"The miraculous landing on a wheat field had only a single death among the 250 passengers on board. An anonymous passenger said some smug looking asshole that didn't brace had his skull cracked on the seat in front of him as the plane made a hard touchdown."
"This project was carried out and authored by Ecofys. " "Ecofys is a leading knowledge and innovation company in the field of renewable energy, energy efficiency and climate change."
How surprising that a report written by a renewable energy company found out that renewable energy is best energy.
This is not a problem exclusive to women. As a man you can also get your life disrupted by death threats, unordered pizzas/taxis/products and doxxing.
It's probably easier to get singled out for it as a women, but if you are subject to it as a man you'll get much less support to cope with it. This is reflected in the offline world too as a MUCH higher suicide rate for men compared to women. Trying to construct this as some purely misgyonistic issue is just reinforcing the gender bias of men as some disposable soldier caste and is likely to aggrevate misgyonistic tendencies overall in society.
If you insist that this is just about females then you're a proponent for gender privlege and not equality.
It's hard to admit that you could've been wrong isn't it? Especially after you've been gloating over your high horse position and have insulted everyone that disagreed.
I have a model that reproduces past winning lottery numbers, for only a million USD: far less than what I predict you to win, you are allowed to use it forescast the future ones too.
Hindcasting is easy. Forecasting is hard. And the climate models fail miserably at the latter.
Investing in intermittent power sources further cuts into their profit and viability. They can't really run their solar panels at night to compensate for all the other ones dumping energy at day.
This is of course true for everoyne else too, which means off-peak energy will grow more expensive or run at loss eventually.
Go tell the managers of Hydro Aluminium that the renewable induced grid instabilities that costs them thousands of euros in equipment damage and then some more from lost work is great for their industry. http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
Large scale grid storage doesn't exist in a cheap and efficient manner. That's one of the core problems with wind and solar. It's great for shaving off peak demand but after a certain point it will be investments into useless overcapacity(it's also a great way to make renewables competitive with grid prices though as grid inefficiency costs are offloaded to end users)
"Do you admit that Oh Please Stop Drilling My Heelbones associates you to the plot to assassinate american diplomats?" "Tell me more about You Dumb Machine, I've Already Confessed. Is he one of your associates?" "You've already admitted that I Won't Tell You Anything, if you can tell us more about Beta_testentry_2_remove_this_before_field_testing we won't hurt your family"
At least the new iPhone is waterproof to 2 meters for 30 minutes so the last hoax where people ruined it by putting it under the tap doesn't work anymore.
Now you just create a facebook page, fill it will fact-stripped alarmist language with several "Last call! we're all going to burn in this life if nothing is done! Like and share" and get big enviro pick it up and you'll have it disseminated globally soon enough, with several hundreds or thousands of environmentally minded people jetting in form all over the place to participate in your political-religious activist parade.
An intentional blinder could be built to sweep square miles of terrain from a drone. The protocol at least prevent that sort of weapon, though it's a bit retarded that trying or succeeding in killing someone is totally okay but anything less is not.
It's wavelength dependent. visible light will blind people but for the military combat lasers they probably use wavelengths that the eye is opaque to, meaning no focusing on the retina and damage due to minor scatter and reflections, but will still literally cook the eye if directly exposed.
Also, the military type blinder weapons that was developed in the past to intentionally blind had a kilometer+ range. Blindness at 50 meter or blindness at 2km? Is it really a getting around or unintenional consequences(in the same manner that less-lethal weapons can still be lethal)
You'll love the next gen firearm that uses geolocation to make sure you don't use it in government buildings and face recognition to ensure you don't shoot your family or self, with additional settings for not firing against facebooks friends. With the premium service it will also refuse to fire unless sure you'll hit your target to save bullets, platinum service will also check the financial status of the would be victim along with consulting expert systems for potential legal complications and only shoot if it considers you to have good case in court or can hire a better lawyer than the victim or his family.
The gold plated gun edition will feature a waterpass lock and only fire when held sideways and use force feedback to ensure aiming is utterly impossible. Built in police radio optional.
Also, using the sentinel edition activesecurity feature you can leave it on a table facing your least secure window and it will automatically shoot would-be burglars and call the police on its own!
For families with pets or young children you can get it covered in brightly coloured rubber that's food safe and chewing resistant.
If you can finance it yourself and find it profitable or sensible to do so, then feel free to do it yourself, but don't call for government intervention based on some simple napkin calculations.
Also, the WA situation doesn't sound very stable, utilities failing could mean some price spikes and other problems.
How is the energy free when you need a 3kW solar system on every house for it to work? Also, they cost more than $3k. Also, if each house needs 3kW to sustain itself, what's left to distribute? Also, homes use what on average? 30% of the total electricity? Also, trying to load balance over long distances doesn't work because we don't have superconducting electricity grids yet. Also, intermittency means you still need classic power at approximately the same extent as now to fill in the gaps.
I can prove that an underground solar farm would be a great idea with a back of the napkin calculation, reality however is not so easily simplified.
If natural systems can sink all supposed manmade change, why could natural systems cause all the change too? If the natural sink capability massively underrated too, what's to say there's really a cause to worry at all?
If we really will be screwed by society being forced to change due to climate, what's to say we won't be equally or greater screwed if we're forced to change due to policy? If natural variability is underrated as suggested by the previous paragraph, what's to say we can't be fucked over twice; first by policy and then by natural climate drift? Unless you're denying ice ages we already know that natural drift have a very wide range.
What about the people with stake in large multinational wind and solar producers claiming we can save ourself with all-renewable society? Are they saints incapable of lying, or could it be that any alarmism and climate hype serves their cause and fills their pockets?
Why should we listen to people like you who claim that we're bound for disaster with certainity, while at the same time IPCC is revising their predictions downwards for every new report released. Why should we suppress the debate by claiming it's all settled when it obviously isn't?
Why is polarizing hardline rethoric constantly used by environmentalists? Why is the pro-agw side always the good side and everything else is universally bad? Could it be that you're not actually seeking facts to improve earth science, but just want to advance your activist agenda and shallow ideological belief?
Slashdot Mirror
Women are the reason there's no women coders. I'm getting really tired of females being allowed to externalize all their problems while males are not.
Then wait until the boys hit puberty.
Of course it would lose all value due to the overabundance so the investment will never pay off.
"The miraculous landing on a wheat field had only a single death among the 250 passengers on board. An anonymous passenger said some smug looking asshole that didn't brace had his skull cracked on the seat in front of him as the plane made a hard touchdown."
They never say anything about floating seats in the EU.
Maybe they assume all the corpses floating around will suffice?
"This project was carried out and authored by Ecofys. "
"Ecofys is a leading knowledge and innovation company in the field of renewable energy, energy efficiency and climate change."
How surprising that a report written by a renewable energy company found out that renewable energy is best energy.
This is not a problem exclusive to women.
As a man you can also get your life disrupted by death threats, unordered pizzas/taxis/products and doxxing.
It's probably easier to get singled out for it as a women, but if you are subject to it as a man you'll get much less support to cope with it. This is reflected in the offline world too as a MUCH higher suicide rate for men compared to women. Trying to construct this as some purely misgyonistic issue is just reinforcing the gender bias of men as some disposable soldier caste and is likely to aggrevate misgyonistic tendencies overall in society.
If you insist that this is just about females then you're a proponent for gender privlege and not equality.
It's hard to admit that you could've been wrong isn't it?
Especially after you've been gloating over your high horse position and have insulted everyone that disagreed.
They're obviously getting a rebate on rocket fuel from big oil. Deniers the whole bunch of them!
I have a model that reproduces past winning lottery numbers, for only a million USD: far less than what I predict you to win, you are allowed to use it forescast the future ones too.
Hindcasting is easy. Forecasting is hard. And the climate models fail miserably at the latter.
Investing in intermittent power sources further cuts into their profit and viability. They can't really run their solar panels at night to compensate for all the other ones dumping energy at day.
This is of course true for everoyne else too, which means off-peak energy will grow more expensive or run at loss eventually.
Go tell the managers of Hydro Aluminium that the renewable induced grid instabilities that costs them thousands of euros in equipment damage and then some more from lost work is great for their industry.
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
"Think of the children!"
"Lets leave them a world of energy starvation and poverty!"
Large scale grid storage doesn't exist in a cheap and efficient manner. That's one of the core problems with wind and solar. It's great for shaving off peak demand but after a certain point it will be investments into useless overcapacity(it's also a great way to make renewables competitive with grid prices though as grid inefficiency costs are offloaded to end users)
"Do you admit that Oh Please Stop Drilling My Heelbones associates you to the plot to assassinate american diplomats?"
"Tell me more about You Dumb Machine, I've Already Confessed. Is he one of your associates?"
"You've already admitted that I Won't Tell You Anything, if you can tell us more about Beta_testentry_2_remove_this_before_field_testing we won't hurt your family"
At least the new iPhone is waterproof to 2 meters for 30 minutes so the last hoax where people ruined it by putting it under the tap doesn't work anymore.
Mass hype was harder back then.
Now you just create a facebook page, fill it will fact-stripped alarmist language with several "Last call! we're all going to burn in this life if nothing is done! Like and share" and get big enviro pick it up and you'll have it disseminated globally soon enough, with several hundreds or thousands of environmentally minded people jetting in form all over the place to participate in your political-religious activist parade.
Necropolitan is even more exclusive.
It's free to join but only open to the dead.
Journalism as its finest. It's like a blind person laying a puzzle.
An intentional blinder could be built to sweep square miles of terrain from a drone. The protocol at least prevent that sort of weapon, though it's a bit retarded that trying or succeeding in killing someone is totally okay but anything less is not.
It's wavelength dependent. visible light will blind people but for the military combat lasers they probably use wavelengths that the eye is opaque to, meaning no focusing on the retina and damage due to minor scatter and reflections, but will still literally cook the eye if directly exposed.
Also, the military type blinder weapons that was developed in the past to intentionally blind had a kilometer+ range. Blindness at 50 meter or blindness at 2km? Is it really a getting around or unintenional consequences(in the same manner that less-lethal weapons can still be lethal)
You'll love the next gen firearm that uses geolocation to make sure you don't use it in government buildings and face recognition to ensure you don't shoot your family or self, with additional settings for not firing against facebooks friends. With the premium service it will also refuse to fire unless sure you'll hit your target to save bullets, platinum service will also check the financial status of the would be victim along with consulting expert systems for potential legal complications and only shoot if it considers you to have good case in court or can hire a better lawyer than the victim or his family.
The gold plated gun edition will feature a waterpass lock and only fire when held sideways and use force feedback to ensure aiming is utterly impossible. Built in police radio optional.
Also, using the sentinel edition activesecurity feature you can leave it on a table facing your least secure window and it will automatically shoot would-be burglars and call the police on its own!
For families with pets or young children you can get it covered in brightly coloured rubber that's food safe and chewing resistant.
If you can finance it yourself and find it profitable or sensible to do so, then feel free to do it yourself, but don't call for government intervention based on some simple napkin calculations.
Also, the WA situation doesn't sound very stable, utilities failing could mean some price spikes and other problems.
How is the energy free when you need a 3kW solar system on every house for it to work? Also, they cost more than $3k.
Also, if each house needs 3kW to sustain itself, what's left to distribute? Also, homes use what on average? 30% of the total electricity?
Also, trying to load balance over long distances doesn't work because we don't have superconducting electricity grids yet. Also, intermittency means you still need classic power at approximately the same extent as now to fill in the gaps.
I can prove that an underground solar farm would be a great idea with a back of the napkin calculation, reality however is not so easily simplified.
In environmentalist lala-land neither the end nor the means matters as long as your ideology is sitting in the drivers seat.
If natural systems can sink all supposed manmade change, why could natural systems cause all the change too? If the natural sink capability massively underrated too, what's to say there's really a cause to worry at all?
If we really will be screwed by society being forced to change due to climate, what's to say we won't be equally or greater screwed if we're forced to change due to policy? If natural variability is underrated as suggested by the previous paragraph, what's to say we can't be fucked over twice; first by policy and then by natural climate drift? Unless you're denying ice ages we already know that natural drift have a very wide range.
What about the people with stake in large multinational wind and solar producers claiming we can save ourself with all-renewable society? Are they saints incapable of lying, or could it be that any alarmism and climate hype serves their cause and fills their pockets?
Why should we listen to people like you who claim that we're bound for disaster with certainity, while at the same time IPCC is revising their predictions downwards for every new report released. Why should we suppress the debate by claiming it's all settled when it obviously isn't?
Why is polarizing hardline rethoric constantly used by environmentalists? Why is the pro-agw side always the good side and everything else is universally bad? Could it be that you're not actually seeking facts to improve earth science, but just want to advance your activist agenda and shallow ideological belief?