"barv, sooner or later we are going to have to "not use carbon fuels". We have the technology to create a fully functional non-fossil fuel society,"
Totally agree.
"but doing so will require a tremendous investment in infrastructure construction. We need to focus every last bit of our productive surplus towards this goal, because now, we have a productive surplus with which to accomplish it. Later we won't! And the results of waiting until then? Not pretty"
Disagree. Look at the cost/efficiency of photoelectricity. "Grid Parity" (see wikipedia) has already been achieved for the sunnier, remoter parts of the world.
The cost/efficiency of photoelectricity will keep improving because people invent stuff even without government subsidies. Within 5-10 years photoelectric power will be as cheap as the cheapest coal fired electricity. And you will be able to get rid of that expensive reticulation system.
"But what about at night?" you say. Fair enuff. We need really good batteries. These arent as "sexy" as photoelectricity, but batteries are also being improved, and sooner or later, those sheet photoelectric panels that you will use for your roof will feed electricity directly into the house batteries stored in your cellar (that can also be put in your car instead of gas)
So there is no need to panic. Good old greed is already at work. Technologists and entrepeneurs are already on the ball. Those photocells and batteries will be here well before 2032 if not by 2022. And they will be so cheap that you will want to buy and install them to stop paying the ripoff prices that the utilities charge.
"This guy is saying the sort of things that have been getting me downmodded here on slashdot for years.
Global Warming/Climate Change may or may not be happening. But if it is it ain't happening at anything like the rate that would justify dismantling civilization over, we still aren't sure whether it is us or a natural cycle we don't undertstand, etc. And he doesn't go there but I will: too many politicians with a preexisting anti-civilization (Western industrial captialism based ccivilization that is...) bias glommed onto AGW with the willing consent of a lot of brand name scientists, thereby (rightly) harming the public's trust of all science."
I also have been downmodded on slashdot. I blogged about the IPCC and how GW was not a problem back in 2005
And just let me clear up the "dismantle". To not use Carbon Fuels we would have to dismantle our civilization. Without carbon fuels a few billion people would die by starvation etc. How else would we grow the food, transport it to cities, keep it refrigerated? Also what about shelter. Do you plan to live in wigwams or igloos? And clothes. Are you planning to have your wives use spinning wheels? How will you move medicine around,
And (in the absence of world peace brought about by a world dictator) how will you defend yourselves from invasion and genocide?
How will you defend ourselves from military attack by gangs of criminals?
A new political system to replace what we've got. It would have...
1. Ability to remove anybody from power at any level of government by a poll of interested parties. 2. Any law or regulation to be affirmed by at least 20% (or whatever) of voters every 10 (or whenever) years. 3. & 4. I'll think of a couple more soon.
"Yes, a single sentence out of a thousand page report cited one incorrect source... which was immediately acknowledged and an errata published as soon as it was pointed out."
so please explain why a google search for "errors in ipcc reports" produces so many results? Or are they all false criticisms?
After the charade surrounding the bank hack (mentioned recently on/.) I somehow doubt that the no doubt religiously correct Muslims operating Iran's defensive computer net have the capacity to accurately detect any virus, let alone eradicate it.
"The scientific research says that vegetarian and vegan diets adequately meet nutritional needs and are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including infancy and early childhood (American Dietetic Association)"
The problem with that is that it is not specific. Some vegan diets lack essential foods. Some meat diets lack essential foods.
Iran is a different strategic problem to Iraq or Afghanistan.
1. It is four times bigger (80 million people.) 2. It is an old culture, like Egypt, China, India. 3. There are not any "friendly" adjacent states (like Turkey, Pakistan).
After assessing these factors, I suspect US military planners advise against overt action.
It's all about controlling the media to "transform" public opinion.
In engineering a "controller" needs an output sensor and a transforming procedure. So a float valve in a water trough turns the tap on when the float sinks or turns it off when it rises.
In this instance, The output sensor (public opinion surveys) is used to calculate a transforming feedback (censorship) which will move public opinion in a desired direction.
Any reasonably proficient computer engineer who wanted could produce a fairly simple home modem attachment that would censor porn sites. Our politicians would much prefer to have a mechanism in place that could be easily modified to censor negative information about themselves.
I am not in the business, but suspect that there is a wide variation in cost of movie production. Spending huge amounts on production does not seem to correlate strongly with success. I also suspect that cartoon type movies (Shrek etc) could be made quite cheaply as software and voice generation technology is developed. Eventually the biggest issue (and cost) 9f production would be the creative writer, or maybe the creative producer/director. Even the actors could well become synthesized electronic images.
I personally prefer the experience of a movie theatre to the small screen. I suspect others might also. So producers should learn to budget to profit from theatre shows, and sell downloads for a dollar or $2 as additional profit.
Copyright was, when first invented, a way for a writer or inventor to recover value for their creative work. They got a couple decades of protection, then their copyright vanished.
Nobody else had copyright. Musicians had to perform, because phonographs weren't invented. Same with acting and just about everything else.
Then technologists invented ways to capture music, make movies. Somebody thought it would be a good ideas to allow copyrights on the product of new technology. The promoters invented regulatory capture (see Wikipedia) and because the technology to copy was expensive, nobody cared much.
But the markets have grown. And the time to get the product to market has shrunk. And the copy technology has gotten very cheap.
So to get the same reward, artists only need to charge one tenth or one hundredth the price from each sale.
But the bad old mpaa and Riaa and the rest have gotten used to getting big $ for their property. They don't want to lose their Porsches and Malibu beach house.
Look fellas. The game is up. Go find another scam. The artists are already direct selling. The writing is on the wall.
When iron weapons were discovered, offence was war. Then castles were built, and defense ruled. Then gunpowder, and castles fell. Offence was again king. Then trenches (defense) then tanks (offence) then arm launched anti tank rockets (defense) then nukes.
ABM is the next defensive weapon. They will be cheap, ($20000) and have upgradeable radar & software mounted in the rocket. They will sit in the town square, (or maybe on the town hall?) and when they spot an incoming threat, they will take it out.
Governments are the biggest threat. "we must not let these lies about the (democrats/Republicans) be published, so let us use the censorship power (originally obtained to stop child pornography/piracy) to stop these lies immediately. And let us stop bloggers from having the protection of journalists.
The copyright corporations are fighting a losing battle, unless they can capture (buy) regulation (like SOPA) to help them. I suspect government might be only too happy to have such a censorship tool (SOPA) in their arsenal.
Walled gardens (Facebook, Apple) are less of a threat because Apps are not the same as data.
Slashdot Mirror
Arent battle.net giving that away if you prepay one year of WOW? (before May).
"barv, sooner or later we are going to have to "not use carbon fuels". We have the technology to create a fully functional non-fossil fuel society,"
Totally agree.
"but doing so will require a tremendous investment in infrastructure construction. We need to focus every last bit of our productive surplus towards this goal, because now, we have a productive surplus with which to accomplish it. Later we won't! And the results of waiting until then? Not pretty"
Disagree. Look at the cost/efficiency of photoelectricity. "Grid Parity" (see wikipedia) has already been achieved for the sunnier, remoter parts of the world.
The cost/efficiency of photoelectricity will keep improving because people invent stuff even without government subsidies. Within 5-10 years photoelectric power will be as cheap as the cheapest coal fired electricity. And you will be able to get rid of that expensive reticulation system.
"But what about at night?" you say. Fair enuff. We need really good batteries. These arent as "sexy" as photoelectricity, but batteries are also being improved, and sooner or later, those sheet photoelectric panels that you will use for your roof will feed electricity directly into the house batteries stored in your cellar (that can also be put in your car instead of gas)
So there is no need to panic. Good old greed is already at work. Technologists and entrepeneurs are already on the ball. Those photocells and batteries will be here well before 2032 if not by 2022. And they will be so cheap that you will want to buy and install them to stop paying the ripoff prices that the utilities charge.
"This guy is saying the sort of things that have been getting me downmodded here on slashdot for years.
Global Warming/Climate Change may or may not be happening. But if it is it ain't happening at anything like the rate that would justify dismantling civilization over, we still aren't sure whether it is us or a natural cycle we don't undertstand, etc. And he doesn't go there but I will: too many politicians with a preexisting anti-civilization (Western industrial captialism based ccivilization that is...) bias glommed onto AGW with the willing consent of a lot of brand name scientists, thereby (rightly) harming the public's trust of all science."
I also have been downmodded on slashdot. I blogged about the IPCC and how GW was not a problem back in 2005
http://www.barvennon.com/~spin/spin203.html
And just let me clear up the "dismantle". To not use Carbon Fuels we would have to dismantle our civilization. Without carbon fuels a few billion people would die by starvation etc. How else would we grow the food, transport it to cities, keep it refrigerated? Also what about shelter. Do you plan to live in wigwams or igloos? And clothes. Are you planning to have your wives use spinning wheels? How will you move medicine around,
And (in the absence of world peace brought about by a world dictator) how will you defend yourselves from invasion and genocide?
How will you defend ourselves from military attack by gangs of criminals?
A new political system to replace what we've got. It would have...
1. Ability to remove anybody from power at any level of government by a poll of interested parties.
2. Any law or regulation to be affirmed by at least 20% (or whatever) of voters every 10 (or whenever) years.
3. & 4. I'll think of a couple more soon.
"Yes, a single sentence out of a thousand page report cited one incorrect source... which was immediately acknowledged and an errata published as soon as it was pointed out."
so please explain why a google search for "errors in ipcc reports" produces so many results? Or are they all false criticisms?
I wish for an easy to use skin selector. Ubuntu seems to produce a new feel far too often.
I think the point Geofrey Landis is making is that the IPCC is an unreliable organization, since it cites unreliable sources.
After the charade surrounding the bank hack (mentioned recently on /.) I somehow doubt that the no doubt religiously correct Muslims operating Iran's defensive computer net have the capacity to accurately detect any virus, let alone eradicate it.
:)
It's not government's business to use taxpayer's funds to subsidize science.
"The scientific research says that vegetarian and vegan diets adequately meet nutritional needs and are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including infancy and early childhood (American Dietetic Association)"
The problem with that is that it is not specific. Some vegan diets lack essential foods. Some meat diets lack essential foods.
So the statement is meaningless.
"I have mod points...."
The moderation system on /. sucks. Mostly because moderators punish those of politics with which they do not agree.
When i had mod points they vanished before i found suitable targets.
I suggest that mod points last for weeks, and that the count of negative points be restricted to 1/5 of allocations.
Iran is a different strategic problem to Iraq or Afghanistan.
1. It is four times bigger (80 million people.)
2. It is an old culture, like Egypt, China, India.
3. There are not any "friendly" adjacent states (like Turkey, Pakistan).
After assessing these factors, I suspect US military planners advise against overt action.
Heroes of the fight against control of information on the www.
Legislators will use any excuse to put in place the mechanism of web censorship. Kiddie porn, terrorism, copyright theft; they are all excuses.
What they want is the power to censor negative comment about themselves...
China has threatened not to fly to Euroland if it has to pay their green fuel tax.
Maybe Uncle Sam has agreed to that tax as a Quid Pro Quo?
Time will tell...
The US intervened in Serbia because Bill was in the shit with Hillary and her price (as specified by her liberal friends) was "do something".
The nerd told them they had a security problem and they did nothing.
Conclusion. So their software people were incompetent.
Inference. The theocracy are not buying the best. Probably only hiring "theologically safe" programmers.
Just started reading the story. It wasn't idiot Gore or burners lee who invented the Internet, it was Murray Leinster in 1946.
Its not about porn or copyright.
It's all about controlling the media to "transform" public opinion.
In engineering a "controller" needs an output sensor and a transforming procedure. So a float valve in a water trough turns the tap on when the float sinks or turns it off when it rises.
In this instance, The output sensor (public opinion surveys) is used to calculate a transforming feedback (censorship) which will move public opinion in a desired direction.
Any reasonably proficient computer engineer who wanted could produce a fairly simple home modem attachment that would censor porn sites. Our politicians would much prefer to have a mechanism in place that could be easily modified to censor negative information about themselves.
Has either copied or inspired brin
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/17/tim-berners-lee-monitoring-internet
I am not in the business, but suspect that there is a wide variation in cost of movie production. Spending huge amounts on production does not seem to correlate strongly with success. I also suspect that cartoon type movies (Shrek etc) could be made quite cheaply as software and voice generation technology is developed. Eventually the biggest issue (and cost) 9f production would be the creative writer, or maybe the creative producer/director. Even the actors could well become synthesized electronic images.
I personally prefer the experience of a movie theatre to the small screen. I suspect others might also. So producers should learn to budget to profit from theatre shows, and sell downloads for a dollar or $2 as additional profit.
Copyright was, when first invented, a way for a writer or inventor to recover value for their creative work. They got a couple decades of protection, then their copyright vanished.
Nobody else had copyright. Musicians had to perform, because phonographs weren't invented. Same with acting and just about everything else.
Then technologists invented ways to capture music, make movies. Somebody thought it would be a good ideas to allow copyrights on the product of new technology. The promoters invented regulatory capture (see Wikipedia) and because the technology to copy was expensive, nobody cared much.
But the markets have grown. And the time to get the product to market has shrunk. And the copy technology has gotten very cheap.
So to get the same reward, artists only need to charge one tenth or one hundredth the price from each sale.
But the bad old mpaa and Riaa and the rest have gotten used to getting big $ for their property. They don't want to lose their Porsches and Malibu beach house.
Look fellas. The game is up. Go find another scam. The artists are already direct selling. The writing is on the wall.
When iron weapons were discovered, offence was war.
Then castles were built, and defense ruled.
Then gunpowder, and castles fell. Offence was again king.
Then trenches (defense) then tanks (offence) then arm launched anti tank rockets (defense) then nukes.
ABM is the next defensive weapon. They will be cheap, ($20000) and have upgradeable radar & software mounted in the rocket. They will sit in the town square, (or maybe on the town hall?) and when they spot an incoming threat, they will take it out.
Much cheaper than a nuke.
Governments are the biggest threat. "we must not let these lies about the (democrats/Republicans) be published, so let us use the censorship power (originally obtained to stop child pornography/piracy) to stop these lies immediately. And let us stop bloggers from having the protection of journalists. The copyright corporations are fighting a losing battle, unless they can capture (buy) regulation (like SOPA) to help them. I suspect government might be only too happy to have such a censorship tool (SOPA) in their arsenal. Walled gardens (Facebook, Apple) are less of a threat because Apps are not the same as data.
Read my original comment, which in no way comments on the actuality or otherwise of GW., or the scientific authority of the signatories of that letter. http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2782855&cid=39662181