Don't be ridiculous. A good fiscally conservative country like the US would never do anything risky or pointless like building a railroad across a continent, or a canal between oceans, sending people to the moon or trying to develop new energy sources. Our wise statesmen realize that the proper approach is to let foolish countries like China play with this stuff while we sit back and collect the eventual profits (preferably carried on the backs of unicorns).
Do you have any reason to believe that what I asked about would necessarily be terribly destructive, or are you just one of those people reflexively, fanatically and thoughtlessly opposed to anything that's done by humans other than growing organic bean sprouts (hint: even organic farming is both highly "unnatural" and environmentally destructive). If you fall into that category, please join the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. It would benefit everyone.
What we really need is some kind of system that prevents jerry-mandering when redistricting.
Very important, and surprisingly easy to handle (if TPTB will tolerate something radical like representative government). States that simply have non-partisan re-districting commissions (Iowa?) do pretty well, whereas in Texas gerrymandering has been taken to an unabashed extreme. IIRC Austin is divided amongst 4 congressional districts, each of which also goes out into the boonies. Hence the Austin area doesn't really have any representation. Nor is it just a problem for Austin. Since Texas is the second most populous state their system affects the whole country. But don't worry about us in NY state. Our local politicos seem to strike nice compromises. The NY 2nd and 3rd districts were re-drawn so that one belongs to a Republican congressman-for-life and the other belongs to a Democratic congressman-for-life. I could vote for Mickey Mouse for all that it matters.
I got modded down for that? Note to self: some/. moderators are way too touchy, or think the results of the Civil War are still open to debate, or something. Sheesh.
Because China has such a stellar environmental record.
No, and I can give you a mile long list of serious complaints about the Chinese government, in terms of both their domestic and foreign affairs. But give the devil his due. At least they're trying something here. You know, kind of like the United States once had the guts to do?
Proportional representation. Small factions will get represented too.
Especially if "small factions" includes a majority of American citizens. There are numerous issues on which a large majority of Americans feel one way, but both our major parties go the other way. They know damn well you don't really have a choice. Without PR minor party votes are just meaningless protests.
Look at all the countries that don't have that problem. It seems like Israel is a bit of a special case. Also, a parliamentary system could easily have more trouble than a non-parliamentary system like ours, because in a parliamentary system you need to form a (often coalition) majority to form a government. In the US system minor parties could only swing things on a vote-by-vote basis.
Anybody who knows Israeli politics better than me please feel free to correct, but AFAIK the reason Israel has such a big problem is that their two big parties, Labor and Likud, both have a large but not quite majority vote. Hence they have to scramble to get small parties to join a coalition so they can get a majority and form a government. This gives the small parties power out of all proportion to their representation, as they hold a trump card.
Damn China. Who the hell do those people think they are? A forward project that is not absolutely guaranteed to return a profit, although it may be a key to future energy production. They'll probably blithely say that although this approach might not work, try a few of them and there's a good shot at finding at least one winner. And that winner could be worth a fortune and be essential to our future. Damn China, it acts like mid-20th century America. Any good libertarian or fiscal conservative can tell you how badly this country turned out after they wasted all that government money.
You realize the USA extends much further south than Nantucket, right?
Yes, but no place much further south than Nantucket is worth going to.
However, we might still be able to use some of that beach front real estate for OTEC. Or perhaps the poster is suggesting OTEC for Nantucket (or referring to the fact that Nantucket is a excellent place for offshore wind, blocked by various NIMBY's)
AFAIK nutrients are a serious constraint on the large scale use of algae for biofuel. For pilot plants you can always dump in fertilizer, but on a large scale it might be different, due to the energy required to make that fertilizer and the fact that there is a limited supply of phosphates. Even sewage has its problems, as there is a limited supply (though some contribute much more than others) and it may be better used for agricultural fertilizer (humanure). However, deep ocean water often contains lots of nutrients because dead plankton tend to sink. That's why you get lots of phytoplankton (green water) in parts of the ocean where there are upwellings. Could the deep water that's brought to the surface for OTEC be used to fertilize algae grown for biofuel?
Exactly, and the percentage of women in law is much higher than in STEM. Similarly, for years now over half of newly graduating MD's have been women. Back in say, the 1980's, when STEM Ph.D. salaries were rising, I think it was a good idea to encourage women to enter these traditionally male fields. Then in the 80's the NSF pushed for vastly increasing the number of student visas for the express purpose of driving down Ph.D. salaries. As time went on, the H-1B visa was introduced. Offshoring and inshoring became the gospel of our patriotic tech execs. There was a nice bubble in the mid to late 90's, but it's now been longer since the bubble than the bubble lasted.
Nowadays encouraging women to enter STEM fields seems like misogyny. I actively discourage my daughter from doing so, but only because I love her.
I'm asking if women don't attain higher in STEM fields of education because they don't see a career in STEM as a viable target
You mean are women smarter than men. More sensible anyway, in this respect. Whenever anyone talks about more women (or other "minority") in STEM, my first question is, what do you have against these people? Admittedly my daughter is only nine, but she's very good at math and loves to help me with things like car and house repairs. When she is old enough to think about a career, I'll do what I can to discourage her from STEM. Many (perhaps most) other engineers I know actively discourage their teenage sons and daughters from entering STEM these days.
cloud when talked about in these ways does not mean "someone else owns the hardware", it means...
Congratulations, you've passed the Rorschach test!
Inkblots are so messy though. Clouds are pretty and fluffy. You can see anything you want in them. They're perfect for marketing. I detest that old-fashioned anal retentive precise language that used to be popular in technology. This new through-the-looking-glass stuff leads to so much more fun debate.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
I've only won this argument and helped companies save millions by reining in the cowboys like yourself a couple dozen times.
Sounds like you should get paid pretty well for that. So instead of complaining, you should thank the OP and his ilk for helping to provide your paycheck. Next cops will complain about there being crooks. Some people don't understand where their bread is buttered.
Additionally there is the matter of control. You have a lot more of it if you do your own stuff. However, business often mindlessly follows the latest fashions (this explains why the execs get the big bucks - like fashion groupies). For years the trend has been to move everything out-of-house and buy "services". There recently seems to be some trend away from this, because it turns out the people who warned of the problems were often right (what a surprise). It doesn't help that many companies that offer "services" have become little more than overpriced front companies. For example, much of IBM's US operations have become little more than an overpriced front and unnecessary for India Business Machines.
Look at war crime records for non isolated mass murders.
Good point. I prefer socially isolated mass murderers. They kill by themselves, and that tends to limit the damage. It gets a whole lot worse when you can enlist lots of help from your "social circle".
Arguments for reductions in our civil rights and freedoms in order to improve safety are fundamentally flawed.
Hear, hear!
For all this whiz-bang Orwellian tech, I've yet to hear of it doing any good. And please don't give me the "maybe they haven't divulged..." line. TPTB have never been shy about tooting their horn for foiling some plot, and crediting something that they spent a bazillion dollars on. I wouldn't be surprised if much of this spy stuff is counterproductive, because people waste time playing KGB wannabee and "data mining" instead of engaging in some good old-fashioned investigative work. Never forget that 9/11 could have been prevented with a little old-fashioned police work, but that would have required FBI headquarters to listen to what their field offices were trying to tell them.
Furthermore, claims that the Bill of Rights necessarily impedes security are nonsense. In some cases it's precisely because of the Bill of Rights that our law enforcement is better. There is a widespread misconception that totalitarian countries like the USSR at least had good security and low crime. Nope. Good figures can't be obtained because they were never kept, but reports from people that lived there say crime was actually quite high. Part of the reason is that without rights and real trials, the easiest thing in the world is to pickup whoever you like and claim they were the perpetrator of whatever crime you're trying to "solve".
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be ridiculous. A good fiscally conservative country like the US would never do anything risky or pointless like building a railroad across a continent, or a canal between oceans, sending people to the moon or trying to develop new energy sources. Our wise statesmen realize that the proper approach is to let foolish countries like China play with this stuff while we sit back and collect the eventual profits (preferably carried on the backs of unicorns).
it just can't compete with simple proven solutions like hydro-electric
Unfortunately we have a limited supply of that, and much of it is already tapped.
I don't forsee anyone building a viable OTEC plant for the purpose of commercial energy production anytime soon.
Maybe not, but the only way to really find out, or to seriously improve your component technologies, is to build pilot plants like this.
Come on you guys, the only good "room temperature" heavy metal heat transfer fluid is mercury.
Do you have any reason to believe that what I asked about would necessarily be terribly destructive, or are you just one of those people reflexively, fanatically and thoughtlessly opposed to anything that's done by humans other than growing organic bean sprouts (hint: even organic farming is both highly "unnatural" and environmentally destructive). If you fall into that category, please join the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. It would benefit everyone.
What we really need is some kind of system that prevents jerry-mandering when redistricting.
Very important, and surprisingly easy to handle (if TPTB will tolerate something radical like representative government). States that simply have non-partisan re-districting commissions (Iowa?) do pretty well, whereas in Texas gerrymandering has been taken to an unabashed extreme. IIRC Austin is divided amongst 4 congressional districts, each of which also goes out into the boonies. Hence the Austin area doesn't really have any representation. Nor is it just a problem for Austin. Since Texas is the second most populous state their system affects the whole country. But don't worry about us in NY state. Our local politicos seem to strike nice compromises. The NY 2nd and 3rd districts were re-drawn so that one belongs to a Republican congressman-for-life and the other belongs to a Democratic congressman-for-life. I could vote for Mickey Mouse for all that it matters.
I got modded down for that? Note to self: some /. moderators are way too touchy, or think the results of the Civil War are still open to debate, or something. Sheesh.
Because China has such a stellar environmental record.
No, and I can give you a mile long list of serious complaints about the Chinese government, in terms of both their domestic and foreign affairs. But give the devil his due. At least they're trying something here. You know, kind of like the United States once had the guts to do?
Sounds similar to Germany, where the Bundestag has half the seats from geographic districts and half the seats from PR.
Proportional representation. Small factions will get represented too.
Especially if "small factions" includes a majority of American citizens. There are numerous issues on which a large majority of Americans feel one way, but both our major parties go the other way. They know damn well you don't really have a choice. Without PR minor party votes are just meaningless protests.
Look at Israel for a good example of this.
Look at all the countries that don't have that problem. It seems like Israel is a bit of a special case. Also, a parliamentary system could easily have more trouble than a non-parliamentary system like ours, because in a parliamentary system you need to form a (often coalition) majority to form a government. In the US system minor parties could only swing things on a vote-by-vote basis.
Anybody who knows Israeli politics better than me please feel free to correct, but AFAIK the reason Israel has such a big problem is that their two big parties, Labor and Likud, both have a large but not quite majority vote. Hence they have to scramble to get small parties to join a coalition so they can get a majority and form a government. This gives the small parties power out of all proportion to their representation, as they hold a trump card.
Damn China. Who the hell do those people think they are? A forward project that is not absolutely guaranteed to return a profit, although it may be a key to future energy production. They'll probably blithely say that although this approach might not work, try a few of them and there's a good shot at finding at least one winner. And that winner could be worth a fortune and be essential to our future. Damn China, it acts like mid-20th century America. Any good libertarian or fiscal conservative can tell you how badly this country turned out after they wasted all that government money.
You realize the USA extends much further south than Nantucket, right?
Yes, but no place much further south than Nantucket is worth going to.
However, we might still be able to use some of that beach front real estate for OTEC. Or perhaps the poster is suggesting OTEC for Nantucket (or referring to the fact that Nantucket is a excellent place for offshore wind, blocked by various NIMBY's)
Could OTEC help produce algae for biofuel?
AFAIK nutrients are a serious constraint on the large scale use of algae for biofuel. For pilot plants you can always dump in fertilizer, but on a large scale it might be different, due to the energy required to make that fertilizer and the fact that there is a limited supply of phosphates. Even sewage has its problems, as there is a limited supply (though some contribute much more than others) and it may be better used for agricultural fertilizer (humanure). However, deep ocean water often contains lots of nutrients because dead plankton tend to sink. That's why you get lots of phytoplankton (green water) in parts of the ocean where there are upwellings. Could the deep water that's brought to the surface for OTEC be used to fertilize algae grown for biofuel?
Exactly, and the percentage of women in law is much higher than in STEM. Similarly, for years now over half of newly graduating MD's have been women. Back in say, the 1980's, when STEM Ph.D. salaries were rising, I think it was a good idea to encourage women to enter these traditionally male fields. Then in the 80's the NSF pushed for vastly increasing the number of student visas for the express purpose of driving down Ph.D. salaries. As time went on, the H-1B visa was introduced. Offshoring and inshoring became the gospel of our patriotic tech execs. There was a nice bubble in the mid to late 90's, but it's now been longer since the bubble than the bubble lasted.
Nowadays encouraging women to enter STEM fields seems like misogyny. I actively discourage my daughter from doing so, but only because I love her.
What's a "woman"?
emacs user, those people are basically subhuman
And proud of it, we are. Escape-meta-alt-control-shift-q to you buddy.
I'm asking if women don't attain higher in STEM fields of education because they don't see a career in STEM as a viable target
You mean are women smarter than men. More sensible anyway, in this respect. Whenever anyone talks about more women (or other "minority") in STEM, my first question is, what do you have against these people? Admittedly my daughter is only nine, but she's very good at math and loves to help me with things like car and house repairs. When she is old enough to think about a career, I'll do what I can to discourage her from STEM. Many (perhaps most) other engineers I know actively discourage their teenage sons and daughters from entering STEM these days.
it's "Bob son of George" and "Mary daughter of Jane"
You mean "Worf son of Mogh" is an Icelander?
Hopefully attractive Icelandic women find overweight balding middle age geeks exotic!
They definitely do.
Got my tickets, will arrive in Iceland by the end of the week!
Airline tickets? Waste of money. Much cheaper to hop on the back of a flying pig.
cloud when talked about in these ways does not mean "someone else owns the hardware", it means ...
Congratulations, you've passed the Rorschach test!
Inkblots are so messy though. Clouds are pretty and fluffy. You can see anything you want in them. They're perfect for marketing. I detest that old-fashioned anal retentive precise language that used to be popular in technology. This new through-the-looking-glass stuff leads to so much more fun debate.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
I've only won this argument and helped companies save millions by reining in the cowboys like yourself a couple dozen times.
Sounds like you should get paid pretty well for that. So instead of complaining, you should thank the OP and his ilk for helping to provide your paycheck. Next cops will complain about there being crooks. Some people don't understand where their bread is buttered.
In a well-functioning organization
Huh?
Additionally there is the matter of control. You have a lot more of it if you do your own stuff. However, business often mindlessly follows the latest fashions (this explains why the execs get the big bucks - like fashion groupies). For years the trend has been to move everything out-of-house and buy "services". There recently seems to be some trend away from this, because it turns out the people who warned of the problems were often right (what a surprise). It doesn't help that many companies that offer "services" have become little more than overpriced front companies. For example, much of IBM's US operations have become little more than an overpriced front and unnecessary for India Business Machines.
Look at war crime records for non isolated mass murders.
Good point. I prefer socially isolated mass murderers. They kill by themselves, and that tends to limit the damage. It gets a whole lot worse when you can enlist lots of help from your "social circle".
Arguments for reductions in our civil rights and freedoms in order to improve safety are fundamentally flawed.
Hear, hear!
For all this whiz-bang Orwellian tech, I've yet to hear of it doing any good. And please don't give me the "maybe they haven't divulged ..." line. TPTB have never been shy about tooting their horn for foiling some plot, and crediting something that they spent a bazillion dollars on. I wouldn't be surprised if much of this spy stuff is counterproductive, because people waste time playing KGB wannabee and "data mining" instead of engaging in some good old-fashioned investigative work. Never forget that 9/11 could have been prevented with a little old-fashioned police work, but that would have required FBI headquarters to listen to what their field offices were trying to tell them.
Furthermore, claims that the Bill of Rights necessarily impedes security are nonsense. In some cases it's precisely because of the Bill of Rights that our law enforcement is better. There is a widespread misconception that totalitarian countries like the USSR at least had good security and low crime. Nope. Good figures can't be obtained because they were never kept, but reports from people that lived there say crime was actually quite high. Part of the reason is that without rights and real trials, the easiest thing in the world is to pickup whoever you like and claim they were the perpetrator of whatever crime you're trying to "solve".