I gave one example of the cost of a campaign and the lives saved, the campaign to reduce drunk driving. You can easily calculate a few more, it's just division. Look up the cost of some program - a safety program such as requiring seatbelts perhaps, or vaccine research, or whatever. Then look up the number of lived saved and divide the dollars by the lives to get the cost per person saved.
I'd bet that requiring seatbelts cost a lot less than $10,000 per life saved. Airbags have probably been pretty cost effective too. AIDs treatments have really helped people live longer, better lives, while safe sex initiatives have saved many lives. I bet the whole safe sex initiative cost a few billion, while saving few million people, so it might be an interesting one to find numbers on.
Okay, two people remember the conversation differently - one after having been thoroughly embarrassed by the reporter's recollection. Let's give Hansen the benefit of the doubt and assume he conditioned it on co2 at 560 the article you linked suggests. In other words, let's have a look at what Hansen now claims to have said.
CO2 levels have been above 350 for a good while now, right? Correct me of I'm wrong on that, I'm going by memory. That's an increase of around 50% from preindustrial levels as opposed to doubling. At the time, the West Side Highway was an elevated freeway, so Hansen was saying the water would rise twenty or thirty feet with CO2 at 560. CO2 is at 350 and how many feet has it risen? Zero feet. Hansen's claim still sounds rather fishy to me.
Certainly we agree that the reporter's quote of the scientist is crap, and that's what most people read - quotes from scientists, or claimed scientists, as reported by the media.
>. Although I still give opposing scientific views strong consideration - it's just so hard to find them in all the crap published.
Well we agree on that much. I'm just real clear that neither side has a monopoly on crap.
You might enjoy the post more if you pay attention to the "will happen by" dates. Things are all things leading climate researchers were saying would happen by 2000, or 2010 or whatever - all dates that have come and gone. Amazingly, it's 2015 and California is still here, not underwater. Whether that's a good thing or bad you can decide for yourself.
We spent $100 million per year on the campaign to reduce drunk driving. Drunk driving deaths were reduced by 10,000 per year. So roughly speaking, if you're willing to spend $100 million, you can save about 10,000 people every year. Campaigns to get people to stop smoking, disease and health research, and traffic safety programs can achieve similar results, for the good programs - about $10,000 per life saved.
Depending on how you count, global warming initiatives of various types such as research, PR, and new regulations cost us $100 billion - $280 billion per year. That's billion with a B, compared to $100 Million to drastically drunk driving. We know that when we use our resources wisely, we can save one person per $10,000, so $100,000,000,000 can save 10 million people if spent wisely. That's the true cost of spending $100 billion on mostly alarmist hype. We could instead divide that money as follows:
$10 billion for cancer research $5 billion for traffic safety $5 billion to reduce child abuse $2 billion to fight teen smoking $1 billion to help alcoholics and addicts who wish to stop $1 billion for heart disease and health initiatives And 75 more such programs.
How many millions of people have died because you'd rather play hippy than deal with the issues that are actually killing millions of people every year? Well, about 10 million people every year, the math shows. Do you want to keep playing silly politics, or should we put the resources toward actually saving lives, maybe yours.
>. Do you even know how many people 50 million represents? Its LA and NYC combined.
>. You are making the claim. Please point to us with citations, the mass climate exodus you claim has been happening.
No, I'm pointing out that it didn't happen. The UN climate panel said it would happen, the date in question has passed, and nothing like that happened. Ergo, the UN climate change panel is full of it.
First, come back when you know the difference between herbicide and pesticide.
Secondly, this isn't 1815, it's 2015. In America, we don't clear a 100 acre farm by picking weeds by hand. Maybe at one organic granola farm in the People's Republic of California, but not in the bread basket midwest, or here in Texas.
> So tell my why addressing CO2 emissions is a bad idea (not that you explicitly stated as much in your comments)
Indeed, I've said the opposite, right here in this thread. In the thread last week I said it over and over and over, while the alarmists in the thread just couldn't hear that. To them, it has to be either believe everything you hear and panic, or complete denial. No room for thought, for considering the veracity of the claims, or considering past claims the source has made. Odd.
There are, however, a lot of ways of "addressing the problem" that are REALLY bad ideas. I don't know if you are clear that there is a lot of hype an gross exaggeration, along with some reason for concern. If that's not a point we can readily agree on, I'll refer you to post also in this thread: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I think that post pretty well establishes that there are definitely plenty of people making wacko claims who have "respectable" titles - that there's plenty of extreme alarmist BS mixed in with more reasonable analysis.
We spent around $100 million per year to reduce drunk driving, and that saved 10,000 lives per year. So by that example, when spending wisely, saving lives costs about $10,000 per life. In other words, if you spend $1 million on the right things, you can expect to save 1,000 people. Maybe you spend it on stop-smoking initiatives, CPR training, driver training, whatever is shown to work best.
Based on the mix of science and alarmism, we're spending up to* $360 billion dollars per year, several thousand dollars per family in the US. I say "up to" because it's from source that will tend to count high. Let's guesstimate that source quadrupled the real amount, and the real cost that we should be using is only around $100 billion. We know that a $100 million drunk-driving campaign saved 10,000 people, so $100 BILLION spent wisely could save about 10,000,000 people. Ten million lives saved. Per year. That's the opportunity cost of devoting those resources to climate change related initiatives rather than health initiatives, or cancer research, or wherever they would make the most difference. That's why I think we should be very careful not to allocate huge amounts of resources based on alarmist, political, and clearly biased studies - because by doing so we're choosing to NOT use those resources on things proven to save many lives. To put it very bluntly, people are dying as a result of poor decisions made by politicians, based on exploiting and manipulating the emotions of their constituents.
What if I'm wrong, and not just a little bit wrong, but wrong by an order of magnitude. If I'm really, really wrong, only 1 million people would be saved each year by using these resources more wisely. When you're talking about major US government initiatives, hundreds of billions of dollars, the consequences are enormous. Putting $100,000,000,000 toward the wrong program means a lot of people die needlessly, because that $100,000,000,000 spent wisely could save a lot of people.
Here are a few examples. You can of course easily find more. Just Google for "global warming" and set it to show results from whatever time you desire. I wanted to see predictions for 2000-2015, so I Google "global warming" for resources published in 1995 or earlier.
Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich: By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people"
United Nations Environmental Program, in 2005: "Amid predictions that by 2010 the world will need to cope with as many as 50 million people escaping the effects of creeping environmental deterioration, United Nations University experts say the international community urgently needs to define, recognize and extend support to this new category of refugee."
Cristina Tirado (University of California) again made the claim of 50 million climate refugees, changing it to "by 2020" at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
James Hansen headed NASA's Goddard Institute for 30 years before moving to University. In 1988, Hansen was asked by a journalist how the greenhouse effect would affect New York by 2008. "The West Side Highway [an elevated freeway] will be under water" , Hansen said.
UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer was "chief scientist" for the Environmental Defense Fund in 1990. He said that by 1995 global warming will be "desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots."
Just for fun, along with all of these climate scientists, let's throw in our favorite leader of the global warming movement, Al Gore. Oppenheimer (above) was also an advisor to Al Gore, who claimed:
"The entire North Polar ice cap will disappear in five years. Five years is the period of time during which it is now expected to disappear." (The polar ice caps have actually INCREASED since then, significantly).
United Nations Environmental Program, Director of New York office in 1989: Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000
We're spending $360 billion dollars a year based on these people's predictions - several thousand dollars per family in the US.
I'm going to repeat once more, it is true that today it is warmer than it was 500 years ago, and much colder than it was 1,000 years ago. So yes, the climate changes in cycles, absolutely. Stanford, Berkeley, and Princeton have just ridiculously exaggerated the effect, while pitching for yet another $10 million grant to continue their work.
> Rising CO2 levels and climate change are politically controversial only because the fossil carbon industry hired a bunch of PR firms to sow public doubt. Who needs science, when industry PR is gospel?
Indeed, who needs this "science" from NASA, Stanford, Berkeley, Princeton, and the UN, when Comedy Central is gospel?
Here are a few names for you. Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich: By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people"
United Nations Environmental Program, in 2005: "Amid predictions that by 2010 the world will need to cope with as many as 50 million people escaping the effects of creeping environmental deterioration, United Nations University experts say the international community urgently needs to define, recognize and extend support to this new category of refugee."
Cristina Tirado (University of California) again made the claim of 50 million climate refugees by 2020 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
James Hansen headed NASA's Goddard Institute for 30 years before moving to University. In 1988, Hansen was asked by journalist greenhouse effect would affect New York by 2008. ÃoeThe West Side Highway [an elevated freeway] will be under waterà , Hansen said.
UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer was "chief scientist" for the Environmental Defense Fund in 1990. He said that by 1995 global warming will be "desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots."
Just for fun, along with all of these climate scientists, let's throw in our favorite leader of the global warming movement, Al Gore. Oppenheimer (above) was also an advisor to Al Gore, who claimed:
"The entire North Polar ice cap will disappear in five years. Five years is the period of time during which it is now expected to disappear." (The polar ice caps have actually INCREASED since then, significantly).
United Nations Environmental Program, Director of New York office in 1989: Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000
We're spending $360 billion dollars a year based on these people's predictions - several thousand dollars per family in the US.
I'm going to repeat once more, it is true that today it is warmer than it was 500 years ago, and much colder than it was 1,000 years ago. So yes, the climate changes in cycles, absolutely. Stanford, Berkeley, and Princeton have just ridiculously exaggerated the effect, while pitching for yet another $10 million grant to continue their work. Are these crazy "warnings" which never come true a bit of a sales a pitch for the grants they're asking for, perhaps?
Oh, some of them have updated it. Not long ago the Obama administration was circulating a piece with just such predictions, after having done a SEARCH AND REPLACE update to change "2010" to "2050". I kid you not.
There is some sound research out there, but it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff because there's a lot more propaganda than there is solid science.
Try to take a breath and have a little intellectual honesty. As you know, in these institutions updated there materials in the 1970s to early 1980s, from "OMG panic man-made ice age" to "OMG panic global warming" WITHOUT passing through any period of "gee, maybe we were wrong, maybe there's nothing to panic about". It's ALWAYS panic about something. If you're at all honest with yourself, you'll recognize that going from one extreme theory to the other without passing through the middle shows many people have a need to be alarmist - it doesn't matter about what, they just need to be alarmist.
Experience indicates that sky is not in fact falling.
>. A lot of this really just boils down to 60s ideas of environmentalism and reducing pollution. It's just that the modern spin ads an extra level of extreme hysterics to the situation that are likely to alienate people and trigger skepticism.... >. Someone thinks they need to generate a sense of urgency by any means necessary.
Exactly. That strategy DOES get some people hyped up, but it also makes a lot of tune you out. They then miss the message that's actually potentially accurate. The other day I posted a bunch of examples of leading climate researchers from Stanford, UC Berkeley, and Yale making statements like "by 2010, New York City will be underwater". Well, 2010 has come and gone and NYC is still there. With so much of that crap out there, it gets old hearing about it.
Somewhere, there is probably a reliable source for objective information. Since Stanford, Berkeley and Yale are provably spreading hyperbole (in the extreme), I don't know where to look for trustworthy information.
So in other words, you complete faith in the scientists working for Phillip Morris, and the scientists working for Monsanto, and Exxon? I have something you might be interested in. It's a toll bridge, scientifically proven to make money for it's owner. Care to buy I
Oh, you think the scientists working for Monsanto are human, and therefore biased, but the guys working for Climate.org are superhuman, with no bias? I have this nice tower available in Paris you might like too.
>. Politicians push fear, and then lord their position and power over the people who they nominally serve.
Which one should keep in mind when looking at science. Scientists being paid by a grant from Phillip Morris (tobacco) or All Gore tend to publish conclusions that are likely to get the grant renewed. A lot of people I work with are top experts in their field, whose jobs are dependant on a federal grant getting renewed. Guess how many of them published information that makes the grantor unhappy last year. Hint - it's a round number.
The 2007 action put some limits on local (but not state) franchising practices. It did NOT eliminate them. In fact, most of the US population still lives in areas with restricted franchises. The FCC said that local franchising authorities could not be "unreasonable" in their demands. More info:
You have a point there. On the other hand, generally one of the best deterrents to crime is a loud alarm siren. Crooks don't like to attract attention. If your solution to making it "more secure" means they can get in silently, rather than having to set off an explosion, many bad guys will very much appreciate your improvement.
I don't understand why everybody is guessing. This doesn't have anything to do with advertising or any of that. The FCC by law is required to count which rural areas have internet access that is unable for:
High quality voice Data Images Video
Those are the four elements specified by Congress. With this change, the ability to watch Netflix at 1080p with a 5Mbps connection will no longer qualify. So the FCC will now report that 19% of people don't have internet that is usable for the four items listed above.
What Congress and the ISPs will do with that information is unknown. One thing we know is that ISPs won't get "credit" for rolling out internet access on their legacy coax networks. Instead, they'd have to spend several thousand dollars per mile on upgrades before it's recognized as high speed, so in suburban areas new upgrades should support 25Mbps, but in rural areas they'll likely not happen at all. Why would an ISP spend $15,000 to run fiber or new coax to one farmer, then another $12,000 to get to the next farm? They won't, unless someone else is forced to pay for it.
It is possible that lawmakers will decide they want to upgrade rural areas from 5Mbps to "broadband", in which case we'll all pay the $15,000 cost to upgrade farmer Bob from 5Mbps to 25Mbps.
>. service calls are expensive. Perhaps a company has a 4 hour response time -
Service calls are expensive BECAUSE it's an emergency. If you have four spares, plus the two parity drives, you're still six drives away from a problem. With a few spares, you can easily replace one by sending it UPS ground, rather than having a tech run out there immediately.
Having a small slit (for money to come out) is precisely how they are getting broken into. If I can slide a thin piece of steel inside, I can open it. One method I use to open safes is to drill two holes, each 3/16th of an inch. One hole is for my pinhole camera so I can see inside. The other hole is to insert long, thin tools which I use to partially disassemble the mechanism from within.
The bottom line is, having a lot of spare disks for a 2D array makes it reliable over time. These configurations of 2D arrays are quite reliable, over time because they have many spares available to automatically replaces failed disks:
Data parity spare 12 3 13 12 3 14 24 6 20 36 9 26
To understand the above table, we'll use the first row as an example. An array made up of 1TB disks 12TB of data space would have 3TB of parity and 13 spare 1TB drives, for a total of 28 drives to get 12 drives worth of net storage.
What they didn't mention is that the same reliability can be achieved with only three spares, by replacing spares at your convenience. Replacing drives can be somewhat costly if it has to be done quickly, but if you can schedule to replace the failed drive "some time in the next two months", that probably won't be costly.
And definitely get permission from the owner of the pasture or join your local club, who leases a pasture-like area for a few hundred dollars per year.
Slashdot Mirror
I gave one example of the cost of a campaign and the lives saved, the campaign to reduce drunk driving. You can easily calculate a few more, it's just division. Look up the cost of some program - a safety program such as requiring seatbelts perhaps, or vaccine research, or whatever. Then look up the number of lived saved and divide the dollars by the lives to get the cost per person saved.
I'd bet that requiring seatbelts cost a lot less than $10,000 per life saved. Airbags have probably been pretty cost effective too. AIDs treatments have really helped people live longer, better lives, while safe sex initiatives have saved many lives. I bet the whole safe sex initiative cost a few billion, while saving few million people, so it might be an interesting one to find numbers on.
Okay, two people remember the conversation differently - one after having been thoroughly embarrassed by the reporter's recollection. Let's give Hansen the benefit of the doubt and assume he conditioned it on co2 at 560 the article you linked suggests. In other words, let's have a look at what Hansen now claims to have said.
CO2 levels have been above 350 for a good while now, right? Correct me of I'm wrong on that, I'm going by memory. That's an increase of around 50% from preindustrial levels as opposed to doubling. At the time, the West Side Highway was an elevated freeway, so Hansen was saying the water would rise twenty or thirty feet with CO2 at 560. CO2 is at 350 and how many feet has it risen? Zero feet. Hansen's claim still sounds rather fishy to me.
Certainly we agree that the reporter's quote of the scientist is crap, and that's what most people read - quotes from scientists, or claimed scientists, as reported by the media.
>. Although I still give opposing scientific views strong consideration - it's just so hard to find them in all the crap published.
Well we agree on that much. I'm just real clear that neither side has a monopoly on crap.
Dang it, you're right. Now that's the eighth time I've been wrong.
You might enjoy the post more if you pay attention to the "will happen by" dates. Things are all things leading climate researchers were saying would happen by 2000, or 2010 or whatever - all dates that have come and gone. Amazingly, it's 2015 and California is still here, not underwater. Whether that's a good thing or bad you can decide for yourself.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
We spent $100 million per year on the campaign to reduce drunk driving. Drunk driving deaths were reduced by 10,000 per year. So roughly speaking, if you're willing to spend $100 million, you can save about 10,000 people every year. Campaigns to get people to stop smoking, disease and health research, and traffic safety programs can achieve similar results, for the good programs - about $10,000 per life saved.
Depending on how you count, global warming initiatives of various types such as research, PR, and new regulations cost us $100 billion - $280 billion per year. That's billion with a B, compared to $100 Million to drastically drunk driving. We know that when we use our resources wisely, we can save one person per $10,000, so $100,000,000,000 can save 10 million people if spent wisely. That's the true cost of spending $100 billion on mostly alarmist hype. We could instead divide that money as follows:
$10 billion for cancer research
$5 billion for traffic safety
$5 billion to reduce child abuse
$2 billion to fight teen smoking
$1 billion to help alcoholics and addicts who wish to stop
$1 billion for heart disease and health initiatives
And 75 more such programs.
How many millions of people have died because you'd rather play hippy than deal with the issues that are actually killing millions of people every year? Well, about 10 million people every year, the math shows. Do you want to keep playing silly politics, or should we put the resources toward actually saving lives, maybe yours.
>. Do you even know how many people 50 million represents? Its LA and NYC combined.
>. You are making the claim. Please point to us with citations, the mass climate exodus you claim has been happening.
No, I'm pointing out that it didn't happen. The UN climate panel said it would happen, the date in question has passed, and nothing like that happened. Ergo, the UN climate change panel is full of it.
First, come back when you know the difference between herbicide and pesticide.
Secondly, this isn't 1815, it's 2015. In America, we don't clear a 100 acre farm by picking weeds by hand. Maybe at one organic granola farm in the People's Republic of California, but not in the bread basket midwest, or here in Texas.
> So tell my why addressing CO2 emissions is a bad idea (not that you explicitly stated as much in your comments)
Indeed, I've said the opposite, right here in this thread. In the thread last week I said it over and over and over, while the alarmists in the thread just couldn't hear that. To them, it has to be either believe everything you hear and panic, or complete denial. No room for thought, for considering the veracity of the claims, or considering past claims the source has made. Odd.
There are, however, a lot of ways of "addressing the problem" that are REALLY bad ideas. I don't know if you are clear that there is a lot of hype an gross exaggeration, along with some reason for concern. If that's not a point we can readily agree on, I'll refer you to post also in this thread:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I think that post pretty well establishes that there are definitely plenty of people making wacko claims who have "respectable" titles - that there's plenty of extreme alarmist BS mixed in with more reasonable analysis.
We spent around $100 million per year to reduce drunk driving, and that saved 10,000 lives per year. So by that example, when spending wisely, saving lives costs about $10,000 per life. In other words, if you spend $1 million on the right things, you can expect to save 1,000 people. Maybe you spend it on stop-smoking initiatives, CPR training, driver training, whatever is shown to work best.
Based on the mix of science and alarmism, we're spending up to* $360 billion dollars per year, several thousand dollars per family in the US. I say "up to" because it's from source that will tend to count high. Let's guesstimate that source quadrupled the real amount, and the real cost that we should be using is only around $100 billion. We know that a $100 million drunk-driving campaign saved 10,000 people, so $100 BILLION spent wisely could save about 10,000,000 people. Ten million lives saved. Per year. That's the opportunity cost of devoting those resources to climate change related initiatives rather than health initiatives, or cancer research, or wherever they would make the most difference. That's why I think we should be very careful not to allocate huge amounts of resources based on alarmist, political, and clearly biased studies - because by doing so we're choosing to NOT use those resources on things proven to save many lives. To put it very bluntly, people are dying as a result of poor decisions made by politicians, based on exploiting and manipulating the emotions of their constituents.
What if I'm wrong, and not just a little bit wrong, but wrong by an order of magnitude. If I'm really, really wrong, only 1 million people would be saved each year by using these resources more wisely. When you're talking about major US government initiatives, hundreds of billions of dollars, the consequences are enormous. Putting $100,000,000,000 toward the wrong program means a lot of people die needlessly, because that $100,000,000,000 spent wisely could save a lot of people.
> What "leading climate researchers" said this?
Here are a few examples. You can of course easily find more. Just Google for "global warming" and set it to show results from whatever time you desire. I wanted to see predictions for 2000-2015, so I Google "global warming" for resources published in 1995 or earlier.
Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich:
By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people"
United Nations Environmental Program, in 2005:
"Amid predictions that by 2010 the world will need to cope with as many as 50 million people escaping the effects of creeping environmental deterioration, United Nations University experts say the international community urgently needs to define, recognize and extend support to this new category of refugee."
Cristina Tirado (University of California) again made the claim of 50 million climate refugees, changing it to "by 2020" at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
James Hansen headed NASA's Goddard Institute for 30 years before moving to University. In 1988, Hansen was asked by a journalist how the greenhouse effect would affect New York by 2008. "The West Side Highway [an elevated freeway] will be under water" , Hansen said.
UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer was "chief scientist" for the Environmental Defense Fund in 1990. He said that by 1995 global warming will be "desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots."
Just for fun, along with all of these climate scientists, let's throw in our favorite leader of the global warming movement, Al Gore. Oppenheimer (above) was also an advisor to Al Gore, who claimed:
"The entire North Polar ice cap will disappear in five years. Five years is the period of time during which it is now expected to disappear." (The polar ice caps have actually INCREASED since then, significantly).
United Nations Environmental Program, Director of New York office in 1989:
Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000
We're spending $360 billion dollars a year based on these people's predictions - several thousand dollars per family in the US.
I'm going to repeat once more, it is true that today it is warmer than it was 500 years ago, and much colder than it was 1,000 years ago. So yes, the climate changes in cycles, absolutely. Stanford, Berkeley, and Princeton have just ridiculously exaggerated the effect, while pitching for yet another $10 million grant to continue their work.
> Rising CO2 levels and climate change are politically controversial only because the fossil carbon industry hired a bunch of PR firms to sow public doubt. Who needs science, when industry PR is gospel?
Indeed, who needs this "science" from NASA, Stanford, Berkeley, Princeton, and the UN, when Comedy Central is gospel?
Here are a few names for you. Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich:
By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people"
United Nations Environmental Program, in 2005:
"Amid predictions that by 2010 the world will need to cope with as many as 50 million people escaping the effects of creeping environmental deterioration, United Nations University experts say the international community urgently needs to define, recognize and extend support to this new category of refugee."
Cristina Tirado (University of California) again made the claim of 50 million climate refugees by 2020 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
James Hansen headed NASA's Goddard Institute for 30 years before moving to University. In 1988, Hansen was asked by journalist greenhouse effect would affect New York by 2008. ÃoeThe West Side Highway [an elevated freeway] will be under waterà , Hansen said.
UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer was "chief scientist" for the Environmental Defense Fund in 1990. He said that by 1995 global warming will be "desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots."
Just for fun, along with all of these climate scientists, let's throw in our favorite leader of the global warming movement, Al Gore. Oppenheimer (above) was also an advisor to Al Gore, who claimed:
"The entire North Polar ice cap will disappear in five years. Five years is the period of time during which it is now expected to disappear." (The polar ice caps have actually INCREASED since then, significantly).
United Nations Environmental Program, Director of New York office in 1989:
Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000
We're spending $360 billion dollars a year based on these people's predictions - several thousand dollars per family in the US.
I'm going to repeat once more, it is true that today it is warmer than it was 500 years ago, and much colder than it was 1,000 years ago. So yes, the climate changes in cycles, absolutely. Stanford, Berkeley, and Princeton have just ridiculously exaggerated the effect, while pitching for yet another $10 million grant to continue their work. Are these crazy "warnings" which never come true a bit of a sales a pitch for the grants they're asking for, perhaps?
Oh, some of them have updated it. Not long ago the Obama administration was circulating a piece with just such predictions, after having done a SEARCH AND REPLACE update to change "2010" to "2050". I kid you not.
There is some sound research out there, but it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff because there's a lot more propaganda than there is solid science.
Try to take a breath and have a little intellectual honesty. As you know, in these institutions updated there materials in the 1970s to early 1980s, from "OMG panic man-made ice age" to "OMG panic global warming" WITHOUT passing through any period of
"gee, maybe we were wrong, maybe there's nothing to panic about". It's ALWAYS panic about something. If you're at all honest with yourself, you'll recognize that going from one extreme theory to the other without passing through the middle shows many people have a need to be alarmist - it doesn't matter about what, they just need to be alarmist.
Experience indicates that sky is not in fact falling.
>. A lot of this really just boils down to 60s ideas of environmentalism and reducing pollution. It's just that the modern spin ads an extra level of extreme hysterics to the situation that are likely to alienate people and trigger skepticism. ...
>. Someone thinks they need to generate a sense of urgency by any means necessary.
Exactly. That strategy DOES get some people hyped up, but it also makes a lot of tune you out. They then miss the message that's actually potentially accurate. The other day I posted a bunch of examples of leading climate researchers from Stanford, UC Berkeley, and Yale making statements like "by 2010, New York City will be underwater". Well, 2010 has come and gone and NYC is still there. With so much of that crap out there, it gets old hearing about it.
Somewhere, there is probably a reliable source for objective information. Since Stanford, Berkeley and Yale are provably spreading hyperbole (in the extreme), I don't know where to look for trustworthy information.
That was amusing, thanks.
Come back when you know the difference between pesticide and herbicide.
So in other words, you complete faith in the scientists working for Phillip Morris, and the scientists working for Monsanto, and Exxon? I have something you might be interested in. It's a toll bridge, scientifically proven to make money for it's owner. Care to buy I
Oh, you think the scientists working for Monsanto are human, and therefore biased, but the guys working for Climate.org are superhuman, with no bias? I have this nice tower available in Paris you might like too.
Spraying 100 acres box crop with pesticide is expensive. So Farmer Joe hasba choice:
Buy brand X seed and $10,000 of pesticide.
Buy brand M seed and pocket the $10,000.
Which will he do? Now you know why companies like Monsanto produce varieties that need far LESS pesticide, not more.
>. Politicians push fear, and then lord their position and power over the people who they nominally serve.
Which one should keep in mind when looking at science. Scientists being paid by a grant from Phillip Morris (tobacco) or All Gore tend to publish conclusions that are likely to get the grant renewed. A lot of people I work with are top experts
in their field, whose jobs are dependant on a federal grant getting renewed. Guess how many of them published information that makes the grantor unhappy last year. Hint - it's a round number.
The 2007 action put some limits on local (but not state) franchising practices. It did NOT eliminate them. In fact, most of the US population still lives in areas with restricted franchises. The FCC said that local franchising authorities could not be "unreasonable" in their demands. More info:
https://www.wilmerhale.com/pag...
You have a point there. On the other hand, generally one of the best deterrents to crime is a loud alarm siren. Crooks don't like to attract attention. If your solution to making it "more secure" means they can get in silently, rather than having to set off an explosion, many bad guys will very much appreciate your improvement.
I don't understand why everybody is guessing. This doesn't have anything to do with advertising or any of that. The FCC by law is required to count which rural areas have internet access that is unable for:
High quality voice
Data
Images
Video
Those are the four elements specified by Congress. With this change, the ability to watch Netflix at 1080p with a 5Mbps connection will no longer qualify. So the FCC will now report that 19% of people don't have internet that is usable for the four items listed above.
What Congress and the ISPs will do with that information is unknown. One thing we know is that ISPs won't get "credit" for rolling out internet access on their legacy coax networks. Instead, they'd have to spend several thousand dollars per mile on upgrades before it's recognized as high speed, so in suburban areas new upgrades should support 25Mbps, but in rural areas they'll likely not happen at all. Why would an ISP spend $15,000 to run fiber or new coax to one farmer, then another $12,000 to get to the next farm? They won't, unless someone else is forced to pay for it.
It is possible that lawmakers will decide they want to upgrade rural areas from 5Mbps to "broadband", in which case we'll all pay the $15,000 cost to upgrade farmer Bob from 5Mbps to 25Mbps.
>. service calls are expensive. Perhaps a company has a 4 hour response time -
Service calls are expensive BECAUSE it's an emergency. If you have four spares, plus the two parity drives, you're still six drives away from a problem. With a few spares, you can easily replace one by sending it UPS ground, rather than having a tech run out there immediately.
Thanks for the clarification. As I mentioned, I was going from memory of what I'd read many years ago.
Having a small slit (for money to come out) is precisely how they are getting broken into. If I can slide a thin piece of steel inside, I can open it. One method I use to open safes is to drill two holes, each 3/16th of an inch. One hole is for my pinhole camera so I can see inside. The other hole is to insert long, thin tools which I use to partially disassemble the mechanism from within.
The bottom line is, having a lot of spare disks for a 2D array makes it reliable over time. These configurations of 2D arrays are quite reliable, over time because they have many spares available to automatically replaces failed disks:
Data parity spare
12 3 13
12 3 14
24 6 20
36 9 26
To understand the above table, we'll use the first row as an example. An array made up of 1TB disks 12TB of data space would have 3TB of parity and 13 spare 1TB drives, for a total of 28 drives to get 12 drives worth of net storage.
What they didn't mention is that the same reliability can be achieved with only three spares, by replacing spares at your convenience. Replacing drives can be somewhat costly if it has to be done quickly, but if you can schedule to replace the failed drive "some time in the next two months", that probably won't be costly.
"IR" should of course be "or".
And definitely get permission from the owner of the pasture or join your local club, who leases a pasture-like area for a few hundred dollars per year.