1. Jobs for the people building and maintaining the pipeline.
2. Tax revenues on their incomes and the incomes of the companies building the pipelines.
3. Moral for people who are ignored by coastal elites and are told that "they need to be re-educated." Not to mention the inflow of consumer dollars to hard hit communities.
4. Stop sending money to religious fanatics who then send money to radicalize mosques (you, as an educated person, should be quite aware of this).
5. Stop sending money (and jobs) to other the middle east and Russia.
6. Reduce the need to "protect" dangerous areas - hence less military presence, less potential for engagement.
7. Money will flow to Canada and Canadian companies (as opposed to Saudi). This is a general plus dovetailed with points 4 and 5.
And at what cost?
Not environmental.
The Russians have never been good stewards and neither have the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or the Iranian. I would hazard a guess that the drilling and transportation of this petroleum will be *better* environmentally than drilling in Saudi Arabia and transporting to refineries elsewhere.
As a side note - the petroleum is being extracted and we're transporting it via train and truck (dumb as$sery of the first order).
You're the fool. The issue is not coal per se. Even the "uneducated, uniformed nit-wits" as you so elegantly put it understand that.
At issue is a government that ignores them and ignores good things (like the keystone pipeline) in order to appease a portion of the electorate.
Appease is the right word because the keystone pipeline and fracking is superior to oil drilling in Russia and SA for a whole host of reasons. The pipeline is what killed the Democrats in 2016. Was it worth it?
Keep living in your bubble guys. You might actually lose ground in a midterm election.
As far as I understand designing and producing ASIC prototypes is costly and that you need large production runs to become profitable.
Bear with me as I don't know what the f--k I'm talking about. (Hoping to learn.)
So, if the coin switches from algo 1 to algo 2... algo 1000 would that not defeat ASICS? You would spend a lot of money creating an ASIC that would run for a short period of time (too short to be profitable to the person who purchases it). Therefore ASICS would not be useful.
And/ or. Is it possible coming up with a suite of algorithms that requires a huge series of different actions (like CPUs have to turn a document into the appropriate file type and direct the hard drive to write as file) so that... ASICS are not useful?
1. I think the dumping of dioxins and environmental toxins is a clear-and-present danger.
2. I think that releasing billions of tons of CO2 is a problem but not for the problem of the earth warming up to temperatures that, at worst, were common only a short while ago geologically.
I think the most important thing is to get to a post carbon age - and we don't get there by shrill cries of the apocalypse and making obscenely poor predictions (take a look at Al Gore's predictions). We get there by having a functioning economy, but substitution bad (natural gas) for worse unfiltered coal; by reducing our population (never hear that from people. Why? Because it means that we need to stop funding babies which disproportionately hurts the poor).
We don't get there by signing treaties that doesn't solve the problem (Kyoto) as developing countries (read India and China) could continue burning coal. So the question is why prevent the Keystone Pipeline, why promote Kyoto when it doesn't help?
Is there anything that a general tool box can do that a specialized tool cannot? Yes.
So.... Is the solution switching algorithms? Is it using a suite of algorithms than makes an ASIC that much more difficult to accomplish? (X11 didn't work out).
I have NO idea.
It may be that there is no solution to this particular problem.
If you were 100% in the right then why the exaggerations?
Why "the hottest year on record" nonsense?
1) it's not true (we have good approximations going back millions of years) and
2) 150 years is statistically irrelevant
And second why pretend that today's rate of increase is so much greater than in the past - when our data points in the past are +- 4000 years.
This is correct. If you have 51% of the hashing power for a period of time you can double spend (ie spend your bitcoin; take it back and spend it again - the BTC version of counterfitting). Of course if you do that you devaluate the value of BTC
However, BTC is getting too centralized. One of the basic premises behind BTC was that anyone and everyone can mine to one degree or another with their CPU. With the advent of ASICS that's no longer the case.
Only with CPU only hashing (ok, if you insist, GPU only hashing) will Bitcoin come close the ideal that everyone is a node and everyone has a roughly comparable stake.
Even if I have 100,000 CPUs and you only have one we'll be more "equal" than now where you have one CPU versus people with ASIC farms.
In case it matters I didn't vote for Trump. But thanks for making the assumption.
Keep doubling down on stupid. Keep thinking that everyone that disagrees with you is evil and stupid. Keep saying that speech that you disagree with is not covered by the 1st Amendment.
Yeah. The southern part of Louisiana are alluvial plains and swamps. If I'm not mistaken New Orleans is in the Mississippi delta. Hmmm. WTF does that mean?
It means we shouldn't be fighting mother nature to keep the city going.
So. Price caps are a "Good Thing." Wage and Price freezes have been tried many times from Roman Times, to the Soviet Union, to the US and it doesn't work.
Can you find examples of it helping? Yes. But does it work for the economy as a whole?
Companies can cheat. And free-market libertarian know that, and understand that. You pretend that there is no mechanisms in free-market solutions that involve dealing with cheaters. (Yes, there's more involved than simply repeating the phrase "the market will deal with it")
The problem is that left wing ideologues make up straw-men; then "defeat" these straw men; the ridicule the foolishness of their opponents without ever reading about it. And, by the way, Adam Smith is most definitely not the patron saint of capitalist theory. He believed in the labor theory of wealth (same as Marx) which is why Adam Smith is being pushed as "the source."
Carl Menger and the Austrian School would be the place to start in case you're interest. Followed by von Mises, Hayek and (for light reading) Bastiat.
Back to the topic at hand - the solution isn't regulating every single aspect in sight.
How would you like a regulation having passed that made every website use HTML 3.2, Perl 5 and Oracle 8.
I think such regulations would have stifled development. Imagine the "abstract" argument I would have made
"if not for the regulations so many new languages and ideas would have developed"
and what would you, the big-government type have responded with?
Let's see now. Let's say that the pilot makes $150,000 / year and flies for 1500 hours a year. That means he gets $100/hr. On a two hour flight that's $20.00 for each of the 10 passengers.
Yeah. I would say that cost is much less than the fuel.
Not all republicans are libertarians and small-government types as far as the economy and laws.
Some are social conservatives who have no problem with government inserting their paws into how you lead your life.
Some are big government types as far as intervention in the economy (what's good for General Motors is good for the country).
Just as not all Republicans agree on foreign wars - paleocons are isolationists (very much against foreign intervention); libertarians are also (obviously) against foreign intervention while neo-cons are famously pro-intervention (incidently the original neo-cons are former New Left, SDS types).
So, when you say Red State you are talking about a state whose aggregate was a mixture of the libertarian, social con, Main Street, Wall Street (corporatist),
Neocon is foreign affairs only. (A main street and Wall street type may or may not be in favor of a neo-con foreign policy),
Paleocons are big interventionists in moral and economic matters at home and isolationist in foreign policy (think Patrick Buchanan).
And finally - the market requires some structure. It's not anything goes. (Except for anarcho-capitalists) I'm a small-government libertarian (an extremist according to many) but I'm not an anarchist.
In that case any field of study which mandates analysis and critical thinking is useful including studying chess and go (that's studying openings, end game, etc.. not simply playing) is useful in CS.
As someone with a MA in history, and very interested in philosophy, the only area that I felt that had a true overlap with CS was symbolic logic.
Hmmm. I guess you forgot that now almost anyone can go to college even if they can barely read and write and consider 2+2 to be advanced mathematics.
Bring back admission standards (which would mean less students in university) and the costs would drop. Students who need remedial help should get it - but not in a 4 year college. Costs would drop.
Also drop the comparative literature courses and assorted basketweaving classes. You do realize all those gender studies programs cost money.
I think that NYC can add another 50% to it's population without become a nightmare. Of course mass transportation (probably light rail) will have to be increased but there are huge swatches of Brooklyn and Queens with 2 family buildings that are poorly constructed, Those neighborhoods would look better and hold more people with 5 story brownstones.
Furthermore as these neighborhoods are mostly working class it would provide more housing for middle class / working class people.
There is an island with an old fort in the harbor (Governor's Island) that is perfect for building Dubai sorts of towers for the mega rich. This way the mega rich (1/10 of 1% don't push out the very rich who don't push out the 1% who don't push out the upper middle class who don't push out the middle class (who then gentrifies the working class neighborhoods).
Slashdot Mirror
Good for all Americans?
1. Jobs for the people building and maintaining the pipeline.
2. Tax revenues on their incomes and the incomes of the companies building the pipelines.
3. Moral for people who are ignored by coastal elites and are told that "they need to be re-educated." Not to mention the inflow of consumer dollars to hard hit communities.
4. Stop sending money to religious fanatics who then send money to radicalize mosques (you, as an educated person, should be quite aware of this).
5. Stop sending money (and jobs) to other the middle east and Russia.
6. Reduce the need to "protect" dangerous areas - hence less military presence, less potential for engagement.
7. Money will flow to Canada and Canadian companies (as opposed to Saudi). This is a general plus dovetailed with points 4 and 5.
And at what cost?
Not environmental.
The Russians have never been good stewards and neither have the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or the Iranian. I would hazard a guess that the drilling and transportation of this petroleum will be *better* environmentally than drilling in Saudi Arabia and transporting to refineries elsewhere.
As a side note - the petroleum is being extracted and we're transporting it via train and truck (dumb as$sery of the first order).
You're the fool. The issue is not coal per se. Even the "uneducated, uniformed nit-wits" as you so elegantly put it understand that.
At issue is a government that ignores them and ignores good things (like the keystone pipeline) in order to appease a portion of the electorate.
Appease is the right word because the keystone pipeline and fracking is superior to oil drilling in Russia and SA for a whole host of reasons. The pipeline is what killed the Democrats in 2016. Was it worth it?
Keep living in your bubble guys. You might actually lose ground in a midterm election.
Thx for the reply.
... algo 1000 would that not defeat ASICS? You would spend a lot of money creating an ASIC that would run for a short period of time (too short to be profitable to the person who purchases it). Therefore ASICS would not be useful.
... ASICS are not useful?
As far as I understand designing and producing ASIC prototypes is costly and that you need large production runs to become profitable.
Bear with me as I don't know what the f--k I'm talking about. (Hoping to learn.)
So, if the coin switches from algo 1 to algo 2
And/ or. Is it possible coming up with a suite of algorithms that requires a huge series of different actions (like CPUs have to turn a document into the appropriate file type and direct the hard drive to write as file) so that
Or. Am I just dreaming up some BS?
1. I think the dumping of dioxins and environmental toxins is a clear-and-present danger.
2. I think that releasing billions of tons of CO2 is a problem but not for the problem of the earth warming up to temperatures that, at worst, were common only a short while ago geologically.
I think the most important thing is to get to a post carbon age - and we don't get there by shrill cries of the apocalypse and making obscenely poor predictions (take a look at Al Gore's predictions). We get there by having a functioning economy, but substitution bad (natural gas) for worse unfiltered coal; by reducing our population (never hear that from people. Why? Because it means that we need to stop funding babies which disproportionately hurts the poor).
We don't get there by signing treaties that doesn't solve the problem (Kyoto) as developing countries (read India and China) could continue burning coal. So the question is why prevent the Keystone Pipeline, why promote Kyoto when it doesn't help?
:(
As far as I know. No.
Is there anything that a general tool box can do that a specialized tool cannot? Yes.
So.... Is the solution switching algorithms? Is it using a suite of algorithms than makes an ASIC that much more difficult to accomplish? (X11 didn't work out).
I have NO idea.
It may be that there is no solution to this particular problem.
definitive. Hahahahahahaha
If you were 100% in the right then why the exaggerations?
Why "the hottest year on record" nonsense?
1) it's not true (we have good approximations going back millions of years) and
2) 150 years is statistically irrelevant
And second why pretend that today's rate of increase is so much greater than in the past - when our data points in the past are +- 4000 years.
wish I had mod points.
This is correct. If you have 51% of the hashing power for a period of time you can double spend (ie spend your bitcoin; take it back and spend it again - the BTC version of counterfitting). Of course if you do that you devaluate the value of BTC
However, BTC is getting too centralized. One of the basic premises behind BTC was that anyone and everyone can mine to one degree or another with their CPU. With the advent of ASICS that's no longer the case.
Only with CPU only hashing (ok, if you insist, GPU only hashing) will Bitcoin come close the ideal that everyone is a node and everyone has a roughly comparable stake.
Even if I have 100,000 CPUs and you only have one we'll be more "equal" than now where you have one CPU versus people with ASIC farms.
Progressivism is antithetical to liberalism.
The left is devolving into the idiocy (if not the violence) of the French Revolution.
Really? It was the Republican Machine of Louisiana that didn't maintain the flood walls and levees?
Thanks.
In case it matters I didn't vote for Trump. But thanks for making the assumption.
Keep doubling down on stupid. Keep thinking that everyone that disagrees with you is evil and stupid. Keep saying that speech that you disagree with is not covered by the 1st Amendment.
The problem that the Democratic government of Louisiana made over the last 50 years? That one?
Yeah. The southern part of Louisiana are alluvial plains and swamps. If I'm not mistaken New Orleans is in the Mississippi delta. Hmmm. WTF does that mean?
It means we shouldn't be fighting mother nature to keep the city going.
So. Price caps are a "Good Thing." Wage and Price freezes have been tried many times from Roman Times, to the Soviet Union, to the US and it doesn't work.
Can you find examples of it helping? Yes. But does it work for the economy as a whole?
I'll let you figure that out.
How's it working in Venezuela?
Which inbred fools? The ones that voted for Hillary?
Yup. Everyone you disagree with is an idiot. Got it.
By the way, in case it matters, I didn't vote for Trump.
Companies can cheat. And free-market libertarian know that, and understand that. You pretend that there is no mechanisms in free-market solutions that involve dealing with cheaters. (Yes, there's more involved than simply repeating the phrase "the market will deal with it")
....
The problem is that left wing ideologues make up straw-men; then "defeat" these straw men; the ridicule the foolishness of their opponents without ever reading about it. And, by the way, Adam Smith is most definitely not the patron saint of capitalist theory. He believed in the labor theory of wealth (same as Marx) which is why Adam Smith is being pushed as "the source."
Carl Menger and the Austrian School would be the place to start in case you're interest. Followed by von Mises, Hayek and (for light reading) Bastiat.
Back to the topic at hand - the solution isn't regulating every single aspect in sight.
How would you like a regulation having passed that made every website use HTML 3.2, Perl 5 and Oracle 8.
I think such regulations would have stifled development. Imagine the "abstract" argument I would have made
"if not for the regulations so many new languages and ideas would have developed"
and what would you, the big-government type have responded with?
Right.
/sarc
Let's hire people to dig ditches.
And then hire other people to fill in those ditches.
Think of how many jobs we would create.
Great idea
Let's see now. Let's say that the pilot makes $150,000 / year and flies for 1500 hours a year. That means he gets $100/hr. On a two hour flight that's $20.00 for each of the 10 passengers.
Yeah. I would say that cost is much less than the fuel.
fuel costs are approximately 40-50% of the cost of flying.
This is where the savings come from. And yes, prices have been dropping, All you need to do is look at a chart.
Who you calling pasty?
Not all republicans are libertarians and small-government types as far as the economy and laws.
Some are social conservatives who have no problem with government inserting their paws into how you lead your life.
Some are big government types as far as intervention in the economy (what's good for General Motors is good for the country).
Just as not all Republicans agree on foreign wars - paleocons are isolationists (very much against foreign intervention); libertarians are also (obviously) against foreign intervention while neo-cons are famously pro-intervention (incidently the original neo-cons are former New Left, SDS types).
So, when you say Red State you are talking about a state whose aggregate was a mixture of the libertarian, social con, Main Street, Wall Street (corporatist),
Neocon is foreign affairs only. (A main street and Wall street type may or may not be in favor of a neo-con foreign policy), Paleocons are big interventionists in moral and economic matters at home and isolationist in foreign policy (think Patrick Buchanan).
And finally - the market requires some structure. It's not anything goes. (Except for anarcho-capitalists) I'm a small-government libertarian (an extremist according to many) but I'm not an anarchist.
In that case any field of study which mandates analysis and critical thinking is useful including studying chess and go (that's studying openings, end game, etc.. not simply playing) is useful in CS.
As someone with a MA in history, and very interested in philosophy, the only area that I felt that had a true overlap with CS was symbolic logic.
Hmmm. I guess you forgot that now almost anyone can go to college even if they can barely read and write and consider 2+2 to be advanced mathematics.
Bring back admission standards (which would mean less students in university) and the costs would drop. Students who need remedial help should get it - but not in a 4 year college. Costs would drop.
Also drop the comparative literature courses and assorted basketweaving classes. You do realize all those gender studies programs cost money.
Only those philosophers who are interested in Aristotelian and then symbolic logic and set theory.
Comparative studies of Plato's Metaphysics with Aristotle's or examinations of Hobbes versus Locke (while enjoyable to some) will not help in CS.
I think that NYC can add another 50% to it's population without become a nightmare. Of course mass transportation (probably light rail) will have to be increased but there are huge swatches of Brooklyn and Queens with 2 family buildings that are poorly constructed, Those neighborhoods would look better and hold more people with 5 story brownstones.
Furthermore as these neighborhoods are mostly working class it would provide more housing for middle class / working class people.
There is an island with an old fort in the harbor (Governor's Island) that is perfect for building Dubai sorts of towers for the mega rich. This way the mega rich (1/10 of 1% don't push out the very rich who don't push out the 1% who don't push out the upper middle class who don't push out the middle class (who then gentrifies the working class neighborhoods).