For that matter, I'd be really happy to see Spider Robinson's Callahan novels...
Damn, there was more than one? I came across a copy of Callahan's Crazy Cross Time Bar once, long ago, and it made me laugh / groan so hard. An entire novel written purely to set up the pun at the end. Genius!
On the basis that you're right I nominate Piers Anthony's Adept series. I don't think he's a great author or anything but I remember thinking that would translate pretty well.
I remember thinking the same about the Bio of a Space Tyrant series. It's a long long time since I read them but plenty of sex, plenty of violence, and plenty of both together iirc.
I do recall that at about this same time (again +/- 2 years) we were discussing the "pause" in global warming that has at that point gone on for about a decade. Since this pause has continued for now nearly two decades there must come a time when we stop calling this global warming, no?
*Sigh*
I'm not going to try to persuade you that there has been no pause in global temperature rises, but there are certainly reasons why, for an individual, they might be experiencing what appears to be the opposite. One of these is the weakening of the circumpolar current which allows colder arctic air to travel further south. If you live just south of this 'boundary' local temperatures, especially during the winter months, will be colder than in previous years.
However one of the mains reasons the current is weakening is because of local warming effects within the arctic, so the question becomes one of: Is the global average - taking the rise in temperatures in the arctic, the drop in temperatures at slightly lower latitudes, and any change in temperatures in the rest of the world (using similarly appropriate local scales) - rising, falling, or remaining the same?
Hmm, ok, that might have been an indirect attempt at persuasion...
Anyway, back to the point, you finished with a question. Partly due to local variances, such as the one described above, in global temperature trends an alternative phrase, Climate Change, was suggested to replace Global Warming. You may have seen it in such acronyms as the IPCC. For some reason, even given reasonable explanations, those people who have come to be termed denialists were not mollified.
I do have to wonder about the mentality of these AGW "scientists". For people that claim to be all about science they seem very hostile to people that provide evidence that may disprove the AGW theory.... Instead I see anyone that sees a flaw in the "science" is met with accusations of being a "denier". Which I'm not sure why being a "denier" is supposed to be such a bad thing.
There are extremists on both sides, people who rabidly believe... well, what they believe, and will attack anyone who challenges this viewpoint. This mindset does not accurately describe most scientists*. If there is evidence it will be considered. If there are flaws in the science they will be looked at and corrected. This is one of the fundamentals of science.
Being a critical scientist is practically redundant, as all scientists should be critical. Confounding factors, sources of error, alternate explanations - all this is part and parcel of doing science. Denying evidence (without a very good reason - and even then this should be included in any explanatory notes when going public), cherry picking evidence to show something that's not true, fabricating evidence - all this is not science, and you'll note I started with "denying".
Being a critical thinker (scientist or otherwise) is good, being a denier is not.
I thought science was about taking in new evidence and using it to better our understanding of the universe. Instead we have "the science is settled" and then what? Are we supposed to stop looking at CO2 levels and temperatures now?
And to end quickly:
In a sense, partly, it is. I think, in this case context is everything - increasing concentrations of CO2 lead to increasing temperatures due to IR scattering, of this there is no doubt, none whatsoever, which basically means that question is settled. I'm not sure why you would even ask such a thing. Is this an example of the "Straw man fallacy"?
*It should be pointed out that most climate scientists have concluded, from the available evidence, that: global temperatures have been rising suprisingly rapidly of late (roughly the last 50 to 100 years) and the rate of increase itself is increasing. They have further concluded that the primary factor influ
making concrete plans with friends using specific times and dates, rather than just 'tonight', for example, can show that a person is conscientious and well-organized
I meet up with a group of friends at the same place, at the same time, pretty much every Monday evening. Sometimes one of the group cannot attend for a week or so due to work commitments, and, being extremely organised, when he's back in the country he'll often send a message asking if everyone is "OK for this Monday?". Unsurprisingly the most common response is along the lines of "Yup, see you this evening".
And somehow this makes us less organised than including totally redundant information?
...as can the use of lists.
This would be lists such as "10 favouritest films ever", or "My top 5 tunes"? Like I said, ridiculous!
It's why, despite it being illegal in the UK to rip your own CD into MP3's nobody has ever been or ever will be prosecuted for it.
That's actually a debatable point. Section 28a of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act states:
"Copyright of a... musical... work... is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable... b) a lawful use of the work; and which has no independent economic significance."
In other words, if you want to listen to a piece of music that you have legally purchased, on CD, on your phone you may make a temporary copy in order to do so. However, I should add, IANAL.
Strangely, while I was sure it was actually legal to make back-up copies of legally purchased musical works as well, after a brief glance through the Act I can only find this provision in relation to 'computer programs', though I was mildy amused by the section (50a) which states: "(3) Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to prohibit or restrict the act."
In other words a EULA cannot prohibit you making a copy of software, for the purposes of back-up.
I think, though I can't be absolutely sure of course, that he was signifying agreement, in principle, with the post he replied to, and the 'attacks' were directed at the thread parent.
The only purpose and intended effect of this construct is to achieve racial discrimination in who sees these properties for rent.
You are absolutely correct in this. The company responsible is breaking the law.
I really doubt whether a court would let either the advertiser or Facebook get away with such an obvious ploy.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is we (/.) see "Facebook" in an article and go all frothy mouthed; lawyers / courts see "Facebook" and dollar signs appear in their eyes. In this case however the infringing party is not Facebook, it's the advertiser, ProPublica.
While Facebook offers options to filter the target list for advertisements, including by race, there are good reasons for this. Imagine an advertising campaign for fake tanning lotion for example...
Can the system be abused? Clearly, but then again pretty much every single system in existence today can be abused. That doesn't make it Facebook's fault, or that they should be liable, legally (and punitively financially), for someone else abusing their system.
It's interesting to see Facebook doing this because it provides an extremely clear example of just how pervasive racial discrimination still is in the US.
I think it's pretty clear, just from watching the news, that racial discrimination is pervasive within many countries. It's also clear, with the perspective of age and a pretty good memory, that the situation is so much better than it was 20 years ago, let alone 40 years ago. That's not to say we should get complacent, but we should try to limit our reactions to be proportionate and, rather importantly, aimed at the right target. Again, it's not Facebook, per se, selecting the targets for those adverts it's the (company) people booking the advertising 'space' that are in violation.
Sure, Facebook can and should try to improve their systems, if only for their own protection if not for moral or ethical considerations, but other than that I'd rather we blame Facebook for the wrongs Facebook does, not for the wrongs that other people do via Facebook.
There is never anything to gain from talking to the police. Ever.
I have seen this video too, and frankly this attitude appalls me. It's essentially saying "I'll look after myself, and sod the rest of you!"
As an extreme example: let's say that your neighbour's house was burgled last night. As it happens you were woken by a noise, and saw two individuals loading a van with your neighbour's expensive electronics, and, being a smart cookie, you snapped pictures of the individuals on your mobile phone, and noted down the license plate of their van.
Question: No reason to talk to the police?
Let's slightly extend the example: Instead of your neighbour's house last night it has been your neighbours' houses over the last fortnight, but you still got the pictures and van license last night.
Question: Still no reason to talk to the police?
You can probably see where I'm going with these examples... (cue keyboard warriors enumerating how many firearms they keep at their bedside)
It is an unfortunate fact that behaviour breeds behaviour. If you do not trust the police, if you are antagonistic towards the police, if you are unhelpful in your interactions with the police, guess how they are more likely to behave towards you. Society is not a group of individuals all operating for their own, sole, benefit! The betterment of society requires cooperation between its members, and the remarkable thing is the more we help each other the more those we help are able to help others, those others also incidentally including ourselves, and so on. The moment we start being afraid of helping others, and this includes the police, is the moment we abrogate our 'responsibilty' in creating a better society. And that would be a shame!
3. It can not replace current Welfare systems and still requires those same programs.
This one just isn't true. The whole point of a basic income is that it would completely replace welfare, social security, food stamps, and disability in one fell swoop. Why would you keep those programs if a basic income provides them with similar amounts of money? And if it doesn't, how can it actually be considered a survivable basic income?
While I am in favour, in principle at least, of UBI the GP does raise a good point on the issue of disability benefits. Whilst UBI will cover the basic neccessities of living an individual's disability might impose additional requirements beyond those basics, which will have a financial cost. Without a disability allowance, one above and beyond UBI, some disabled people will not be able to survive.
However, the fact that there are some concerns with the 'edge cases', and some uncertainty and disagreement as to how they will be addressed, isn't an argument against the system as a whole.
I consider myself a fairly laid back person, liberal (in a more original sense than is perhaps used today), with a strong live and let live attitude towards life, and yet I can't bring myself to see eye to eye with some of the articles and the overall wording of that declaration.
While it is undoubtedly a 'good thing' (TM) I suspect you have to live with unicorns and smoke rainbows to fully jive with what it says...
I tend to agree that the 'real' money, or rather the 'real' profit, is made by capitalising on tiny fluctuations in the share price over periods of less than a second. Tiny amounts of profit, times lots and lots of transactions, on a continuous basis = huge profits.
However, it doesn't add liquidity in any meaningful fashion, and it doesn't provide any benefit to the corporation whose shares are being traded or to a wider society. It is, purely and simply, economic parasitism.
The simple solution is a miniscule transaction tax on every share, either purchased or sold (your pick, my preference would be those sold, with the exception of the share offerings made by the company selling its shares for the first time - resales / reissues, after share buy backs would incur the tax).
With this system, since the purchaser doesn't face increased costs there's no practical reason for any reduction in available liquidity, and it effectively destroys the system that allows the parasites to exist, by adding proportionally significant costs to their existance, while adding, proportionally, no significant increase in cost to long term share investors.
The only remaining question in my mind would be whether to make the tax a flat, albeit very small, rate, which would affect the sales of lower value stocks slightly more than higher value ones (if only because of investor perception based primarily on lifetime percentage growth figures), or a variable rate tax based on the price of the shares in question, which, while removing this perceptual disparity, would slightly limit the effectiveness and removing all the parasites from the system.
I'd be happy to leave wiser minds than mine that decision though... if only governments (or even the exchanges themselves) had the courage to implement the system in the first place.
It is precisely because of (most of) the reasons you give that raising gasoline prices is the optimal solution to the problem.
High fuel prices mean people drive less. Full Stop. Ergo pollution, of all kinds, drops. In addition higher fuel prices discourages urban sprawl, encouraging people to live closer to where they work, in cities, where they use less land, more efficiently, own less, which in turn requires less production, which once more means less pollution is created..
At the end of the day, the solution is not intended to enable us all to have and eat as much cake as we want, whenever we want, it is intended to limit our consumption to sustainable levels. This requires a(n uncomfortable) change in our lifestyles. Denying this delays the necessary adjustment(s), and, barring any future tech which automagically makes the problems go away, will inevitably exacerbate the eventual pain - albeit maybe shift that pain down a generation or two.
Understand I'm not trying to have a go at you personally, or in fact anyone in particular. The sad fact is that mass transit is not a viable option once you get outside city limits, both in terms of the financials or the pollution it creates. Unfortunately the 'American Dream' of life in suburbia, with a large house and yard, a dual car garage, all the mod cons is not, currently, a sustainable lifestyle. Switching to electric cars will not change that, as it does nothing to discourage the sprawl, with the infrastructural necessities that entails. Gains in efficiency will not change that, as they are swallowed by a chain of rebound effects - essentially the more you save from efficiency the more you can buy, so the more you (and everyone else in the supply chain) use.
I know this is an unpopular viewpoint. I suspect I will receive some scathing replies. Another sad fact is that that doesn't change the facts...
Every time a global warming advocate exclaims "Weather isn't Climate" a moron is born.
Whilst I appreciate, and agree with, your point that some climate change advocates are equally as guilty at conflating weather and climate as some deniers, I do not appreciate being likened to a moron for calling someone out on it.
Sorry, can you STFU with that line. We understand it far better than you all, who use every weather incident as an argument to your case.
No, I will continue to call people when they use fallacious reasoning. I'm not at all convinced you "understand it far better than us all", because if you did we wouldn't be having this argument. And, no, I do not use individual weather incidents as arguments for 'my' case. By all means disagree with my stance, debate the specifics of what I've written, but don't pretend I've said something then argue against your own imaginings as though it were me.
And the irony, is that I see this argument pitched repeatedly, when a skeptic or critic hasn't even made a claim about weather. You want a reason why people disbelieve, it's because of idiots like you who always retort "Weather isn't Climate"...
And the irony is, he did make claims about the weather, conflating it with climate. As for the reasons for 'their' disbelief, if it is really just because of a fit of pique then I pity them. I'm going to guess however that it's not quite that simple. 'They' are still mistaken in their beliefs, but it's hopefully an error that observation, education, and time (hopefully not too much of it) will correct.
but then ignore the fact that well gee....critics are blasted repeatedly everytime weather occurs. Too many hurricanes, too few hurricanes, too much snow, too little snow, too much rain, not enough rain, heck.....I even heard the lack of sunspots was do to global warming.
Like I said, there are people on both sides of the debate who use ridiculous arguments. It's a good thing to call them out for using them, and correct them on the specifics of what they said wrong and, if possible permanently correct their misapprehensions too, so they no longer continue to spout crap. Honestly, if someone said to me that "lack of sunspots was do (sic) to global warming" I'd have laughed so hard I'd have cried - and yes it would be very hard indeed not to ridicule any 'intellect' capable of coming up with such a notion.
At worst, Global Warming wipes out humanity, frankly, this would be a good thing for the planet.
How very mature of you! And, actually, at worst global warming will wipe out over 99% of all species currently living on this planet, including humanity, and permanently change the equilibrium point for planetary temperatures. In all likelihood (>99.99%) this won't happen in our lifetimes, or that of our children, or even our grandchildren, should we have any, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid concern. As much as I despair of some people, even though there are some people I actively do not like, wishing for the end of civilisation strikes me as a tad overkill...
Face it; climate science is *hard*. So difficult, in fact, that the weather forecasters still get it wrong.
I know I have replied to you before, saying much the same thing as I'm going to say again now. Maybe it will make no difference, but I can hope...
Climate is not the weather. Weather forecasting is not climate prediction.
Weather systems are inherently chaotic, never completely predictable, which is why weather forecasts can appear so horribly wrong. For example, if heavy rain is predicted at a certain populated coastal location but the weather system dumps its load 50 miles offshore it certainly appears as though the forecasters made a huge error, and people see and remember that mistake. The fact that the weather system had been building over a course of fifteen hundred miles, and, in a sense, the prediction was therefore only out by a matter of a few percent doesn't even register.
I have used the example of rolling dice previously. The weather is a single roll. Even if your die is somewhat skewed there is still a significant chance that any particular observed roll will differ from a prediction of that roll. The climate is the average of all those rolls (weather events), and any predictions made regarding it will be far more accurate in the sense of having a smaller difference between the observed value and the predicted value. In other words, even if you can't trust the weather forecast to any great degree, you can place a far greater degree of trust in climate forecasts.
Understanding the science is restricted to the few who have made it their lives to understand it, and of course who knows how biased they are. You'll never sell the general public that way.
No. You have to make the issues smaller and localized. Personable.
Understanding the science, the basic science, is easy, and in no way restricted to people who have devoted their lives to it - this is one of the beauties of education. The problem is misinformation and disinformation, and that on a massive scale. Well, actually that's not 'the' problem, but it's one of the larger ones, along with greed and apathy among other things.
Global Warming is the tragedy of the commons all over again, but this time writ on a planetary scale. This is not a problem that can be addressed locally, but it is a problem that needs addressing. And sooner (preferably some years ago, but ho hum...) rather than later because, specific 'threats' of doom aside, if we leave it much later it really will be too late if we want to maintain anything vaguely resembling our current standard of living.
This is a pretty insightful, yet very worrying, comment.
I recently finished The Conundrum by David Owen, and in it he gives the following figures (albeit quoted from someone else's paper, but, since I've returned the book to the library I'm afraid I no longer remember who the original study was by):
We, as in mankind in totality, currently consumes energy at a 'rate' of 16 trillion watts (16 terawatts).
Limiting atmospheric CO2 to 450 ppm will require freezing this energy consumption and converting all bar 20% of it to energy from carbon neutral sources. This conversion will require building (for example - we can dicker about what proportions of these various carbon neutral sources suit our preferences another time):
100 square meters of solar cells, 50 square meters of solar thermal reflectors, and one Olympic size swimming pool’s volume of g’engineered algae for biofuels every second for the next 25 years, and
1 three hundred foot diameter wind turbine every five minutes, and 1 one hundred megawatt geothermal powered steam turbine every eight hours, and 1 three gigawatt nuclear power plant every week, also all for the next 25 years.
The sheer scale of the problem boggles my mind! It is absolutely no wonder many people would prefer to bury their heads in the sand. But, it is precisely because of this scale that governments need to address the issue. Action on an individual level, however admirable it might be, is simply not sufficient, far from it - and, as you'll see if you read the book, might actually be exacerbating the problem.
On that note, while I can't say I agree with everything he says within the book it is a very very good and thought provoking read, and I'd really recommend it for anyone who's not prone to fits of despair / nihilism.
Let's take a relatively smart, but also relatively ignorant, common man whose router, pvr, smart tv, etc have been compromised.
And if one or some of one's devices are partly responsible for this:
How would he know?
What steps can he take to find out if he's part of the problem?
And, perhaps as importantly, if he finds out he is, what can he do* to fix the problem and prevent it happening again?
There's no prize for good advice, but a detailed and thorough answer would be of use I'm sure:-).
*Yep, I can think of a few things: reset / re-flash / update; use a border firewall;... but, if your devices have been 'pwned' before, if they're inherently vulnerable, what then?
There are probably a dozen credit rating 'models', and, while FICO is considered one of the more popular, some of them go up to 990 or so, including ones advertised on tv in the UK, so it's quite possible gp does have a score of 875.
The obvious answer to this would be children. Not every time, sure, most of the time all they end up with is something equally as complex as themselves, but, given that life seems to have evolved into some very complex forms from some very simple ones, I'm somewhat puzzled by your obtuseness.
In a different vein, as to whether a computer or a computer network, or a city is currently more or less complex than an individual person is debatable but, given enough time, it's a debate that's only going to have one conclusion.
Sault's law says a thing cannot make an artifact as complex as itself.
I've never heard of this law, but in a sense it sounds legitimate. It misses one rather significant point though...
I am not alone. Two people working together can achieve more than two people working alone, and, moreover, by working together they can achieve things that are simply not possible by two people working alone. And this scales, i.e. three people working together can achieve more that two people, and so on. The same applies to the machines that we make - in essence it only takes two machines working together to be able to make a machine more complex than either one of the originals.
it is unlikely any civilization would get even close to simulating the universe it lives in.
Without any supporting arguments this is a very 'interesting' position to hold. Respectfully, I disagree. I rather suspect that once a civilisation reaches a certain level of technical expertise it is an almost forgone conclusion that they will get around to, and reasonably close to*, simulating the universe.
*For certain values of reasonably and dependent upon the starting conditions the simulator chooses to input.
Very few people know, but some years back I actually used to be a professional snail racer. I was very successful too, as my primary racing snail, Guinness, was so fast, by snail standards anyway, that for years he was unbeatable.
Unfortunately, like for all of us, age started catching up with him and he started slowing down. Not much at first, but, race after race, it became more and more noticeable. I must admit watching him get slower and slower was a thoroughly depressing experience and I tried everything to get him back on form: the finest fresh pea plants to munch on, fetching female snails waiting for him on the finish line, longer rest periods between races - but nothing seemed to work.
I had practically resigned myself to his eventual defeat when the idea hit me. It was obvious really. Look at any snail, what's the first thing you see? A huge great big heavy shell. Surely removing that burden would enable him to go so much quicker, quicker even than before, when he was in his prime. What could possibly go wrong? So, with all the delicacy and precision I could manage I took a surgical scalpel and carefully removed his shell.
Alas, once I'd done that, if anything, he just looked more sluggish...
Again, look at the link and see that offshore wind is behind onshore wind and PVs. It only beats biogas in terms of costs. All other "green" energy sources (other than biogas) have a lower LCOE. So why push nearly the most expensive option?
Cost, as in the price of installed capacity, is not the only factor when considering how to generate the power we use. There are social, political, geographical, and other, factors that influence the decision.
Some reasons why we might, specifically, choose to install offshore rather than onshore wind:
1. There are no prime (reliable wind speed > 7 kph) onshore locations available for development.
2. Diversity in location leads to diversity in supply, leading to a more consistent generation of power.
3. "Riskier" technology investments give higher ROI.
This is barely scratching the surface. There are plenty of possible reasons, some of which apply generally, some of which might or might not apply depending on the specifics of the planned investment / project.
With regards to the LCOE of Biogas, as given in the report you indirectly linked to, it's worth pointing out that the report itself specifically states that those plants (well, the subset it considered anyway) all function as CHP plants, but since the report was about the cost of electricity generation the 'heat' part was simply ignored. Cost is a slippery concept when we can ignore whatever externalities we like in arriving at the final figures (and this applies just as much to the cost of the coal plants in the study).
Slashdot Mirror
For that matter, I'd be really happy to see Spider Robinson's Callahan novels...
Damn, there was more than one? I came across a copy of Callahan's Crazy Cross Time Bar once, long ago, and it made me laugh / groan so hard. An entire novel written purely to set up the pun at the end. Genius!
On the basis that you're right I nominate Piers Anthony's Adept series. I don't think he's a great author or anything but I remember thinking that would translate pretty well.
I remember thinking the same about the Bio of a Space Tyrant series. It's a long long time since I read them but plenty of sex, plenty of violence, and plenty of both together iirc.
I do recall that at about this same time (again +/- 2 years) we were discussing the "pause" in global warming that has at that point gone on for about a decade. Since this pause has continued for now nearly two decades there must come a time when we stop calling this global warming, no?
*Sigh*
I'm not going to try to persuade you that there has been no pause in global temperature rises, but there are certainly reasons why, for an individual, they might be experiencing what appears to be the opposite. One of these is the weakening of the circumpolar current which allows colder arctic air to travel further south. If you live just south of this 'boundary' local temperatures, especially during the winter months, will be colder than in previous years.
However one of the mains reasons the current is weakening is because of local warming effects within the arctic, so the question becomes one of: Is the global average - taking the rise in temperatures in the arctic, the drop in temperatures at slightly lower latitudes, and any change in temperatures in the rest of the world (using similarly appropriate local scales) - rising, falling, or remaining the same?
Hmm, ok, that might have been an indirect attempt at persuasion...
Anyway, back to the point, you finished with a question. Partly due to local variances, such as the one described above, in global temperature trends an alternative phrase, Climate Change, was suggested to replace Global Warming. You may have seen it in such acronyms as the IPCC. For some reason, even given reasonable explanations, those people who have come to be termed denialists were not mollified.
I do have to wonder about the mentality of these AGW "scientists". For people that claim to be all about science they seem very hostile to people that provide evidence that may disprove the AGW theory. ... Instead I see anyone that sees a flaw in the "science" is met with accusations of being a "denier". Which I'm not sure why being a "denier" is supposed to be such a bad thing.
There are extremists on both sides, people who rabidly believe ... well, what they believe, and will attack anyone who challenges this viewpoint. This mindset does not accurately describe most scientists*. If there is evidence it will be considered. If there are flaws in the science they will be looked at and corrected. This is one of the fundamentals of science.
Being a critical scientist is practically redundant, as all scientists should be critical. Confounding factors, sources of error, alternate explanations - all this is part and parcel of doing science. Denying evidence (without a very good reason - and even then this should be included in any explanatory notes when going public), cherry picking evidence to show something that's not true, fabricating evidence - all this is not science, and you'll note I started with "denying".
Being a critical thinker (scientist or otherwise) is good, being a denier is not.
I thought science was about taking in new evidence and using it to better our understanding of the universe. Instead we have "the science is settled" and then what? Are we supposed to stop looking at CO2 levels and temperatures now?
And to end quickly:
In a sense, partly, it is. I think, in this case context is everything - increasing concentrations of CO2 lead to increasing temperatures due to IR scattering, of this there is no doubt, none whatsoever, which basically means that question is settled. I'm not sure why you would even ask such a thing. Is this an example of the "Straw man fallacy"?
*It should be pointed out that most climate scientists have concluded, from the available evidence, that: global temperatures have been rising suprisingly rapidly of late (roughly the last 50 to 100 years) and the rate of increase itself is increasing. They have further concluded that the primary factor influ
The entire concept strikes me as ridiculous!
making concrete plans with friends using specific times and dates, rather than just 'tonight', for example, can show that a person is conscientious and well-organized
I meet up with a group of friends at the same place, at the same time, pretty much every Monday evening. Sometimes one of the group cannot attend for a week or so due to work commitments, and, being extremely organised, when he's back in the country he'll often send a message asking if everyone is "OK for this Monday?". Unsurprisingly the most common response is along the lines of "Yup, see you this evening".
And somehow this makes us less organised than including totally redundant information?
...as can the use of lists.
This would be lists such as "10 favouritest films ever", or "My top 5 tunes"? Like I said, ridiculous!
It's why, despite it being illegal in the UK to rip your own CD into MP3's nobody has ever been or ever will be prosecuted for it.
That's actually a debatable point. Section 28a of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act states:
"Copyright of a ... musical ... work ... is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable ... b) a lawful use of the work; and which has no independent economic significance."
In other words, if you want to listen to a piece of music that you have legally purchased, on CD, on your phone you may make a temporary copy in order to do so. However, I should add, IANAL.
Strangely, while I was sure it was actually legal to make back-up copies of legally purchased musical works as well, after a brief glance through the Act I can only find this provision in relation to 'computer programs', though I was mildy amused by the section (50a) which states: "(3) Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to prohibit or restrict the act."
In other words a EULA cannot prohibit you making a copy of software, for the purposes of back-up.
I think, though I can't be absolutely sure of course, that he was signifying agreement, in principle, with the post he replied to, and the 'attacks' were directed at the thread parent.
The only purpose and intended effect of this construct is to achieve racial discrimination in who sees these properties for rent.
You are absolutely correct in this. The company responsible is breaking the law.
I really doubt whether a court would let either the advertiser or Facebook get away with such an obvious ploy.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is we (/.) see "Facebook" in an article and go all frothy mouthed; lawyers / courts see "Facebook" and dollar signs appear in their eyes. In this case however the infringing party is not Facebook, it's the advertiser, ProPublica.
While Facebook offers options to filter the target list for advertisements, including by race, there are good reasons for this. Imagine an advertising campaign for fake tanning lotion for example...
Can the system be abused? Clearly, but then again pretty much every single system in existence today can be abused. That doesn't make it Facebook's fault, or that they should be liable, legally (and punitively financially), for someone else abusing their system.
It's interesting to see Facebook doing this because it provides an extremely clear example of just how pervasive racial discrimination still is in the US.
I think it's pretty clear, just from watching the news, that racial discrimination is pervasive within many countries. It's also clear, with the perspective of age and a pretty good memory, that the situation is so much better than it was 20 years ago, let alone 40 years ago. That's not to say we should get complacent, but we should try to limit our reactions to be proportionate and, rather importantly, aimed at the right target. Again, it's not Facebook, per se, selecting the targets for those adverts it's the (company) people booking the advertising 'space' that are in violation.
Sure, Facebook can and should try to improve their systems, if only for their own protection if not for moral or ethical considerations, but other than that I'd rather we blame Facebook for the wrongs Facebook does, not for the wrongs that other people do via Facebook.
There is never anything to gain from talking to the police. Ever.
I have seen this video too, and frankly this attitude appalls me. It's essentially saying "I'll look after myself, and sod the rest of you!"
As an extreme example: let's say that your neighbour's house was burgled last night. As it happens you were woken by a noise, and saw two individuals loading a van with your neighbour's expensive electronics, and, being a smart cookie, you snapped pictures of the individuals on your mobile phone, and noted down the license plate of their van.
Question: No reason to talk to the police?
Let's slightly extend the example: Instead of your neighbour's house last night it has been your neighbours' houses over the last fortnight, but you still got the pictures and van license last night.
Question: Still no reason to talk to the police?
You can probably see where I'm going with these examples... (cue keyboard warriors enumerating how many firearms they keep at their bedside)
It is an unfortunate fact that behaviour breeds behaviour. If you do not trust the police, if you are antagonistic towards the police, if you are unhelpful in your interactions with the police, guess how they are more likely to behave towards you. Society is not a group of individuals all operating for their own, sole, benefit! The betterment of society requires cooperation between its members, and the remarkable thing is the more we help each other the more those we help are able to help others, those others also incidentally including ourselves, and so on. The moment we start being afraid of helping others, and this includes the police, is the moment we abrogate our 'responsibilty' in creating a better society. And that would be a shame!
Assuming he had that ability.
And I'm Ron Burgundy. Go fuck yourself, San Diego!
This one just isn't true. The whole point of a basic income is that it would completely replace welfare, social security, food stamps, and disability in one fell swoop. Why would you keep those programs if a basic income provides them with similar amounts of money? And if it doesn't, how can it actually be considered a survivable basic income?
While I am in favour, in principle at least, of UBI the GP does raise a good point on the issue of disability benefits. Whilst UBI will cover the basic neccessities of living an individual's disability might impose additional requirements beyond those basics, which will have a financial cost. Without a disability allowance, one above and beyond UBI, some disabled people will not be able to survive.
However, the fact that there are some concerns with the 'edge cases', and some uncertainty and disagreement as to how they will be addressed, isn't an argument against the system as a whole.
Have you read that document in its entirety?
I consider myself a fairly laid back person, liberal (in a more original sense than is perhaps used today), with a strong live and let live attitude towards life, and yet I can't bring myself to see eye to eye with some of the articles and the overall wording of that declaration.
While it is undoubtedly a 'good thing' (TM) I suspect you have to live with unicorns and smoke rainbows to fully jive with what it says...
I tend to agree that the 'real' money, or rather the 'real' profit, is made by capitalising on tiny fluctuations in the share price over periods of less than a second. Tiny amounts of profit, times lots and lots of transactions, on a continuous basis = huge profits.
However, it doesn't add liquidity in any meaningful fashion, and it doesn't provide any benefit to the corporation whose shares are being traded or to a wider society. It is, purely and simply, economic parasitism.
The simple solution is a miniscule transaction tax on every share, either purchased or sold (your pick, my preference would be those sold, with the exception of the share offerings made by the company selling its shares for the first time - resales / reissues, after share buy backs would incur the tax).
With this system, since the purchaser doesn't face increased costs there's no practical reason for any reduction in available liquidity, and it effectively destroys the system that allows the parasites to exist, by adding proportionally significant costs to their existance, while adding, proportionally, no significant increase in cost to long term share investors.
The only remaining question in my mind would be whether to make the tax a flat, albeit very small, rate, which would affect the sales of lower value stocks slightly more than higher value ones (if only because of investor perception based primarily on lifetime percentage growth figures), or a variable rate tax based on the price of the shares in question, which, while removing this perceptual disparity, would slightly limit the effectiveness and removing all the parasites from the system.
I'd be happy to leave wiser minds than mine that decision though... if only governments (or even the exchanges themselves) had the courage to implement the system in the first place.
How about a nice game of chess?
It is precisely because of (most of) the reasons you give that raising gasoline prices is the optimal solution to the problem.
High fuel prices mean people drive less. Full Stop. Ergo pollution, of all kinds, drops. In addition higher fuel prices discourages urban sprawl, encouraging people to live closer to where they work, in cities, where they use less land, more efficiently, own less, which in turn requires less production, which once more means less pollution is created..
At the end of the day, the solution is not intended to enable us all to have and eat as much cake as we want, whenever we want, it is intended to limit our consumption to sustainable levels. This requires a(n uncomfortable) change in our lifestyles. Denying this delays the necessary adjustment(s), and, barring any future tech which automagically makes the problems go away, will inevitably exacerbate the eventual pain - albeit maybe shift that pain down a generation or two.
Understand I'm not trying to have a go at you personally, or in fact anyone in particular. The sad fact is that mass transit is not a viable option once you get outside city limits, both in terms of the financials or the pollution it creates. Unfortunately the 'American Dream' of life in suburbia, with a large house and yard, a dual car garage, all the mod cons is not, currently, a sustainable lifestyle. Switching to electric cars will not change that, as it does nothing to discourage the sprawl, with the infrastructural necessities that entails. Gains in efficiency will not change that, as they are swallowed by a chain of rebound effects - essentially the more you save from efficiency the more you can buy, so the more you (and everyone else in the supply chain) use.
I know this is an unpopular viewpoint. I suspect I will receive some scathing replies. Another sad fact is that that doesn't change the facts...
Add me to that list as well.
Just started reading The Dark Forest too, as it happens.
Both very enjoyable, and I think the 3rd one is out at the end of this year sometime.
Every time a global warming advocate exclaims "Weather isn't Climate" a moron is born.
Whilst I appreciate, and agree with, your point that some climate change advocates are equally as guilty at conflating weather and climate as some deniers, I do not appreciate being likened to a moron for calling someone out on it.
Sorry, can you STFU with that line. We understand it far better than you all, who use every weather incident as an argument to your case.
No, I will continue to call people when they use fallacious reasoning. I'm not at all convinced you "understand it far better than us all", because if you did we wouldn't be having this argument. And, no, I do not use individual weather incidents as arguments for 'my' case. By all means disagree with my stance, debate the specifics of what I've written, but don't pretend I've said something then argue against your own imaginings as though it were me.
And the irony, is that I see this argument pitched repeatedly, when a skeptic or critic hasn't even made a claim about weather. You want a reason why people disbelieve, it's because of idiots like you who always retort "Weather isn't Climate" ...
And the irony is, he did make claims about the weather, conflating it with climate. As for the reasons for 'their' disbelief, if it is really just because of a fit of pique then I pity them. I'm going to guess however that it's not quite that simple. 'They' are still mistaken in their beliefs, but it's hopefully an error that observation, education, and time (hopefully not too much of it) will correct.
but then ignore the fact that well gee....critics are blasted repeatedly everytime weather occurs. Too many hurricanes, too few hurricanes, too much snow, too little snow, too much rain, not enough rain, heck.....I even heard the lack of sunspots was do to global warming.
Like I said, there are people on both sides of the debate who use ridiculous arguments. It's a good thing to call them out for using them, and correct them on the specifics of what they said wrong and, if possible permanently correct their misapprehensions too, so they no longer continue to spout crap. Honestly, if someone said to me that "lack of sunspots was do (sic) to global warming" I'd have laughed so hard I'd have cried - and yes it would be very hard indeed not to ridicule any 'intellect' capable of coming up with such a notion.
At worst, Global Warming wipes out humanity, frankly, this would be a good thing for the planet.
How very mature of you! And, actually, at worst global warming will wipe out over 99% of all species currently living on this planet, including humanity, and permanently change the equilibrium point for planetary temperatures. In all likelihood (>99.99%) this won't happen in our lifetimes, or that of our children, or even our grandchildren, should we have any, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid concern. As much as I despair of some people, even though there are some people I actively do not like, wishing for the end of civilisation strikes me as a tad overkill...
Face it; climate science is *hard*. So difficult, in fact, that the weather forecasters still get it wrong.
I know I have replied to you before, saying much the same thing as I'm going to say again now. Maybe it will make no difference, but I can hope...
Climate is not the weather. Weather forecasting is not climate prediction.
Weather systems are inherently chaotic, never completely predictable, which is why weather forecasts can appear so horribly wrong. For example, if heavy rain is predicted at a certain populated coastal location but the weather system dumps its load 50 miles offshore it certainly appears as though the forecasters made a huge error, and people see and remember that mistake. The fact that the weather system had been building over a course of fifteen hundred miles, and, in a sense, the prediction was therefore only out by a matter of a few percent doesn't even register.
I have used the example of rolling dice previously. The weather is a single roll. Even if your die is somewhat skewed there is still a significant chance that any particular observed roll will differ from a prediction of that roll. The climate is the average of all those rolls (weather events), and any predictions made regarding it will be far more accurate in the sense of having a smaller difference between the observed value and the predicted value. In other words, even if you can't trust the weather forecast to any great degree, you can place a far greater degree of trust in climate forecasts.
Understanding the science is restricted to the few who have made it their lives to understand it, and of course who knows how biased they are. You'll never sell the general public that way.
No. You have to make the issues smaller and localized. Personable.
Understanding the science, the basic science, is easy, and in no way restricted to people who have devoted their lives to it - this is one of the beauties of education. The problem is misinformation and disinformation, and that on a massive scale. Well, actually that's not 'the' problem, but it's one of the larger ones, along with greed and apathy among other things.
Global Warming is the tragedy of the commons all over again, but this time writ on a planetary scale. This is not a problem that can be addressed locally, but it is a problem that needs addressing. And sooner (preferably some years ago, but ho hum...) rather than later because, specific 'threats' of doom aside, if we leave it much later it really will be too late if we want to maintain anything vaguely resembling our current standard of living.
This is a pretty insightful, yet very worrying, comment.
I recently finished The Conundrum by David Owen, and in it he gives the following figures (albeit quoted from someone else's paper, but, since I've returned the book to the library I'm afraid I no longer remember who the original study was by):
We, as in mankind in totality, currently consumes energy at a 'rate' of 16 trillion watts (16 terawatts).
Limiting atmospheric CO2 to 450 ppm will require freezing this energy consumption and converting all bar 20% of it to energy from carbon neutral sources. This conversion will require building (for example - we can dicker about what proportions of these various carbon neutral sources suit our preferences another time):
100 square meters of solar cells, 50 square meters of solar thermal reflectors, and one Olympic size swimming pool’s volume of g’engineered algae for biofuels every second for the next 25 years, and
1 three hundred foot diameter wind turbine every five minutes, and 1 one hundred megawatt geothermal powered steam turbine every eight hours, and 1 three gigawatt nuclear power plant every week, also all for the next 25 years.
The sheer scale of the problem boggles my mind! It is absolutely no wonder many people would prefer to bury their heads in the sand. But, it is precisely because of this scale that governments need to address the issue. Action on an individual level, however admirable it might be, is simply not sufficient, far from it - and, as you'll see if you read the book, might actually be exacerbating the problem.
On that note, while I can't say I agree with everything he says within the book it is a very very good and thought provoking read, and I'd really recommend it for anyone who's not prone to fits of despair / nihilism.
Let's take a relatively smart, but also relatively ignorant, common man whose router, pvr, smart tv, etc have been compromised.
And if one or some of one's devices are partly responsible for this:
How would he know?
What steps can he take to find out if he's part of the problem?
And, perhaps as importantly, if he finds out he is, what can he do* to fix the problem and prevent it happening again?
There's no prize for good advice, but a detailed and thorough answer would be of use I'm sure :-).
*Yep, I can think of a few things: reset / re-flash / update; use a border firewall; ... but, if your devices have been 'pwned' before, if they're inherently vulnerable, what then?
There are probably a dozen credit rating 'models', and, while FICO is considered one of the more popular, some of them go up to 990 or so, including ones advertised on tv in the UK, so it's quite possible gp does have a score of 875.
The obvious answer to this would be children. Not every time, sure, most of the time all they end up with is something equally as complex as themselves, but, given that life seems to have evolved into some very complex forms from some very simple ones, I'm somewhat puzzled by your obtuseness.
In a different vein, as to whether a computer or a computer network, or a city is currently more or less complex than an individual person is debatable but, given enough time, it's a debate that's only going to have one conclusion.
Sault's law says a thing cannot make an artifact as complex as itself.
I've never heard of this law, but in a sense it sounds legitimate. It misses one rather significant point though...
I am not alone. Two people working together can achieve more than two people working alone, and, moreover, by working together they can achieve things that are simply not possible by two people working alone. And this scales, i.e. three people working together can achieve more that two people, and so on. The same applies to the machines that we make - in essence it only takes two machines working together to be able to make a machine more complex than either one of the originals.
it is unlikely any civilization would get even close to simulating the universe it lives in.
Without any supporting arguments this is a very 'interesting' position to hold. Respectfully, I disagree. I rather suspect that once a civilisation reaches a certain level of technical expertise it is an almost forgone conclusion that they will get around to, and reasonably close to*, simulating the universe.
*For certain values of reasonably and dependent upon the starting conditions the simulator chooses to input.
Joan made sure to thank Susan for all the help she had received. Who had received help?
Sorry, your answer is incorrect. The correct answer is Susan.
You're being facetious, right?
Very few people know, but some years back I actually used to be a professional snail racer. I was very successful too, as my primary racing snail, Guinness, was so fast, by snail standards anyway, that for years he was unbeatable.
Unfortunately, like for all of us, age started catching up with him and he started slowing down. Not much at first, but, race after race, it became more and more noticeable. I must admit watching him get slower and slower was a thoroughly depressing experience and I tried everything to get him back on form: the finest fresh pea plants to munch on, fetching female snails waiting for him on the finish line, longer rest periods between races - but nothing seemed to work.
I had practically resigned myself to his eventual defeat when the idea hit me. It was obvious really. Look at any snail, what's the first thing you see? A huge great big heavy shell. Surely removing that burden would enable him to go so much quicker, quicker even than before, when he was in his prime. What could possibly go wrong? So, with all the delicacy and precision I could manage I took a surgical scalpel and carefully removed his shell.
Alas, once I'd done that, if anything, he just looked more sluggish...
Again, look at the link and see that offshore wind is behind onshore wind and PVs. It only beats biogas in terms of costs. All other "green" energy sources (other than biogas) have a lower LCOE. So why push nearly the most expensive option?
Cost, as in the price of installed capacity, is not the only factor when considering how to generate the power we use. There are social, political, geographical, and other, factors that influence the decision.
Some reasons why we might, specifically, choose to install offshore rather than onshore wind:
1. There are no prime (reliable wind speed > 7 kph) onshore locations available for development.
2. Diversity in location leads to diversity in supply, leading to a more consistent generation of power.
3. "Riskier" technology investments give higher ROI.
This is barely scratching the surface. There are plenty of possible reasons, some of which apply generally, some of which might or might not apply depending on the specifics of the planned investment / project.
With regards to the LCOE of Biogas, as given in the report you indirectly linked to, it's worth pointing out that the report itself specifically states that those plants (well, the subset it considered anyway) all function as CHP plants, but since the report was about the cost of electricity generation the 'heat' part was simply ignored. Cost is a slippery concept when we can ignore whatever externalities we like in arriving at the final figures (and this applies just as much to the cost of the coal plants in the study).