Your proposal puts a very large onus on every single consumer to know and understand those ratings. In other words, it does not scale well to entire populations.
All of the models that indicate signifincant warming are predicated on the continued rise of CO2 emissions.
Yet that is madness, The quickening rise in Solar power and electric cars mean that CO2 levels will be in decline by the end of this decade, never mind the ones after.
The push for renewables is precisely to avoid a climate catastrophe. The models are based on CO2 rise because, thus far, that's exactly what the trend has been.
Arguing that we don't need renewables because renewables will save us is circular reasoning.
And I gave you one. You were conflating monetization of videos with censorship. I corrected you. What's worse is that you were probably deliberately conflating monetization with censorship, which would make you more than a bit dishonest.
So which is it? Were you mistaken, or were you being dishonest? Because there are objectively no other explanations for your statements.
By that standard, not a single 10 year old has ever received an education. So that's a big fat nope on your made-up rule.
And by the by, your crack about being belittled rings particularly hollow. The tell is your slashdot ID. Both of us have been here long enough to know that the victim act is bullshit.
I want to see the economics of this so I can judge the validity of this as a future energy source.
Renewable adoption of the world at large is not actually up to you, so your demand seems more than a bit empty. But if you really want to know the answer, Google is your friend.
Sadly, I expect you'll use your findings like a drunk uses a lamp post -- for support, rather than illumination.
Let me know when Kansas can supply 100% of it's electrical needs through renewables when the electricity is actually needed - producing a surplus of electricity during the day does nothing to power lights at night.
Why is that relevant? The power grid is a large collection of power generation units that have different characteristics and are useful at different times for different needs based on the load at that moment. Having more options is a good thing.
You seem to be laboring under the illusion that one power source has to do it all. There is in fact no such rule.
I've read a couple of your posts now, and it's clear that you don't even understand the basic premise. This is about monetization of videos, not whether the video can be on YouTube. It's shocking (shocking!) how much effort you've put in to espousing your point, when your point isn't even on point.
Yeah. Also, I think coding is fun. I did hobby coding ever since I was a child. For fun. Still do.
Agreed. Programming is an enjoyable experience for me. Hard, yes. But also creative and satisfying. And I'm not alone -- the best programmers I know were drawn to programming because it was something they enjoyed.
So I call bullshit on the "coding isn't fun" theme.
You're assigning emotions to google which are probably not present. The fact that they stopped the campaign (the first time, anyway) doesn't really imply much of anything at all except -- in this instance -- they attempted to do the right thing.
I think it's likely, though, that you yourself are butthurt about something google has done, and are now projecting.
Yes, precisely like cash. Now I know that many on/. are very much from the "nobody knowing how much Sprite I buy is more important than busting tax evaders and preventing drug trafficking" camp, but there being an equivalent means of escaping prosecution now is not an argument for introducing new means in the future. From Mankiw's "Principles of Economics":
This is a terrible argument. First, you rely on the assumption that any one authority gets to "allow" Bitcoin to exist, when none do. Bitcoin already exists, people are using it, no permission was needed, and none was asked. Second, you seem to be saying that because cash can be used illegally (in addition to the substantial legal use that cash enjoys) that we don't need another currency that might be used illegally, while ignoring the substantial legal uses and novel features that a digital currency provides.
Car analogy time: Gasoline cars can be used to mow into crowds of people, so we shouldn't allow electric cars to be licensed for street use, lest they also be used to mow into crowds of people.
Let's say bit coin becomes legit. How long before we got greedy copy cats sniffing money and start breaking in?
You're late to this particular party. Really late. Bitcoin has been legit enough for long enough that the number of copycat cryptocurrencies is fast approaching infinity.
How many forms of money will it take before money becomes worthless?
Slashdot Mirror
Your proposal puts a very large onus on every single consumer to know and understand those ratings. In other words, it does not scale well to entire populations.
All of the models that indicate signifincant warming are predicated on the continued rise of CO2 emissions.
Yet that is madness, The quickening rise in Solar power and electric cars mean that CO2 levels will be in decline by the end of this decade, never mind the ones after.
The push for renewables is precisely to avoid a climate catastrophe. The models are based on CO2 rise because, thus far, that's exactly what the trend has been.
Arguing that we don't need renewables because renewables will save us is circular reasoning.
And I gave you one. You were conflating monetization of videos with censorship. I corrected you. What's worse is that you were probably deliberately conflating monetization with censorship, which would make you more than a bit dishonest.
So which is it? Were you mistaken, or were you being dishonest? Because there are objectively no other explanations for your statements.
Pick one.
By that standard, not a single 10 year old has ever received an education. So that's a big fat nope on your made-up rule.
And by the by, your crack about being belittled rings particularly hollow. The tell is your slashdot ID. Both of us have been here long enough to know that the victim act is bullshit.
I want to see the economics of this so I can judge the validity of this as a future energy source.
Renewable adoption of the world at large is not actually up to you, so your demand seems more than a bit empty. But if you really want to know the answer, Google is your friend.
Sadly, I expect you'll use your findings like a drunk uses a lamp post -- for support, rather than illumination.
Let me know when Kansas can supply 100% of it's electrical needs through renewables when the electricity is actually needed - producing a surplus of electricity during the day does nothing to power lights at night.
Why is that relevant? The power grid is a large collection of power generation units that have different characteristics and are useful at different times for different needs based on the load at that moment. Having more options is a good thing.
You seem to be laboring under the illusion that one power source has to do it all. There is in fact no such rule.
But instead of educating me you just belittle me.
From my reply:
This is about monetization of videos, not whether the video can be on YouTube
That was me educating you.
I've read a couple of your posts now, and it's clear that you don't even understand the basic premise. This is about monetization of videos, not whether the video can be on YouTube. It's shocking (shocking!) how much effort you've put in to espousing your point, when your point isn't even on point.
Only an idiot would celebrate an attack on freedom of speech.
How is this an attack on freedom of speech? Since when is getting paid by advertisers a necessary component of the exercise of free speech?
It also means that sane people can't post videos debunking the bullshit some preachers spread anymore if they want to make a living that way.
No it doesn't. It just means they have to be rational and civil while doing so, instead of shrieking hate at the top of their lungs.
This is an authoritarian/libertarian issue.
Poppycock. You have a right to spout hateful bullshit, but nobody (least of all a private corporation) should be obligated to pay you for doing so.
Only with less humor.
Do you want morality to be legislated? Because that is how you get morality legislated.
You can have my compiler when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.
Yeah. Also, I think coding is fun. I did hobby coding ever since I was a child. For fun. Still do.
Agreed. Programming is an enjoyable experience for me. Hard, yes. But also creative and satisfying. And I'm not alone -- the best programmers I know were drawn to programming because it was something they enjoyed.
So I call bullshit on the "coding isn't fun" theme.
It should be clearer than ever that Obama was indeed responsible for monitoring the phones of Trump and his associates.
If this is the best you can do, and the extent of your ability to construct logical arguments, you should just give up now.
Schools are managed at the local level. Whether they are better off depends on whether or not you live in Kansas.
I admit it, I laughed. Schadenfreude is a powerful thing, you know?
Obesity (along with diabetes II) is caused by carbohydrate intake. Not fat.
How do you know there was rage involved?
its hurting big G's widdle feelings.
HAHAHA
too fucking bad, big G.
You're assigning emotions to google which are probably not present. The fact that they stopped the campaign (the first time, anyway) doesn't really imply much of anything at all except -- in this instance -- they attempted to do the right thing.
I think it's likely, though, that you yourself are butthurt about something google has done, and are now projecting.
The TFA says it works in low humidity, such as that found in arid regions.
The thing is, this doesn't punish the governments. It punishes the people in those countries that already endured a government shutdown.
Way to pour salt on the wounds.
Yes, precisely like cash. Now I know that many on /. are very much from the "nobody knowing how much Sprite I buy is more important than busting tax evaders and preventing drug trafficking" camp, but there being an equivalent means of escaping prosecution now is not an argument for introducing new means in the future. From Mankiw's "Principles of Economics":
This is a terrible argument. First, you rely on the assumption that any one authority gets to "allow" Bitcoin to exist, when none do. Bitcoin already exists, people are using it, no permission was needed, and none was asked. Second, you seem to be saying that because cash can be used illegally (in addition to the substantial legal use that cash enjoys) that we don't need another currency that might be used illegally, while ignoring the substantial legal uses and novel features that a digital currency provides.
Car analogy time: Gasoline cars can be used to mow into crowds of people, so we shouldn't allow electric cars to be licensed for street use, lest they also be used to mow into crowds of people.
See? It's a dumb argument.
Let's say bit coin becomes legit. How long before we got greedy copy cats sniffing money and start breaking in?
You're late to this particular party. Really late. Bitcoin has been legit enough for long enough that the number of copycat cryptocurrencies is fast approaching infinity.
How many forms of money will it take before money becomes worthless?
All of them.
Cash can be regulated and tracked. Bitcoin not so much.
My mistake. I didn't realize you were from bizarro-world, where everything is backwards and the women wear goatees.
...for fraud. This is serious folks. Bitcoin is all about hiding transactions and avoiding taxes.
You mean like cash?