The Climate Change Act covers the period up to 2050, so 30% assumes we'll need that much by then. That's 85,000 more than we've got at the moment. And they're large turbines. The turbines are usually given something like a 25% "capacity factor". But their actual efficiency is far lower than that so we'd probably need a lot more.
With respect to the amount of space you'd need, I have no idea what you're on about. The London Array, which has around 175 turbines, is spread out over an area of 90 sq km.
Not just the turbines, also their constant maintenance/replacement and connection to the grid, not to mention the fact that you've covered over an area the size of Scotland to do it. In case you don't know, that's almost a 3rd of the area of the entire country.
Do you realise that in the UK at least, in order to full implement the unbelievably stupid "Climate Change Act" (cost £1,1000,000,000 approximately), we will have to build around 85,000 new wind turbines, covering an area the size of Scotland?
The economics of wind turbines don't make any sense.
I think I can distil your paragraph here down to a simple 21 characters: "The Black Swan effect". The basic idea is that the probability might be slim on any given day, but given enough time it's almost guaranteed to happen, so it's better to plan for that eventuality.
I see your point and I suspect the complexities of internet security, like those of bike locks for the uninitiated, are somewhat perplexing. People need to realise that putting pictures onto the internet is more like sending a postcard than a wax sealed envelope. Of course cloud and social media companies definitely don't want their customers to realise this too soon.
That's quite a closed-minded way to go about understanding someone else's point of view isn't it. The analogy I've used before is the criminal is guilty of committing a crime, but even so probably shouldn't have left your entire life savings on the coffee table of your ground floor flat with the windows wide open, whilst you went out to the shops to buy a spicy vegetable and quinoa laksa.
I don't think that's his point. It's more to do with the stabbing and murdering of people who criticise Islam, like Theo van Gogh. It's the fact that a female critic of Islam, Ayann Hirst Ali, was "no great loss because her opinions were polarizing" which is European liberal speak for don't criticise other Muslims. Indeed, it's a kind-of psychosis in Europe and elsewhere, such that authorities in the UK regularly and as policy let Muslim men molest and abuse thousands of children in cities like Rotherham because they feared criticising the culture the abusers came from (almost all Muslim) more than they cared for the welfare of these British (almost exclusively white) children.
I ask you, in what respect is liberalism not disappearing up its own behind on this and many other issues? It's a disgrace.
Ah, there we go. You're a bigot. Rather than change your mind when you encounter new evidence, you dismiss the evidence. Can't take you seriously any more. Sorry.
Regardless of what anyone else does, the gaters are assholes
Did you listen to those totally sexist women discussing the issue? No you didn't. Come back when you've educated yourself. You don't have to apologise for getting it wrong but some acknowledgement that perhaps you've misunderstood what it's all about would be the gentlemanly thing to do. Or if you're a woman, the womanly thing to do.
It depends what you define as "social justice". For me it means not discriminating against someone because they're a different race, sex or have a disability. For the SJW crowd it's about the need to discriminate against me because I'm too white and too male.
A good amount of their audience do not want people to know who they are so they can basically be bullies on the internet.
Wrong. The reason I don't want people to know who I am is because one of my goals in life is to avoid the judgements of others. That is to judge me rather than some online persona I may choose to have. We escape here where we can be ourselves. In the real world we can't necessarily. But that does not imply we're trolls, engaging in trolling, doxxing, or any other kind of sociopathy.
Why did it start with that? Why were all gamers painted as sociopaths, nutters, trolls, sexists, racists, homophobic by subsequent gaming journalist coverage?
I have no idea. Perhaps you can tell us. It seems to me that whatever it was when it started, it's no longer that.
I'm afraid you are no longer allowed to wield the armies of Sauron because social justice warriors at Gamasutra have decreed they're too male, too violent and subconsciously promote the Patriarchy by excluding transgender Orcs. Check your privilege before disagreeing with them.
It's a bit more subtle than sharing data. It's about sharing cache lines, which can happen if your data isn't aligned properly across multiple threads, regardless of whether it's shared or not.
Number of threads less important than how you manage the cache. And you have to manage the cache, avoiding false sharing, in order to get near 6-7 x performance with 8 threads than you would have got with 1. If you don't take care of your cache, you'll run 8 threads and it'll be 1.5 x faster and you'll wonder why. I suspect something like this is going on.
It's very difficult with complex algorithms or structures of course. Relatively easy with parallel primitives if your tasks are simple.
Eric Schmidt is fine with Chinese spying, Russian spying, Iranian spying, British spying, German spying and Indian spying but US spying is beyond the pale!
'Frightening' projection for Arctic melt
The Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summer as soon as 2010 or 2015 - something that hasn't happened for more than a million years, according to a leading polar researcher.
I'm watching the pea under the thimble here. You start with an ad hominem (accusations of lying). Then you move on to the much sounder argument from authority (he's not a scientist, though presumably you know you don't have to be a scientist to take a data set and plot graphs with it). You then go on to argue that it doesn't matter anyway because it's a land based sensor in the US (who knew?) and that the difference is less than 0.02%. Well that's not the point is it. The point is to make the trend look "better". Nobody cares about the actual temperature do they.
So.. once again: nothing you have stated is valid.
Everything I stated is valid. The goal here is to make everything look much worse than it actually is. Land, sea, air, space, your mum's knickers. It doesn't matter what it is as long as it looks worse. And no stone will be left unturned in the effort to make it look worse, including waving magic wands over the past, as Michael Mann did with his paleoclimate proxy reconstructions.
Well this is a standard tactic used in surface temperature measurement. Make the past look colder to make the warming look greater. It's been done with numerous surface stations, where inexplicable "adjustments" have been made to past data.
Slashdot Mirror
The Climate Change Act covers the period up to 2050, so 30% assumes we'll need that much by then. That's 85,000 more than we've got at the moment. And they're large turbines. The turbines are usually given something like a 25% "capacity factor". But their actual efficiency is far lower than that so we'd probably need a lot more.
With respect to the amount of space you'd need, I have no idea what you're on about. The London Array, which has around 175 turbines, is spread out over an area of 90 sq km.
Not just the turbines, also their constant maintenance/replacement and connection to the grid, not to mention the fact that you've covered over an area the size of Scotland to do it. In case you don't know, that's almost a 3rd of the area of the entire country.
Do you realise that in the UK at least, in order to full implement the unbelievably stupid "Climate Change Act" (cost £1,1000,000,000 approximately), we will have to build around 85,000 new wind turbines, covering an area the size of Scotland?
The economics of wind turbines don't make any sense.
I think I can distil your paragraph here down to a simple 21 characters: "The Black Swan effect". The basic idea is that the probability might be slim on any given day, but given enough time it's almost guaranteed to happen, so it's better to plan for that eventuality.
I see your point and I suspect the complexities of internet security, like those of bike locks for the uninitiated, are somewhat perplexing. People need to realise that putting pictures onto the internet is more like sending a postcard than a wax sealed envelope. Of course cloud and social media companies definitely don't want their customers to realise this too soon.
That's quite a closed-minded way to go about understanding someone else's point of view isn't it. The analogy I've used before is the criminal is guilty of committing a crime, but even so probably shouldn't have left your entire life savings on the coffee table of your ground floor flat with the windows wide open, whilst you went out to the shops to buy a spicy vegetable and quinoa laksa.
105 characters. Yes, it does fit in a tweet.
I don't think that's his point. It's more to do with the stabbing and murdering of people who criticise Islam, like Theo van Gogh. It's the fact that a female critic of Islam, Ayann Hirst Ali, was "no great loss because her opinions were polarizing" which is European liberal speak for don't criticise other Muslims. Indeed, it's a kind-of psychosis in Europe and elsewhere, such that authorities in the UK regularly and as policy let Muslim men molest and abuse thousands of children in cities like Rotherham because they feared criticising the culture the abusers came from (almost all Muslim) more than they cared for the welfare of these British (almost exclusively white) children.
I ask you, in what respect is liberalism not disappearing up its own behind on this and many other issues? It's a disgrace.
Ah, there we go. You're a bigot. Rather than change your mind when you encounter new evidence, you dismiss the evidence. Can't take you seriously any more. Sorry.
From the grave?
Did you listen to those totally sexist women discussing the issue? No you didn't. Come back when you've educated yourself. You don't have to apologise for getting it wrong but some acknowledgement that perhaps you've misunderstood what it's all about would be the gentlemanly thing to do. Or if you're a woman, the womanly thing to do.
In case you have hearing difficulties there are written articles that are just as good available for you to read. I don't think I can possibly do any more to help your understanding of the issues than I have.
It depends what you define as "social justice". For me it means not discriminating against someone because they're a different race, sex or have a disability. For the SJW crowd it's about the need to discriminate against me because I'm too white and too male.
Here's a group of totally sexist women gamers discussing it. As you can hear, they're totally poisonous.
Do get a grip of yourself.
Wrong. The reason I don't want people to know who I am is because one of my goals in life is to avoid the judgements of others. That is to judge me rather than some online persona I may choose to have. We escape here where we can be ourselves. In the real world we can't necessarily. But that does not imply we're trolls, engaging in trolling, doxxing, or any other kind of sociopathy.
Why did it start with that? Why were all gamers painted as sociopaths, nutters, trolls, sexists, racists, homophobic by subsequent gaming journalist coverage?
I have no idea. Perhaps you can tell us. It seems to me that whatever it was when it started, it's no longer that.
I'm afraid you are no longer allowed to wield the armies of Sauron because social justice warriors at Gamasutra have decreed they're too male, too violent and subconsciously promote the Patriarchy by excluding transgender Orcs. Check your privilege before disagreeing with them.
Blame Adam Baldwin.
Spot On.
It's about corruption in gaming journalism and game journalists constantly slagging off their own readers.
Oh do fuck off. Gamergate isn't "predominantly male".
It's a bit more subtle than sharing data. It's about sharing cache lines, which can happen if your data isn't aligned properly across multiple threads, regardless of whether it's shared or not.
Number of threads less important than how you manage the cache. And you have to manage the cache, avoiding false sharing, in order to get near 6-7 x performance with 8 threads than you would have got with 1. If you don't take care of your cache, you'll run 8 threads and it'll be 1.5 x faster and you'll wonder why. I suspect something like this is going on.
It's very difficult with complex algorithms or structures of course. Relatively easy with parallel primitives if your tasks are simple.
Eric Schmidt is fine with Chinese spying, Russian spying, Iranian spying, British spying, German spying and Indian spying but US spying is beyond the pale!
Yes, it's true! A top expert says the Arctic could be ice free by 2010!
Everything I stated is valid. The goal here is to make everything look much worse than it actually is. Land, sea, air, space, your mum's knickers. It doesn't matter what it is as long as it looks worse. And no stone will be left unturned in the effort to make it look worse, including waving magic wands over the past, as Michael Mann did with his paleoclimate proxy reconstructions.
Well this is a standard tactic used in surface temperature measurement. Make the past look colder to make the warming look greater. It's been done with numerous surface stations, where inexplicable "adjustments" have been made to past data.