The human factor is irrelevant. If people decide to care about CO2 in the atmosphere then they have the two options I mentioned.
Sure he could be completely wrong, his estimates of the last 200 of energy use and production could be rubbish, his data could be right but it's just a coincidence. But human behaviour isn't an argument against it.
The claim of the author is that it that energy use per unit of economic production has been constant. According to hard numbers since 1970 and to according to their estimates for the last 2000 years (I've only read the news article not the paper, no idea if those estimates are reasonable or not).
Sure more advanced societies produce lots of things for a lot less energy than less advanced societies do, but they make up for it also producing very high energy cost items. Sure we produce software, we also refine aluminium and launch space shuttles into orbit.
What humans are and are not is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with choices, nothing to do with rational behavior.
It's simply saying that each unit of economic production results in the consumption of X units of energy. And that reducing energy consumption on something results not in less energy use but in more production.
Which leads to, if you want to reduce carbon dioxide levels, two choices:
1. Economic collapse. 2. Build obscene amounts of "clean" (in terms of carbon dioxide production) energy generators.
Most people aren't going to play if they can't cash out if they get amazingly lucky and actually do win. So even though they likely never will want to cash out, not being able to makes it a no go.
No a developed country can't run a trade deficit forever - thus it does in fact need a trade surplus (well dead even is fine too) to survive.
The US gets away with it simply because the US dollar is used as the reserve currency and trade currency for most commodities. Other nations get away with it due to China's games with the US dollar knocking on to their currencies.
What should happen is that the relative value of the currency of the country running a deficit will fall until it is no longer running a deficit. It's simple mathematics.
The rest of the world keeps printing money and buying US treasuries to stop this inevitable re-balancing, but it will happen at some point - it gets more and more unstable the longer the current situation is propped up. Of course humans can keep unstable situation balancing for much much longer than it seems possible (witness US real estate prices - a bubble that "should" have popped in 2003 but lasted much longer, and staill hasn't fully deflated)...
Yes, but voting is a democratic item. You can have a republic without the people voting easily enough (well by the definition of the term before the US redefined it to mean representative democracy).
In the US losing a case in court is not a career ender for a prosecutor, which is what I said which has nothing to do with the prospects of whomever was found innocent.
As an Aspie he should just be euthanized anyway, since they don't do that in the UK maybe the US will have more luck removing this blight on humanity from existence. Hopefully before he goes on a killing spree.
Is it really hard to understand that comparing black people to monkeys is racist because it wasn't very long ago that that was a common claim by rascists.
Sure the person doing it mightn't be being rascist, I might burn a cross on a black guys lawn because I thought it made a nice Christmas display without any knowledge of the historic significance.
But due to the history it is treated as rascist, and will be interpreted as rascist by most people.
No, in Canada or most of Europe there is no real shame for the prosecution in a not guilty verdict. In Japan it's a career ending event.
Now that they've restored juries, though with a pretty strange variant, things might have changed - but when there weren't juries it was predictable enough for the prosecution that they wouldn't bring to trial anything they weren't sure they would win.
How is 7-8 reasonable for "good enough". Back in my non-US university days 8/10 would be a Distinction grade, and 7/10 would be a Credit grade.
Surely "good enough" is a simple Pass, ie: 5-6/10?
And "not good enough" would be 0-4/10 or a Fail.
Averaging 8/10 would get you into the honours program of the degree, which should take more than "good enough". Heck it'd get you into the phd program.
You must have got an amazing number of good games, the majority of games I've played I would be giving a score of less than 4 if I was assigning scores rather than just being bored to death and wasting an hour or two before giving up and never bothering with it again. But that was back in the days of actually having free time and downloading essentially every new game to try.
You do have your scale calibrated right?!? There's no point not using half the numbers available, or are all 9/10 games *exactly* the same in score worthyness? If you don't use 0-4 then expand rework the numbers so that your games rated 5-6 in the old system get scores of 2-4, old scores of 7-8 get 5-7, games rated 9-10 previously now get 8-10, and the "handful" who got less than four now have 0-1.
Now that I have less free time (and more money) I just don't buy new releases, I wait a few months (at least) to see what the post hype opinions are and hopefully only end up buying games that will be fun enough to be worth spending my free time on.
You wouldn't get the same grade if it was my class (back when I taught one...). Half the marks were machine marking of the output - which you would get the same mark for. But the other half were style (and did he cheat the machine marker somehow checking) and a functions which are too long are going to do poorly in the hand marking.
But the prettying up the output I mean is spending hours creating a header on the output using ascii art, that needs to be changed everytime they change some other part of the output to make it look "right". As I mentioned the output is machine marked, so no one even looks at the prettyness of the header (which they are told not to do anyway in case they confuse the machine marker).
fun because writing a simplistic game, for most people, is more enjoyable than writing a simplistic "convert change to best currency units" program.
Of course if the students then spend all their effort on moving a pixel here to make the game look nicer you've lost. Then again I remember crazy first year students spending silly amounts of efforts in prettying up their text output on non-game programming work...
Slashdot Mirror
The human factor is irrelevant. If people decide to care about CO2 in the atmosphere then they have the two options I mentioned.
Sure he could be completely wrong, his estimates of the last 200 of energy use and production could be rubbish, his data could be right but it's just a coincidence. But human behaviour isn't an argument against it.
Yes you can.
The claim of the author is that it that energy use per unit of economic production has been constant. According to hard numbers since 1970 and to according to their estimates for the last 2000 years (I've only read the news article not the paper, no idea if those estimates are reasonable or not).
Sure more advanced societies produce lots of things for a lot less energy than less advanced societies do, but they make up for it also producing very high energy cost items. Sure we produce software, we also refine aluminium and launch space shuttles into orbit.
The fail was on your comprehension.
What humans are and are not is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with choices, nothing to do with rational behavior.
It's simply saying that each unit of economic production results in the consumption of X units of energy. And that reducing energy consumption on something results not in less energy use but in more production.
Which leads to, if you want to reduce carbon dioxide levels, two choices:
1. Economic collapse.
2. Build obscene amounts of "clean" (in terms of carbon dioxide production) energy generators.
Which is completely irrelevant.
Most people aren't going to play if they can't cash out if they get amazingly lucky and actually do win. So even though they likely never will want to cash out, not being able to makes it a no go.
And if you win?
It's going to be hard to get people to pay a membership fee/security deposit if there's no way to pay out winnings.
I don't expect to walk out of seeing a movie with more money that I walked in with, so I'm an idiot for going to the movies?
I don't expect to make money watching my kid play sport on the weekend, so I'm an idiot for doing so?
I don't expect come out ahead financially when I go to a bar with friends, so I'm an idiot for doing that?
I don't expect to ever see any of the $50 I paid for a new video game back, so I'm an idiot for buying and play it?
I pay my ISP each month, so I'm an idiot for browsing the web and using email?
I had breakfast at a cafe this morning, idiot again?
3) Print it.
No a developed country can't run a trade deficit forever - thus it does in fact need a trade surplus (well dead even is fine too) to survive.
The US gets away with it simply because the US dollar is used as the reserve currency and trade currency for most commodities. Other nations get away with it due to China's games with the US dollar knocking on to their currencies.
What should happen is that the relative value of the currency of the country running a deficit will fall until it is no longer running a deficit. It's simple mathematics.
The rest of the world keeps printing money and buying US treasuries to stop this inevitable re-balancing, but it will happen at some point - it gets more and more unstable the longer the current situation is propped up. Of course humans can keep unstable situation balancing for much much longer than it seems possible (witness US real estate prices - a bubble that "should" have popped in 2003 but lasted much longer, and staill hasn't fully deflated)...
Don't worry, we'll use the power produced to run desalination plants.
What? thermody-whati-namics?
By their skin color of course. And for 12 generations.
If your father had a mortgage on said house, it doesn't disappear just because he dies.
Yes, but voting is a democratic item. You can have a republic without the people voting easily enough (well by the definition of the term before the US redefined it to mean representative democracy).
Try reading for comprehension.
In the US losing a case in court is not a career ender for a prosecutor, which is what I said which has nothing to do with the prospects of whomever was found innocent.
It has everything to do with the issue.
As an Aspie he should just be euthanized anyway, since they don't do that in the UK maybe the US will have more luck removing this blight on humanity from existence. Hopefully before he goes on a killing spree.
The 15th and 19th and 24th and 26th amendments make exactly no sense without democracy being assumed.
Is it really hard to understand that comparing black people to monkeys is racist because it wasn't very long ago that that was a common claim by rascists.
Sure the person doing it mightn't be being rascist, I might burn a cross on a black guys lawn because I thought it made a nice Christmas display without any knowledge of the historic significance.
But due to the history it is treated as rascist, and will be interpreted as rascist by most people.
No, in Canada or most of Europe there is no real shame for the prosecution in a not guilty verdict. In Japan it's a career ending event.
Now that they've restored juries, though with a pretty strange variant, things might have changed - but when there weren't juries it was predictable enough for the prosecution that they wouldn't bring to trial anything they weren't sure they would win.
How is 7-8 reasonable for "good enough". Back in my non-US university days 8/10 would be a Distinction grade, and 7/10 would be a Credit grade.
Surely "good enough" is a simple Pass, ie: 5-6/10?
And "not good enough" would be 0-4/10 or a Fail.
Averaging 8/10 would get you into the honours program of the degree, which should take more than "good enough". Heck it'd get you into the phd program.
You must have got an amazing number of good games, the majority of games I've played I would be giving a score of less than 4 if I was assigning scores rather than just being bored to death and wasting an hour or two before giving up and never bothering with it again. But that was back in the days of actually having free time and downloading essentially every new game to try.
You do have your scale calibrated right?!? There's no point not using half the numbers available, or are all 9/10 games *exactly* the same in score worthyness? If you don't use 0-4 then expand rework the numbers so that your games rated 5-6 in the old system get scores of 2-4, old scores of 7-8 get 5-7, games rated 9-10 previously now get 8-10, and the "handful" who got less than four now have 0-1.
Now that I have less free time (and more money) I just don't buy new releases, I wait a few months (at least) to see what the post hype opinions are and hopefully only end up buying games that will be fun enough to be worth spending my free time on.
Then it is right to take $10,000 from Bill due to interest.
Because while stealing $100 from Bob and giving it to Bill is usually regarded as bad. Doing so after Bob had stolen $100 from Bill usually isn't.
Or the underlying concept: two wrongs make a right.
You wouldn't get the same grade if it was my class (back when I taught one...). Half the marks were machine marking of the output - which you would get the same mark for. But the other half were style (and did he cheat the machine marker somehow checking) and a functions which are too long are going to do poorly in the hand marking.
But the prettying up the output I mean is spending hours creating a header on the output using ascii art, that needs to be changed everytime they change some other part of the output to make it look "right". As I mentioned the output is machine marked, so no one even looks at the prettyness of the header (which they are told not to do anyway in case they confuse the machine marker).
fun because writing a simplistic game, for most people, is more enjoyable than writing a simplistic "convert change to best currency units" program.
Of course if the students then spend all their effort on moving a pixel here to make the game look nicer you've lost. Then again I remember crazy first year students spending silly amounts of efforts in prettying up their text output on non-game programming work...
Can your electric universe explain these results yet:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Firas_spectrum.jpg/724px-Firas_spectrum.jpg
Bullshit.
I just pressed "Preview" on this comment and it took 18 seconds to display.
I'm not posting anonymously.
The second time pressing it takes 1 second.
Yeah that's going to work. Because it's impossible to load a bomb onto a ship while it is at sea.
And impossibly to bribe someone in [insert shit hole shipping port] to get something loaded on the "wrong" ship.