That suggests a possible YouTube advertising model -- you start the video and a 30-second ad pops up, along with a "click here to pay 10 cents to make this ad go away right now" button.
end of discussion, the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers
I think the government has a legitimate national security interest in developing a transportation system that does not completely grind to a halt the day someone sets off a few nukes in the major oil-producing areas of the world.
Hybrid and electric technology is what could make the difference between an event like that being a serious problem and it being a complete disaster.
There's also the small issue of global warming; I think the government also has a legitimate interest in keeping Miami above water and crops growing in California.
A coal fired plant in Africa may emit more CO2 today, but it will improve people's lives, make them prosperous enough to educate their children, and lead to a lower population 50 years from now, this reducing CO2 emissions in the long run.
Why stop there? Let's burn all the coal today, and thereby reduce CO2 emissions to zero in the long run!
Less facetiously, I agree that improving peoples' quality of life to reduce population growth is a good idea. However, I think we can find better energy sources than coal with which to make that happen.
When there are actual consequences. When there are a few draughts, a few failed crops, several hurricanes in a single year, AND NOT BEFORE. That's the truth. Actions will be taken after Global Warming starts delivering on its threats.
I used to think the same way; now I realize that I was too optimistic. All of the consequences you mentioned above have already happened, and it hasn't been enough.
My new prediction is: people will still be denying global warming even as they are bailing water out of their living rooms.
So, when we do it, it means we good people are superior. When they do it, it's just an excuse to feel superior. Got it!
Despite what you may have heard, it was never about who is "superior" -- that's a deliberate misrepresentation and a distraction put forward by people who prefer to criticize other people (which is easy and fun) rather than to confront the actual problem (which is difficult and expensive).
Funny how when the wrong side gets caught doing it, suddenly we need to stop pointing fingers and change the subject.
If you were on a boat in the middle of the ocean, and the boat was leaking, and someone suggested that the leak should be fixed as quickly as possible, would you call that "changing the subject"?
Of course the entire point of this article (and others like it) is to give right-wingers are an excuse to feel superior to "those hypocrites on the left". So let's not get too self-congratulatory about our own ethical honesty, shall we? It amounts to the same thing in the end.
The thing is, there is a difficult problem to be solved. Finger-pointing and denunciations aren't going to solve it. Expecting the bulk of humanity to spontaneously reduce their carbon footprint -- simply because it's the right thing to do -- is clearly not a viable strategy either. If we really want to solve this problem, it will take hard work, determination, and ingenuity, of both the technical and political varieties. And it will take seeing other people as thr fallable-but-well-meaning human beings they generally are, not as cartoon villains to fear or paper targets to take pot-shots at.
A little more constructive dialog, and a little less demagoguery, please. I'll start: a revenue-neutral carbon tax would be a good way to tilt the market away from carbon usage without restricting it to any pre-ordained solutions that might or might not be sufficient.
Many police departments now have a policy of not performing chases for non-violent crimes because, statistically, you're more likely to kill bystanders by chasing than by letting the criminal drive off.
Given that it's a Tesla (and a dealer-owned one at that), was a chase necessary at all? I suspect that Tesla Corp could have given the police a live feed of the car's GPS co-ordinates at any time?
Hell, you could probably ransom people's cars back to them for more than that.
There aren't that many quality goods and services to spend your ransom money on in prison -- my understanding is that the selection is mainly limited to cigarettes, cell phones, drugs, and "protection".
No one will EVER live in a permanent space colony. Sorry.
While I share your pessimistic outlook for the foreseeable future, forever is a really long time. Are you willing to say that absolutely nobody will be living in a permanent space colony in 100 years? 500 years? 10,000 years? If so, what makes you so certain?
Experience and training is not very important as long as you know how to write good code that's efficient and makes sense to others.
And how did you learn to write good code that's efficient and make sense to others? Maybe you're the rare case of a person that can just intuit what is good code and what isn't, but I think most developers (including myself) learn how to write good code by first writing lots of bad code, and then suffering the consequences until they learn from experience what works and what doesn't.
To the people who hired you, the most important thing is getting the product to work reliably so they can start making money with it. It won't matter at all how pretty the chart bubbles are in the design document, if the program crashes or is otherwise unusable. So score one for the talented programmers there.
Which is not to say software engineering isn't important -- only that exactly how important it is will vary with the size of the project. e.g. for a smaller project like a script or a one-off data processing program, just about any design (or no design) can be made to work well enough. For a large program (or one that will eventually grow into a large program), detailed software engineering is necessary to prevent its eventual collapse under the weight of its own complexity.
20 years ago I was using a computer monitor with better resolution than the one today.
Really? Do tell -- what was the resolution of that monitor, and how much did it cost you at the time? (Also, what computer monitor are you using today?)
Then you have never looked at a ten line C program to implement a PID control loop for a servo motor.
I don't think that would count as learning. That ten-line program will always do exactly what it was programmed to do, neither more nor less. An adaptive program (in the sense the previous poster was attempting to describe) would be one that is able to figure out on its own how to do things that its programmers had not anticipated in advance.
if it got 60 miles electric I'd have to make sure I used the gas engine occasional to make sure it didn't have problems.
An interesting feature of the Volt is that it will handle this for you -- i.e. if the gas engine hasn't been used in a long enough time, the Volt's computer will force it to be used for a little while just to give it some exercise (and keep the gas in the tank from getting too stale IIRC).
Throw out HTML, throw out CSS, throw out JavaScript. Take the best *ideas* from them all, use C# (nothing to do with Microsoft though) and create a common framework on all platforms embracing those *ideas* and use OpenGL as the composition engine.
I'd try to explain the problems with this line of thinking, but I think xkcd does a better job.
bullshit. I just was in an accident as a cyclist earlier this year, not wearing any protection. none would have protected me, I broke my wrist and i have a serious shoulder injury.
Your single data point doesn't demonstrate anything one way or another about "most accidents".
Well you could using this field strength to levitate frogs which would make for a cool lecture demonstration!
Don't kid yourself, man. This technology is going to be militarized into a frog-railgun ASAP. If a biblical rain of frogs is the only language the North Koreans understand, then by God that's what we'll give them.
You are digitally illiterate if you "trust the Internet."
It's not clear what is meant by "trust the Internet".
For example, you could "trust the Internet" enough to log on to a terminal at the library and anonymously read Slashdot articles, but not "trust the Internet" enough to access your bank account online (or invest in BitCoins, heaven forfend). Does that make you digitally literate or illiterate?
However, there are some that don't trust the internet as a medium in and of itself. And I would argue that that is a problem.
A problem for whom? If they don't mind the inconvenience of never using the Internet, that's their decision, and living without using the Internet is no less doable now than it was for the previous 5,000 generations.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no objection to paying for ad-free stuff
That suggests a possible YouTube advertising model -- you start the video and a 30-second ad pops up, along with a "click here to pay 10 cents to make this ad go away right now" button.
I wonder how many people would click the button?
end of discussion, the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers
I think the government has a legitimate national security interest in developing a transportation system that does not completely grind to a halt the day someone sets off a few nukes in the major oil-producing areas of the world.
Hybrid and electric technology is what could make the difference between an event like that being a serious problem and it being a complete disaster.
There's also the small issue of global warming; I think the government also has a legitimate interest in keeping Miami above water and crops growing in California.
A coal fired plant in Africa may emit more CO2 today, but it will improve people's lives, make them prosperous enough to educate their children, and lead to a lower population 50 years from now, this reducing CO2 emissions in the long run.
Why stop there? Let's burn all the coal today, and thereby reduce CO2 emissions to zero in the long run!
Less facetiously, I agree that improving peoples' quality of life to reduce population growth is a good idea. However, I think we can find better energy sources than coal with which to make that happen.
When there are actual consequences. When there are a few draughts, a few failed crops, several hurricanes in a single year, AND NOT BEFORE. That's the truth. Actions will be taken after Global Warming starts delivering on its threats.
I used to think the same way; now I realize that I was too optimistic. All of the consequences you mentioned above have already happened, and it hasn't been enough.
My new prediction is: people will still be denying global warming even as they are bailing water out of their living rooms.
Though he discusses politics, He's not a pollination.
Ever since web browsers started enabling auto-correct, Internet comments have become very surreal.
So, when we do it, it means we good people are superior. When they do it, it's just an excuse to feel superior. Got it!
Despite what you may have heard, it was never about who is "superior" -- that's a deliberate misrepresentation and a distraction put forward by people who prefer to criticize other people (which is easy and fun) rather than to confront the actual problem (which is difficult and expensive).
Funny how when the wrong side gets caught doing it, suddenly we need to stop pointing fingers and change the subject.
If you were on a boat in the middle of the ocean, and the boat was leaking, and someone suggested that the leak should be fixed as quickly as possible, would you call that "changing the subject"?
Of course the entire point of this article (and others like it) is to give right-wingers are an excuse to feel superior to "those hypocrites on the left". So let's not get too self-congratulatory about our own ethical honesty, shall we? It amounts to the same thing in the end.
The thing is, there is a difficult problem to be solved. Finger-pointing and denunciations aren't going to solve it. Expecting the bulk of humanity to spontaneously reduce their carbon footprint -- simply because it's the right thing to do -- is clearly not a viable strategy either. If we really want to solve this problem, it will take hard work, determination, and ingenuity, of both the technical and political varieties. And it will take seeing other people as thr fallable-but-well-meaning human beings they generally are, not as cartoon villains to fear or paper targets to take pot-shots at.
A little more constructive dialog, and a little less demagoguery, please. I'll start: a revenue-neutral carbon tax would be a good way to tilt the market away from carbon usage without restricting it to any pre-ordained solutions that might or might not be sufficient.
There is. But it is usually limited to things as potatoes.
Even potatoes are valuable only in situations where there are people around who are interested in owning/obtaining/consuming potatoes.
Many police departments now have a policy of not performing chases for non-violent crimes because, statistically, you're more likely to kill bystanders by chasing than by letting the criminal drive off.
Given that it's a Tesla (and a dealer-owned one at that), was a chase necessary at all? I suspect that Tesla Corp could have given the police a live feed of the car's GPS co-ordinates at any time?
Hell, you could probably ransom people's cars back to them for more than that.
There aren't that many quality goods and services to spend your ransom money on in prison -- my understanding is that the selection is mainly limited to cigarettes, cell phones, drugs, and "protection".
No one will EVER live in a permanent space colony. Sorry.
While I share your pessimistic outlook for the foreseeable future, forever is a really long time. Are you willing to say that absolutely nobody will be living in a permanent space colony in 100 years? 500 years? 10,000 years? If so, what makes you so certain?
Experience and training is not very important as long as you know how to write good code that's efficient and makes sense to others.
And how did you learn to write good code that's efficient and make sense to others? Maybe you're the rare case of a person that can just intuit what is good code and what isn't, but I think most developers (including myself) learn how to write good code by first writing lots of bad code, and then suffering the consequences until they learn from experience what works and what doesn't.
Thanks, "Assmasher". I value your learned input.
To the people who hired you, the most important thing is getting the product to work reliably so they can start making money with it. It won't matter at all how pretty the chart bubbles are in the design document, if the program crashes or is otherwise unusable. So score one for the talented programmers there.
Which is not to say software engineering isn't important -- only that exactly how important it is will vary with the size of the project. e.g. for a smaller project like a script or a one-off data processing program, just about any design (or no design) can be made to work well enough. For a large program (or one that will eventually grow into a large program), detailed software engineering is necessary to prevent its eventual collapse under the weight of its own complexity.
This is great news! Zero income means zero income taxes. How much food can I buy with zero dollars?
Whatever your yearly stipend from the government will get you.
(Hey, if it works for Alaska, it could work elsewhere -- just fund it by taxing cheap robot labor instead of petroleum)
20 years ago I was using a computer monitor with better resolution than the one today.
Really? Do tell -- what was the resolution of that monitor, and how much did it cost you at the time? (Also, what computer monitor are you using today?)
Then you have never looked at a ten line C program to implement a PID control loop for a servo motor.
I don't think that would count as learning. That ten-line program will always do exactly what it was programmed to do, neither more nor less. An adaptive program (in the sense the previous poster was attempting to describe) would be one that is able to figure out on its own how to do things that its programmers had not anticipated in advance.
if it got 60 miles electric I'd have to make sure I used the gas engine occasional to make sure it didn't have problems.
An interesting feature of the Volt is that it will handle this for you -- i.e. if the gas engine hasn't been used in a long enough time, the Volt's computer will force it to be used for a little while just to give it some exercise (and keep the gas in the tank from getting too stale IIRC).
Elon Musk is south african.
He was born in South Africa, yes. But he's also a US citizen, and lives and works in the USA.
Throw out HTML, throw out CSS, throw out JavaScript. Take the best *ideas* from them all, use C# (nothing to do with Microsoft though) and create a common framework on all platforms embracing those *ideas* and use OpenGL as the composition engine.
I'd try to explain the problems with this line of thinking, but I think xkcd does a better job.
bullshit. I just was in an accident as a cyclist earlier this year, not wearing any protection. none would have protected me, I broke my wrist and i have a serious shoulder injury.
Your single data point doesn't demonstrate anything one way or another about "most accidents".
And people who live on flood plains pay extra for flood insurance. If you don't like the consequences of where you live, move.
Or, you know, find a way to mitigate them. Which is what the previous poster is doing, instead of taking your helpful advice.
Well you could using this field strength to levitate frogs which would make for a cool lecture demonstration!
Don't kid yourself, man. This technology is going to be militarized into a frog-railgun ASAP. If a biblical rain of frogs is the only language the North Koreans understand, then by God that's what we'll give them.
You are digitally illiterate if you "trust the Internet."
It's not clear what is meant by "trust the Internet".
For example, you could "trust the Internet" enough to log on to a terminal at the library and anonymously read Slashdot articles, but not "trust the Internet" enough to access your bank account online (or invest in BitCoins, heaven forfend). Does that make you digitally literate or illiterate?
However, there are some that don't trust the internet as a medium in and of itself. And I would argue that that is a problem.
A problem for whom? If they don't mind the inconvenience of never using the Internet, that's their decision, and living without using the Internet is no less doable now than it was for the previous 5,000 generations.