Let's be honest. This is an outage of an entertainment network. I don't think anyone can really claim they suffered due to it not being available. If anything they may have gained by the fact that they did something else.
Now, if you want to argue that people are suffering due to the information loss, I'll go with that one. But not from the outage itself.
CLARIFICATION Contrary to several news reports, the IAEA to date has NOT received any notification from the Japanese authorities of people sickened by radiation contamination.
In the report of 17 March 01:15 UTC, the cases described were of people who were reported to have had radioactive contamination detected on them when they were monitored.
Not necessarily. Businesses love their anti-virus products. Not to mention the fact that if everyone were on open source, open source would be the target and viruses would come out of the wood work.
Aaaaand, what's the pipe they have to the rest of the world? I don't care if I've got 1Gb to my provider. The rest of the internet isn't going to make that experience any better than 1Mb... In many cases I find that 1Mb isn't any better than 56Kb.. There are just too many factors to make this a non-issue. Fix the upstream and maybe I'll get excited about the link to my house.
With all due respect, what makes you worthy of deciding what a "normal" relationship is and who should be able to give advice about it?
As far as I can tell, this person seems to have their head screwed on fairly well. They've managed to deal with life and what it brings. What have you had to deal with?
I'm in perfect agreement about the humor bit. I'll never forget the report after my house burned down. "They were surprisingly upbeat."
Course we're also not talking about consumer-grade here. Yes, there is controversy over what consumer vs. enterprise grade HDs really means. But the fact is, the enterprise costs more.
Got a quote for new 2TB drives for my SAN on monday. $2k+ per drive... Insane? Yes. But fact.
I'd still agree that the stated costs in the article are a too high.
I haven't synced my phone to a computer in the last 6 months. No "disabling" issues that required an update. I know plenty of other people with iPhones, as well. I've never heard of any forced updates.
Worse than that. I get up to 36mpg on the highway with my '93 Oldsmobile. I watch the commercials for new cars and see all the great mpg claims for highway. "32mpg! Best in class!" Wait.... what?
You + stacked graph reading = fail. Stacked graphs are always in sync. You have to read each layer independently to see what's going on. Just because layer 1 increased, layer 2 will go up. That doesn't mean layer 2 increased.
It's simply mind numbing that you refuse to admit that there are costs associated with a solution which works towards avoiding climate change rather than adapting to it. That's all I've said since the first post.
I understand there are ways to mitigate some of those costs. Yes, I agree that most vehicles are recycled in some way on a regualar basis and this can be calculated into the numbers. However, blindly claiming that avoidance is less costly than adaptaption without regard for the facts that both sides have their consequences is just foolish.
What, how old is your current car?
For the record, I have two vehicles. One is 16 years old and gets 32MPG on the open highway. The other is two years old and gets about 19MPG... That's a problem we can work on fixing. There are costs associated with ditching the old and moving on to the new.
I think you've entirely missed my point. Replacement does not consist of magically turning a gas powered vehicle into an electrical vehical. The old vehicle must go somewhere. It must be broken down and turned into something else. Or... pushed into a "vehicle hole". Again... I'm not advocating a best solution. I'm simply saying that there are costs associated with any option. The origional post that started this thread made the claim that avoidance was more costly than adaptation. There are costs on both sides. The original statement was this:
"Because the costs of adjustments to the new climate exceeds the costs of avoiding it by a huge margin."
There is no evidence presented to make this an accurate statement. There are costs, yes. Can we say the cost of adjusting is greater than the cost of avoidance? No.
Why is it different if we are talking exclusivly about "global warming"? The fact is there are costs no matter what we do. If we choose to adapt there are costs associated with dams, relocation, new farm land development, etc. If we choose to avoid then we have costs that include building new energy alternatives (nuclear, wind, solar, whatever else), disposing of existing technologies, etc. Are we just going to dig a big hole and shove all the existing gas powered vehicles into it? Not likely. There's a cost there.
Now, keep in mind I'm not saying that this cost isn't mitigated by other factors. But we can say that on both sides. Avoidance = lots of job oppertunities. Adaptation = lots of job oppertunites. I want to be clear that I was simply questioning the origional poster that asserted that adaptation was more costly than avoidance.
What numbers would I be investigating, exactly? Apparently it's considered trolling to question anything around here. All I'm saying is that we can't just make a blanket statement that avoiding the problem is less costly than adapting to the problem. There are no numbers that can support either case. I completely agree that avoiding the problem is probably the least disruptive solution. However, there are costs associated with keeping things the way they are. That can't be ignored when making arguments that one solution is better than another.
That doesn't prove that adapting is more costly than avoiding. I'm not saying one or the other is better. I'm just saying that making the claim that one is more costly than the other isn't a fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's be honest. This is an outage of an entertainment network. I don't think anyone can really claim they suffered due to it not being available. If anything they may have gained by the fact that they did something else.
Now, if you want to argue that people are suffering due to the information loss, I'll go with that one. But not from the outage itself.
Actually, there's even more to it than that. All-internet including K-12 grades is already available.
http://www.k12.com/
How about West Virginia, then?
http://law.justia.com/codes/west-virginia/2005/17c/wvc17c-14-1.html
I'm sure most states have similar laws. Took 30 seconds on google to find this one.
Negative. Google need do no such thing. The cell operators need to do this. Google does so because they can. The carriers do so because they must.
From the IAEA (http://www.iaea.org/press/):
CLARIFICATION
Contrary to several news reports, the IAEA to date has NOT received any notification from the Japanese authorities of people sickened by radiation contamination.
In the report of 17 March 01:15 UTC, the cases described were of people who were reported to have had radioactive contamination detected on them when they were monitored.
Not necessarily. Businesses love their anti-virus products. Not to mention the fact that if everyone were on open source, open source would be the target and viruses would come out of the wood work.
http://us.trendmicro.com/us/products/enterprise/serverprotect-for-linux/
Aaaaand, what's the pipe they have to the rest of the world? I don't care if I've got 1Gb to my provider. The rest of the internet isn't going to make that experience any better than 1Mb... In many cases I find that 1Mb isn't any better than 56Kb.. There are just too many factors to make this a non-issue. Fix the upstream and maybe I'll get excited about the link to my house.
At some point this becomes truth...
http://www.xkcd.org/538/
And 'sudo make install' is entirely unheard of....
With all due respect, what makes you worthy of deciding what a "normal" relationship is and who should be able to give advice about it?
As far as I can tell, this person seems to have their head screwed on fairly well. They've managed to deal with life and what it brings. What have you had to deal with?
I'm in perfect agreement about the humor bit. I'll never forget the report after my house burned down. "They were surprisingly upbeat."
This wins as the most depressing comment of the year, for me. It would seem that the "terrorists" are winning this little game.
This post becomes weird when IceCube brings up a different reference...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Cube
Course we're also not talking about consumer-grade here. Yes, there is controversy over what consumer vs. enterprise grade HDs really means. But the fact is, the enterprise costs more.
Got a quote for new 2TB drives for my SAN on monday. $2k+ per drive... Insane? Yes. But fact.
I'd still agree that the stated costs in the article are a too high.
I think today's xkcd is fairly relevant...
http://www.xkcd.org/756/
I haven't synced my phone to a computer in the last 6 months. No "disabling" issues that required an update. I know plenty of other people with iPhones, as well. I've never heard of any forced updates.
Worse than that. I get up to 36mpg on the highway with my '93 Oldsmobile. I watch the commercials for new cars and see all the great mpg claims for highway. "32mpg! Best in class!" Wait.... what?
Why wait. You can get free service from google tooday. http://www.google.com/tisp/
You + stacked graph reading = fail. Stacked graphs are always in sync. You have to read each layer independently to see what's going on. Just because layer 1 increased, layer 2 will go up. That doesn't mean layer 2 increased.
It's simply mind numbing that you refuse to admit that there are costs associated with a solution which works towards avoiding climate change rather than adapting to it. That's all I've said since the first post.
I understand there are ways to mitigate some of those costs. Yes, I agree that most vehicles are recycled in some way on a regualar basis and this can be calculated into the numbers. However, blindly claiming that avoidance is less costly than adaptaption without regard for the facts that both sides have their consequences is just foolish.
What, how old is your current car?
For the record, I have two vehicles. One is 16 years old and gets 32MPG on the open highway. The other is two years old and gets about 19MPG... That's a problem we can work on fixing. There are costs associated with ditching the old and moving on to the new.
I think you've entirely missed my point. Replacement does not consist of magically turning a gas powered vehicle into an electrical vehical. The old vehicle must go somewhere. It must be broken down and turned into something else. Or... pushed into a "vehicle hole". Again... I'm not advocating a best solution. I'm simply saying that there are costs associated with any option. The origional post that started this thread made the claim that avoidance was more costly than adaptation. There are costs on both sides. The original statement was this:
"Because the costs of adjustments to the new climate exceeds the costs of avoiding it by a huge margin."
There is no evidence presented to make this an accurate statement. There are costs, yes. Can we say the cost of adjusting is greater than the cost of avoidance? No.
Why is it different if we are talking exclusivly about "global warming"? The fact is there are costs no matter what we do. If we choose to adapt there are costs associated with dams, relocation, new farm land development, etc. If we choose to avoid then we have costs that include building new energy alternatives (nuclear, wind, solar, whatever else), disposing of existing technologies, etc. Are we just going to dig a big hole and shove all the existing gas powered vehicles into it? Not likely. There's a cost there.
Now, keep in mind I'm not saying that this cost isn't mitigated by other factors. But we can say that on both sides. Avoidance = lots of job oppertunities. Adaptation = lots of job oppertunites. I want to be clear that I was simply questioning the origional poster that asserted that adaptation was more costly than avoidance.
What numbers would I be investigating, exactly? Apparently it's considered trolling to question anything around here. All I'm saying is that we can't just make a blanket statement that avoiding the problem is less costly than adapting to the problem. There are no numbers that can support either case. I completely agree that avoiding the problem is probably the least disruptive solution. However, there are costs associated with keeping things the way they are. That can't be ignored when making arguments that one solution is better than another.
That doesn't prove that adapting is more costly than avoiding. I'm not saying one or the other is better. I'm just saying that making the claim that one is more costly than the other isn't a fact.
And that's proved by.... ?
I feel fortunate that I don't get 90% of those references...