At this point in time, don't you think anyone referring to WUWT must be a paid shrill or paid deceiver of some sort? How can the world at large not know that WUWT is full of crap by now?
Industry attempted to mislead the public and use Congress to determine whether it was safe to infuse every square inch of our environment with particulate lead, our rain with sulfuric and nitric acid, our atmosphere with CFCs, our water with poisons.
Don't forget the period of time when the harms of smoking were "debated".
Personally, when a large amount of scientists start screaming about there being serious consequences to something going on, I'd listen to them.
Oh come on. You know this time it is totally different... because.. uhm, freedom?
I think a lot of people, even some actual scientists, do not understand the role of skepticism in Science. There's a difference between scientific skepticism and peanut gallery skepticism. Scientific skepticism is healthy.
Scientists can speculate and debate as much as they want whether it's getting warmer or colder. The issue with the global warming debate is the political demands to translate the science into specific actions, often by scientists who have no qualifications in economics or politics.
If your wording indicates exactly the meaning you wanted to convey, then YOU just demonstrated perfectly what the real problem is: a large portion of our decisions makers have not gotten past the 'is it warming?' part of all this.
If we had believed the scientists 20 years ago about the warming, we could have spent the last 20 years debating what to do about it... and not whether it is actually happening.
that it was supposed to be a government of specific, enumerated powers.
One thing that I see time and time again in this debate about the power of the Federal Gov. is the assumption that things are somehow worse off with our current court rulings and precedence.
federal government encroaching into everyday life until you couldn't buy a shower head
You are making an assumption, a gut feeling assumption, that this is a bad thing. Has your lack of freedom to purchase un-regulated shower heads caused more harm than the good that came from regulating water flow, in say, drought stricken states? Has your lack of freedom to purchase un-regulated shower heads caused more harm than the good that mandated backflow preventers caused?
I have no idea. I do know that 99% of the people on both sides of this Fed vs State power debate are probably just making gut feeling assumptions about what is the right amount of 'power' for each level of government.
That is the main reason to unionize. If you are just a replaceable cog in some giant company. Which is, I assume, a significant percent of total programmers. Hence why some people (smaller companies, unique skill sets and/or higher skill sets) seem baffled why anyone would want to unionize, and why other people (more common skill sets, huge companies) seem baffled why anyone could possible see a downside to unionizing.
I don't see why the metric would change. It could still be based on traffic volume. Obviously you couldn't trust the site owner to report visits/clicks, so some sort of ISP monitoring would be required. And with some sort of site owner grievance process if they suspect the ISP of not reporting traffic correctly.
I wouldn't put past some people.... some anti-environmentalists rigged their trucks to produce more pollution. Rolling coal - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbAhfThNoco
No kidding. Random, and seemingly randomly aired around the world also. Like Australia being several weeks ahead for the release dates of episodes.... so odd. Why air in Australia first?
It is true that State/local Humane Societies and all sorts of animal groups recommend keeping cats indoors only. Not only to protect birds, but to keep your cat safe.
Or spend a trillion or so dollars on modernizing the grid, energy storage (molten salt, pumped hydro, batteries, etc..) and solar panels/wind turbines. Using that money to incentivize the market, and I bet our dirty energy issues would be fixed in a couple decades.
Or heck, why not both. 1 trillion for Fusion and 1 trillion for renewables. We are already 14+ trillion in debt... whats a couple more, especially when spent on something actually worthwhile.
The very fact that you think you have the moral authority to say people should be fired for their political beliefs is what I'm contending. You say that because you think it causes harm that it's totally fine to infringe on political freedom. If Eich had have started firing people for supporting pro gay marriage groups I'd have the same problem with that (plus other problems since I'm pro gay marriage).
There are a whole lot of people that think that homosexuality is harmful. They are wrong. You are never going to change their minds by telling them "no u". Emotional arguments cannot defeat emotional arguments. They only inflame people.
I am perfectly capable of defending someone's political freedom without having to agree with their politics. If I wasn't then I wouldn't be capable of defending anyone's political freedom.
The reason you feel you are arguing over and over again is because you keep insisting you have some kind of moral authority and ignoring the fact that people are telling you that you do not. You give absolutes that don't apply to yourself as soon as you feel they don't.
I don't understand why you keep describing marriage equality/gay/etc... as something that falls under the tent labeled political opinion.
Some views are just wrong. While your political ideology may be the driving force behind any view X, some of those views can just be plain wrong.
If Eich had have started firing people for supporting pro gay marriage groups I'd have the same problem with that
Yeah. Because pro gay marriage is the correct stance, given that it is a civil rights issue, with no difference between civil rights issues in the past, like the legality of marriage between a black person and a white person. Like if I refused to hire women... I should expect, and people should applaud, me being sued and fired.
In 30 years (some time in the future, just making a number up), people will look back on this and it will be very obvious that this was civil rights battle. Eich and others won't be viewed as people with "just another political viewpoint", they will just be viewed as being plain wrong.
I know the entire country isn't there yet, so this view isn't the 100% accepted one yet. Some people actually still do think that 'being anti-gay' or 'being against marriage equality' is a legitimate position because of religious or political ideologies. History will judge otherwise.
Replace gay with something like 'black' or anything that is easier for you to grasp the civil rights issues involved. Then make that statement again, "they can be just as intolerant as any other human" in that context.
I guess you can describe being 'against' or 'not liking' racism, as being intolerant of racists, but it sure doesn't sound right. If your new CEO to be, donated to campaigns that tried to prevent white people from marrying black people, and you were vocally against the new CEO because of this, is the correct word to use to describe you "intolerant"?
Some people hold views that are actually wrong. Being against those views doesn't show you to have a lack of tolerance.
I don't know why some people continue to repeat this statement. The technology alone is plenty scalable.
If you mean some of these things though: 1. We would need to invest in more energy storage mechanisms (pumped hydro, molten salt, batteries, etc..) 2. Aspects of our energy grid need updating to more efficiently and easily handle fluctuations in power generation. 3. etc...
Well then yeah... it isn't perfectly scalable like existing power generation is, but wind farms, solar arrays, etc.. by themselves are perfectly capable of scaling in energy output to well beyond our current needs. Some countries are already nearing 50% renewable energy use right now. And Didn't Germany have 1 day of 100% renewable use just recently?
Renewable are ready right now. It will take local, state, and federal governmental commitments over a period of time (not one election cycle) to implement them properly though. And yes it will cost money to do right, and no it won't bankrupt the country or cause electricity prices to go crazy. Slow, steady, even paced change. They problem we have now though, is a lot of people continue to through out blanket statements like:
Renewables just aren't scalable enough yet
And unfortunately about half our current Congress critters either believe that, don't care, think God will handle everything, or would prefer to keep getting big fat election checks from the current energy companies.
Renewables are a non-starter if we don't attempt to even start.
Despite that, my state of Oregon is currently generating ~14% of its electricity from wind, with a goal of 25% combine renewable use by 2025. Others states are also pushing ahead, despite "renewables not being ready" according to half of slashdot.
I hope you are young enough to see "A.I" cars happen.
All this "never ever, under no circumstances, no way, not possible" talk is a bit annoying on a tech site. There are probably hundreds of things that were inconceivable 30 years ago that exist now in modern life. If you are still around in 30 years I hope you can look back at your posts and realize how short sighted they were.
try to limit the kind of industrial development that made our countries wealthy and prosperous?
I suppose it depends on the particular case in question...
But oftentimes objections are raised about projects because we've had problems (or even disasters) in the past and we've learned from them. And younger developing countries may not be fully aware of the long term implications of certain types of large scale projects unless they have their own internal experts to analyze what the foreign experts are trying to sell them.
Look at how much foreign 'development' has taken place in Africa and how little the African's have gotten out of the deal. There is a ton of resource extraction and development going on, and next to zero increase in any quality of life.
How certain are the Nicaraguan's that China won't just dig a huge, poorly built canal that will cost a ton to maintain. And also, build right through prime agriculture regions, destroying surfing tourism along the way. With only a promise that the ship revenue will make up for the loss of farming, tourism, and maintenance of the canal?
I have no idea about this particular project, because of course I didn't read the article. But I just look around the world, and rarely do I see foreign investment in 3rd world countries work out well for the natives.
Your landlord could still contract with Solar City to provide all his tenants cheaper electricity, with zero cost to him. http://www.solarcity.com/residential/how-solarcity-works. Maybe you could bring it up with him/her?
We could make it a building requirement that solar be put on all new construction. We already require all sorts of things in modern building codes. 20 thousand worth of solar panels (minus whatever subsidies the local and federal government would offer) on each new 200,000+ dollar building/house wouldn't be a gigantic deal when stretched over 40-50 years.
But even if we don't do that, I think market forces will eventually make landlords install solar. There are companies that will install the panels for free, and give you 10/20 year guaranteed electricity prices, lower than what you pay now. After the 10/20 years, you own the panels. What landlord wouldn't take free panels, with the added bonuses of A) owning the panels later, and B) advertising cheaper utility rates to new customers? http://www.solarcity.com/residential/how-solarcity-works
The cost of electricity (typically cents/kWh, euro/kWh, euro or $/MWh) generated by different sources is a calculation of the cost of generating electricity at the point of connection to a load or electricity grid. It includes the initial capital, discount rate, as well as the costs of continuous operation, fuel, and maintenance.
That doesn't take into account government subsidies, external costs like waste storage, or things like decommissioning once the power plant is too old (plus a ton of other factors). I don't have time to search, but if you find studies that take those factors into account, I'm fairly certain that solar is cheaper than nuclear right now.
Regardless, it is a hell of a lot easier to start putting solar panels up everywhere than it is to even get one nuclear plant built in the US. (I like nuclear... I'm just pointing out the reality).
What forums/communities were you asking questions from and getting RTFM answers?
I've never experienced that on the Ubuntu forums. I also posted on pgsql-novice list a long time ago, and got really great help, despite my questions being borderline stupid (long time ago, super newbie).
I don't know if this is true or not, but when I see documentation like postgresql.org, or other good examples, I think to myself "I wonder if they write the documentation first. Before they even write a line of code. Because if you can't describe what you intend to code in clear documentation, chances are it isn't worth coding."
Slashdot Mirror
At this point in time, don't you think anyone referring to WUWT must be a paid shrill or paid deceiver of some sort? How can the world at large not know that WUWT is full of crap by now?
Industry attempted to mislead the public and use Congress to determine whether it was safe to infuse every square inch of our environment with particulate lead, our rain with sulfuric and nitric acid, our atmosphere with CFCs, our water with poisons.
Don't forget the period of time when the harms of smoking were "debated".
Personally, when a large amount of scientists start screaming about there being serious consequences to something going on, I'd listen to them.
Oh come on. You know this time it is totally different... because.. uhm, freedom?
Scientists can speculate and debate as much as they want whether it's getting warmer or colder. The issue with the global warming debate is the political demands to translate the science into specific actions, often by scientists who have no qualifications in economics or politics.
If your wording indicates exactly the meaning you wanted to convey, then YOU just demonstrated perfectly what the real problem is: a large portion of our decisions makers have not gotten past the 'is it warming?' part of all this.
If we had believed the scientists 20 years ago about the warming, we could have spent the last 20 years debating what to do about it... and not whether it is actually happening.
that it was supposed to be a government of specific, enumerated powers.
One thing that I see time and time again in this debate about the power of the Federal Gov. is the assumption that things are somehow worse off with our current court rulings and precedence.
federal government encroaching into everyday life until you couldn't buy a shower head
You are making an assumption, a gut feeling assumption, that this is a bad thing. Has your lack of freedom to purchase un-regulated shower heads caused more harm than the good that came from regulating water flow, in say, drought stricken states? Has your lack of freedom to purchase un-regulated shower heads caused more harm than the good that mandated backflow preventers caused?
I have no idea. I do know that 99% of the people on both sides of this Fed vs State power debate are probably just making gut feeling assumptions about what is the right amount of 'power' for each level of government.
"big code farms elsewhere"
That is the main reason to unionize. If you are just a replaceable cog in some giant company. Which is, I assume, a significant percent of total programmers. Hence why some people (smaller companies, unique skill sets and/or higher skill sets) seem baffled why anyone would want to unionize, and why other people (more common skill sets, huge companies) seem baffled why anyone could possible see a downside to unionizing.
I don't see why the metric would change. It could still be based on traffic volume. Obviously you couldn't trust the site owner to report visits/clicks, so some sort of ISP monitoring would be required. And with some sort of site owner grievance process if they suspect the ISP of not reporting traffic correctly.
I wouldn't put past some people.... some anti-environmentalists rigged their trucks to produce more pollution. Rolling coal - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbAhfThNoco
No kidding. Random, and seemingly randomly aired around the world also. Like Australia being several weeks ahead for the release dates of episodes.... so odd. Why air in Australia first?
Not sure why this was modded funny....
It is true that State/local Humane Societies and all sorts of animal groups recommend keeping cats indoors only. Not only to protect birds, but to keep your cat safe.
Or spend a trillion or so dollars on modernizing the grid, energy storage (molten salt, pumped hydro, batteries, etc..) and solar panels/wind turbines. Using that money to incentivize the market, and I bet our dirty energy issues would be fixed in a couple decades.
Or heck, why not both. 1 trillion for Fusion and 1 trillion for renewables. We are already 14+ trillion in debt... whats a couple more, especially when spent on something actually worthwhile.
The very fact that you think you have the moral authority to say people should be fired for their political beliefs is what I'm contending. You say that because you think it causes harm that it's totally fine to infringe on political freedom. If Eich had have started firing people for supporting pro gay marriage groups I'd have the same problem with that (plus other problems since I'm pro gay marriage).
There are a whole lot of people that think that homosexuality is harmful. They are wrong. You are never going to change their minds by telling them "no u". Emotional arguments cannot defeat emotional arguments. They only inflame people.
I am perfectly capable of defending someone's political freedom without having to agree with their politics. If I wasn't then I wouldn't be capable of defending anyone's political freedom.
The reason you feel you are arguing over and over again is because you keep insisting you have some kind of moral authority and ignoring the fact that people are telling you that you do not. You give absolutes that don't apply to yourself as soon as you feel they don't.
I don't understand why you keep describing marriage equality/gay/etc... as something that falls under the tent labeled political opinion.
Some views are just wrong. While your political ideology may be the driving force behind any view X, some of those views can just be plain wrong.
If Eich had have started firing people for supporting pro gay marriage groups I'd have the same problem with that
Yeah. Because pro gay marriage is the correct stance, given that it is a civil rights issue, with no difference between civil rights issues in the past, like the legality of marriage between a black person and a white person. Like if I refused to hire women... I should expect, and people should applaud, me being sued and fired.
In 30 years (some time in the future, just making a number up), people will look back on this and it will be very obvious that this was civil rights battle. Eich and others won't be viewed as people with "just another political viewpoint", they will just be viewed as being plain wrong.
I know the entire country isn't there yet, so this view isn't the 100% accepted one yet. Some people actually still do think that 'being anti-gay' or 'being against marriage equality' is a legitimate position because of religious or political ideologies. History will judge otherwise.
Replace gay with something like 'black' or anything that is easier for you to grasp the civil rights issues involved. Then make that statement again, "they can be just as intolerant as any other human" in that context.
I guess you can describe being 'against' or 'not liking' racism, as being intolerant of racists, but it sure doesn't sound right. If your new CEO to be, donated to campaigns that tried to prevent white people from marrying black people, and you were vocally against the new CEO because of this, is the correct word to use to describe you "intolerant"?
Some people hold views that are actually wrong. Being against those views doesn't show you to have a lack of tolerance.
I've been happy with this one: https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/
The claim to not log anything.
Renewables just aren't scalable enough yet
I don't know why some people continue to repeat this statement. The technology alone is plenty scalable.
If you mean some of these things though:
1. We would need to invest in more energy storage mechanisms (pumped hydro, molten salt, batteries, etc..)
2. Aspects of our energy grid need updating to more efficiently and easily handle fluctuations in power generation.
3. etc...
Well then yeah... it isn't perfectly scalable like existing power generation is, but wind farms, solar arrays, etc.. by themselves are perfectly capable of scaling in energy output to well beyond our current needs. Some countries are already nearing 50% renewable energy use right now. And Didn't Germany have 1 day of 100% renewable use just recently?
Renewable are ready right now. It will take local, state, and federal governmental commitments over a period of time (not one election cycle) to implement them properly though. And yes it will cost money to do right, and no it won't bankrupt the country or cause electricity prices to go crazy. Slow, steady, even paced change. They problem we have now though, is a lot of people continue to through out blanket statements like:
Renewables just aren't scalable enough yet
And unfortunately about half our current Congress critters either believe that, don't care, think God will handle everything, or would prefer to keep getting big fat election checks from the current energy companies.
Renewables are a non-starter if we don't attempt to even start.
Despite that, my state of Oregon is currently generating ~14% of its electricity from wind, with a goal of 25% combine renewable use by 2025. Others states are also pushing ahead, despite "renewables not being ready" according to half of slashdot.
I hope you are young enough to see "A.I" cars happen.
All this "never ever, under no circumstances, no way, not possible" talk is a bit annoying on a tech site. There are probably hundreds of things that were inconceivable 30 years ago that exist now in modern life. If you are still around in 30 years I hope you can look back at your posts and realize how short sighted they were.
but where does someone end being a troll, and is just someone who has a completely different view?
Evidence?
Is that 2500 after rebates and/or subsidies?
In the US it is still several dollars per watt installed. So like 7,500-12,000 dollars for your system:(
try to limit the kind of industrial development that made our countries wealthy and prosperous?
I suppose it depends on the particular case in question...
But oftentimes objections are raised about projects because we've had problems (or even disasters) in the past and we've learned from them. And younger developing countries may not be fully aware of the long term implications of certain types of large scale projects unless they have their own internal experts to analyze what the foreign experts are trying to sell them.
Look at how much foreign 'development' has taken place in Africa and how little the African's have gotten out of the deal. There is a ton of resource extraction and development going on, and next to zero increase in any quality of life.
How certain are the Nicaraguan's that China won't just dig a huge, poorly built canal that will cost a ton to maintain. And also, build right through prime agriculture regions, destroying surfing tourism along the way. With only a promise that the ship revenue will make up for the loss of farming, tourism, and maintenance of the canal?
I have no idea about this particular project, because of course I didn't read the article. But I just look around the world, and rarely do I see foreign investment in 3rd world countries work out well for the natives.
Are you selling back to the grid to balance out to a zero cost bill, or storing electricity for later peak use in your house (batteries, etc..)?
Your landlord could still contract with Solar City to provide all his tenants cheaper electricity, with zero cost to him. http://www.solarcity.com/residential/how-solarcity-works. Maybe you could bring it up with him/her?
Do you think practical solar is vaporware out of willful ignorance or do you know something that Germany and companies like Solar City don't know?
http://www.solarcity.com/residential/how-solarcity-works
We could make it a building requirement that solar be put on all new construction. We already require all sorts of things in modern building codes. 20 thousand worth of solar panels (minus whatever subsidies the local and federal government would offer) on each new 200,000+ dollar building/house wouldn't be a gigantic deal when stretched over 40-50 years.
But even if we don't do that, I think market forces will eventually make landlords install solar. There are companies that will install the panels for free, and give you 10/20 year guaranteed electricity prices, lower than what you pay now. After the 10/20 years, you own the panels. What landlord wouldn't take free panels, with the added bonuses of A) owning the panels later, and B) advertising cheaper utility rates to new customers?
http://www.solarcity.com/residential/how-solarcity-works
The cost of electricity (typically cents/kWh, euro/kWh, euro or $/MWh) generated by different sources is a calculation of the cost of generating electricity at the point of connection to a load or electricity grid. It includes the initial capital, discount rate, as well as the costs of continuous operation, fuel, and maintenance.
That doesn't take into account government subsidies, external costs like waste storage, or things like decommissioning once the power plant is too old (plus a ton of other factors). I don't have time to search, but if you find studies that take those factors into account, I'm fairly certain that solar is cheaper than nuclear right now.
Regardless, it is a hell of a lot easier to start putting solar panels up everywhere than it is to even get one nuclear plant built in the US. (I like nuclear... I'm just pointing out the reality).
What forums/communities were you asking questions from and getting RTFM answers?
I've never experienced that on the Ubuntu forums. I also posted on pgsql-novice list a long time ago, and got really great help, despite my questions being borderline stupid (long time ago, super newbie).
I don't know if this is true or not, but when I see documentation like postgresql.org, or other good examples, I think to myself "I wonder if they write the documentation first. Before they even write a line of code. Because if you can't describe what you intend to code in clear documentation, chances are it isn't worth coding."