It all depends on how you count. In Sweden you have a number of power providers to choose from, some have only "green" power, while others have various sources. If you want, you can build your own windmill, start a distribution company, and sell your electricity via your distribution company. It is of course pushed into the national power grid before reaching the end customer, but unless you sell more "green" power than your windmill produces, you're basically doing what you claim you do.
However, there are many other ways to count. One recent report showed that an electric car today would emit around 200g of co2 / kilometer, which is significantly more than a small "green" diesel (around 120g co2/km). So how can an electric car emit co2 in the first place? Well, of course it doesn't, but the power has to come from somewhere. And the report suggests that when a new car is added to the market, it will consume power from the "last few percent" of power production, as this is the type of power production used to compensate for a varying demand. Thus, when you charge your car, the power company has to crank up some coal plant or diesel generator to produce your "extra" needs, hence the higher co2/km than a diesel car itself.
This is of course equally correct and complete nonsense at the same time. But the fact remains that all power used has to be produced, at the exact time of consumption. So maybe if you claim you only charge your car during the night when the temporary dirty generators are offline, you're better of.
So sure, the internet is using a lot of electricity, but how many sheets of fax paper does it save every day? How many airplanes full of mail does it save every day? And every video conference or skype call that took place instead of a taxi, bus or plane trip is of course saving hugely. It feels like greenpeace should have more pressing matters than chasing after "the Internet"...
Exactly, this report is stunningly useless. Most of Europe is missing, including all the freedom-loving nations of the north (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland). How about Switzerland? Austria? France? (maybe not a good example:-), Spain? Holland? Belgium?, Luxemburg?.. comon... Europe is only represented by Germany, Italy (Berlusconi helooo) and the UK (and yes Georgia and Russia...)
No let's see how the internet freedom state is in Venezuela. I'm sure the US can beat that!
How about the airline industry? They can decide to do a lot of stuff on-the-fly. Like cancel your flight. Or have you pre-pay for a specific seat and when you board they tell you that the airplane has a different layout and that you will end up sitting somewhere else.
Or change how much luggage you can bring on board. Or what can be in that luggage. I'm very sure you cannot claim that it was allowed to bring a bottle of something on board at the time I purchased my ticket, so I want to bring it on board now.
Hell, they can even fly you to an alternate airport and put you on a 6 hour bus ride.
And you mention real-estate. The world is changing, you bought something with an ocean view. But all of a sudden a group of new houses are built.
Or hotels. You booked a room, but when you arrive they only have a twin instead of a double.
I'm sure we can find the same examples in restaurants.
Exactly. It is fine if airlines decide to fly, but it would feel really bad as a passenger to have to either board a plane that does not feel safe, or lose your ticket money.
If they would fly, but still offer full refund if you dont want to take the risk, thats fine with me. But thats of course not what they would do, they would see half the people not showing up, and resell those tickets again.
I have a ticket in this area (from Iceland to Denmark, all along the ash cloud) in a few days, and I'm not sure I want to fly. And even if winds are fine the day before, do I want to take the risk of getting stuck at my destination for an unknown amount of time?
And when a plane goes down, they would again blame authorities for not monitoring the situation closely enough.
With an equally poor logic, if you hire a developer to work on project A, that person can also work in parallel on project B, because it doesn't cost anything!
The "cost" of course has to be divided up based on usage. And if they had excess bandwidth they didn't need (because youtube ate so much of what they would otherwise have), they could have sold it to someone else, making money on it. Money they are now losing.
GP is correct, the conclusion is crap.They may be saving a lot of money, but that's a whole different story.
1) Make a guess, very generous one. Make sure there's plenty of space. 2) Double it, as you will need an equal amount of time for testing and bugfixing when you're done writing. 3) Double it again, as Murphy will make sure everything will fail, which will lead to inevitable delays. 4) Multiple by PI
The supreme court is hand-picked by politicians in power and appointed for life, aren't they? Smells a bit like "i scratch your back and you'll scratch mine".
Three seconds is an insane amount of time! If you've discovered you're in serious trouble you're likely less than a few seconds away from hitting simethng or some.
If that is really the case (I don't say it isn't, just that the number is new to me), I really wonder what the design team was thinking.
It's as stupid as putting a "three second delay" on a all-out-break. It really surprises me that noone thought this through.
No, just tell them that you can use the B$D license, it will cost $10000 and they get to do exactly what they want with the code. Everyone is a winner!
Exactly, sounds like this generation is going to have a lot of fun when they start entering the real world. Applying for a job and giving up after 10 minutes, or even worse resending the application like that:-)
If you want to have an argument against WoW being a game, then you should look more at the fact that there's not really an end goal in the game.
WoW is a bit like being alive. Life itself does have an "end", but it is not the goal of life to reach it. It's all about having fun while "living", not trying to finish it as soon as possible...
True, there is a big difference between intelligence and being "smart". But what i find truly amazing is that someone who probably sees himself as a "smart" and/or "intelligent" person can spend 15 years of his life dwelling on this in the first place. That's hilarious! How smart can you be if you do that? There's like some embedded recursive proof in his own research.
I guess that the OP simply thought this should be bleeding obvious to everyone, even without actually doing any research. The alternative/inverse would be that we are as likely to do harm to our beloved/friends as to a complete stranger, and that you "bond" tighter with friends than with strangers.
The Swedish king Karl XI has this figured out already in the 17th century when he organised his forces so that people would fight side-by-side with brothers, cousins and people from the same region as you are from. This improved morale and made people less likely to flee the battlefield as you knew you could depend on, and wanted to support loved ones.
The percentage of children born to unwed mothers, teenage mothers and mothers who hadn't completed high school kept peaking in January every year. Over the 13-year period, for example, 13.2% of January births were to teen mothers, compared with 12% in May -- a small but statistically significant difference, they say."
So, if you want to knock up a teen and/or unwed girl/woman, April is be the month to go?
Yes, the earth has gotten warmer in the past 200 years. Agreed, that's a fact. It is also a fact that the earth is getting colder right now (since 1999). It is also a fact that the earth has been a lot warmer than it is today, long before humans started burning fossile fuels. It is also a fact that the earth has been a lot cooler than it is today.
So the questions we should be focusing on is:
A: Are we in any significant way affecting the climate with our emmissions B: Are these effects more negative than positive? (Russia for instance looks forward to a few more degrees, it will make large parts of the country fertile)
Regardless of A, B will need to be adressed, because climate will change, regardless of if we burn fossile fuels or not. How fast, and in what direction, is a different matter.
The cyclic nature of our planet orbiting the sun in differently-shaped ellipses matches the different warm and cold periods our planet is experiencing nicely. This is also true to sunspot activity.
Now for man-made global warming, the IPCC graphs that demonstrated a relation between humanity-caused co2 increases in the atmosphere to global warming were very clear up and until 1999. More co2 equals more degrees. Now all of a sudden we have an even greater level of co2, but a temperature that declines. None of the models that IPCC is using can handle this, the models suddently don't work out anymore, according to them it should be even warmer. They are missing something (or a lot) that would make their models make temperature go down around 2000.
With regards to not understanding the scientific method, as long as the IPCC refuses to release their model definitions and the data they base their predictions on, I think I rest my case.
If they would also make Jedi an official religion like in Australia (IIRC), so next time people have a Star Trek convention they could go there, start a flamebait topic between Star Wars-fans and Trekkies, and start collecting cash. On the other hand... Trekkies rarely have tons of cash.
1: Pass a law preventing making fun of religion 2: Start a new, silly religion (like I believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing being who needs your MONEY!) 3: Profit!
Slashdot Mirror
I've been looking around a bit, but I haven't been able to find a good explanation to why Sony is removing the feature in the first place.
Does it allow hacking the console? Does it cost too much to maintain? Anyone knows?
There is always cold fusion!
It all depends on how you count. In Sweden you have a number of power providers to choose from, some have only "green" power, while others have various sources. If you want, you can build your own windmill, start a distribution company, and sell your electricity via your distribution company. It is of course pushed into the national power grid before reaching the end customer, but unless you sell more "green" power than your windmill produces, you're basically doing what you claim you do.
However, there are many other ways to count. One recent report showed that an electric car today would emit around 200g of co2 / kilometer, which is significantly more than a small "green" diesel (around 120g co2/km). So how can an electric car emit co2 in the first place? Well, of course it doesn't, but the power has to come from somewhere. And the report suggests that when a new car is added to the market, it will consume power from the "last few percent" of power production, as this is the type of power production used to compensate for a varying demand. Thus, when you charge your car, the power company has to crank up some coal plant or diesel generator to produce your "extra" needs, hence the higher co2/km than a diesel car itself.
This is of course equally correct and complete nonsense at the same time. But the fact remains that all power used has to be produced, at the exact time of consumption. So maybe if you claim you only charge your car during the night when the temporary dirty generators are offline, you're better of.
So sure, the internet is using a lot of electricity, but how many sheets of fax paper does it save every day? How many airplanes full of mail does it save every day? And every video conference or skype call that took place instead of a taxi, bus or plane trip is of course saving hugely. It feels like greenpeace should have more pressing matters than chasing after "the Internet"...
Exactly, this report is stunningly useless. Most of Europe is missing, including all the freedom-loving nations of the north (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland). How about Switzerland? Austria? France? (maybe not a good example :-), Spain? Holland? Belgium?, Luxemburg?.. comon... Europe is only represented by Germany, Italy (Berlusconi helooo) and the UK (and yes Georgia and Russia...)
No let's see how the internet freedom state is in Venezuela. I'm sure the US can beat that!
How about the airline industry? They can decide to do a lot of stuff on-the-fly. Like cancel your flight. Or have you pre-pay for a specific seat and when you board they tell you that the airplane has a different layout and that you will end up sitting somewhere else.
Or change how much luggage you can bring on board. Or what can be in that luggage. I'm very sure you cannot claim that it was allowed to bring a bottle of something on board at the time I purchased my ticket, so I want to bring it on board now.
Hell, they can even fly you to an alternate airport and put you on a 6 hour bus ride.
And you mention real-estate. The world is changing, you bought something with an ocean view. But all of a sudden a group of new houses are built.
Or hotels. You booked a room, but when you arrive they only have a twin instead of a double.
I'm sure we can find the same examples in restaurants.
Changing ToS is by no means isolated to telecom.
Given how large the universe is, we don't even have to hide. As it seems hard to travel faster than light, we should be pretty safe :-)
Exactly. It is fine if airlines decide to fly, but it would feel really bad as a passenger to have to either board a plane that does not feel safe, or lose your ticket money.
If they would fly, but still offer full refund if you dont want to take the risk, thats fine with me. But thats of course not what they would do, they would see half the people not showing up, and resell those tickets again.
I have a ticket in this area (from Iceland to Denmark, all along the ash cloud) in a few days, and I'm not sure I want to fly. And even if winds are fine the day before, do I want to take the risk of getting stuck at my destination for an unknown amount of time?
And when a plane goes down, they would again blame authorities for not monitoring the situation closely enough.
With an equally poor logic, if you hire a developer to work on project A, that person can also work in parallel on project B, because it doesn't cost anything!
The "cost" of course has to be divided up based on usage. And if they had excess bandwidth they didn't need (because youtube ate so much of what they would otherwise have), they could have sold it to someone else, making money on it. Money they are now losing.
GP is correct, the conclusion is crap.They may be saving a lot of money, but that's a whole different story.
Surprised noone posted these :-)
The "Weapons not fit for this world!" ads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHt9pQhn3ho
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf8h1s47cHk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsn_sElcjU&feature=related
etc
Best stuff ever :-)
No, that's very wrong :-)
There is a huge difference between "legally being a person", and "being a legal person".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person
I always learned it like this:
1) Make a guess, very generous one. Make sure there's plenty of space.
2) Double it, as you will need an equal amount of time for testing and bugfixing when you're done writing.
3) Double it again, as Murphy will make sure everything will fail, which will lead to inevitable delays.
4) Multiple by PI
Now you're pretty close to a realistic estimate!
The supreme court is hand-picked by politicians in power and appointed for life, aren't they? Smells a bit like "i scratch your back and you'll scratch mine".
Three seconds is an insane amount of time! If you've discovered you're in serious trouble you're likely less than a few seconds away from hitting simethng or some.
If that is really the case (I don't say it isn't, just that the number is new to me), I really wonder what the design team was thinking.
It's as stupid as putting a "three second delay" on a all-out-break. It really surprises me that noone thought this through.
No, just tell them that you can use the B$D license, it will cost $10000 and they get to do exactly what they want with the code. Everyone is a winner!
Close to 60% of all US Windows computers are hosting malware already
I thought Windows had a market share that was higher than that! But as we know, 76 % of all statistics are made up on-the-fly.
Exactly, sounds like this generation is going to have a lot of fun when they start entering the real world. Applying for a job and giving up after 10 minutes, or even worse resending the application like that :-)
When I grew up *cough*...
Nostalgia simply isn't what it used to be!
If you want to have an argument against WoW being a game, then you should look more at the fact that there's not really an end goal in the game.
WoW is a bit like being alive. Life itself does have an "end", but it is not the goal of life to reach it. It's all about having fun while "living", not trying to finish it as soon as possible...
True, there is a big difference between intelligence and being "smart". But what i find truly amazing is that someone who probably sees himself as a "smart" and/or "intelligent" person can spend 15 years of his life dwelling on this in the first place. That's hilarious! How smart can you be if you do that? There's like some embedded recursive proof in his own research.
Except for horses. There won't be any meaningful limits on horse owners.
Well, horses are one of the few "pets" we do eat after all.
I guess that the OP simply thought this should be bleeding obvious to everyone, even without actually doing any research. The alternative/inverse would be that we are as likely to do harm to our beloved/friends as to a complete stranger, and that you "bond" tighter with friends than with strangers.
The Swedish king Karl XI has this figured out already in the 17th century when he organised his forces so that people would fight side-by-side with brothers, cousins and people from the same region as you are from. This improved morale and made people less likely to flee the battlefield as you knew you could depend on, and wanted to support loved ones.
The percentage of children born to unwed mothers, teenage mothers and mothers who hadn't completed high school kept peaking in January every year. Over the 13-year period, for example, 13.2% of January births were to teen mothers, compared with 12% in May -- a small but statistically significant difference, they say."
So, if you want to knock up a teen and/or unwed girl/woman, April is be the month to go?
What do you do in the US in April?
Yes, the earth has gotten warmer in the past 200 years. Agreed, that's a fact. It is also a fact that the earth is getting colder right now (since 1999). It is also a fact that the earth has been a lot warmer than it is today, long before humans started burning fossile fuels. It is also a fact that the earth has been a lot cooler than it is today.
So the questions we should be focusing on is:
A: Are we in any significant way affecting the climate with our emmissions
B: Are these effects more negative than positive? (Russia for instance looks forward to a few more degrees, it will make large parts of the country fertile)
Regardless of A, B will need to be adressed, because climate will change, regardless of if we burn fossile fuels or not. How fast, and in what direction, is a different matter.
The cyclic nature of our planet orbiting the sun in differently-shaped ellipses matches the different warm and cold periods our planet is experiencing nicely. This is also true to sunspot activity.
Now for man-made global warming, the IPCC graphs that demonstrated a relation between humanity-caused co2 increases in the atmosphere to global warming were very clear up and until 1999. More co2 equals more degrees. Now all of a sudden we have an even greater level of co2, but a temperature that declines. None of the models that IPCC is using can handle this, the models suddently don't work out anymore, according to them it should be even warmer. They are missing something (or a lot) that would make their models make temperature go down around 2000.
With regards to not understanding the scientific method, as long as the IPCC refuses to release their model definitions and the data they base their predictions on, I think I rest my case.
If they would also make Jedi an official religion like in Australia (IIRC), so next time people have a Star Trek convention they could go there, start a flamebait topic between Star Wars-fans and Trekkies, and start collecting cash. On the other hand... Trekkies rarely have tons of cash.
1: Pass a law preventing making fun of religion
2: Start a new, silly religion (like I believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing being who needs your MONEY!)
3: Profit!
We don't even need the "???" :-)
It sounds to me that my ancestors were very keen on performing scientific experiments, with rigorous field testing to back up the scientific data!
Well at least the DMCA should not apply in Space, should it?