You keep saying, "math", but then you say "the level of resources needed is ten time that of coal, nuclear, or natural gas". Math is a precise science; that quote was utterly vague. The "level of resources needed" for what? Which "resources" in the first place?
Solar and batteries would be an environmental disaster.
With today's technology, maybe (though I don't think that's well established anyway). But obviously this "math" was based on some current assumptions.
The POINT is to keep investing in research. You mentioned nuclear as well - where would that be without the many many billions invested into nuclear research? I bet in 1920 the average person was skeptical towards scientists thinking radiation/nuclear power could replace coal, but 30 years later research proved it was entirely possible.
It may not be today's solar panels and batteries that solve the problem, but it doesn't take "doing the math" to realize that SOME FORM of solar - or, yes, somewhat, derivative solar like wind - plus STORAGE (batteries are just one example) will be the only was the human race survives ourselves...
Obviously. But almost ONE HALF of all oil usage in the US is for gasoline. Are you an engineer? If you were, you'd should know that you don't solve a problem by optimizing the 1% first.
Oh, and "all the studies" was a couple of studies, and they were seriously flawed/biased in many ways. The main one was using a some worst-case assumptions about the source of electricity used to *power* the cars (which, still has by FAR the greatest impact on the "CO2 footprint" of an electric car, of course). In countries with a mostly renewable grid, it was up to 5x less CO2 emissions from all sources (manufacturing, electricity generation, etc) over the lifetime of the car as those that used significant coal or gas power.
But anyway, the OP point still stands - once gas dropped below $3 a barrel GM started pushing their big trucks (big as in size, gas usage, and profit margin) once again. Doubling the fuel economy of cars on the road in the US would absolutely DWARF any gains from the energy used to build them.
Who said wind was the big solution? Wind in the end is just the aftereffects of solar. Solar + batteries are the only way we will survive as a species at this point.
It didn't say there were *government* sensitive, files, it said they were personally sensitive files - primarily his application for Top Secret clearance, which I assume was emailed from his personal accounts since he obviously didn't HAVE a government/CIA account yet.
By definition he didn't have access to classified information when he filled it out, so it couldn't have contained information that was classified when he filled it out...
It would be like you applying for a mortgage, and you SSN and bank account info being leaked. Definitely sensitive to you, but far from government classified.
What the fuck are you talking about? Who cares if his AOL account was "at risk" if he used it for the same stupid shit more people use their AOL account for?
Personally I prefer that government employees receive Viagra spam and pictures of their grandchildren on their private email accounts, and national security briefings on their government email accounts.
If they offered that, it would probably be 5x the cost to remove Home features - just because it sounds like something only an "Enterprise" use would want...
They do add new features to an 8-year-old OS, they just bundle them with a bunch of new UI tweaks and sell it as a new product
You could say that about every non 1.0 piece of software ever written, obviously. Doesn't mean shitloads of time was put into the new versions.
Many companies charge for EVERY new yearly release (Apple even did this for a while - for the fucking iPods, nonetheless - until they realized the ill will for a few bucks paled in comparison to the hundreds of billions they raked in on the hardware). FFS, I love Parallels, but every time EITHER MacOS or Windows is updated they seem to want to grab another $50+ for an "upgrade".
Well, maybe HDCP2.2, because it's so new, but HDCP 1.4 should be supported on practically any display device you buy today, including computer monitors.
Wait, *so new"?! I assume you aren't in the industry, because HDCP 2.2 is already current-to-last generation for new development purposes.
Even when they're running Linux - HDCP is in general handled automatically by the output formatter so very little software is needed to enable it - the keys and all that are pre-burned into the hardware.
Sadly, that doesn't really matter for the next gen DRM. The content needs to be handled by a securely booted OS with TEE and protected video path before you see any 4K on a PC. Kaby Lake may provide that, as long as you are using the integrated decoder/graphics. Good luck on an external card, there will probably need to be a new bus standard for that...
I knew what you were referencing as soon as I read "when i hear or see turbo" - that was one of a half dozen blown up on my wall (don't tell the copyright police) when I was a kid...
Are you willing to pay for it? Can you convince another million users to do so? if not, why should they add new features to an 8 year old OS? What were you doing 8 years ago and are you willing to stop what you are doing now and spend the next year supporting it for no gain?
Sad thing is if I guessed "WIndows 10 Anniversary Edtion" and "Windows 10 sold by some pirate on the street in China" either would outsell your guesses by orders of magnitude...
At which point HDMI will support 4K @ 144Hz. HDMI is meant for consumer electronics, until TVs or VR headsets can handle 4K @ 144Hz it doesn't really matter.
I understand well the implications, I have a Rift and my day job involves streaming 4K HDR video.
The highest end consumer VR today is 2x 1080x1200 x 90Hz. It's not bad but definitely not at the limit of human vision. Double that and it will (notwithstanding peripheral vision enhancements) start to approach those limits. If HDMI bandwidth is increased by 2-4x it would meet that. Not too far fetched for the next few years. TVs won't do it but who cares, TVs aren't VR.
The point is it's stupid to claim standards are limiting the technology, right now the technology is limiting the standards.
We? WE? What have YOU done? Fuck nothing, I'm sure. I think you may have misunderstood my irony, but that's your problem.
But I guess that's why you are posting AC, because you are too much of a coward to say this and be accountable. Put your name behind your genocidal statements or go the fuck away.
HDMI has nothing to do with IP. It does support HDCP - but HDCP is a separate standard. It's not a horrible idea because studios offering UHD movies are not going to magically stop caring about content protection/DRM - all HDMI over USB-C will do is make it easier to create devices that support the existing required protections.
Actually, HDMI 2.0a is a much better solution for *most* devices - since most devices are TVs that already support it. 2160p @ 60Hz w/ HDR10 or 12 bit DolbyVision packed in 4:2:2 is WAY more than your eyes will ever perceive from a normal distance.
Funny thing is it's not like the "corporations" are setting out destroying the planet - they are just an amoral entity focused on expansion and profit.
The driving force of the destruction is the massive growth of the middle class worldwide. Without customers, corporations wouldn't exist. We ALL have to change our attitudes toward consumerism and consumption rather than blame the rich or the poor.
And some have shown more like 1-3% - and it's indiscriminate feeding, ie. mostly through random chance - as you said there is no shortage of other insects for them to eat!
Go look it up. Between 1-3 cases of rabies are reported in the US each year. And not all of those come from bats. So, one person in the ENTIRE country gets rabies from a bat each year. Such a non-issue it's laughable.
Actually, no, they aren't. I read a couple of studies (easy to find) that say mosquitos make up about 1-3% of bat's nutritiional intake, and most of that is just by chance as they are fairly indiscriminate insect feeders.
My first thought was the same as yours - don't mess with the food web! - but the more I looked into it the more I started thinking that mosquitos (especially the few species that transmit human diseases) do not provide a substantial food source to all but a couple VERY limited ecosystems (mostly a few migratory bird species in the arctic).
Some species just "are" - they don't have an inherent purpose and exist to reproduce. It's entirely possible mosquitoes, like the viruses they often spread, would be better off eradicated. Certainly they kill MILLIONS more vs their benefit than any of the previous species (wolves, bears, tigers, etc) that we have nearly wiped out already...
Slashdot Mirror
You keep saying, "math", but then you say "the level of resources needed is ten time that of coal, nuclear, or natural gas". Math is a precise science; that quote was utterly vague. The "level of resources needed" for what? Which "resources" in the first place?
Solar and batteries would be an environmental disaster.
With today's technology, maybe (though I don't think that's well established anyway). But obviously this "math" was based on some current assumptions.
The POINT is to keep investing in research. You mentioned nuclear as well - where would that be without the many many billions invested into nuclear research? I bet in 1920 the average person was skeptical towards scientists thinking radiation/nuclear power could replace coal, but 30 years later research proved it was entirely possible.
It may not be today's solar panels and batteries that solve the problem, but it doesn't take "doing the math" to realize that SOME FORM of solar - or, yes, somewhat, derivative solar like wind - plus STORAGE (batteries are just one example) will be the only was the human race survives ourselves...
Obviously. But almost ONE HALF of all oil usage in the US is for gasoline. Are you an engineer? If you were, you'd should know that you don't solve a problem by optimizing the 1% first.
Oh, and "all the studies" was a couple of studies, and they were seriously flawed/biased in many ways. The main one was using a some worst-case assumptions about the source of electricity used to *power* the cars (which, still has by FAR the greatest impact on the "CO2 footprint" of an electric car, of course). In countries with a mostly renewable grid, it was up to 5x less CO2 emissions from all sources (manufacturing, electricity generation, etc) over the lifetime of the car as those that used significant coal or gas power.
But anyway, the OP point still stands - once gas dropped below $3 a barrel GM started pushing their big trucks (big as in size, gas usage, and profit margin) once again. Doubling the fuel economy of cars on the road in the US would absolutely DWARF any gains from the energy used to build them.
Who said wind was the big solution? Wind in the end is just the aftereffects of solar. Solar + batteries are the only way we will survive as a species at this point.
This article can pretty much begin and end with this point.
GM saying their factories will be 100% renewable is about like RJ Reynolds saying their factories will be 100% smoke free.
It didn't say there were *government* sensitive, files, it said they were personally sensitive files - primarily his application for Top Secret clearance, which I assume was emailed from his personal accounts since he obviously didn't HAVE a government/CIA account yet.
By definition he didn't have access to classified information when he filled it out, so it couldn't have contained information that was classified when he filled it out...
It would be like you applying for a mortgage, and you SSN and bank account info being leaked. Definitely sensitive to you, but far from government classified.
This was officially the dumbest and most useless attempt at a joke on this article.
What the fuck are you talking about? Who cares if his AOL account was "at risk" if he used it for the same stupid shit more people use their AOL account for?
Personally I prefer that government employees receive Viagra spam and pictures of their grandchildren on their private email accounts, and national security briefings on their government email accounts.
If they offered that, it would probably be 5x the cost to remove Home features - just because it sounds like something only an "Enterprise" use would want...
They do add new features to an 8-year-old OS, they just bundle them with a bunch of new UI tweaks and sell it as a new product
You could say that about every non 1.0 piece of software ever written, obviously. Doesn't mean shitloads of time was put into the new versions.
Many companies charge for EVERY new yearly release (Apple even did this for a while - for the fucking iPods, nonetheless - until they realized the ill will for a few bucks paled in comparison to the hundreds of billions they raked in on the hardware). FFS, I love Parallels, but every time EITHER MacOS or Windows is updated they seem to want to grab another $50+ for an "upgrade".
What possible point that that comment serve in the context of optimizing for Kaby Lake? None, so who cares?
Yes, EXACTLY - you are not "most". You proved my point ten times over with your post (natch!).
And I'd love to check out Fleet Farm.. Where I grew up it was called Rural King, so I can imagine it pretty well ;)
Well, maybe HDCP2.2, because it's so new, but HDCP 1.4 should be supported on practically any display device you buy today, including computer monitors.
Wait, *so new"?! I assume you aren't in the industry, because HDCP 2.2 is already current-to-last generation for new development purposes.
Even when they're running Linux - HDCP is in general handled automatically by the output formatter so very little software is needed to enable it - the keys and all that are pre-burned into the hardware.
Sadly, that doesn't really matter for the next gen DRM. The content needs to be handled by a securely booted OS with TEE and protected video path before you see any 4K on a PC. Kaby Lake may provide that, as long as you are using the integrated decoder/graphics. Good luck on an external card, there will probably need to be a new bus standard for that...
I knew what you were referencing as soon as I read "when i hear or see turbo" - that was one of a half dozen blown up on my wall (don't tell the copyright police) when I was a kid...
Are you willing to pay for it? Can you convince another million users to do so? if not, why should they add new features to an 8 year old OS? What were you doing 8 years ago and are you willing to stop what you are doing now and spend the next year supporting it for no gain?
Sad thing is if I guessed "WIndows 10 Anniversary Edtion" and "Windows 10 sold by some pirate on the street in China" either would outsell your guesses by orders of magnitude...
At which point HDMI will support 4K @ 144Hz. HDMI is meant for consumer electronics, until TVs or VR headsets can handle 4K @ 144Hz it doesn't really matter.
I understand well the implications, I have a Rift and my day job involves streaming 4K HDR video.
The highest end consumer VR today is 2x 1080x1200 x 90Hz. It's not bad but definitely not at the limit of human vision. Double that and it will (notwithstanding peripheral vision enhancements) start to approach those limits. If HDMI bandwidth is increased by 2-4x it would meet that. Not too far fetched for the next few years. TVs won't do it but who cares, TVs aren't VR.
The point is it's stupid to claim standards are limiting the technology, right now the technology is limiting the standards.
We? WE? What have YOU done? Fuck nothing, I'm sure. I think you may have misunderstood my irony, but that's your problem.
But I guess that's why you are posting AC, because you are too much of a coward to say this and be accountable. Put your name behind your genocidal statements or go the fuck away.
HDMI has nothing to do with IP. It does support HDCP - but HDCP is a separate standard. It's not a horrible idea because studios offering UHD movies are not going to magically stop caring about content protection/DRM - all HDMI over USB-C will do is make it easier to create devices that support the existing required protections.
Actually, HDMI 2.0a is a much better solution for *most* devices - since most devices are TVs that already support it. 2160p @ 60Hz w/ HDR10 or 12 bit DolbyVision packed in 4:2:2 is WAY more than your eyes will ever perceive from a normal distance.
Killing people is INSIGHTFUL?
Funny thing is it's not like the "corporations" are setting out destroying the planet - they are just an amoral entity focused on expansion and profit.
The driving force of the destruction is the massive growth of the middle class worldwide. Without customers, corporations wouldn't exist. We ALL have to change our attitudes toward consumerism and consumption rather than blame the rich or the poor.
Ironically HAVING wealth LITERALLY keeps the population down. It's mostly the poorest countries that have the highest population growth rates.
And some have shown more like 1-3% - and it's indiscriminate feeding, ie. mostly through random chance - as you said there is no shortage of other insects for them to eat!
Go look it up. Between 1-3 cases of rabies are reported in the US each year. And not all of those come from bats. So, one person in the ENTIRE country gets rabies from a bat each year. Such a non-issue it's laughable.
Actually, no, they aren't. I read a couple of studies (easy to find) that say mosquitos make up about 1-3% of bat's nutritiional intake, and most of that is just by chance as they are fairly indiscriminate insect feeders.
My first thought was the same as yours - don't mess with the food web! - but the more I looked into it the more I started thinking that mosquitos (especially the few species that transmit human diseases) do not provide a substantial food source to all but a couple VERY limited ecosystems (mostly a few migratory bird species in the arctic).
Some species just "are" - they don't have an inherent purpose and exist to reproduce. It's entirely possible mosquitoes, like the viruses they often spread, would be better off eradicated. Certainly they kill MILLIONS more vs their benefit than any of the previous species (wolves, bears, tigers, etc) that we have nearly wiped out already...
Exactly. Increasing frequency does not mean increasing rate.
There are a lot more automobile-related deaths than there were 70 years ago, does that mean cars are less safe?