So it's perfectly possible for global population growth to be even negative and STILL see an acceleration in resource consumption.
Yes it is possible, but contrary to what you say we do seem to see a reduction in resource usage when this happens. As you said, it doesn't necessarily has to be this way, but it does seem to be the case.
Resource consumption will increase in poor countries as they catch up to the west in living standards. Meantiime advanced economies will see a reduction in population and resource consumption of unprecedented proportions. Some economists argue this is the basis of Japan's never ending recession: depressed internal demand.
The calculations are correct. The planet can support 3 billion people living at a high (US level) standard of living.
No, that is also incorrect. Once population stops growing and/or starts falling as it is predicted, per person use of resources goes down dramatically too. No new buildings, roads or school, with people inheriting property from their grandparents, ranging from a house, to a car, to a microwave oven, to a cutlery set and a frying pan.
Consumption goes scarily down. Scarily in the sense that the economy will have a hard time handling it, but incredibly good in terms of the environment.
Good point, but not to worry, raw growth is also decelerating.
You can see here the medium UN variant (which historically has proven to be too pessimistic) already shows the curve slope decreasing since around 1990, i.e. deceleration of raw growth.
Static museums work for the visual arts, they are kind of a failure for anything else.
Have a display where kids can play videogames as they have been over the years, have another one in which they can update their bank account, another one in which they can use databases to track down a suspected criminals, another one in which they can create their own bit coin operated recreational herbs commercial web site.
Apple has a habit of quietly revving its current computers without much fanfare
Quite the opposite in fact. At a time when most manufacturers wouldn't even put a paid press release when they had a faster desktop, Steve Jobs was announcing each upgrade as if it was the next coming of Jesus Christ. As Apple got back into health they stopped doing this and moved in line with most other manufacturers who make no big announcement unless the new model is completely revolutionary, e.g. first laptop with QHD, first laptop with SSD/HD, first laptop with SSD only, etc.
Also what matters most is not when the last update was made, but whether it upgraded to the latest technology. So far Apple is lagging far behind in moving to the latest family of CPUs.
They care about power, control and expanding their empire (bigger government).
This used to be the case in the times of LBJ, but in the Carter, Clinton and Obama administrations the size of the federal government as % of GDP went down. In contrast it went up with Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr.
Obama's budgets as % of GDP have been smaller than those of the sainted Ronald Reagan.
Thanks for supporting my message with your examples. They all excuse, deny, diminish the action, none of them amplifies. The equivalent of the support Trump gets for his snafus would be "Benghazi budget cuts were good, yeah!" or "private email servers are the way to go, keep the government out of our email".
I don't know why Trump supporters are behind him (since his positions vary so much this is a true mistery to me), but I'm referring to the enthusiastic ones in both cases. The ones at the Dem/Rep convention and campaign rallies.
One big difference though. No Hillary supporter as of yet has clapped wildly after hearing about her mistakes. They acknowledge they are bad things and chose to support her in spite of these flaws. Trump supporters on the other hand cheer after each of his despicable comments calling most Mexican immigrants rapists, calling John McCain (who declined special offers of mercy in Vietnam to support his fellow soldiers) a coward, and insulting the mother of a brave soldier who gave his life for this country.
Part (f) explicitly refers to gross negligence. Gross negligence, while not the best defined of legal terms, has always implied mens rea. So we are back to square one. Nothing that you have said places extreme carelessness in the same realm as gross negligence.
They do, you are missinformed. Mens rea is crucial in this case. Read it up.
I'll vote for a clown over a known corrupt person any day.
Trump is equally corrupt. Haven't you read about Trump university or his 1,300 lawsuits against him or the fact that is damn nearly impossible to find a business partner of his that wasn't screwed over by him? That the only people they could find that would say a good word about him in the convention were D listers and his children? that he spent the last eight years slandering Obama as a Kenyan muslim only to cry like a baby when he's challenged by tough questions from the press? Lying about supposed evidence of his citizenship that was never forthcoming? Trump oozes corruption.
But The Washington Post is reminding us that U.S.'s efforts in the cyber-security world aren't much different.
They are very different to what Trump asked. The USA is spying on a foreign country (Russia) just like Russia is spying on us. However Trump sided with the enemy in this spying effort. This is a huge difference and verging on treason, a word that is often thrown around half-haphazardly, but which in this case fully seems to meet the legal definition:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
Nobody laughed when he first said it on a Tuesday, and at his first chances to clarify it he doubled down on it, it took until Thursday before he claimed was a joke. Here's what happened in between:
From the Washington Post:
1. Trump campaign officials never said he was joking on Wednesday. They mounted a robust defense, mind you, but they didn't say it was a joke.
2. Trump doubled down. In a tweet after the comments exploded on social media, Trump sought to explain a little bit â" apparently suggesting he simply meant that the emails should be turned over to the FBI "if Russia or any other country or person has" them. Again, no mention of joking around.
3. He said it twice. This wasn't a one-off quip in Trump's news conference on Wednesday. He initially said he hoped the Russians had the emails, and then he returned later to say that if they didn't have them, he hoped they would obtain them.
4. A reporter gave him an out -- that he didn't take. NBC's Katy Tur, later in Wednesday's press conference, basically asked Trump twice if he was serious. In response, Trump indicated he had no qualms about, in Tur's words, "asking a foreign government â" Russia, China, anybody â" to interfere, to hack into the system of anybody's in this country."
Lastly, even though very clearly he wasn't joking, even as a joke this is wholly unpresidential. So to sum it up, he clearly wasn't joking and even under this absurd excuse concocted two days after the fact Trump still loses points with this one, As simple as that. And all around fscked up for him anyway you see it.
But as Trump himself said, he could go and shoot someone in Times Square and his voters would still support him. That part he did get right.
Are there sound technical reasons for this concentration,
Automation. If you are making one an hour, and you need one last screw at the top is cheaper to hire a person to put it in. If you are making 1000 an hour you can afford to design, build and program a robot that adds said screw.
However, even by those measures, the number of cases in which Trump is involved is extraordinary. For comparison, USA TODAY analyzed the legal involvement for five top real-estate business executives: Edward DeBartolo, shopping-center developer and former San Francisco 49ers owner; Donald Bren, Irvine Company chairman and owner; Stephen Ross, Time Warner Center developer; Sam Zell, Chicago real-estate magnate; and Larry Silverstein, a New York developer famous for his involvement in the World Trade Center properties.
To maintain an apples-to-apples comparison, only actions that used the developers' names were included. The analysis found Trump has been involved in more legal skirmishes than all five of the others---combined.
1,300 lawsuits against his companies are on the public record. Compare this to Mitt Romney or Michael Bloomberg to see what a shady character Trump is.
No they didn't. Luckily there is such a bright mind as yourself to point the obvious...
If you read the article (yeah, I know, who does?) they used all other lower orbit astronauts as a control group, who had similar diets, smoking and drinking habits and level of fitness and stress.
Because he bought the latest refresh model, released less a month or two ago. This means Apple is at least two refresh cycles behind.
As to my computer, you got me. It is a crap loss leader from an unknown manufacturer. Your standard run of the mill crap with QHD touchscreen, ultralight, latest generation skylake CPU that you can get in a back alley.
Nope, the latest release has broadwell. They are indeed a full generation behind. An apple head friend of mine just bought a brand new MBA and he said: slower than my three year old MBP.
I'm writing this in a comparable light computer 3200x1800, 16 GB at about the same price as an MBA.
My rule it that if you have to even think more than a second about precedence then there is somewhere out there who will misinterpret it.
By the way Kernighan claimed that he should have done pemdas+left to right associativity between operators of the same precedence, instead of the present 15 levels of precedence in C and sixteen in C++.
I over parenthesize C/C++ expressions. There are so many precedence levels that it is easy to forget who goes first**. There's a limit of course, I wouldn't write 4+(5*6) but I would certainly fully parenthesize:
x = 4*A|| B? C||D: E && F || G +3;
** Brian Kernighan admitted to having the table of precedence glued to his monitor, since he himself can't keep them straight.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's perfectly possible for global population growth to be even negative and STILL see an acceleration in resource consumption.
Yes it is possible, but contrary to what you say we do seem to see a reduction in resource usage when this happens. As you said, it doesn't necessarily has to be this way, but it does seem to be the case.
Resource consumption will increase in poor countries as they catch up to the west in living standards. Meantiime advanced economies will see a reduction in population and resource consumption of unprecedented proportions. Some economists argue this is the basis of Japan's never ending recession: depressed internal demand.
The calculations are correct. The planet can support 3 billion people living at a high (US level) standard of living.
No, that is also incorrect. Once population stops growing and/or starts falling as it is predicted, per person use of resources goes down dramatically too. No new buildings, roads or school, with people inheriting property from their grandparents, ranging from a house, to a car, to a microwave oven, to a cutlery set and a frying pan.
Consumption goes scarily down. Scarily in the sense that the economy will have a hard time handling it, but incredibly good in terms of the environment.
Good point, but not to worry, raw growth is also decelerating.
You can see here the medium UN variant (which historically has proven to be too pessimistic) already shows the curve slope decreasing since around 1990, i.e. deceleration of raw growth.
Here's a chart of the growth rate.
our negative impact on the planet is substantial and that this is accelerating.
[citation needed]
You see population growth is rapidly decelerating, albeit still positive. Hence our impact is likely to be decelerating too.
Static museums work for the visual arts, they are kind of a failure for anything else.
Have a display where kids can play videogames as they have been over the years, have another one in which they can update their bank account, another one in which they can use databases to track down a suspected criminals, another one in which they can create their own bit coin operated recreational herbs commercial web site.
Apple has a habit of quietly revving its current computers without much fanfare
Quite the opposite in fact. At a time when most manufacturers wouldn't even put a paid press release when they had a faster desktop, Steve Jobs was announcing each upgrade as if it was the next coming of Jesus Christ. As Apple got back into health they stopped doing this and moved in line with most other manufacturers who make no big announcement unless the new model is completely revolutionary, e.g. first laptop with QHD, first laptop with SSD/HD, first laptop with SSD only, etc.
Also what matters most is not when the last update was made, but whether it upgraded to the latest technology. So far Apple is lagging far behind in moving to the latest family of CPUs.
They care about power, control and expanding their empire (bigger government).
This used to be the case in the times of LBJ, but in the Carter, Clinton and Obama administrations the size of the federal government as % of GDP went down. In contrast it went up with Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr.
Obama's budgets as % of GDP have been smaller than those of the sainted Ronald Reagan.
Thanks for supporting my message with your examples. They all excuse, deny, diminish the action, none of them amplifies.
The equivalent of the support Trump gets for his snafus would be "Benghazi budget cuts were good, yeah!" or "private email servers are the way to go, keep the government out of our email".
I don't know why Trump supporters are behind him (since his positions vary so much this is a true mistery to me), but I'm referring to the enthusiastic ones in both cases. The ones at the Dem/Rep convention and campaign rallies.
One big difference though. No Hillary supporter as of yet has clapped wildly after hearing about her mistakes. They acknowledge they are bad things and chose to support her in spite of these flaws. Trump supporters on the other hand cheer after each of his despicable comments calling most Mexican immigrants rapists, calling John McCain (who declined special offers of mercy in Vietnam to support his fellow soldiers) a coward, and insulting the mother of a brave soldier who gave his life for this country.
18 USC Sec. 793(f). Look it up.
Part (f) explicitly refers to gross negligence. Gross negligence, while not the best defined of legal terms, has always implied mens rea. So we are back to square one. Nothing that you have said places extreme carelessness in the same realm as gross negligence.
The felonies she committed didn't require intent,
They do, you are missinformed. Mens rea is crucial in this case. Read it up.
I'll vote for a clown over a known corrupt person any day.
Trump is equally corrupt. Haven't you read about Trump university or his 1,300 lawsuits against him or the fact that is damn nearly impossible to find a business partner of his that wasn't screwed over by him? That the only people they could find that would say a good word about him in the convention were D listers and his children? that he spent the last eight years slandering Obama as a Kenyan muslim only to cry like a baby when he's challenged by tough questions from the press? Lying about supposed evidence of his citizenship that was never forthcoming? Trump oozes corruption.
But The Washington Post is reminding us that U.S.'s efforts in the cyber-security world aren't much different.
They are very different to what Trump asked. The USA is spying on a foreign country (Russia) just like Russia is spying on us. However Trump sided with the enemy in this spying effort. This is a huge difference and verging on treason, a word that is often thrown around half-haphazardly, but which in this case fully seems to meet the legal definition:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
He made a very tired joke
Nobody laughed when he first said it on a Tuesday, and at his first chances to clarify it he doubled down on it, it took until Thursday before he claimed was a joke. Here's what happened in between:
From the Washington Post:
1. Trump campaign officials never said he was joking on Wednesday. They mounted a robust defense, mind you, but they didn't say it was a joke.
2. Trump doubled down. In a tweet after the comments exploded on social media, Trump sought to explain a little bit â" apparently suggesting he simply meant that the emails should be turned over to the FBI "if Russia or any other country or person has" them. Again, no mention of joking around.
3. He said it twice. This wasn't a one-off quip in Trump's news conference on Wednesday. He initially said he hoped the Russians had the emails, and then he returned later to say that if they didn't have them, he hoped they would obtain them.
4. A reporter gave him an out -- that he didn't take. NBC's Katy Tur, later in Wednesday's press conference, basically asked Trump twice if he was serious. In response, Trump indicated he had no qualms about, in Tur's words, "asking a foreign government â" Russia, China, anybody â" to interfere, to hack into the system of anybody's in this country."
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Lastly, even though very clearly he wasn't joking, even as a joke this is wholly unpresidential. So to sum it up, he clearly wasn't joking and even under this absurd excuse concocted two days after the fact Trump still loses points with this one, As simple as that. And all around fscked up for him anyway you see it.
But as Trump himself said, he could go and shoot someone in Times Square and his voters would still support him. That part he did get right.
Are there sound technical reasons for this concentration,
Automation. If you are making one an hour, and you need one last screw at the top is cheaper to hire a person to put it in. If you are making 1000 an hour you can afford to design, build and program a robot that adds said screw.
From USAToday:
However, even by those measures, the number of cases in which Trump is involved is extraordinary. For comparison, USA TODAY analyzed the legal involvement for five top real-estate business executives: Edward DeBartolo, shopping-center developer and former San Francisco 49ers owner; Donald Bren, Irvine Company chairman and owner; Stephen Ross, Time Warner Center developer; Sam Zell, Chicago real-estate magnate; and Larry Silverstein, a New York developer famous for his involvement in the World Trade Center properties.
To maintain an apples-to-apples comparison, only actions that used the developers' names were included. The analysis found Trump has been involved in more legal skirmishes than all five of the others---combined.
1,300 lawsuits against his companies are on the public record. Compare this to Mitt Romney or Michael Bloomberg to see what a shady character Trump is.
which is why they used lower earth orbit astronauts as a control group. (I know, I cheated, I actually read the article).
Seven? There were thirty deep space Apollo astronauts. 12 people walked on the moon alone.
No they didn't. Luckily there is such a bright mind as yourself to point the obvious...
If you read the article (yeah, I know, who does?) they used all other lower orbit astronauts as a control group, who had similar diets, smoking and drinking habits and level of fitness and stress.
Your friend's brand new MBA is interesting why?
Because he bought the latest refresh model, released less a month or two ago. This means Apple is at least two refresh cycles behind.
As to my computer, you got me. It is a crap loss leader from an unknown manufacturer. Your standard run of the mill crap with QHD touchscreen, ultralight, latest generation skylake CPU that you can get in a back alley.
Nope, the latest release has broadwell. They are indeed a full generation behind. An apple head friend of mine just bought a brand new MBA and he said: slower than my three year old MBP.
I'm writing this in a comparable light computer 3200x1800, 16 GB at about the same price as an MBA.
Yahoo was on its way down, but she put the peddle to the floor and accelerated it into oblivion.
She didn't do any worse than the previous four CEOs to be honest.
How about forbidding Javascript ads over 10K, instead of the not so uncommon 2MB javascript ads presently out there in the wild.
x = ((4*A) || B)? C||D : E && F || (G +3);
My rule it that if you have to even think more than a second about precedence then there is somewhere out there who will misinterpret it.
By the way Kernighan claimed that he should have done pemdas+left to right associativity between operators of the same precedence, instead of the present 15 levels of precedence in C and sixteen in C++.
I over parenthesize C/C++ expressions. There are so many precedence levels that it is easy to forget who goes first**. There's a limit of course, I wouldn't write 4+(5*6) but I would certainly fully parenthesize:
x = 4*A|| B? C||D: E && F || G +3;
** Brian Kernighan admitted to having the table of precedence glued to his monitor, since he himself can't keep them straight.