No, the wolf ate the boy, which was the point of it all (did you hear some softened version?). Imagining that a whole flock would fit in a wolf is a stretch even by fairy tale standards.
Possibly. But it's a really bad idea to plan for the future based on what might happen. You have to assume that things will continue the way they are, and project the consequences of that.
I can tell which one of us has ever invested in commodities. Nothing ever continues the way it is. Life just isn't like that.
I see it as a message that the responsibile thing would be to try to live on our solar income and stop burning through our fossil fuel "trust fund."
Feel free to lower your on standard of living if you gain net happiness from that. That's what freedom is for. But if you try to use the power of the state to force other to lower their standard of living because that would make you happy, well, expect resistance.
carbon is going to have devastating environmentally-related financial costs
Sorry, I don't share your religion; I don't believe some Earth Goddess will punish you for your sin of carbon emission.
My entire life I've heard one excuse after another for taking away people freedom to buy what they want in favor of some central planning committee. This is just the latest in a lifetime of lies, as far as I'm concerned. The last 50 excuses were lies, so I'm not even bothering with this latest one, no matter how people insist "no, really, it's a wolf this time".
such a fossil-energy tax could have a serious chilling effect on our economy, but that could be greatly offset by having the tax immediately rebated to consumers - even a straightforward uniform distribution of revenue to the populace
Communism and central planning committees, you say? This is my surprised face.
We didn't leave the stone age because we ran out of rocks. We won't deplete oil, could, or fissionables, because alternatives will become economically better this century. Better batteries lets solar become practical at scale for home and transportation use, and Musk is showing that current battery tech might already be there (and solar scales indefinitely). Industrial needs are a harder problem, but fusion will eventually be figured out.
"Renewable" is just a scare tactic used by people who want more power for central planning, rather than just letting freedom take its course.
It's a poor bet with current nuclear technology though - Global uranium reserves are only sufficient to meet global energy demands for a decade or so before being depleted
Sure, unless we, you know, actually explore/mine for more uranium (there's no real economic incentive to discover more uranium today, unlike oil where reserves get larger every decade). Or use breeder reactors.
Exactly. The sun (and thus wind and etc) is not a renewable resource. Both it and fissionables are leftovers from supernovae of the past. Both will run out eventually, but neither will run out fast enough to matter to humans, nor will oil. Technology moves faster than fuel runs out.
I'm pretty sure that my house isn't burning, no matter what excuse those who love a powerful government want to deceive me into giving the government more power.
Cars are only part of the picture. There are three major groups of energy consumers in the US: * Electrical power generation (consumer, commercial, and industrial) * Transportation (consumer, commercial, and industrial) * Direct thermal (industrial and heating oil)
That last one is amazingly difficult to handle. Smelting and foundries could eventually be all electric arc, but you're not getting steel without coke from coal, or coal directly in a more eco-friendly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...>process. Smelting generally uses CO to emit CO2 as a key part of purifying metals. The power requirements for these processes are vast, and we're unlikely to double the size of our distribution network to handle this.
Your arguments boil down to "it would take an extreme totalitarian state to accomplish this". Do realize you're arguing against a guy who sees this as "and we'd also get an extreme totalitarian state, so it's win-win".
So... You should move to Somolia to obtain a piece of the heaven you speak of.
Please stop posting this drivel on Slashdot.
We're beyond equating "in this one instance, government intervention might be net harmful" with "yay anarchy" here. Perhaps you were looking for Reddit?
as long as companies continue to create devices designed to defeat LEO
There's not an important difference between a phone and a safe. You can buy a safe that the government would find nigh impossible to extract paper documents from (because paper burns, and will if enough energy is directed into the safe). The only difference is cost.
The underlying problem is the way our republic is structured. The first past the post system prevents a multiplicity of parties and views that must cooperate with each other to get things done
People say that a lot, but is misses the point. The real elections in America are the primaries. The general election is just a sanity check (which is why there's often no difference between the candidates except on noisy-but-unimportant issues like gay marriage). If you've been following the primaries, there's a real wealth of systems in play.
If the Democrats has an honest system designed to represent the people, Bernie would be winning that primary (they don't of course: Bernie got 70%+ of the vote in WA, but Hillary got 70%+ of the delegates).
Complaining about first-past-the-post is empty nerdrage where it's not a technical problem to begin with.
the republicans cow
Wait, are you both the "republicans" troll and the "cow" troll, accidentally posting under your own account? Uh-oh.
Isn't that the whole idea? Get the masses riled up over sex, abortion, and drag queens in the women's restroom, and you can get them to vote for corporate tax breaks and carried interest deductions.
That's pretty much the only thing I've seen both parties doing the past few years; certainly they're not governing. Coincidentally, we've had the longest and worst recession in most people lifetimes.
You're an idiot if you think no immigration is any different than limited immigration.
See, this is what I mean. You're probably against admitting invading armies, or convicted child rapists escaped from jail, or people with a declared (not assumed) intent to commit terrorism. You probably against admitting so many people so fast that it would unquestionably cause mass starvation from simple lack of infrastructure to move people and food around the first year.
You take the obviously wrong extreme position not because you've actually thought about it, but because you want to declare "see, I'm one of the good people, I hold the correct belief"! As do those who state the opposite end, of course.
two identical systems can have different "quantities of heat" in them
How would that work, then? Unless you're just saying that "heat" it only meaningful relative to some floor, just like potential energy, in which case fine.
Temperature is precisely defined the same in all cases
And that definition would be? Or do you mean the concept is the same, but the definition in terms of how it may be determined varies? In that case I agree. But concepts are qualitative and temperature isn't a very useful concept without some way to quantify it. Emission spectrum works well for ideal black bodies, sure, and entropy works well for most systems, but neither is comprehensive.
Why would the average working-class guy even vote for the Republicans? They are, unashamedly, the supporters of the employers of the average working-class guy.
Because parties are coalitions of a wide set of positions they support? Except in recent years, that's just not true any more, and both parties exist only to serve big-money donors and the voters interests don't matter to either side except as rhetoric. That's why both Trump and Bernie keep getting so many primary votes.
Of course the politicians involved are retards. They're just doing what the FBI and NSA are telling them to do. So far as these stunningly mindless halfwits are concerned, computers are magic bosses and those weirdo nerdy wizards should just do what they are told.
Feinstein having no clue about the simplest aspects of technology I understand, since shes 137 years old, but Burr is only 60 and has likely used a web browser. I think it's more about the "NSA telling them what to do" part than the morons part. More politicians that grew up with computers would certainly help, though.
Trump only exists as a candidate because the Republicans have done such a bad job of representing the average working-class guy who votes Republican. (Conservative is almost meaningless now, as is Liberal, Right, and Left) He's certainly populist, but his supporters aren't populist idealogs for the most part there's just not a better answer being discussed.
Most people understand that "no immigration at all" and "totally open borders" are both really stupid ideas, but those are the only choices people are talking about, so if you have a low-skill job threatened by immigration, it's easy to chose between the two.
I think you're right that that's the only thing Trump has been consistent on this election (and even his populism is fairly recent).
Unless you're being pedantic even by/. standards, "heat" is what "heat transfer" transfers. You can speak of the heat in an object (the heat that could be transferred to another object or to an environment at some reference temperature, perhaps 0) , change in heat, specific heat, energy density in terms of heat or specific heat, and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the wolf ate the boy, which was the point of it all (did you hear some softened version?). Imagining that a whole flock would fit in a wolf is a stretch even by fairy tale standards.
Possibly. But it's a really bad idea to plan for the future based on what might happen. You have to assume that things will continue the way they are, and project the consequences of that.
I can tell which one of us has ever invested in commodities. Nothing ever continues the way it is. Life just isn't like that.
I see it as a message that the responsibile thing would be to try to live on our solar income and stop burning through our fossil fuel "trust fund."
Feel free to lower your on standard of living if you gain net happiness from that. That's what freedom is for. But if you try to use the power of the state to force other to lower their standard of living because that would make you happy, well, expect resistance.
carbon is going to have devastating environmentally-related financial costs
Sorry, I don't share your religion; I don't believe some Earth Goddess will punish you for your sin of carbon emission.
My entire life I've heard one excuse after another for taking away people freedom to buy what they want in favor of some central planning committee. This is just the latest in a lifetime of lies, as far as I'm concerned. The last 50 excuses were lies, so I'm not even bothering with this latest one, no matter how people insist "no, really, it's a wolf this time".
such a fossil-energy tax could have a serious chilling effect on our economy, but that could be greatly offset by having the tax immediately rebated to consumers - even a straightforward uniform distribution of revenue to the populace
Communism and central planning committees, you say? This is my surprised face.
We didn't leave the stone age because we ran out of rocks. We won't deplete oil, could, or fissionables, because alternatives will become economically better this century. Better batteries lets solar become practical at scale for home and transportation use, and Musk is showing that current battery tech might already be there (and solar scales indefinitely). Industrial needs are a harder problem, but fusion will eventually be figured out.
"Renewable" is just a scare tactic used by people who want more power for central planning, rather than just letting freedom take its course.
It's a poor bet with current nuclear technology though - Global uranium reserves are only sufficient to meet global energy demands for a decade or so before being depleted
Sure, unless we, you know, actually explore/mine for more uranium (there's no real economic incentive to discover more uranium today, unlike oil where reserves get larger every decade). Or use breeder reactors.
What? No.
Exactly. The sun (and thus wind and etc) is not a renewable resource. Both it and fissionables are leftovers from supernovae of the past. Both will run out eventually, but neither will run out fast enough to matter to humans, nor will oil. Technology moves faster than fuel runs out.
And I doubt this social science professor has ever even considered "smelting".
I'm pretty sure that my house isn't burning, no matter what excuse those who love a powerful government want to deceive me into giving the government more power.
Wow, slashcode fail. "process"
Editing posts - I don't think slashcode will ever be up to it.
Cars are only part of the picture. There are three major groups of energy consumers in the US:
* Electrical power generation (consumer, commercial, and industrial)
* Transportation (consumer, commercial, and industrial)
* Direct thermal (industrial and heating oil)
That last one is amazingly difficult to handle. Smelting and foundries could eventually be all electric arc, but you're not getting steel without coke from coal, or coal directly in a more eco-friendly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...>process. Smelting generally uses CO to emit CO2 as a key part of purifying metals. The power requirements for these processes are vast, and we're unlikely to double the size of our distribution network to handle this.
Your arguments boil down to "it would take an extreme totalitarian state to accomplish this". Do realize you're arguing against a guy who sees this as "and we'd also get an extreme totalitarian state, so it's win-win".
So... You should move to Somolia to obtain a piece of the heaven you speak of.
Please stop posting this drivel on Slashdot.
We're beyond equating "in this one instance, government intervention might be net harmful" with "yay anarchy" here. Perhaps you were looking for Reddit?
Current nuclear technology requires finite resources and is nonrenewable.
The same is true of fusion (e.g. solar) power. Everything is non-renewable. It's a nonsense comment. Technology moves faster than we run out of fuels.
Fission fuel is as renewable as fusion fuel, and all power is ultimately fusion power stored or transformed in some way.
as long as companies continue to create devices designed to defeat LEO
There's not an important difference between a phone and a safe. You can buy a safe that the government would find nigh impossible to extract paper documents from (because paper burns, and will if enough energy is directed into the safe). The only difference is cost.
The underlying problem is the way our republic is structured. The first past the post system prevents a multiplicity of parties and views that must cooperate with each other to get things done
People say that a lot, but is misses the point. The real elections in America are the primaries. The general election is just a sanity check (which is why there's often no difference between the candidates except on noisy-but-unimportant issues like gay marriage). If you've been following the primaries, there's a real wealth of systems in play.
If the Democrats has an honest system designed to represent the people, Bernie would be winning that primary (they don't of course: Bernie got 70%+ of the vote in WA, but Hillary got 70%+ of the delegates).
Complaining about first-past-the-post is empty nerdrage where it's not a technical problem to begin with.
the republicans cow
Wait, are you both the "republicans" troll and the "cow" troll, accidentally posting under your own account? Uh-oh.
Isn't that the whole idea? Get the masses riled up over sex, abortion, and drag queens in the women's restroom, and you can get them to vote for corporate tax breaks and carried interest deductions.
That's pretty much the only thing I've seen both parties doing the past few years; certainly they're not governing. Coincidentally, we've had the longest and worst recession in most people lifetimes.
You're an idiot if you think no immigration is any different than limited immigration.
See, this is what I mean. You're probably against admitting invading armies, or convicted child rapists escaped from jail, or people with a declared (not assumed) intent to commit terrorism. You probably against admitting so many people so fast that it would unquestionably cause mass starvation from simple lack of infrastructure to move people and food around the first year.
You take the obviously wrong extreme position not because you've actually thought about it, but because you want to declare "see, I'm one of the good people, I hold the correct belief"! As do those who state the opposite end, of course.
Black and white answers are for children.
Sure, but those words have only technical meanings.
two identical systems can have different "quantities of heat" in them
How would that work, then? Unless you're just saying that "heat" it only meaningful relative to some floor, just like potential energy, in which case fine.
Temperature is precisely defined the same in all cases
And that definition would be? Or do you mean the concept is the same, but the definition in terms of how it may be determined varies? In that case I agree. But concepts are qualitative and temperature isn't a very useful concept without some way to quantify it. Emission spectrum works well for ideal black bodies, sure, and entropy works well for most systems, but neither is comprehensive.
Why would the average working-class guy even vote for the Republicans? They are, unashamedly, the supporters of the employers of the average working-class guy.
Because parties are coalitions of a wide set of positions they support? Except in recent years, that's just not true any more, and both parties exist only to serve big-money donors and the voters interests don't matter to either side except as rhetoric. That's why both Trump and Bernie keep getting so many primary votes.
Yes, yes, insist on your technical jargon, while most of us continue using "heat" as a synonym for "thermal energy".
Of course the politicians involved are retards. They're just doing what the FBI and NSA are telling them to do. So far as these stunningly mindless halfwits are concerned, computers are magic bosses and those weirdo nerdy wizards should just do what they are told.
Feinstein having no clue about the simplest aspects of technology I understand, since shes 137 years old, but Burr is only 60 and has likely used a web browser. I think it's more about the "NSA telling them what to do" part than the morons part. More politicians that grew up with computers would certainly help, though.
Trump only exists as a candidate because the Republicans have done such a bad job of representing the average working-class guy who votes Republican. (Conservative is almost meaningless now, as is Liberal, Right, and Left) He's certainly populist, but his supporters aren't populist idealogs for the most part there's just not a better answer being discussed.
Most people understand that "no immigration at all" and "totally open borders" are both really stupid ideas, but those are the only choices people are talking about, so if you have a low-skill job threatened by immigration, it's easy to chose between the two.
I think you're right that that's the only thing Trump has been consistent on this election (and even his populism is fairly recent).
Unless you're being pedantic even by /. standards, "heat" is what "heat transfer" transfers. You can speak of the heat in an object (the heat that could be transferred to another object or to an environment at some reference temperature, perhaps 0) , change in heat, specific heat, energy density in terms of heat or specific heat, and so on.