Why not extract CO2 from the exhaust pipe of a regular coal/gas power plant. Surely the CO2 concentration there is hundreds of times higher than in ambient air?
Yes, warm countries are on average less economically successful. That doesn't imply that warming will make a country less successful.
Singapore is right in the tropics, sweltering year round, and is extremely successful. So is Hong Kong, which has only a slightly more tolerable climate. So is Israel, which is in a desert region. In the US, ever since the invention of air conditioning it's been the warm areas, not the cool ones, which have the most economic growth. In both the US and China, the cold regions currently form a stagnating "rust belt".
The reasons why, in other places, economic growth is inversely correlated with temperature, are probably due to history and culture, factors that won't suddenly change if a place warms up.
As it should be. Hype should be quite easy when you generate a fraction of the emissions as the USA, have the second largest wind power system in the world, and the largest solar installation while investing heavily in green power. France sitting on a tower of nukes doesn't change the Germany's achievements.
Germany is spending a ton of money, but they aren't getting results. Per capita, they produce 45% more CO2 than the European Union average. Since they are phasing out their nuclear in the next few years (to be mostly replaced with fossil fuels), that number is about to get much worse. That's a mark of shame for a country that's supposed to be the leader of the EU. It is true that the US has even worse CO2 emissions, but is the only way Germany can look good to compare itself to Trumpistan?
There is an important point here, but it's not limited to the developing world.
AI (to the extent that it works) will drastically increase the productivity of people who own AI, while not affecting the productivity of people without AI.
This means a drastic increase in inequality - both between countries and within a single country.
And to the extent that some people are entirely unable to compete with AI (for example, a truck driver, whose only current job skill is image processing, i.e. being able to stay within a lane while driving, which AI might soon be able to do equally well and for cheaper), they will be worse off in absolute as well as relative terms.
Overall wealth will be much higher - but the average person is likely to be worse off. That is, unless a universal basic income is instituted.
I'm aware that the technologies existed before before Gmail and Google Maps. But they were not available to the general public, until Google provided them.
The point is to deter the police from illegally collecting evidence the same way next time.
As an alternative, perhaps the evidence should be accepted, but the police officer who collected should go to jail. I think that would be even less popular with the police, though.
What does this have to do with psychopathy? Lack of anger control is not the same thing as psychopathy. There are plenty of psychopaths who are not domestic abusers, and vice versa.
And he let the ayatollahs come to power in Iran, which led to Saudi Arabia exporting Salafism as a counter-influence to Shiite Iran, which led to al-Qaeda and ISIS and most of today's international terrorism.
Uber is a taxi company. Taxi companies do not deserve multi-billion-dollar valuations.
The only thing that makes them more than a taxi company is the possibility that they will be the first to produce a self-driving car, and thus become 100x more profitable than other taxi companies.
The chances of that happening appear dimmer now than 2 years ago, but it's still the only reason they are worth investing in.
An advertisement that only 1400 people will see? Worthless.
For 1% of the price you could run a bus shuttle to Dodger Stadium, it would carry the same 1400 people and have the same ads. Why hasn't anyone found this to be profitable?
There is a guy who has "written" 2.7 million Wikipedia pages. For example, he created a page for every single bird species where the pages don't already exist. That's OK because the basic information for each species is pretty formulaic - English name, Latin name, classification, habitat perhaps. Once the page exists, humans can add more "interesting" info if they have any.
This method doesn't work well for other topics, like people.
No, I said that the fertility rate (which I called "birthrate") is below replacement in many countries. I also said that in some other places, like Africa, it is well above replacement. Overall, the world fertility rate right now is slightly above replacement.
Below replacement fertility does not mean population will drop immediately. It means that if the below replacement fertility continues, and lifespans do not rise drastically to compensate, then in the long term the population will drop.
It says that energy usage in the US has increased by about 1000 times since 1750 - but the US population has also increased by 300 times. Energy usage per person has only increased by around 3 times. And as we can see by looking at the graph, the rate of growth has slowed in recent years. From other sources, we can see that energy use in Western countries has stalled and even started to decrease, while economic growth continues.
And of course the issue we are discussing is not overall energy use. It's carbon-based energy use. The amounts of potential nuclear and solar energy on Earth are orders of magnitude higher than current energy consumption. So even if energy consumption were to keep rising, it would not reach a ceiling for many generations from now.
I would take the climate alarmists more seriously if they would consider investigating climate engineering methods which could cheaply and quickly reduce world temperatures. But no, this is NEVER discussed. The only solution they ever suggest is the infinitely more expensive and painful "shiver in the dark". It makes you think their core motivation is for human beings to feel guilty for existing, not to actually solve the climate change problem.
China has a very low birthrate - well under replacement. India, in the last couple years, has become sub-replacement. Mexico is essentially at replacement. So I don't know which "high birthrate" countries you're talking about. Essentially the only countries with high growth populations are in sub-Saharan Africa plus a handful of poor oddballs around the world (Pakistan being the largest of these).
source - note that world average replacement fertility is 2.3, lower in rich countries, higher in poor ones.
If the choice is between basic incomes and basic jobs, there are a number of massive problems with a basic jobs program which don't exist for a basic income program. Specifically:
1. Basic jobs don’t help the disabled 2. Basic jobs don’t help caretakers for sick family members, or parents of children 3. Jobs require massive personal expenses - transportation, rent in desirable areas with manageable commutes, babysitting for when you're away from home - wiping out much of the salary received 4. Basic jobs may not pay for themselves by doing useful work 5. Private industry deals with bad workers by firing them; nobody has a good plan for how basic jobs would replace this 6. Private employees deal with bad workplaces by quitting them; nobody has a good plan for how basic jobs would replace this 7. Basic income could make private jobs better to work in; basic jobs could make private jobs worse to work in 8. Basic income supports personal development; basic jobs prevent it 9. Work sucks, and basic jobs would make huge numbers of people's lives suck
Slashdot Mirror
Why not extract CO2 from the exhaust pipe of a regular coal/gas power plant. Surely the CO2 concentration there is hundreds of times higher than in ambient air?
Yes, warm countries are on average less economically successful. That doesn't imply that warming will make a country less successful.
Singapore is right in the tropics, sweltering year round, and is extremely successful. So is Hong Kong, which has only a slightly more tolerable climate. So is Israel, which is in a desert region. In the US, ever since the invention of air conditioning it's been the warm areas, not the cool ones, which have the most economic growth. In both the US and China, the cold regions currently form a stagnating "rust belt".
The reasons why, in other places, economic growth is inversely correlated with temperature, are probably due to history and culture, factors that won't suddenly change if a place warms up.
Germany is spending a ton of money, but they aren't getting results. Per capita, they produce 45% more CO2 than the European Union average. Since they are phasing out their nuclear in the next few years (to be mostly replaced with fossil fuels), that number is about to get much worse. That's a mark of shame for a country that's supposed to be the leader of the EU. It is true that the US has even worse CO2 emissions, but is the only way Germany can look good to compare itself to Trumpistan?
There is an important point here, but it's not limited to the developing world.
AI (to the extent that it works) will drastically increase the productivity of people who own AI, while not affecting the productivity of people without AI.
This means a drastic increase in inequality - both between countries and within a single country.
And to the extent that some people are entirely unable to compete with AI (for example, a truck driver, whose only current job skill is image processing, i.e. being able to stay within a lane while driving, which AI might soon be able to do equally well and for cheaper), they will be worse off in absolute as well as relative terms.
Overall wealth will be much higher - but the average person is likely to be worse off. That is, unless a universal basic income is instituted.
I'm aware that the technologies existed before before Gmail and Google Maps. But they were not available to the general public, until Google provided them.
Gmail (AJAX webmail) and Google Maps (slippy map, public transit directions) were great advancements.
This is a remarkably good summary for Slashdot.
The point is to deter the police from illegally collecting evidence the same way next time.
As an alternative, perhaps the evidence should be accepted, but the police officer who collected should go to jail. I think that would be even less popular with the police, though.
What does this have to do with psychopathy? Lack of anger control is not the same thing as psychopathy. There are plenty of psychopaths who are not domestic abusers, and vice versa.
As a brit I love and sometimes (ok, regularly) even admire you yanks but you do extremes frightningly well.
So do you (Jeremy Corbyn)
And he let the ayatollahs come to power in Iran, which led to Saudi Arabia exporting Salafism as a counter-influence to Shiite Iran, which led to al-Qaeda and ISIS and most of today's international terrorism.
Uber is a taxi company. Taxi companies do not deserve multi-billion-dollar valuations.
The only thing that makes them more than a taxi company is the possibility that they will be the first to produce a self-driving car, and thus become 100x more profitable than other taxi companies.
The chances of that happening appear dimmer now than 2 years ago, but it's still the only reason they are worth investing in.
An advertisement that only 1400 people will see? Worthless.
For 1% of the price you could run a bus shuttle to Dodger Stadium, it would carry the same 1400 people and have the same ads. Why hasn't anyone found this to be profitable?
Yes, they are stored on his computer, and also on thepiratebay.org.
Absolutely. But it's not just Pixel. Many companies offer stock Android.
For some things, automatic pages are appropriate.
There is a guy who has "written" 2.7 million Wikipedia pages. For example, he created a page for every single bird species where the pages don't already exist. That's OK because the basic information for each species is pretty formulaic - English name, Latin name, classification, habitat perhaps. Once the page exists, humans can add more "interesting" info if they have any.
This method doesn't work well for other topics, like people.
Can AI delete Wikipedia pages for non-notable scientists who write themselves a page in order to promote themselves?
51k tonnes/year is 100 grams per person per year. Not that much
No, I said that the fertility rate (which I called "birthrate") is below replacement in many countries. I also said that in some other places, like Africa, it is well above replacement. Overall, the world fertility rate right now is slightly above replacement.
Below replacement fertility does not mean population will drop immediately. It means that if the below replacement fertility continues, and lifespans do not rise drastically to compensate, then in the long term the population will drop.
That's a very flawed site.
It says that energy usage in the US has increased by about 1000 times since 1750 - but the US population has also increased by 300 times. Energy usage per person has only increased by around 3 times. And as we can see by looking at the graph, the rate of growth has slowed in recent years. From other sources, we can see that energy use in Western countries has stalled and even started to decrease, while economic growth continues.
And of course the issue we are discussing is not overall energy use. It's carbon-based energy use. The amounts of potential nuclear and solar energy on Earth are orders of magnitude higher than current energy consumption. So even if energy consumption were to keep rising, it would not reach a ceiling for many generations from now.
Discussed in the article. Air currents are stronger than gravity in this case.
I would take the climate alarmists more seriously if they would consider investigating climate engineering methods which could cheaply and quickly reduce world temperatures. But no, this is NEVER discussed. The only solution they ever suggest is the infinitely more expensive and painful "shiver in the dark". It makes you think their core motivation is for human beings to feel guilty for existing, not to actually solve the climate change problem.
China has a very low birthrate - well under replacement. India, in the last couple years, has become sub-replacement. Mexico is essentially at replacement. So I don't know which "high birthrate" countries you're talking about. Essentially the only countries with high growth populations are in sub-Saharan Africa plus a handful of poor oddballs around the world (Pakistan being the largest of these).
source - note that world average replacement fertility is 2.3, lower in rich countries, higher in poor ones.
If the choice is between basic incomes and basic jobs, there are a number of massive problems with a basic jobs program which don't exist for a basic income program. Specifically:
1. Basic jobs don’t help the disabled
2. Basic jobs don’t help caretakers for sick family members, or parents of children
3. Jobs require massive personal expenses - transportation, rent in desirable areas with manageable commutes, babysitting for when you're away from home - wiping out much of the salary received
4. Basic jobs may not pay for themselves by doing useful work
5. Private industry deals with bad workers by firing them; nobody has a good plan for how basic jobs would replace this
6. Private employees deal with bad workplaces by quitting them; nobody has a good plan for how basic jobs would replace this
7. Basic income could make private jobs better to work in; basic jobs could make private jobs worse to work in
8. Basic income supports personal development; basic jobs prevent it
9. Work sucks, and basic jobs would make huge numbers of people's lives suck
Full discussion here
If you think that evolution is about "shoulds", you don't understand evolution.