It shouldn't be a problem for him to generate substantial earnings through clandestine sales of pharmaceuticals, however. So at least the state has left him with viable options for the future.
Not quite. Eliminating all of the global warming which results from excess CO2 does not mean eliminating all CO2. It means eliminating the excess. It would cost roughly $1bn/year to balance the global atmospheric carbon budget, so it's a very worthwhile effort, if only to save all the man-hours currently being wasted in discussion of the topic.
That's why these controversies are a damaging waste of time. The simple and obvious way to eliminate the danger of anthropogenic CO2 is to balance the atmospheric CO2 budget via sequestration. This will eliminate the compelling motivation of the wealthy and powerful to commit a global genocide in order to provide a more edenic environment to their progeny.
You are assuming what you wish to show. The value of peer review is that it guards against the publication of false and poor-quality research. Doesn't the number of rejections indicate that (1) the authors needed to revise their publication in order to achieve a reasonable standard of quality, and/or that (2) the authors needed to shotgun the journals until they found one with low enough standards to publish their work? Each of these is at least as feasible an explanation, and is certainly far less conspiratorial in character. You and I don't have the knowledge necessary to determine which if any of these explanations is the most nearly correct, and even if we did, reasonable people might disagree in the interpretation of that information. The global average temperature and global atmospheric CO2 levels, meanwhile, continue to increase regardless of such wranglings.
A PEAR affiliated author publishes material in a peer-reviewed journal, and you dismiss it because someone made a blog post? Give me a break. Who is the "skeptic" in this crowd? Certainly not the fanboy slavering at the beck and call of the self-promoting liar.
By this reasoning, there could never have been an intermediate evolutionary stage in which a familiar sense which we experience every day was less developed that it is presently.
a 2 or 3 in 10,000 delta, which is reliably reproducible, is an earth-shaking discovery. whether it impresses you or not is unimportant. depending on what is meant by the terms, the result may well be proven with a certainty far beyond the overwhelming majority of generally accepted results of less controversial domains. the statistics don't lie. statisticians, however, may do so. as may your subjective impressions of "significance".
Note that this area is still usable for other purposes. Trees, as they grow higher, leave a lot of partially shaded surface area which can be used for residences, playgrounds, animal grazing, parks, aquaculture, roads, &c.
The equatorial pacific is essentially lifeless because it lacks iron. Phytoplankton cannot grow well there, so there is precious little krill, and thus almost no fish. The whole problem could be resolved by dumping 850 million dollars worth of iron ore into the equatorial pacific (gradually, after chelation to make it bioavailable) each year. That would zero-out the annual global atmospheric carbon budget. Peanuts, relative to the global economic impact of anthropogenic carbon. But definitely too much for Mr. Branson's prize to make a serious dent in the cost.
I notice that you make this claim without any facts or reasoning to support it. Thus, I discount the claim until something new comes along.
In any case, the tone of your post is that we are all doomed because we have no choice but to destroy the planet. I find that notion ludicrous. There are abundant alternatives, and they will all be employed in varying degrees. Biodiesel has its place; Sawgrass ethanol has its place; Geothermal is grossly under-appreciated and under-utilized, but will eventually find its place; etc, etc, ad nauseam.
This won't happen until traditional hydrocarbon fuels become sufficiently expensive to motivate the application of alternatives. That condition can result from political or market changes. Just taxing the crap out of carbon is one good way to solve the problem before our children get flame-broiled. It also has the advantage that it can be applied gradually, so as to avoid sudden unintended consequences -- like a destabilization of technical society such as that envisioned by the "peak oil" Cassandras.
That's just wrong. Friction is a statistical feature of ensemble systems. At the level of quanta, electrodynamic systems are frictionless. And one doesn't need to be doing quantum computing (meaning TAQC or GLQC) to compute using quanta: All of our current transistor-based systems are doing so. The only issue is whether they are doing so at a scale that necessarily implies ensemble losses. Today, yes. Tomorrow? Probably no.
If it works at all... maybe. Meandering capacitances between traces, variable leakage currents and higher susceptibility to electromigration mean that a substantial rework of the masks is required in order to move from 65 to 45nm.
Yes, you can make it faster, and yes you can make it cheaper, but you can't make it as reliable, nor can you make it use a higher proportion of it's power for computationally useful activities -- not without a substantial change in architecture, using error correction, reversible logic, self-timed circuits, &c.
So far Intel's superior process tech and AMDs superior architecture have passed the performance crown back and forth for several years, but it remains to be seen how long this condition will remain cyclically stable. I rather expect architecture to trump process in the next iteration, as AMD's partnership with IBM is likely to bring process nearer to parity, while Intel's architecture group is simply not competitive -- and revamping their staffing enough to make the kind of revolutionary change needed to recapture the lead would be too risky.
The article talks about preferring 110/(85*n) parts of the global wealth over getting 110/(220*n) parts of the global wealth as though it were evidence of a preference for relative wealth over absolute wealth. It is not. It is evidence of the ability to reason about fractions.
Of course it would be better to earn 100,000 while everyone else earns 85,000 than it would be to earn 110,000 while every one else earns 200,000. In the first case, you get 110/(85*n) parts of the global wealth. In the second case, you get 110/(220*n) parts of the wealth. Obviously 110/85 is much much more than 110/220. Only an idiot would want to have less wealth than *everyone* else. That would be taking from the poor to give to the rich.
The rate of increase is finite. Therefore, at any given time, the amount of wealth is limited. After infinite time, it may be infinite, but then you'll be dead.
Yes, we would be back where we started, after enough time passed, in the absence of structural changes. However, we would have had a much more pleasant time during the intervening 40 years or so than we would have had otherwise!
And if you would have put all your liquidity into Google at the IPO, you'd be a happy camper too. Some people did. If you didn't, does that make you unworthy of respect as a person? I think not. While some choices are certainly better than others, it's easy to reflect in hindsight upon which choices were good and which bad, but more difficult to project into the future. Lots of people make very good choices, and get totally screwed. Some people make very bad choices and make out like bandits. There are unknown factors at play as well as known ones.
My great concern is that the very wealthy have an enormous incentive to depopulate the planet, to improve their lives and the lives of their progeny, as well as the means to do so. I suggest that they should be eliminated before they do the deed. I don't imagine we can prevent poverty. But we can probably prevent wealth, if only by killing all the wealthy people.
Slashdot Mirror
It shouldn't be a problem for him to generate substantial earnings through clandestine sales of pharmaceuticals, however. So at least the state has left him with viable options for the future.
1 - because it's a landlocked polar environment, and winds have declined.
2 - because the current feedback systems are dumping most of that energy in the ocean instead.
3 - the north atlantic current.
4 - the maunder minimum.
5 - because increasing temperatures result in higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations, which in turns leads to increasing temperatures.
and no, there is no simple explanation for any climatic evolution. for an isolated effect, perhaps, but not for the net result.
Not quite. Eliminating all of the global warming which results from excess CO2 does not mean eliminating all CO2. It means eliminating the excess. It would cost roughly $1bn/year to balance the global atmospheric carbon budget, so it's a very worthwhile effort, if only to save all the man-hours currently being wasted in discussion of the topic.
That's why these controversies are a damaging waste of time. The simple and obvious way to eliminate the danger of anthropogenic CO2 is to balance the atmospheric CO2 budget via sequestration. This will eliminate the compelling motivation of the wealthy and powerful to commit a global genocide in order to provide a more edenic environment to their progeny.
You are assuming what you wish to show. The value of peer review is that it guards against the publication of false and poor-quality research. Doesn't the number of rejections indicate that (1) the authors needed to revise their publication in order to achieve a reasonable standard of quality, and/or that (2) the authors needed to shotgun the journals until they found one with low enough standards to publish their work? Each of these is at least as feasible an explanation, and is certainly far less conspiratorial in character. You and I don't have the knowledge necessary to determine which if any of these explanations is the most nearly correct, and even if we did, reasonable people might disagree in the interpretation of that information. The global average temperature and global atmospheric CO2 levels, meanwhile, continue to increase regardless of such wranglings.
If Aristotle had done the same, we might have avoided >1000 years of lost progress.
A PEAR affiliated author publishes material in a peer-reviewed journal, and you dismiss it because someone made a blog post? Give me a break. Who is the "skeptic" in this crowd? Certainly not the fanboy slavering at the beck and call of the self-promoting liar.
By this reasoning, there could never have been an intermediate evolutionary stage in which a familiar sense which we experience every day was less developed that it is presently.
come back and make your claims when you have some sort of facts or reasoning to substantiate them.
a 2 or 3 in 10,000 delta, which is reliably reproducible, is an earth-shaking discovery. whether it impresses you or not is unimportant. depending on what is meant by the terms, the result may well be proven with a certainty far beyond the overwhelming majority of generally accepted results of less controversial domains. the statistics don't lie. statisticians, however, may do so. as may your subjective impressions of "significance".
Note that this area is still usable for other purposes. Trees, as they grow higher, leave a lot of partially shaded surface area which can be used for residences, playgrounds, animal grazing, parks, aquaculture, roads, &c.
The equatorial pacific is essentially lifeless because it lacks iron. Phytoplankton cannot grow well there, so there is precious little krill, and thus almost no fish. The whole problem could be resolved by dumping 850 million dollars worth of iron ore into the equatorial pacific (gradually, after chelation to make it bioavailable) each year. That would zero-out the annual
global atmospheric carbon budget. Peanuts, relative to the global economic impact of anthropogenic carbon. But definitely too much for Mr. Branson's prize to make a serious dent in the cost.
I notice that you make this claim without any facts or reasoning to support it. Thus, I discount the claim until something new comes along.
In any case, the tone of your post is that we are all doomed because we have no choice but to destroy the planet. I find that notion ludicrous. There are abundant alternatives, and they will all be employed in varying degrees. Biodiesel has its place; Sawgrass ethanol has its place; Geothermal is grossly under-appreciated and under-utilized, but will eventually find its place; etc, etc, ad nauseam.
This won't happen until traditional hydrocarbon fuels become sufficiently expensive to motivate the application of alternatives. That condition can result from political or market changes. Just taxing the crap out of carbon is one good way to solve the problem before our children get flame-broiled. It also has the advantage that it can be applied gradually, so as to avoid sudden unintended consequences -- like a destabilization of technical society such as that envisioned by the "peak oil" Cassandras.
Ummm.... Let me get this straight. You're suggesting that China is going to *invade* the U.S. ... like, using ground troops?
Okay, I think I know how much weight to give to your opinions about military policy.
That's just wrong. Friction is a statistical feature of ensemble systems. At the level of quanta, electrodynamic systems are frictionless. And one doesn't need to be doing quantum computing (meaning TAQC or GLQC) to compute using quanta: All of our current transistor-based systems are doing so. The only issue is whether they are doing so at a scale that necessarily implies ensemble losses. Today, yes. Tomorrow? Probably no.
> ...will work even better...
If it works at all... maybe. Meandering capacitances between traces, variable leakage currents and higher susceptibility to electromigration mean that a substantial rework of the masks is required in order to move from 65 to 45nm.
Yes, you can make it faster, and yes you can make it cheaper, but you can't make it as reliable, nor can you make it use a higher proportion of it's power for computationally useful activities -- not without a substantial change in architecture, using error correction, reversible logic, self-timed circuits, &c.
So far Intel's superior process tech and AMDs superior architecture have passed the performance crown back and forth for several years, but it remains to be seen how long this condition will remain cyclically stable. I rather expect architecture to trump process in the next iteration, as AMD's partnership with IBM is likely to bring process nearer to parity, while Intel's architecture group is simply not competitive -- and revamping their staffing enough to make the kind of revolutionary change needed to recapture the lead would be too risky.
The article talks about preferring 110/(85*n) parts of the global wealth over getting 110/(220*n) parts of the global wealth as though it were evidence of a preference for relative wealth over absolute wealth. It is not. It is evidence of the ability to reason about fractions.
Of course it would be better to earn 100,000 while everyone else earns 85,000 than it would be to earn 110,000 while every one else earns 200,000.
In the first case, you get 110/(85*n) parts of the global wealth. In the second case, you get 110/(220*n) parts of the wealth. Obviously 110/85 is
much much more than 110/220. Only an idiot would want to have less wealth than *everyone* else. That would be taking from the poor to give
to the rich.
The rate of increase is finite. Therefore, at any given time, the amount of wealth is limited. After infinite time, it may be infinite, but then you'll be dead.
Yes, we would be back where we started, after enough time passed, in the absence of structural changes. However, we would have had a much more pleasant time during the intervening 40 years or so than we would have had otherwise!
If the Swedish stock market is any indicator, it's doing a hell of a lot better than the U.S.
Then why is it that the best place to invest in equities, in the whole world, is the stock market in Communist China?
You also kill the wrong people.
I'll pass.
And if you would have put all your liquidity into Google at the IPO, you'd be a happy camper too. Some people did. If you didn't, does that make you unworthy of respect as a person? I think not. While some choices are certainly better than others, it's easy to reflect in hindsight upon which choices were good and which bad, but more difficult to project into the future. Lots of people make very good choices, and get totally screwed. Some people make very bad choices and make out like bandits. There are unknown factors at play as well as known ones.
My great concern is that the very wealthy have an enormous incentive to depopulate the planet, to improve their lives and the lives of their progeny, as well as the means to do so. I suggest that they should be eliminated before they do the deed. I don't imagine we can prevent poverty. But we can probably prevent wealth, if only by killing all the wealthy people.
I have plenty of relative wealth. I feel obligated to put in long hours to decrease my relative wealth by helping people who are dying of poverty.