I'm sure some said the same thing about the railroad system or even the telephone infrastructure.
Your comment indicates you don't even understand the point I was making.
The huge expense is trying to cut CO2 by 20-30%, while the planet needs 80%.
The changes won't stop runaway global warming, but will still cost a huge sum of money.
---
In other words, you simply don't understand the scale of the problem, you're putting ducktape over holes in the dam without understanding the foundation of the dam is failing.
Same applies here. Moving toward renewable energies will remove existing issues while reducing cost of said energy long term. It's not a 5 year ROI, it's a 100 year ROI that must occur no matter what.
You assume that renewables will cost less long term. You don't actually know that.
The size of the economy is not relevant as long as you aren't pulling the plug overnight. Nobody is asking the carpet to be pulled from under specific economies. Instead a progressive approach must be taken to shift money towards said solutions.
The speed at which the economy can absorb the changes and the speed at which the planet needs them to happen are two different speeds.
What you fail to understand is that while it will take 100 years economically for some changes to be made, the planet needs wholesale changes in the next 35 years.
There is a disconnect that you refuse to consider, that disconnect is why you continue to get pushback, you're not living in reality.
The concept is only applicable to scenarios where no innovation occurs. Say the boy breaks the glass window. The shop owner replaces the window with a better window which saves him energy cost and makes his business more attractive. The outcome is that his business will do better, not the other way around.
You assume he will remain in business, what if he doesn't have the money to buy your new, better window?
It is a large up front expense that takes many years, if ever, to pay off.
At the end of the day, it should be the business owner who makes that decision, not the boy (or government) who threw the brick through the window.
Speaking as someone who really wants stinky deisel engines off the road, the only way this is going to be fair is if the manufacturers buy the cars back at their current market value + inconvenience money... that's separately from any fines they have for fucking the world and increasing everyone's chances of lung cancer significantly.
That's a nice idea, but the car companies don't have that much money.
Still though, I cannot agree with the wholesale monitoring of the public discussions of schoolchildren.
You DO know the NSA monitors all of us, right? We have built a government full of "monitoring", and amazingly enough, millions of people are ok with this.
Mind you: they are all most likely legally alowed (depends on the country). However they are not all moral. To me teaching kids is about doing the moral thing, so them asking the police to watch over them in this way is extremely wrong. Legal, but wrong.
Fair enough, but keep in mind that the "moral thing" is simply your opinion. If that opinion becomes the majority, you can enshrine it into law.
Just because something isn't "moral" from your point of view doesn't mean we should all make it illegal.
Private does mean (in Europe) your person and even when you are outside you have rights to privacy.
Tell that to the paparazzi and Princess Diana...:)
Interestingly, as hiring manager in the Bay Area for software developers, the worst thing you could do is show up in a suit and tie!
Fair enough, but I think that's a shame... it shows they are serious about the job and that they came prepared to get it...
At the very least, how about a button down shirt, dress pants, and a tie?
On the other hand, if you show up in a sloppy tee shirt with some heavy metal band logos all over it and worn out shorts, I will also question your judgement and arrogance.
I've seen that too.:) I've never hired anyone dressed like that.
Are you sure ? Kids can be pretty sneaky and there is a strong desire to be part of the heard even if that's not how they see it.
Well, my youngest is 5 and my oldest is 10...
I also have Parent controls on the computer with monitoring of everything they do, and the computers they can use are in the family room where everyone can see them.
So yes, reasonably sure.
Web access is white list only to the specific stuff needed for school. My own logins are password protected on everything.
Anyway, aren't there security settings that prevent non-friends or friends-of-friends seeing your Social Media prattle?
I'm not even on social media, I think the whole thing is rather stupid, but then if I want to hang out with someone, I foolishly do it in the real world.:)
My wife is heavy into Facebook however, but she only posts trivial stuff. It is her connection to her girlfriends, what they had for lunch, boring stuff like that.
It's like the difference between a cop seeing you doing something illegal outside, and the police being able to track you with security footage to see if there is anything they can charge you with.
I just hope the children don't slip up on Facebook privacy settings so the school can't see what they're posting.
This is why my kids aren't on social media and likely won't be until they are old enough to drive, and even then, maybe...
If we could see what Trump and Clinton were posting back when they were 16 years old... well... lets just say I have no idea how ANYONE will be electable in 50 years, given the record...
Of course, this whole plan misses the point... Rather than try and address the CAUSE of these problems, they are treating the SYMPTOM instead...
---
Why is there bullying? Threats? Etc? I know that some of that might always exist, but when I was in school, the school itself did a lot to divide up the kids into groups and make some feel less than others.
Pep rally Friday always sucked, that is when the jocks and the cheerleaders came to school in their uniforms and got to show off to the school and have their achievements broadcast over the speakers. Did the science team or chess team ever get that? Hell no.
In high school, I worked in the computer lab, I helped run it. Was I ever thanked by the administration for that? Nope, instead they showered praise on kids who could throw a ball and girls who could cheer and had boobs hanging out of their tank tops. (not that there's anything wrong with that last one!)
I have to say, if it is public posts, what's the problem?
Is this any different to kids saying stuff out loud in the real world, being overheard, and someone reporting it to the authorities?
Now, if it was PRIVATE posts, holy crap I've have an issue with that. That would be no different to installing microphones on the kids and recording private conversations in their homes.
I am guilty of ageism: I prefer to work with older people.
:) Me too...
I'm 40, I recently interviewed for a video/sound editor position and the under 25 crowd is indeed willing to work for cheap, but for heaven's sake, can one of them please show up with a tie on?
The 40 year olds who show up for an interview? Suits and ties.
No, the position will never require you wear a suit or tie, you can come to work in t-shirts and jeans if you want, but the suit says "I'm here because I want the job and I'm serious about that".
----
15 years ago I was interviewing for my first flying job, it was a $16/hr no-benefits part time position. I showed up in a suit and tie. One of the pilots there (wearing jeans and a t-shirt) joked, "what's with the monkey suit", to which I replied, "I want the job, this says that from the minute I walk in the door".
I got the job, never wore a suit there of course, but even during the interview I was asked about that, same answer. Did it make a difference? I have no idea, but it didn't hurt.
Know this: If you make me a fair offer that matches the position and I do take it, I won't gripe about the wages I agree to and I will work hard so you will want to promote me to a position where you can take advantage of what I have to bring to the table.
Then you would like working for me...
Years ago, I had a bookkeeper, she was in her late 30s, she had about 15 years experience in bookkeeping, HR, payroll, etc. I didn't have tons of money, so offered her a job for $36K, which she took because she needed a job and I needed someone to fill that job.
Within 6 months she already had a raise to $40k. Why? Because she came in and worked hard, never complained, and took on many tasks without being asked to.
At her first annual review, I think she was expecting maybe $42-43k... I gave her a raise to $50k, she about fell out of her chair.
My comment was simply, "you have done far more in the past year than I expected, you have fixed many problems within the company and taken on an office manager's role, while keeping an eye on the overall business. I hired you for a basic bookkeeping and HR position and you've turned it into the officer manager's position while still taking care of the bookkeeping/HR/Payroll."
"If I had to replace you, I have no doubt it would cost me $50k, so you're worth every penny."
---
If you pay people what they are worth to you, rather than the "least you can get away with", then you can have long term employees who grow with the company. Sadly too many companies have forgotten this lesson.
My Grandfather served in WWII, he left the military after that and started at the ground floor in the mailroom of an insurance company. He retired in the 1980s from that same company. His last position? CEO. That doesn't happen anymore, but it should...
A new one (a nice one) is about $2K. Repairs are minor, I can keep it in service for a very long time...
So to account for Saturdays you can't have the flexibility for the rest of the week? You actually want to pay more for electricity when you don't need to? You can't possibly imagine the benefits you could see because of the edge case you have? Also how much washing does your family have that means that you have to run the washing machine all day Saturday and can't possibly imagine spreading the washing load during the week for when it can be most cost effective?
You miss the point. It is cost effective now... you seem to think that somehow people will want to change to your new system where people have to think about such things.
I pay the same price for power 24/7, why would I ever want to give that up?
And no, my wife doesn't want to run the washer during the week, she works.
When it next needs replacing yes.
Ahh, but then we come to the crux of the matter... your "smart appliances" will cost more than the old ones, thus hurting the poor... Because the only way your system works is to ban the simple stuff. But if you do that, you might be shocked at how many people keep their old stuff for much longer to avoid the "smart crap".
I'm alright Jack. Yeah sure I consume more than is sustainable, but that's not my problem is it. The Indians should burn coal like there's no tomorrow too and consume as much power as I do, I'm sure everything would be fine. Or maybe we in the West could lead the way and demonstrate that we can have a wonderful standard of living at a comparable cost to today and with a better outcome for the planet.
If I thought these changes would make a difference, I'd feel differently. They won't, not by a long shot. In order to really stop CO2, we have to cut 80% from industrial nations and 60% from everywhere else, worldwide. That simply isn't going to happen.
Your little changes won't do crap, but they will negatively impact my life. So frankly until you come up with a solution that cuts a whole lot more, it isn't worth it.
So we shouldn't even try is that you point?
Not your plan we shouldn't... I will repeat, since you don't want to fucking listen... Your changes won't do jack shit to the CO2 problem, and the changes that will won't happen.
Maybe... or not, if the simulation can alter you as well...
How many kids do you have? I have 3. Have I always had 3? I think so, but do I really know?
It is beyond my ability to know.
Another assumption.
Perhaps, but they are ALL just assumptions, since none of us have any way to know one way or another.
But why would it want/need to?
Perhaps that is what it is testing? I have no idea, I'm simply saying it could.
Maybe the whole point of the simulation is to create virtual humans that are intelligent enough to break out of it? Sure this is another assumption, but it's no worse than yours.
You're completely correct. And you might be right, but we'll likely never know.
Either way there is no reason to assume the simulation builders would be opposed to us finding out.
There is no reason to assume they wouldn't care, either. It is simply unknowable.
There is no reason to assume they would have predicted that life would arise in the simulation, let alone intelligent life. Considering 99.99% of the universe is lifeless (under a bestcase scenario) it is much more likely were an unexpected emergent phenomenon of a physics simulation. It is not at all reasonable to addume the simulation was created for us and would want to fool us or anything else inside. We've only been around for the last few instances of the run.
You don't know that... for all you know, Earth and the solar system is really the only thing running, everything else could be fixed datapoints provided for our viewing pleasure.
WE might be the simulation, and for all we know, we've been running for 2 hours now, poofed into existence.
If the universe is a simulation then we are still an accidental consciousness.
Again, you're viewing it from INSIDE the simulation, you don't know that and have no way of knowing that. All possible answers are equally likely from our point of view.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure some said the same thing about the railroad system or even the telephone infrastructure.
Your comment indicates you don't even understand the point I was making.
The huge expense is trying to cut CO2 by 20-30%, while the planet needs 80%.
The changes won't stop runaway global warming, but will still cost a huge sum of money.
---
In other words, you simply don't understand the scale of the problem, you're putting ducktape over holes in the dam without understanding the foundation of the dam is failing.
Same applies here. Moving toward renewable energies will remove existing issues while reducing cost of said energy long term. It's not a 5 year ROI, it's a 100 year ROI that must occur no matter what.
You assume that renewables will cost less long term. You don't actually know that.
The size of the economy is not relevant as long as you aren't pulling the plug overnight. Nobody is asking the carpet to be pulled from under specific economies. Instead a progressive approach must be taken to shift money towards said solutions.
The speed at which the economy can absorb the changes and the speed at which the planet needs them to happen are two different speeds.
What you fail to understand is that while it will take 100 years economically for some changes to be made, the planet needs wholesale changes in the next 35 years.
There is a disconnect that you refuse to consider, that disconnect is why you continue to get pushback, you're not living in reality.
The concept is only applicable to scenarios where no innovation occurs. Say the boy breaks the glass window. The shop owner replaces the window with a better window which saves him energy cost and makes his business more attractive. The outcome is that his business will do better, not the other way around.
You assume he will remain in business, what if he doesn't have the money to buy your new, better window?
It is a large up front expense that takes many years, if ever, to pay off.
At the end of the day, it should be the business owner who makes that decision, not the boy (or government) who threw the brick through the window.
That's why we expect them to care. We're all on this planet together and it's only getting smaller.
Then you're going to be massively disappointed...
Most people don't think about such things and aren't making long range plans.
I hope not. I haven't been having a good year.
I'm sorry to hear that... On the other hand, you wouldn't know it, so it's ok... I guess?
Speaking as someone who really wants stinky deisel engines off the road, the only way this is going to be fair is if the manufacturers buy the cars back at their current market value + inconvenience money... that's separately from any fines they have for fucking the world and increasing everyone's chances of lung cancer significantly.
That's a nice idea, but the car companies don't have that much money.
Still though, I cannot agree with the wholesale monitoring of the public discussions of schoolchildren.
You DO know the NSA monitors all of us, right? We have built a government full of "monitoring", and amazingly enough, millions of people are ok with this.
Mind you: they are all most likely legally alowed (depends on the country). However they are not all moral. To me teaching kids is about doing the moral thing, so them asking the police to watch over them in this way is extremely wrong. Legal, but wrong.
Fair enough, but keep in mind that the "moral thing" is simply your opinion. If that opinion becomes the majority, you can enshrine it into law.
Just because something isn't "moral" from your point of view doesn't mean we should all make it illegal.
Private does mean (in Europe) your person and even when you are outside you have rights to privacy.
Tell that to the paparazzi and Princess Diana... :)
There is a natural expectation of some privacy, even in public places.
While I tend to agree with you, the government feels otherwise.
http://www.wired.com/2010/09/p...
Interestingly, as hiring manager in the Bay Area for software developers, the worst thing you could do is show up in a suit and tie!
Fair enough, but I think that's a shame... it shows they are serious about the job and that they came prepared to get it...
At the very least, how about a button down shirt, dress pants, and a tie?
On the other hand, if you show up in a sloppy tee shirt with some heavy metal band logos all over it and worn out shorts, I will also question your judgement and arrogance.
I've seen that too. :) I've never hired anyone dressed like that.
Exactly. You cared enough to make yourself presentable. And you respect who you are talking to.
Now if you went in with a top hat and tails...that would be trying to hard.
Ha! That made me laugh, thanks!
Yes, I'm not doing THAT!
Heck, even dress pants, a long sleeve button down shirt, and a tie, would be an improvement over some of what I see.
Are you sure ? Kids can be pretty sneaky and there is a strong desire to be part of the heard even if that's not how they see it.
Well, my youngest is 5 and my oldest is 10...
I also have Parent controls on the computer with monitoring of everything they do, and the computers they can use are in the family room where everyone can see them.
So yes, reasonably sure.
Web access is white list only to the specific stuff needed for school. My own logins are password protected on everything.
Anyway, aren't there security settings that prevent non-friends or friends-of-friends seeing your Social Media prattle?
I'm not even on social media, I think the whole thing is rather stupid, but then if I want to hang out with someone, I foolishly do it in the real world. :)
My wife is heavy into Facebook however, but she only posts trivial stuff. It is her connection to her girlfriends, what they had for lunch, boring stuff like that.
It's like the difference between a cop seeing you doing something illegal outside, and the police being able to track you with security footage to see if there is anything they can charge you with.
Don't go to London then...
And to think, you're still butthurt about it.
And to think, you completely missed the point...
Grow the fuck up. It's high school. It doesn't matter anymore.
A small percentage of those kids don't get to "grow up", because they are dead. Either from being shot, or doing the shooting.
So it matters to them.
---
Or are you ok if we go and bully gay kids because, "it is high school and they'll get over it?" Because that is what you're saying.
I just hope the children don't slip up on Facebook privacy settings so the school can't see what they're posting.
This is why my kids aren't on social media and likely won't be until they are old enough to drive, and even then, maybe...
If we could see what Trump and Clinton were posting back when they were 16 years old... well... lets just say I have no idea how ANYONE will be electable in 50 years, given the record...
True, but if your goal is to change where the money goes, that isn't the place to start... :)
I fully support hiring more teachers and reducing class sizes, providing them with the tools to do their jobs.
Of course, I also support being able to fire teachers that can't cut the mustard.
Of course, this whole plan misses the point... Rather than try and address the CAUSE of these problems, they are treating the SYMPTOM instead...
---
Why is there bullying? Threats? Etc? I know that some of that might always exist, but when I was in school, the school itself did a lot to divide up the kids into groups and make some feel less than others.
Pep rally Friday always sucked, that is when the jocks and the cheerleaders came to school in their uniforms and got to show off to the school and have their achievements broadcast over the speakers. Did the science team or chess team ever get that? Hell no.
In high school, I worked in the computer lab, I helped run it. Was I ever thanked by the administration for that? Nope, instead they showered praise on kids who could throw a ball and girls who could cheer and had boobs hanging out of their tank tops. (not that there's anything wrong with that last one!)
I have to say, if it is public posts, what's the problem?
Is this any different to kids saying stuff out loud in the real world, being overheard, and someone reporting it to the authorities?
Now, if it was PRIVATE posts, holy crap I've have an issue with that. That would be no different to installing microphones on the kids and recording private conversations in their homes.
I am guilty of ageism: I prefer to work with older people.
:) Me too...
I'm 40, I recently interviewed for a video/sound editor position and the under 25 crowd is indeed willing to work for cheap, but for heaven's sake, can one of them please show up with a tie on?
The 40 year olds who show up for an interview? Suits and ties.
No, the position will never require you wear a suit or tie, you can come to work in t-shirts and jeans if you want, but the suit says "I'm here because I want the job and I'm serious about that".
----
15 years ago I was interviewing for my first flying job, it was a $16/hr no-benefits part time position. I showed up in a suit and tie. One of the pilots there (wearing jeans and a t-shirt) joked, "what's with the monkey suit", to which I replied, "I want the job, this says that from the minute I walk in the door".
I got the job, never wore a suit there of course, but even during the interview I was asked about that, same answer. Did it make a difference? I have no idea, but it didn't hurt.
Know this: If you make me a fair offer that matches the position and I do take it, I won't gripe about the wages I agree to and I will work hard so you will want to promote me to a position where you can take advantage of what I have to bring to the table.
Then you would like working for me...
Years ago, I had a bookkeeper, she was in her late 30s, she had about 15 years experience in bookkeeping, HR, payroll, etc. I didn't have tons of money, so offered her a job for $36K, which she took because she needed a job and I needed someone to fill that job.
Within 6 months she already had a raise to $40k. Why? Because she came in and worked hard, never complained, and took on many tasks without being asked to.
At her first annual review, I think she was expecting maybe $42-43k... I gave her a raise to $50k, she about fell out of her chair.
My comment was simply, "you have done far more in the past year than I expected, you have fixed many problems within the company and taken on an office manager's role, while keeping an eye on the overall business. I hired you for a basic bookkeeping and HR position and you've turned it into the officer manager's position while still taking care of the bookkeeping/HR/Payroll."
"If I had to replace you, I have no doubt it would cost me $50k, so you're worth every penny."
---
If you pay people what they are worth to you, rather than the "least you can get away with", then you can have long term employees who grow with the company. Sadly too many companies have forgotten this lesson.
My Grandfather served in WWII, he left the military after that and started at the ground floor in the mailroom of an insurance company. He retired in the 1980s from that same company. His last position? CEO. That doesn't happen anymore, but it should...
In bargaining, you can always lower your price - you can't raise it.
That isn't always true... many times yes, but not always...
So you never plan to replace it?
Sure, in 20 years maybe...
A new one (a nice one) is about $2K. Repairs are minor, I can keep it in service for a very long time...
So to account for Saturdays you can't have the flexibility for the rest of the week? You actually want to pay more for electricity when you don't need to? You can't possibly imagine the benefits you could see because of the edge case you have? Also how much washing does your family have that means that you have to run the washing machine all day Saturday and can't possibly imagine spreading the washing load during the week for when it can be most cost effective?
You miss the point. It is cost effective now... you seem to think that somehow people will want to change to your new system where people have to think about such things.
I pay the same price for power 24/7, why would I ever want to give that up?
And no, my wife doesn't want to run the washer during the week, she works.
When it next needs replacing yes.
Ahh, but then we come to the crux of the matter... your "smart appliances" will cost more than the old ones, thus hurting the poor... Because the only way your system works is to ban the simple stuff. But if you do that, you might be shocked at how many people keep their old stuff for much longer to avoid the "smart crap".
I'm alright Jack. Yeah sure I consume more than is sustainable, but that's not my problem is it. The Indians should burn coal like there's no tomorrow too and consume as much power as I do, I'm sure everything would be fine. Or maybe we in the West could lead the way and demonstrate that we can have a wonderful standard of living at a comparable cost to today and with a better outcome for the planet.
If I thought these changes would make a difference, I'd feel differently. They won't, not by a long shot. In order to really stop CO2, we have to cut 80% from industrial nations and 60% from everywhere else, worldwide. That simply isn't going to happen.
Your little changes won't do crap, but they will negatively impact my life. So frankly until you come up with a solution that cuts a whole lot more, it isn't worth it.
So we shouldn't even try is that you point?
Not your plan we shouldn't... I will repeat, since you don't want to fucking listen... Your changes won't do jack shit to the CO2 problem, and the changes that will won't happen.
God some people are thick as a rock.
That's an assumption. And it may be testable.
Maybe... or not, if the simulation can alter you as well...
How many kids do you have? I have 3. Have I always had 3? I think so, but do I really know?
It is beyond my ability to know.
Another assumption.
Perhaps, but they are ALL just assumptions, since none of us have any way to know one way or another.
But why would it want/need to?
Perhaps that is what it is testing? I have no idea, I'm simply saying it could.
Maybe the whole point of the simulation is to create virtual humans that are intelligent enough to break out of it? Sure this is another assumption, but it's no worse than yours.
You're completely correct. And you might be right, but we'll likely never know.
Except that all known software (except TeX maybe) contains bugs which in some cases lead to possible privileges escalation...
Yes, from the point of view of our world here, with what we know...
You assume that whoever is simulating us is bound by the same rules.
They might not be.
Either way there is no reason to assume the simulation builders would be opposed to us finding out.
There is no reason to assume they wouldn't care, either. It is simply unknowable.
There is no reason to assume they would have predicted that life would arise in the simulation, let alone intelligent life. Considering 99.99% of the universe is lifeless (under a bestcase scenario) it is much more likely were an unexpected emergent phenomenon of a physics simulation. It is not at all reasonable to addume the simulation was created for us and would want to fool us or anything else inside. We've only been around for the last few instances of the run.
You don't know that... for all you know, Earth and the solar system is really the only thing running, everything else could be fixed datapoints provided for our viewing pleasure.
WE might be the simulation, and for all we know, we've been running for 2 hours now, poofed into existence.
If the universe is a simulation then we are still an accidental consciousness.
Again, you're viewing it from INSIDE the simulation, you don't know that and have no way of knowing that. All possible answers are equally likely from our point of view.