The problem with this idea is that people will be fine with it for a year or two post-graduation, but it's going to start to suck fairly quickly after that.
So what? A fresh group of graduates is released every year. The best part about being the weirdo who stays is, every year I get older but the girls stay the same age!
Outsider here so this may be a stupid question but how is a reputation of "Our products are finished 1-2 years after we release them thanks to the support of paying customers" a good thing? I can't imagine a high % of people are still playing a 2 year old game when the franchise has likely released 2 more sequels. Its great that a company fixes its problems...but that should be the standard, not an exception. Is the gaming industry really that awful? Do gamers give them a ton of slack because many of them work or dabble in software too?
Where do you guys come from? Are you a miner or rig worker? Whats your goal in this? You really think a rigorous CO2 mitigation scheme is going to fuck everyone when in at least 1/3 of the US solar is already cheaper than coal without subsidies?
The graph and the data sets you linked to all have the biggest numbers at the end. To prove your point next time you may want to find a graph with big numbers in the middle as well instead of closing with "the graph I cited to prove you wrong is wrong because it proves you right so just imagine its wrong in a way that proves you wrong".
It is when there is such a statistically significant deviation from long term climate trends gathered from dozens of different methods at a rate never seen outside major global catastrophes while humanity happens to be dumping large amounts of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
Think of it this way. The economy tanked a few times in the past things are generally stable and some variation is ok. Your new bank account has had regular deposits of $100/month for the past year. You haven't made any withdraws but last week you started losing $1000/day after you let vagrants mine your garbage. But its not worth worrying about because the sample set is so small and the economy naturally goes up and down right?
I know its not the perfect analogy of why you should care and you CERTAINLY didn't come here to have your mind changed. I'm just spitting this out so I can refine it and eventually it will be succinct enough to help someone who hasn't though much about it sort through denialist bullshit. Thanks for your services.
I know right, its not like 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have come in the past 10 years. Only 7 of 10 have been in the past 10 years, to get the other two you'd have to go back a full 13 years ago! Clearly those predicting warming have failed because they underestimated how much everyone likes to split hairs.
True American exceptionalism at its best! Can't someone else do it? You can tell America is a world leader because the government knows how to back down from a problem when another country might disagree in some way.
The "but China pollutes" argument is about the same as a 3 year-old whining that they have to walk when the 18 month old sibling gets to be carried by mommy. If America thinks its a world leader than perhaps we should fucking lead something other than pet wars where we supply ~95% of the "coalition" soldiers. If we put some effort into reducing emissions, China can just steal it fixing the two biggest CO2 polluters in one shot.
And you realize the US accounts for ~15% of yearly gobal emissions and something like 40% of all CO2 emissions since 1970 right?
uhhh...so your counterpoint to (presumably) change my mind is to say I'll be killed? I find that strangely unconvincing but I do understand the way to argue on the internet is to get to "fuck off and die" ASAP. And since I'm already down the rabbit hole....
This meme of everything going chaotic [if everyone were armed] is perpetuated by shitheads..... Personally, I strongly suspect that there'd be an initial period of unrest....
goddamn tragedy for our species that the Global Elite have managed to render most of the planet unable to protect themselves
On the other hand, its a goddamn miracle that most of the planet governed by the "global elite" doesn't have the need to protect themselves since crime is down so much after we stopped using leaded gasoline....black helicopters, government thugs and other crackpot conspiracies of doom notwithstanding. But hey its a free country, be as paranoid as you want no matter how counterproductive it gets.
How much do you think global life expectancy would increase if everyone had an AR-15? The NRA makes plenty of koolaid too, fyi.
If I was a business owner, I want to pay you what you're worth;
You'd be a rare bird. Every other business owner wants to pay employees as little as possible and has every incentive to do so. Why do you think its such a big deal to hide salary information?
Well we do know about the ones that ended up on land for quite a ways back. Not sure what you're getting at with your untestable supposition. Is this not a big deal because it might have happened before?
I'm climate stabilization action now supporter #1 and have put tens of $thousands where my mouth is but to be fair we can at least breath the air...unless you literally mean it will be like living on a planet where Venus and Mars have been merged somewhere in the middle resulting in a planet pretty much exactly like the Earth and thus will face the exact same challenges we face now.
Whether a power source is economically viable is by no means static.
Can't argue that but this brings up an interesting question (for me anyway). What could make wind and solar more expensive in the future? The raw material costs are basically nothing compared to fossil fuels (where they are essentially basically 100%). There is plenty of silicon just lying around on the surface. Some of it may be easier to process but I think that problem is largely solved.
I don't know what the global lithium supply looks like but I do know LiIon batteries can be recycled. The reason China has all the rare earth mines is because their government subsidized them to corner the market in the short term. Rare earths aren't really that rare.
For wind you need resins and what not but again, the material input is minuscule compared to the lifetime energy output. You mentioned real estate and places that make sense....but there are a LOT of those places where it does make sense. Often the real estate is pretty cheap (deserts, etc) and hey, the solar panels covering just a little over 1/3 of my roof provide 110% of my yearly electricity use! (yeah storage...that's being resolved faster than even I thought it would)
Given all that I know about wind and solar it seems that if anything, prices will only get cheaper.
Someone with a username like yours should probably already know the answer to such a question but I completely understand why that's the first thing that would come to your mind.
Actually, It most likely is driving style! In this case, the nature of driving an electric car. First of all, rotors don't "warp" in the sense that you're implying. Vibrations from a "warped" rotor aren't from deformed metal, its from uneven brake pad material deposits that can come from improper bedding procedures or operation outside of ideal operating temperatures. A brake's stopping power isn't simple friction, its also a complex interaction of brake pad material transferring between the pad and rotor.
In a Tesla you have the added complication of regenerative braking. If you drive gently enough, you may never need to use the actual brakes. The problem is when you do, there will be excess oxidation on them and they will be very cold which is not ideal if you need to make a sudden stop. Repeat this and you'll get uneven deposits resulting in vibration that gets lumped under "warped rotors".
A quick search of "tesla brake rotor" shows that they are aware of this and have changed the rotor spec. So yeah, sucks that there are a bunch of little issues in a completely new from the ground up car design (who saw that coming?) but its encouraging that they are getting fixed as they come up. Which is how things should be.
Maybe so but isn't it true and relevant? Roy's reply was "I used 1979-1983 as a baseline". Sou's (debunker) reply to that was "I know! Thats the very reason it is deceitful!" and then re-explains how it is deceitful thus claiming Roy is deceitful (your claimed ad hominem). Hence, the ad hominem stems directly from the original transgression and is thus justified.
And aren't you ad hominmening? You just said "Nope" to a solid rebuttal with no justification and said the debunker merely attacks Roy's character when in fact he thoroughly details why Roy is wrong. At best he shouldn't say he did it on purpose but that probably stems from Roy's history (documented in another link).
Indeed. That's the real argument against "we'd all be safer if everyone had a gun". Crime rates are historically low and mass shootings, while now a regular occurrence, are still statistically rare.
Now for the ever popular car analogy: somewhere around 50-100 million Americans operate a vehicle every day. Most have been trained and almost all are licensed. Google tells me there are about 18,000 car accidents in the US...per DAY! Most aren't fatal since safety technology has improved so much. What happens when every adult straps on a glock every morning? You've just added 100s of millions of people to a people problem. And of course we can't add registration or license tests cause, you know, freedom. Maybe unlike everything else that humanity touches, everyone will be 100% super careful with their gun so the accident rate is only 10k/day. That's a 1% chance of getting shot accidentally every year! Those numbers pulled from my ass but whatever they are, its randomly distributed so you can't just avoid high crime areas anymore.
But hey, the odd "bad guy" will think twice right?
Don't worry, I don't think this will happen anymore than guns being banned in the US. Just a thought that I never hear brought up because everyone thinks they aren't the type of person that makes mistakes.
Coincidentally in response to Dyson's opinion. A blanket claim that models are wrong should cite at least one. And before anyone pulls up the "95% of climate models are wrong graph", that was thoroughly debunked here:
Heh, the way forum threads go off the rails is pretty funny. Here is my recounting of the events:
A) "What can police use instead of guns to immobilize people? Existing things? Non-existing things?" B) "Sometimes you have to kill people" C) "But we're talking about using/inventing things to not have to kill people right?" D) "Police have no idea if someone wants to kill them or not so they need to be able to kill someone" C) "uhh...." D) "YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE STUFF UP ON THE INTERNET!"
Anyway thanks for the amusement. Its clear we are locked in mutual misunderstanding so I'm out!
Slashdot Mirror
You do know that it's not long before you turn from being the weirdo, to being the creepy old weirdo?
Waaaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of you.
The problem with this idea is that people will be fine with it for a year or two post-graduation, but it's going to start to suck fairly quickly after that.
So what? A fresh group of graduates is released every year. The best part about being the weirdo who stays is, every year I get older but the girls stay the same age!
Outsider here so this may be a stupid question but how is a reputation of "Our products are finished 1-2 years after we release them thanks to the support of paying customers" a good thing? I can't imagine a high % of people are still playing a 2 year old game when the franchise has likely released 2 more sequels. Its great that a company fixes its problems...but that should be the standard, not an exception. Is the gaming industry really that awful? Do gamers give them a ton of slack because many of them work or dabble in software too?
Just because the climate can change for reasons in addition to AGW doesn't mean we're off the hook from the consequences of our actions.
Where do you guys come from? Are you a miner or rig worker? Whats your goal in this? You really think a rigorous CO2 mitigation scheme is going to fuck everyone when in at least 1/3 of the US solar is already cheaper than coal without subsidies?
The graph and the data sets you linked to all have the biggest numbers at the end. To prove your point next time you may want to find a graph with big numbers in the middle as well instead of closing with "the graph I cited to prove you wrong is wrong because it proves you right so just imagine its wrong in a way that proves you wrong".
It is when there is such a statistically significant deviation from long term climate trends gathered from dozens of different methods at a rate never seen outside major global catastrophes while humanity happens to be dumping large amounts of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
Think of it this way. The economy tanked a few times in the past things are generally stable and some variation is ok. Your new bank account has had regular deposits of $100/month for the past year. You haven't made any withdraws but last week you started losing $1000/day after you let vagrants mine your garbage. But its not worth worrying about because the sample set is so small and the economy naturally goes up and down right?
I know its not the perfect analogy of why you should care and you CERTAINLY didn't come here to have your mind changed. I'm just spitting this out so I can refine it and eventually it will be succinct enough to help someone who hasn't though much about it sort through denialist bullshit. Thanks for your services.
I know right, its not like 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have come in the past 10 years. Only 7 of 10 have been in the past 10 years, to get the other two you'd have to go back a full 13 years ago! Clearly those predicting warming have failed because they underestimated how much everyone likes to split hairs.
True American exceptionalism at its best! Can't someone else do it? You can tell America is a world leader because the government knows how to back down from a problem when another country might disagree in some way.
The "but China pollutes" argument is about the same as a 3 year-old whining that they have to walk when the 18 month old sibling gets to be carried by mommy. If America thinks its a world leader than perhaps we should fucking lead something other than pet wars where we supply ~95% of the "coalition" soldiers. If we put some effort into reducing emissions, China can just steal it fixing the two biggest CO2 polluters in one shot.
And you realize the US accounts for ~15% of yearly gobal emissions and something like 40% of all CO2 emissions since 1970 right?
uhhh...so your counterpoint to (presumably) change my mind is to say I'll be killed? I find that strangely unconvincing but I do understand the way to argue on the internet is to get to "fuck off and die" ASAP. And since I'm already down the rabbit hole....
This meme of everything going chaotic [if everyone were armed] is perpetuated by shitheads ..... Personally, I strongly suspect that there'd be an initial period of unrest....
What does that make you? ;)
goddamn tragedy for our species that the Global Elite have managed to render most of the planet unable to protect themselves
On the other hand, its a goddamn miracle that most of the planet governed by the "global elite" doesn't have the need to protect themselves since crime is down so much after we stopped using leaded gasoline....black helicopters, government thugs and other crackpot conspiracies of doom notwithstanding. But hey its a free country, be as paranoid as you want no matter how counterproductive it gets.
How much do you think global life expectancy would increase if everyone had an AR-15? The NRA makes plenty of koolaid too, fyi.
If I was a business owner, I want to pay you what you're worth;
You'd be a rare bird. Every other business owner wants to pay employees as little as possible and has every incentive to do so. Why do you think its such a big deal to hide salary information?
I did fat finger it.
???
You just said you were fit as a fiddle!
Well we do know about the ones that ended up on land for quite a ways back. Not sure what you're getting at with your untestable supposition. Is this not a big deal because it might have happened before?
colonizing Venus and Mars put together,
I'm climate stabilization action now supporter #1 and have put tens of $thousands where my mouth is but to be fair we can at least breath the air...unless you literally mean it will be like living on a planet where Venus and Mars have been merged somewhere in the middle resulting in a planet pretty much exactly like the Earth and thus will face the exact same challenges we face now.
Whether a power source is economically viable is by no means static.
Can't argue that but this brings up an interesting question (for me anyway). What could make wind and solar more expensive in the future? The raw material costs are basically nothing compared to fossil fuels (where they are essentially basically 100%). There is plenty of silicon just lying around on the surface. Some of it may be easier to process but I think that problem is largely solved.
I don't know what the global lithium supply looks like but I do know LiIon batteries can be recycled. The reason China has all the rare earth mines is because their government subsidized them to corner the market in the short term. Rare earths aren't really that rare.
For wind you need resins and what not but again, the material input is minuscule compared to the lifetime energy output. You mentioned real estate and places that make sense....but there are a LOT of those places where it does make sense. Often the real estate is pretty cheap (deserts, etc) and hey, the solar panels covering just a little over 1/3 of my roof provide 110% of my yearly electricity use! (yeah storage...that's being resolved faster than even I thought it would)
Given all that I know about wind and solar it seems that if anything, prices will only get cheaper.
Just saying...
I appreciate this disclaimer. Basically tells me that even you think the bunch of words preceding it are bullshit.
Someone with a username like yours should probably already know the answer to such a question but I completely understand why that's the first thing that would come to your mind.
Actually, It most likely is driving style! In this case, the nature of driving an electric car. First of all, rotors don't "warp" in the sense that you're implying. Vibrations from a "warped" rotor aren't from deformed metal, its from uneven brake pad material deposits that can come from improper bedding procedures or operation outside of ideal operating temperatures. A brake's stopping power isn't simple friction, its also a complex interaction of brake pad material transferring between the pad and rotor.
In a Tesla you have the added complication of regenerative braking. If you drive gently enough, you may never need to use the actual brakes. The problem is when you do, there will be excess oxidation on them and they will be very cold which is not ideal if you need to make a sudden stop. Repeat this and you'll get uneven deposits resulting in vibration that gets lumped under "warped rotors".
A quick search of "tesla brake rotor" shows that they are aware of this and have changed the rotor spec. So yeah, sucks that there are a bunch of little issues in a completely new from the ground up car design (who saw that coming?) but its encouraging that they are getting fixed as they come up. Which is how things should be.
On that note, hopefully they* won't release anymore software till its done and free of bugs!
*the "they" they, not necessarily CR
Maybe so but isn't it true and relevant? Roy's reply was "I used 1979-1983 as a baseline". Sou's (debunker) reply to that was "I know! Thats the very reason it is deceitful!" and then re-explains how it is deceitful thus claiming Roy is deceitful (your claimed ad hominem). Hence, the ad hominem stems directly from the original transgression and is thus justified.
And aren't you ad hominmening? You just said "Nope" to a solid rebuttal with no justification and said the debunker merely attacks Roy's character when in fact he thoroughly details why Roy is wrong. At best he shouldn't say he did it on purpose but that probably stems from Roy's history (documented in another link).
Indeed. That's the real argument against "we'd all be safer if everyone had a gun". Crime rates are historically low and mass shootings, while now a regular occurrence, are still statistically rare.
Now for the ever popular car analogy: somewhere around 50-100 million Americans operate a vehicle every day. Most have been trained and almost all are licensed. Google tells me there are about 18,000 car accidents in the US...per DAY! Most aren't fatal since safety technology has improved so much. What happens when every adult straps on a glock every morning? You've just added 100s of millions of people to a people problem. And of course we can't add registration or license tests cause, you know, freedom. Maybe unlike everything else that humanity touches, everyone will be 100% super careful with their gun so the accident rate is only 10k/day. That's a 1% chance of getting shot accidentally every year! Those numbers pulled from my ass but whatever they are, its randomly distributed so you can't just avoid high crime areas anymore.
But hey, the odd "bad guy" will think twice right?
Don't worry, I don't think this will happen anymore than guns being banned in the US. Just a thought that I never hear brought up because everyone thinks they aren't the type of person that makes mistakes.
I don't know whether that statement is actually true (but it is testable)
Good news, its already been tested!
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
Coincidentally in response to Dyson's opinion. A blanket claim that models are wrong should cite at least one. And before anyone pulls up the "95% of climate models are wrong graph", that was thoroughly debunked here:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201...
And don't let this:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201...
Upset you. Seriously, don't be upset. Learn from it!
"There’s only freedom in structure, my man. There’s no freedom in freedom"
- Jazz great Branford Marsalis
Heh, the way forum threads go off the rails is pretty funny. Here is my recounting of the events:
A) "What can police use instead of guns to immobilize people? Existing things? Non-existing things?"
B) "Sometimes you have to kill people"
C) "But we're talking about using/inventing things to not have to kill people right?"
D) "Police have no idea if someone wants to kill them or not so they need to be able to kill someone"
C) "uhh...."
D) "YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE STUFF UP ON THE INTERNET!"
Anyway thanks for the amusement. Its clear we are locked in mutual misunderstanding so I'm out!