working. As an independent contractor, the fee was set, and no day was less than 12 hours - much spent going to the well site and back.
The work consisted of either working in the fracking container - they look kind of like shipping containers on stilts, and some transported water for ponds to hold the water use for fracking.
After a well and pad for collecting the gas was completed, they'd move ot the next site.
But here's where it gets less happy. Towns near areas where a lot of fracking was going on, were in fat city for a few years. The difference in the number of gasfield workers during the drilling and infrastructure process is so dramtic that when they move out of an area, they are all gone. The workers might travel to the new site, but no one is going into the stores and eateries and motels any more. As well, some workers dropped out when the travel time became onerous. Then, after so many wells were drilled that the price of natgas dropped precipitously, the companies moved out. All back to quiet PA woods. No jobs, no people staying in hotels, and spending money in the towns.
Now I knew this was going to happen, but it appears that not many others did. It wasn't that I was so smart, just had a good memory of a previous gas boom in the late 60's early 70's. Despite my pleas, My wife's friend's husband and her bought a house and a new car. Then after 6 months, lost his job.
That oil pipeline will follw exactly the same pattern, only the jobs will be fewer during construction, and there will be a few more permanent workers when done because of the length.
At issue is a government that ignores them and ignores good things (like the keystone pipeline) in order to appease a portion of the electorate.
I see. Good to see that you know exactly what every citizen in the United states is thinking. And you were whinging about th e East Coast Elites. Brother, I've met worse egoo cases but your's is in the top 5. Once we get past your inability to focus upon anything other than political, we can go into some actual eddycation about this pipeline you want so badly.
Appease is the right word because the keystone pipeline and fracking is superior to oil drilling in Russia and SA for a whole host of reasons. The pipeline is what killed the Demo
Without data in a cloud what do you do when they take your or your service providers hardware?
Ummm, that's the strangest comment I've read all day.
Opinions are fine, but facts are better. An informed opinion is supported by facts or logic and therefor has some value. Opinions without anything to support it can also be valuable in that it can open a dialog, but people have to be willing to change their opinions when presented with overwhelming evidence.
Many have no intention of changing their mind though - that's the problem.