Going nuclear is the only viable long-term solution to stop putting CO2 in the atmosphere.
I know this, you know this, but it sure seems like a whole lot of other people don't want to hear it...
So we'll keep burning dead dinos and heating up the place...
This is one reason why I'm not selling my SUV any time soon, it wouldn't change the outcome and I'm not going to torpedo my way of life to make someone else who isn't living in reality happy.
You can be obtuse all you like... you either get the point or you don't because you don't want to get it.
An intentional back door makes the system pointless by default. A securely designed system might not stay secure forever, but it will be for at least some period of time.
A system with a built in back door wasn't secure ever.
So are you just having fun pointing out near irrelevancies
I don't consider them to be irrelevant...
Russia took over part of another country, Turkey shot down a Russian fighter-bomber, yet no one has gone to war...
Turkey is protested by NATO, Russia is a nuclear power. Lots of words will be tossed around, but none of us are going to war because it would just end very badly.
So my point is correct, the world today will never again be like it was in 1940, so using comparisons to GB in WWII are pointless because everything has changed.
Killing the rest of the planet instead, that is where most of the population is and where we still have population growth: had no effect at all on global warming
You're assuming that this should be some type of "punishment" for those who emitted a lot of CO2.
That type of thinking is exactly why nothing is getting done. Too much talk of "compensation payments", wealth transfer from rich to poor nations, etc. That type of thinking stops a lot of people's interest really fast, regardless of the merits of the underlying argument.
That issue came up over and over at COP21. It is one of the primary roadblocks to progress. Yea, some of us put out more CO2 than others, oh well, crap happens. We're sorry, but that's the past, it is done. The more you demand "justice" the more won't get done. Just accept it and move on towards solutions.
I'm ok to spend my tax dollars building clean energy in the US, I'm NOT ok to spend my tax dollars building clean energy in other countries. Stop asking for money for the poor nations and we can start moving forward.
As long as we can not make our population net CO2 zero, there is no point at all in killing anyone. As long as we produce CO2 the temperature will increase.
I am not at all convinced that we're going to see a net CO2 at zero anytime in our lifetimes, or even our children's lifetimes, unless we have some event that cuts the population way back.
Even if the overall CO2 output slowly goes down, the number of people rising out of poverty and the growth in total population numbers means CO2 will just keep going up.
Regarding Earth, there is talk about what we *should* do and then there is talk about what we are *likely* to do.
One of the biggest mistakes I see are people who only want to talk about what we *should* do, when it is so very unlikely to happen.
Accepting humanity as it is, rather than as we wish it was, will go a long way towards moving forward to solutions rather than fighting over the small print.
Electric cars, ships, and planes, and manufacturing plants powered completely by the wind and the sun are probably the most urgently needed commodity.
Yes... 20 years ago...
Sadly, I think we're past that point now.
Consider this: Even if the entire world-wide manufacturing capacity for car production was instantly changed to electric cars tomorrow. Poof, at the snap of your fingers... it would still take 27 years to replace every vehicle on the road with an electric car.
Is that likely to happen? Is it likely to happen in 20 years?
I strongly suspect that we won't see 50% EV production even in 2050, much less sooner.
---
TL;DR - We are well past the point where we can stop this, and the forward existing momentum means that even if we all took it seriously tomorrow, I still don't think we could stop it. Now consider that a whole lot of people don't take it seriously.
Only to a very limited extent however... If it is seriously on fire, you focus on getting you and your loved ones out...
The building is replaceable, you are not...
When the fire fighters show up, depending on the situation, they might just let it burn to the ground, rather than fighting it. Their primary interest will be to protect lives and near by structures, but generally if the fire is enough to have them called out, the building is lost.
It'll get demolished anyway at the end of the day and rebuilt from scratch. Risking lives to save a doomed building if it isn't threatening anyone is stupid.
Actually, sometimes you should let it burn to the ground, and fire fighters do that sometimes depending on the situation and what is nearby.
Beyond a given point, the building is lost, and with fire that happens way early. Most buildings that catch fire enough to need multiple fire fighters to put out end up demolished in the end anyway and rebuilt from scratch, so risking fire fighters lives to stop the fire if there is no surrounding risk is foolish.
Spray water around the building and let it burn itself out.
Unless we can get past our personal ideologies and personal economic circumstances, whether you sit in the board rooms of Wall Street or live in a home extending out over the ocean in Lagos, Nigeria the outcome is going to be the same, very bad indeed for Homo sapiens everywhere, regardless, of creed, color, religion, nationality, political party, personal wealth, or age.
I disagree actually... it'll be fine for the top 10% of the people on the planet, it is those on the bottom 50% that'll be totally screwed. But it has always been this way.
Major climate change is clearly coming. Why might be beside the point now. Stopping it is likely no longer possible, adaptation is what we should be working towards. That, and far fewer people.
It would help a lot if we could get the world's population to back around 2 billion...
Fuck, who cares who broke the vase, what matters is who cleans up the mess?
Two points:
1. One of the issues that the "deniers" have (they aren't all deniers, BTW) is that part of the "solution" is massive wealth transfer. This is steeped in politics and many people feel that the true goal is wealth transfer, not fixing climate change.
2. It is possible that it isn't possible to "clean up the mess". We may well be beyond the point of no return.
figure the only people actively denying climate change stand to make money from the status quo. Pretending it's not happening pretty much has no rational basis in anything else, because it doesn't otherwise benefit anybody.
Plenty of people accept climate change, while at the same time getting the concept that fixing it isn't nearly as simple as you think.
It is quite possible that we're already past the point of no return and nothing we do is going to help. The problem is massive and global and isn't something that a few changes in a few countries are going to fix.
How would you treat an anti-vaxxer or someone who denies evolution?
Well first I'd start off seeing the world in more than black and white.
Calling people anti-vaxxers is your first problem.
I don't, for one second, doubt the effectiveness of vaccines. I also don't think they are a major source of complications, the vast majority of people who take them benefit and suffer no serious problems.
My children are still not vaccinated. The risk today in 2016 against them getting polio is now smaller than the risk of them having a complication from the vaccine. So I'm playing the odds.
Yes, I'm fully aware this only works because millions of other people were vaccinated before me. But these are my kids and I care about them more than I do about "millions of strangers".
If I lived in a place or a time when polio was a threat, I'd vaccinate in 2 seconds without question.
---
TL;DR - not everyone who decides to not vaccinate is an "anti-vaxxer", there is gray area in the middle. The same is true of climate change.
Example: I don't deny climate change, I accept that mankind is a part of it. But I'm not getting rid of my 3 ton SUV that gets 12 mpg either, because I also understand that won't change the outcome. I am open to talking about solutions that will, but my own personal actions won't make a difference on their own.
The answers are solar wind and tidal. The sun puts out as much power as we would ever ever need.
I have yet to read any reasonable explanation for how we could obtain the vast majority (> 90%) of our total power needs from solar, wind, etc.
I have heard "hand waving" about "future storage technologies", and those sound nice, call me when they exist. The ones that exist today would not be nearly enough.
As for the sun putting out all the power we would ever need, be careful fighting "sustained growth", you'll lose that fight in the end. There is a fixed limit to the amount of power hitting the Earth every day, I can see a situation in which we need more than that.
Yes, basically the US Government is the insurance company of last resort.
The same thing was done after 9/11, in return for accepting millions of dollars per family, the 9/11 victims agreed to not sue everyone into oblivion. The thinking is that no society good is gained from having multiple companies pushed into bankruptcy for an event that was largely beyond their control.
The average was $2 million paid for each death and $400k for injury, but the amounts varied based on the income of the person hurt or killed.
---
If we had a serious nuclear meltdown that caused widespead damage, no private company can come in and clean it up, it becomes a job of the government to do that.
Just accepting that makes it easier to move forward. But I would support payments from nuclear power companies to the government to compensate them for that risk.
Not all items sent to Amazon are "comingled inventory", which is the term you're looking for.
If items are stickered with FNSKUs, then they'll be held apart in separate inventory from other sellers and Amazon.
As for Prime itself, sometimes items cost more, but often it is really close. Depends on what you're buying. But you don't need very many crappy shipping experiences with non-Prime orders before any savings isn't worth the trouble. Amazon's customer service is second to none, any issue and refund/replace/no hassle.
Yes, there is the A-to-Z claim process, but I'd rather not bother. I much prefer dealing with Amazon directly and not a third party seller's "customer service", whatever it might be.
---
Regarding other Prime services, yes we use those a lot. We have an Amazon Echo in the house and us it for Prime streaming Music all the time. We have a pair of Amazon Fire TVs in the house and stream about half of all our TV/movies via that service.
So the free shipping is just a nice bonus on top of that.
Plus keep in mind that if you're Prime and you have an Amazon store card, you get 5% back on all your purchases. I got back far more than the cost of Prime last year, so basically Prime was free to me.
You may think different if some nuclear device is placed near where you reside, and is timed to go off in a few hours and the NEST team has a limited time to locate said device and disarm it. When it is discovered that the location is on an iPhone lets talk 'personal privacy' then.
No, lets talk about it now.
That is one of the risks that you have to accept to be secure in your person, property, and privacy...
First, you're making a strawman argument, but lets run with it. Lets say that some "bad guy" is going to kill me and only giving up my privacy and freedom is going to save me.
I'd rather die a free man and live a slave. The government becomes the bad guy in your example and my situation has not improved.
Nothing from Amazon which is a notorious front for bait n switch tactics
How exactly do they "bait and switch"? You order stuff, it shows up. I buy a ton of stuff from Amazon, from paper towels to computer parts, from peanut butter to lawn flags.
"variable" shipping cost
Shipping is always free, with only a few exceptions, I never order unless Amazon themselves is shipping something, either sold by Amazon or shipped by them via an FBA seller.
Prime is a wonderful service.
fake reviews
This is a real concern. Of course it isn't just Amazon, everyone has this issue, but yes, not all reviews are real.
and a whole host of poor employee treatment scenarios
Yea, this is real as well. Of course it isn't like going to anyone else is much better. But yes, I'd like to see all companies do better here.
You could make that argument, but I would disagree with it.
The flaw in it is that if the government CAN access it, then so can FOREIGN governments, and likely bad actors as well, so the country STILL isn't secure.
My personal privacy and liberty is more important than the government keeping the boarders secure in any case.
The flight time is really short, less than 10 min, but you can buy a pack of 4 more batteries for less than $20 and fly around for about 30 min using 5 of them, which is frankly long enough to have fun with.
It comes with spare blades, blade protectors for while you're learning, and even a 2GB SD memory card.
Slashdot Mirror
Going nuclear is the only viable long-term solution to stop putting CO2 in the atmosphere.
I know this, you know this, but it sure seems like a whole lot of other people don't want to hear it...
So we'll keep burning dead dinos and heating up the place...
This is one reason why I'm not selling my SUV any time soon, it wouldn't change the outcome and I'm not going to torpedo my way of life to make someone else who isn't living in reality happy.
You can be obtuse all you like... you either get the point or you don't because you don't want to get it.
An intentional back door makes the system pointless by default. A securely designed system might not stay secure forever, but it will be for at least some period of time.
A system with a built in back door wasn't secure ever.
So are you just having fun pointing out near irrelevancies
I don't consider them to be irrelevant...
Russia took over part of another country, Turkey shot down a Russian fighter-bomber, yet no one has gone to war...
Turkey is protested by NATO, Russia is a nuclear power. Lots of words will be tossed around, but none of us are going to war because it would just end very badly.
So my point is correct, the world today will never again be like it was in 1940, so using comparisons to GB in WWII are pointless because everything has changed.
At least you've admitted your a denialist
No, you didn't even bother reading what I wrote, did you?
Or you don't care and want to call people names I guess.
Anyway, as long as you have the attitude that you do, nothing is going to change.
Killing the rest of the planet instead, that is where most of the population is and where we still have population growth: had no effect at all on global warming
You're assuming that this should be some type of "punishment" for those who emitted a lot of CO2.
That type of thinking is exactly why nothing is getting done. Too much talk of "compensation payments", wealth transfer from rich to poor nations, etc. That type of thinking stops a lot of people's interest really fast, regardless of the merits of the underlying argument.
That issue came up over and over at COP21. It is one of the primary roadblocks to progress. Yea, some of us put out more CO2 than others, oh well, crap happens. We're sorry, but that's the past, it is done. The more you demand "justice" the more won't get done. Just accept it and move on towards solutions.
I'm ok to spend my tax dollars building clean energy in the US, I'm NOT ok to spend my tax dollars building clean energy in other countries. Stop asking for money for the poor nations and we can start moving forward.
As long as we can not make our population net CO2 zero, there is no point at all in killing anyone. As long as we produce CO2 the temperature will increase.
I am not at all convinced that we're going to see a net CO2 at zero anytime in our lifetimes, or even our children's lifetimes, unless we have some event that cuts the population way back.
Even if the overall CO2 output slowly goes down, the number of people rising out of poverty and the growth in total population numbers means CO2 will just keep going up.
No, but I was responding to the example given...
Regarding Earth, there is talk about what we *should* do and then there is talk about what we are *likely* to do.
One of the biggest mistakes I see are people who only want to talk about what we *should* do, when it is so very unlikely to happen.
Accepting humanity as it is, rather than as we wish it was, will go a long way towards moving forward to solutions rather than fighting over the small print.
Yea, but the world is very different in 2016 than it was in 1940...
The US is large and has massive resources that GB doesn't have. And we have nuclear weapons, which they didn't have.
Laugh at that all you like, but it does change things. The world will never again be the same as it was during the world wars, due to nuclear weapons.
Electric cars, ships, and planes, and manufacturing plants powered completely by the wind and the sun are probably the most urgently needed commodity.
Yes... 20 years ago...
Sadly, I think we're past that point now.
Consider this: Even if the entire world-wide manufacturing capacity for car production was instantly changed to electric cars tomorrow. Poof, at the snap of your fingers... it would still take 27 years to replace every vehicle on the road with an electric car.
Is that likely to happen? Is it likely to happen in 20 years?
I strongly suspect that we won't see 50% EV production even in 2050, much less sooner.
---
TL;DR - We are well past the point where we can stop this, and the forward existing momentum means that even if we all took it seriously tomorrow, I still don't think we could stop it. Now consider that a whole lot of people don't take it seriously.
When my house is on fire, I try to put it out.
Only to a very limited extent however... If it is seriously on fire, you focus on getting you and your loved ones out...
The building is replaceable, you are not...
When the fire fighters show up, depending on the situation, they might just let it burn to the ground, rather than fighting it. Their primary interest will be to protect lives and near by structures, but generally if the fire is enough to have them called out, the building is lost.
It'll get demolished anyway at the end of the day and rebuilt from scratch. Risking lives to save a doomed building if it isn't threatening anyone is stupid.
Better to let it burn to the ground.
Actually, sometimes you should let it burn to the ground, and fire fighters do that sometimes depending on the situation and what is nearby.
Beyond a given point, the building is lost, and with fire that happens way early. Most buildings that catch fire enough to need multiple fire fighters to put out end up demolished in the end anyway and rebuilt from scratch, so risking fire fighters lives to stop the fire if there is no surrounding risk is foolish.
Spray water around the building and let it burn itself out.
Unless we can get past our personal ideologies and personal economic circumstances, whether you sit in the board rooms of Wall Street or live in a home extending out over the ocean in Lagos, Nigeria the outcome is going to be the same, very bad indeed for Homo sapiens everywhere, regardless, of creed, color, religion, nationality, political party, personal wealth, or age.
I disagree actually... it'll be fine for the top 10% of the people on the planet, it is those on the bottom 50% that'll be totally screwed. But it has always been this way.
Major climate change is clearly coming. Why might be beside the point now. Stopping it is likely no longer possible, adaptation is what we should be working towards. That, and far fewer people.
It would help a lot if we could get the world's population to back around 2 billion...
Fuck, who cares who broke the vase, what matters is who cleans up the mess?
Two points:
1. One of the issues that the "deniers" have (they aren't all deniers, BTW) is that part of the "solution" is massive wealth transfer. This is steeped in politics and many people feel that the true goal is wealth transfer, not fixing climate change.
2. It is possible that it isn't possible to "clean up the mess". We may well be beyond the point of no return.
figure the only people actively denying climate change stand to make money from the status quo. Pretending it's not happening pretty much has no rational basis in anything else, because it doesn't otherwise benefit anybody.
Plenty of people accept climate change, while at the same time getting the concept that fixing it isn't nearly as simple as you think.
It is quite possible that we're already past the point of no return and nothing we do is going to help. The problem is massive and global and isn't something that a few changes in a few countries are going to fix.
It is when you're talking to a science denier.
No, the OP above you was correct.
How would you treat an anti-vaxxer or someone who denies evolution?
Well first I'd start off seeing the world in more than black and white.
Calling people anti-vaxxers is your first problem.
I don't, for one second, doubt the effectiveness of vaccines. I also don't think they are a major source of complications, the vast majority of people who take them benefit and suffer no serious problems.
My children are still not vaccinated. The risk today in 2016 against them getting polio is now smaller than the risk of them having a complication from the vaccine. So I'm playing the odds.
Yes, I'm fully aware this only works because millions of other people were vaccinated before me. But these are my kids and I care about them more than I do about "millions of strangers".
If I lived in a place or a time when polio was a threat, I'd vaccinate in 2 seconds without question.
---
TL;DR - not everyone who decides to not vaccinate is an "anti-vaxxer", there is gray area in the middle. The same is true of climate change.
Example: I don't deny climate change, I accept that mankind is a part of it. But I'm not getting rid of my 3 ton SUV that gets 12 mpg either, because I also understand that won't change the outcome. I am open to talking about solutions that will, but my own personal actions won't make a difference on their own.
The answers are solar wind and tidal. The sun puts out as much power as we would ever ever need.
I have yet to read any reasonable explanation for how we could obtain the vast majority (> 90%) of our total power needs from solar, wind, etc.
I have heard "hand waving" about "future storage technologies", and those sound nice, call me when they exist. The ones that exist today would not be nearly enough.
As for the sun putting out all the power we would ever need, be careful fighting "sustained growth", you'll lose that fight in the end. There is a fixed limit to the amount of power hitting the Earth every day, I can see a situation in which we need more than that.
Yes, basically the US Government is the insurance company of last resort.
The same thing was done after 9/11, in return for accepting millions of dollars per family, the 9/11 victims agreed to not sue everyone into oblivion. The thinking is that no society good is gained from having multiple companies pushed into bankruptcy for an event that was largely beyond their control.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/0...
The average was $2 million paid for each death and $400k for injury, but the amounts varied based on the income of the person hurt or killed.
---
If we had a serious nuclear meltdown that caused widespead damage, no private company can come in and clean it up, it becomes a job of the government to do that.
Just accepting that makes it easier to move forward. But I would support payments from nuclear power companies to the government to compensate them for that risk.
ack doors that require a court order to use aren't nearly as bad as regular security flaws that anybody can use.
All a court order does is make the use of the back door legal.
It does nothing about illegal use of it, by either our government, other governments, or other bad actors. If it exists, it'll be used.
If encryption has a backdoor, then it is broken, period. There really is no middle ground on this.
Probably when they either start charging people for accounts, or start asking everyone for donations like Wikipedia.
I would do an automatic $1 a month donation to slashdot, I read it enough...
I do the same for Wikipedia...
Not all items sent to Amazon are "comingled inventory", which is the term you're looking for.
If items are stickered with FNSKUs, then they'll be held apart in separate inventory from other sellers and Amazon.
As for Prime itself, sometimes items cost more, but often it is really close. Depends on what you're buying. But you don't need very many crappy shipping experiences with non-Prime orders before any savings isn't worth the trouble. Amazon's customer service is second to none, any issue and refund/replace/no hassle.
Yes, there is the A-to-Z claim process, but I'd rather not bother. I much prefer dealing with Amazon directly and not a third party seller's "customer service", whatever it might be.
---
Regarding other Prime services, yes we use those a lot. We have an Amazon Echo in the house and us it for Prime streaming Music all the time. We have a pair of Amazon Fire TVs in the house and stream about half of all our TV/movies via that service.
So the free shipping is just a nice bonus on top of that.
Plus keep in mind that if you're Prime and you have an Amazon store card, you get 5% back on all your purchases. I got back far more than the cost of Prime last year, so basically Prime was free to me.
Back doors aren't necessarily a major security compromise.
Yes they are, and you saying they aren't means you aren't informed enough to be part of the conversation.
I would welcome some sort of informed discussion
If you really do, then you'd stop saying the above, because it is simply not true.
You may think different if some nuclear device is placed near where you reside, and is timed to go off in a few hours and the NEST team has a limited time to locate said device and disarm it. When it is discovered that the location is on an iPhone lets talk 'personal privacy' then.
No, lets talk about it now.
That is one of the risks that you have to accept to be secure in your person, property, and privacy...
First, you're making a strawman argument, but lets run with it. Lets say that some "bad guy" is going to kill me and only giving up my privacy and freedom is going to save me.
I'd rather die a free man and live a slave. The government becomes the bad guy in your example and my situation has not improved.
Nothing from Amazon which is a notorious front for bait n switch tactics
How exactly do they "bait and switch"? You order stuff, it shows up. I buy a ton of stuff from Amazon, from paper towels to computer parts, from peanut butter to lawn flags.
"variable" shipping cost
Shipping is always free, with only a few exceptions, I never order unless Amazon themselves is shipping something, either sold by Amazon or shipped by them via an FBA seller.
Prime is a wonderful service.
fake reviews
This is a real concern. Of course it isn't just Amazon, everyone has this issue, but yes, not all reviews are real.
and a whole host of poor employee treatment scenarios
Yea, this is real as well. Of course it isn't like going to anyone else is much better. But yes, I'd like to see all companies do better here.
Isn't this is the exact same model drone they were smuggling into Gaza? Are you a terrorist?
Funny... :)
It weighs less than a pound, it is for flying around your yard and playing with your kids.
You could make that argument, but I would disagree with it.
The flaw in it is that if the government CAN access it, then so can FOREIGN governments, and likely bad actors as well, so the country STILL isn't secure.
My personal privacy and liberty is more important than the government keeping the boarders secure in any case.
For Christmas I bought my 10 year old son a drone, and I have to say it is a crazy amount of fun!
For $48, it has a HD camera and is 6-axis gyro stabilized, very easy to fly around the house or outside in the back yard or down at the lake.
http://amzn.to/21aQ7S7
The flight time is really short, less than 10 min, but you can buy a pack of 4 more batteries for less than $20 and fly around for about 30 min using 5 of them, which is frankly long enough to have fun with.
It comes with spare blades, blade protectors for while you're learning, and even a 2GB SD memory card.
What do you want for $48?