No no no no. We are not engineering the climate at all. We're just being human beings doing human being things like filling our biosphere up with CO2. We're just nature doing its nature thing.
We are making some attempts at engineering the climate, though, namely attempts at minimizing our CO2 output, but this has not had any real effect whatsoever.
It doesn't become engineering until you do it on purpose. We do not do that. Also note that it is nature until you start to "manage" or "engineer" it, at what point it stopt being nature and starts being "cultivated". Geo- and climate-engineering aim to finally destroy all nature by conserving it in an artificial way and thus making planet earth one big museum.
Just let nature be nature. Even if it destroys humanity. Nature doesn't need us, weed need nature.
I think you don't get what Uber is up to. They don't care about the sharing part, they don't care about their drivers. They just want to get as big a market share as possible and they want you to have their app on your phone. And then... they're going to wait.
Because what Uber understands is that in the near future we will not have drivers. We will not even have steering wheels. Or parking spots. Or traffic lights. Or people owning their own car. Or multiple lanes. We probably don't even have people that are allowed to drive a car. And we almost certainly will not have trains, subways or buses anymore. Instead We we all just be driven arounnd in a self-driving car owned by some big company. And Uber is planning to be that company.
Some time ago I researched long-term trends in employment by sector in the Netherlands. Employment in all sectors is declining except for few: entertainment, hospitaliy, (medical) care, "sales", automation, recycling. I suspect the latter two to go into decline sooner or later as well. As long as we manage to prevent extreme concentration of wealth with the owners of the automated production there shouldn't be a real problem; we're all going to entertain each other and care for each other and sell each other stuff.
The party crashing into the rear was tailgating (or not paying attention). The party slamming the brakes apparently either failed to notice that someone was tailgating or chose to ignore it. Compare this to situations where one party runs the red light; in this situation the other party is completely innocent and did not have and serious option to prevent the crash.
Oh there's the bullshit again. Red light camera's do increase safety. They may not decrease the number accidents but typically DO decrease casualties. But much more important, they reduce innocent victims. Instead of innocent people dying because some idiot slammed into the side of their car, we now mostly have 50% victims that either crashed into another car because they were tailgating and we have 50% victims that were incompetent drivers that failed to appreciate their surroundings, especially the idiot tailgating, and slammed the brakes in a panic.
Even if red light cameras would't increase safety, they would distribute casualties in a much fairer way, lowering the number of innocent victims and increasing the number of not-so-innocent victims. Red-light camera's increase effective self-determination.
Self-rotation. The amount of torque needed to rotate yourself is much lower than in typical gravity situations. More often than not, a wrench on earth is actually rotated by gravity pulling your body down. In space, you'd only pull yourself closer to the wrench.
Earlier studies consistently showed red light cameras resulted in less fatalities. And thus more injuries. I'm not convinced.
Furthermore, in rear-end collisions both parties are somewhat guilty. In T-bone crashes, typically only the one running the red light was clearly guilty. Therefore red light cameras result in a distribution of injuries that's fairer.
Tampering with evidence, for example by deleting a recording, is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. While in this case the consequences were negligible, I suggest prosecuting these cops for tampering with evidence.
I've read that too, but it's not science and it's not correct. While it's true that after 80 columns or more people have more trouble "carriage returning" their eyes, which leads to the subjective idea that long lines are not efficient, it is not; the advantage of having longer lines nearly always outweighs the disadvantages of having more trouble skipping to the next line. Longer is better. Always.
Also, it's totally ridiculous we're having this discussion. HTML allows content to scale with the screen. Fixed column widths are ridiculous. They do serve a purpose, however: they hide the fact that most news items nowadays are in fact just oneliners:p
So because web designers fail to properly design the web and thus leave me with ridiculously narrow columns, I should rotate my monitor? That's rubbish. Scientific research has shown again and again that we can read longer lines much more efficiently than we can read short lines, even though our subjective experience is often to the contrary. Just fix those websites and keep your monitor in landscape. Thank you.
There quite a lot of violence against men in the game as well. Probably much more so than violence against women. Not too long ago, while I was playing Trevor, I was kidnapped by some guy who beat me up, drugged me, raped me in the ass and then left me naked and unconscious in the railroad tracks. So why isn't that a problem according to Target? Either Target is a bunch of sexist assholes or they believe women are fundamentally weak and in need of protection like this, which would make them... o yeah. Sexist assholes.
By the way, I've never managed to really sexually assault a woman in the game. Is that even possible?
"larger society keeps forcing sexist stereotypes on her"
While that may be somewhat true, it's not the whole story. Babies only a few days old already display typical male or female interests that result in this girl wanting to be a princess. In countries where emancipation has come much further and woman and man are absolutely free to choose their jobs, they tend to pick (stereo)typical male or female jobs than in other countries!
Point is, a big part of gender-stereotypical behavior is not "learned". It is congenital. If you believe otherwise, please don't bother your child with it.
"it appears that humans are worse drain than the radiation"
Only if you look at photogenic large mammals like we always do. But nature is much more than that. Fungi, microbes, spiders and insects are doing very bad, so bad in fact that dead trees are hardly decaying. Birds have very small brains compared to birds from more healthy regions. And trees are not growing as fast as they should.
Bottomline: large parts of the natural cycle are not working and we don't know very well what the long term effects will be. What we DO know, is that abnormal amounts of flammable biomass is accumulating in the area. A forest-fire could cause huge redistribution of radioactive materials.
Age doesn't matter - I've had multiple rather old people on my team of software engineers. Age really doesn't matter.
However, as you get older and your knowledge and experience grows, you will get parasites. Instead of applying your knowledge and experience developing software like you used to, you will be answering all kinds of questions, performing little chores etc. because you happen to know how to because of your experience... to the point that you can no longer just be a software engineer. Research has shown that after each interruption it takes about 17 minutes to get back to the job. On average. For complex coding jobs, this time may be much longer and just a single question about something important but not directly related to your job may get you out of the flow for the rest of the day.
You may need to switch jobs to avoid this; once you start getting more than a handful of such requests that are not part of your coding job, run.
Also, consistently being an asshole may prevent this. But that's probably similarly detrimental to you career...
I don't think the technological singularity - if there's such a thing - should be feared. You may, however, want to fear widespread pseudo/artificial/whatever intelligence. Or just call it plain automation. Because it's going to take your job well before there's a technological singularity. And the challenges that need to be overcome to get us there are much easier than copying an amoebe. You don't need to be able to copy an amoebe in order to be able to do just about anything a human does better than a human.
We don't need to be able to copy amoebes for technology to take over the jobs of the drivers of all kinds of vehicles, all logistics personell, most IT personell, most construction workers, most car mechanics, all fast food personell, most military personell. You name it. And we're getting there fast; in fact replacing all these people would not really be so much of a technological challenge; it's now simply a matter of economics.
Prepare for a job in entertainment, (health) care, science or automating the hell out of anything or be without one in a decade. For quite some time, humans may still compete on the job market with general purpose robots, maybe they always will, but those jobs will inevitably be plain dull; computer tells you what to do, you do it, repeat. And there's all the reason to fear that...
I don't agree. There's enormous potential for storage, either by those wind power producers themselves or by independent market parties. The situation is temporary in the sense that these storage capabilities need to be built and this takes time. Existing storage solutions (most notably pumped hydro) show that this is both technologically and economically feasible. In fact so much so that dedicated international powerlines (e.g. the NorNet cable) are built specifically to get cheap power to those storage facilities.
That's the large scale. On the smaller scale, many European countries are updating local infrastructure (e.g. electricity meters) to enable households to plan their electricity use when the most power is available (e.g. make the fridge extra cold, charge your car, start the washing machine, fill the boiler or simply charge your own electricity storage). And the other way around is possible too: at times when electricity demand is high, empty your cars' batteries or dedicated storage, turn off the fridge or increase your CHP output and and mane some money.
Also, even those large scale "grey" power plants can still be economical. However, their electricity will be much more expensive, obviously, since keeping an expensive plant on standby is not cheap. This is also a great incentive for those power companies to start working on storage.
Also note that while this may be true for some countries (e.g. Germany), "(...) make renewables profitable legislators had to massively shaft everyone else with punitive measures (...)" is not true for all countries and was not a requirement for getting all this "green" power online at all.
This can only be a temporary problem. If those guys have a properly functioning electricity market, energy storage companies will bite. Obviously, this would work much better if end-users/suppliers were actually billed the actual electricity price instead of some kind of average. That way, they could change their behavior to match it or even consider storing their self-produced electricity. This could get a major boost if the electricity prices would be available in real-time to your fridge, washing machine, car charger and solar batteries.
What could also help tremendously, is if the countries around them shared the same ambition. If not, they will keep stuffing the hole until a major electricity dip comes around sometime mid-winter and the Danes will blackout.
Sounds like you're very good in the buzzword-department but have no idea what you're doing at all.... What kind of data are we talking about? Lots of writes? Lots of reads? Is the data suitable for splitting up? What kind of queries will you need to run? Do you need uptime? Or consistency?
Also if you're looking at MSSQL or Oracle, you obviously DO NOT HAVE Big Data. Big Data is data that cannot be dealt with using regular RDBMSes. Do you really have or plan to have multiple terabytes of data? If not, you don't have big data.
Based on the information you've given us we cannot give you any advice at all apart from stopping what you're doing and hiring an expert.
Thank you sir. That's exactly what we need; we just need to take the web back using open standards.
However, I think one or two major things are currently missing. The first is that the browser needs to be involved - in order to be able to properly authenticate on all your friends' walls/blogs/homepages, we need it to be automated: we need your browser to be able to tell any website you want it to where your online identify "lives". Furthermore, we need those online identies to be able to trust and communicate with each other - for example in order to access your "wall" as an RSS feed in order to show it on your newsfeed, your friends' provider will need to authenticate with yours.
Furthermore, we need a much broader protocol for those "online identity providers" to be able to fully replace functionality currently offers by Facebook/Whatsapp/Flickr/LinkedIn etc.
Without these two things, this will never work. But with them not only social network functionality can be fully replaced, but we can probably do away with logins on websites and filling out our address or payment info in webshops as well.
Waste heat already is quite a lot: 15 terawatt. Global warming equals something like 250 terawatt. If energy consumption keeps growing about 1.5% / year like it has for the past few decades, it will take about 80 years (T+80) for waste heat contribution to overtake the heat flux from earths interior. 40 years later (T+120) our waste heat will equal the total energy used by photosynthesis. In about two centuries from (T+200) now it will have risen to values comparable to what the greenhouse effect does today. Two more centuries later (T+400) we'll finally quality for our Kardashev Type I medal according to some and yet two centuries later (T+600) our energy consumption will surpass the total solar irradiation. In theory, because by then we'd be fried unless we have our giant space coolers in place. About two millenia (T+2500) later our power requirements will outshine the sun.
What's ridiculous here is that charges will not be pressed *because* the officer did not violate Vehicle Code section 23123.5 (which prohibits operating electronic wireless communication devices while driving) since it "does not apply to an emergency services professional using an electronic wireless communications device while operating an authorized emergency vehicle".
Apparently they totally failed to check whether the dude might have violated the law that says you should not kill people by driving over them with your car, which he obviously did violate.
Apparently killing people with your car is illegal UNLESS you're doing it while operating an electronic communications device in a police car; in that case you actually get a reward: the job you applied for over a year ago. How odd...
Slashdot Mirror
No no no no. We are not engineering the climate at all. We're just being human beings doing human being things like filling our biosphere up with CO2. We're just nature doing its nature thing.
We are making some attempts at engineering the climate, though, namely attempts at minimizing our CO2 output, but this has not had any real effect whatsoever.
It doesn't become engineering until you do it on purpose. We do not do that. Also note that it is nature until you start to "manage" or "engineer" it, at what point it stopt being nature and starts being "cultivated". Geo- and climate-engineering aim to finally destroy all nature by conserving it in an artificial way and thus making planet earth one big museum.
Just let nature be nature. Even if it destroys humanity. Nature doesn't need us, weed need nature.
I think you don't get what Uber is up to. They don't care about the sharing part, they don't care about their drivers. They just want to get as big a market share as possible and they want you to have their app on your phone. And then ... they're going to wait.
Because what Uber understands is that in the near future we will not have drivers. We will not even have steering wheels. Or parking spots. Or traffic lights. Or people owning their own car. Or multiple lanes. We probably don't even have people that are allowed to drive a car. And we almost certainly will not have trains, subways or buses anymore. Instead We we all just be driven arounnd in a self-driving car owned by some big company. And Uber is planning to be that company.
Some time ago I researched long-term trends in employment by sector in the Netherlands. Employment in all sectors is declining except for few: entertainment, hospitaliy, (medical) care, "sales", automation, recycling. I suspect the latter two to go into decline sooner or later as well. As long as we manage to prevent extreme concentration of wealth with the owners of the automated production there shouldn't be a real problem; we're all going to entertain each other and care for each other and sell each other stuff.
The party crashing into the rear was tailgating (or not paying attention). The party slamming the brakes apparently either failed to notice that someone was tailgating or chose to ignore it. Compare this to situations where one party runs the red light; in this situation the other party is completely innocent and did not have and serious option to prevent the crash.
Oh there's the bullshit again. Red light camera's do increase safety. They may not decrease the number accidents but typically DO decrease casualties. But much more important, they reduce innocent victims. Instead of innocent people dying because some idiot slammed into the side of their car, we now mostly have 50% victims that either crashed into another car because they were tailgating and we have 50% victims that were incompetent drivers that failed to appreciate their surroundings, especially the idiot tailgating, and slammed the brakes in a panic.
Even if red light cameras would't increase safety, they would distribute casualties in a much fairer way, lowering the number of innocent victims and increasing the number of not-so-innocent victims. Red-light camera's increase effective self-determination.
Self-rotation. The amount of torque needed to rotate yourself is much lower than in typical gravity situations. More often than not, a wrench on earth is actually rotated by gravity pulling your body down. In space, you'd only pull yourself closer to the wrench.
Earlier studies consistently showed red light cameras resulted in less fatalities. And thus more injuries. I'm not convinced.
Furthermore, in rear-end collisions both parties are somewhat guilty. In T-bone crashes, typically only the one running the red light was clearly guilty. Therefore red light cameras result in a distribution of injuries that's fairer.
And that was a consequence of deleting the evidence?
Either you're replying to the wrong comment or you have a braintumor. wtf.
Tampering with evidence, for example by deleting a recording, is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. While in this case the consequences were negligible, I suggest prosecuting these cops for tampering with evidence.
I've read that too, but it's not science and it's not correct. While it's true that after 80 columns or more people have more trouble "carriage returning" their eyes, which leads to the subjective idea that long lines are not efficient, it is not; the advantage of having longer lines nearly always outweighs the disadvantages of having more trouble skipping to the next line. Longer is better. Always.
Also, it's totally ridiculous we're having this discussion. HTML allows content to scale with the screen. Fixed column widths are ridiculous. They do serve a purpose, however: they hide the fact that most news items nowadays are in fact just oneliners:p
So because web designers fail to properly design the web and thus leave me with ridiculously narrow columns, I should rotate my monitor? That's rubbish. Scientific research has shown again and again that we can read longer lines much more efficiently than we can read short lines, even though our subjective experience is often to the contrary. Just fix those websites and keep your monitor in landscape. Thank you.
There quite a lot of violence against men in the game as well. Probably much more so than violence against women. Not too long ago, while I was playing Trevor, I was kidnapped by some guy who beat me up, drugged me, raped me in the ass and then left me naked and unconscious in the railroad tracks. So why isn't that a problem according to Target? Either Target is a bunch of sexist assholes or they believe women are fundamentally weak and in need of protection like this, which would make them ... o yeah. Sexist assholes.
By the way, I've never managed to really sexually assault a woman in the game. Is that even possible?
"larger society keeps forcing sexist stereotypes on her"
While that may be somewhat true, it's not the whole story. Babies only a few days old already display typical male or female interests that result in this girl wanting to be a princess. In countries where emancipation has come much further and woman and man are absolutely free to choose their jobs, they tend to pick (stereo)typical male or female jobs than in other countries!
Point is, a big part of gender-stereotypical behavior is not "learned". It is congenital. If you believe otherwise, please don't bother your child with it.
Also, please watch this awesome documentary on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Maybe it's just you that doesn't have Google.
Here's a properly readable source with proper links to somewhat less readable scientifically sound sources:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...
"it appears that humans are worse drain than the radiation"
Only if you look at photogenic large mammals like we always do. But nature is much more than that. Fungi, microbes, spiders and insects are doing very bad, so bad in fact that dead trees are hardly decaying. Birds have very small brains compared to birds from more healthy regions. And trees are not growing as fast as they should.
Bottomline: large parts of the natural cycle are not working and we don't know very well what the long term effects will be. What we DO know, is that abnormal amounts of flammable biomass is accumulating in the area. A forest-fire could cause huge redistribution of radioactive materials.
Age doesn't matter - I've had multiple rather old people on my team of software engineers. Age really doesn't matter.
However, as you get older and your knowledge and experience grows, you will get parasites. Instead of applying your knowledge and experience developing software like you used to, you will be answering all kinds of questions, performing little chores etc. because you happen to know how to because of your experience... to the point that you can no longer just be a software engineer. Research has shown that after each interruption it takes about 17 minutes to get back to the job. On average. For complex coding jobs, this time may be much longer and just a single question about something important but not directly related to your job may get you out of the flow for the rest of the day.
You may need to switch jobs to avoid this; once you start getting more than a handful of such requests that are not part of your coding job, run.
Also, consistently being an asshole may prevent this. But that's probably similarly detrimental to you career...
I don't think the technological singularity - if there's such a thing - should be feared. You may, however, want to fear widespread pseudo/artificial/whatever intelligence. Or just call it plain automation. Because it's going to take your job well before there's a technological singularity. And the challenges that need to be overcome to get us there are much easier than copying an amoebe. You don't need to be able to copy an amoebe in order to be able to do just about anything a human does better than a human.
We don't need to be able to copy amoebes for technology to take over the jobs of the drivers of all kinds of vehicles, all logistics personell, most IT personell, most construction workers, most car mechanics, all fast food personell, most military personell. You name it. And we're getting there fast; in fact replacing all these people would not really be so much of a technological challenge; it's now simply a matter of economics.
Prepare for a job in entertainment, (health) care, science or automating the hell out of anything or be without one in a decade. For quite some time, humans may still compete on the job market with general purpose robots, maybe they always will, but those jobs will inevitably be plain dull; computer tells you what to do, you do it, repeat. And there's all the reason to fear that...
I don't agree. There's enormous potential for storage, either by those wind power producers themselves or by independent market parties. The situation is temporary in the sense that these storage capabilities need to be built and this takes time. Existing storage solutions (most notably pumped hydro) show that this is both technologically and economically feasible. In fact so much so that dedicated international powerlines (e.g. the NorNet cable) are built specifically to get cheap power to those storage facilities.
That's the large scale. On the smaller scale, many European countries are updating local infrastructure (e.g. electricity meters) to enable households to plan their electricity use when the most power is available (e.g. make the fridge extra cold, charge your car, start the washing machine, fill the boiler or simply charge your own electricity storage). And the other way around is possible too: at times when electricity demand is high, empty your cars' batteries or dedicated storage, turn off the fridge or increase your CHP output and and mane some money.
Also, even those large scale "grey" power plants can still be economical. However, their electricity will be much more expensive, obviously, since keeping an expensive plant on standby is not cheap. This is also a great incentive for those power companies to start working on storage.
Also note that while this may be true for some countries (e.g. Germany), "(...) make renewables profitable legislators had to massively shaft everyone else with punitive measures (...)" is not true for all countries and was not a requirement for getting all this "green" power online at all.
This can only be a temporary problem. If those guys have a properly functioning electricity market, energy storage companies will bite. Obviously, this would work much better if end-users/suppliers were actually billed the actual electricity price instead of some kind of average. That way, they could change their behavior to match it or even consider storing their self-produced electricity. This could get a major boost if the electricity prices would be available in real-time to your fridge, washing machine, car charger and solar batteries.
What could also help tremendously, is if the countries around them shared the same ambition. If not, they will keep stuffing the hole until a major electricity dip comes around sometime mid-winter and the Danes will blackout.
Sounds like you're very good in the buzzword-department but have no idea what you're doing at all.... What kind of data are we talking about? Lots of writes? Lots of reads? Is the data suitable for splitting up? What kind of queries will you need to run? Do you need uptime? Or consistency?
Also if you're looking at MSSQL or Oracle, you obviously DO NOT HAVE Big Data. Big Data is data that cannot be dealt with using regular RDBMSes. Do you really have or plan to have multiple terabytes of data? If not, you don't have big data.
Based on the information you've given us we cannot give you any advice at all apart from stopping what you're doing and hiring an expert.
Anybody can use the AED's in use in the Netherlands; they are fully automatic and tell you exactly what to do.
Thank you sir. That's exactly what we need; we just need to take the web back using open standards.
However, I think one or two major things are currently missing. The first is that the browser needs to be involved - in order to be able to properly authenticate on all your friends' walls/blogs/homepages, we need it to be automated: we need your browser to be able to tell any website you want it to where your online identify "lives". Furthermore, we need those online identies to be able to trust and communicate with each other - for example in order to access your "wall" as an RSS feed in order to show it on your newsfeed, your friends' provider will need to authenticate with yours.
Furthermore, we need a much broader protocol for those "online identity providers" to be able to fully replace functionality currently offers by Facebook/Whatsapp/Flickr/LinkedIn etc.
Without these two things, this will never work. But with them not only social network functionality can be fully replaced, but we can probably do away with logins on websites and filling out our address or payment info in webshops as well.
Waste heat already is quite a lot: 15 terawatt. Global warming equals something like 250 terawatt. If energy consumption keeps growing about 1.5% / year like it has for the past few decades, it will take about 80 years (T+80) for waste heat contribution to overtake the heat flux from earths interior. 40 years later (T+120) our waste heat will equal the total energy used by photosynthesis. In about two centuries from (T+200) now it will have risen to values comparable to what the greenhouse effect does today. Two more centuries later (T+400) we'll finally quality for our Kardashev Type I medal according to some and yet two centuries later (T+600) our energy consumption will surpass the total solar irradiation. In theory, because by then we'd be fried unless we have our giant space coolers in place. About two millenia (T+2500) later our power requirements will outshine the sun.
What's ridiculous here is that charges will not be pressed *because* the officer did not violate Vehicle Code section 23123.5 (which prohibits operating electronic wireless communication devices while driving) since it "does not apply to an emergency services professional using an electronic wireless communications device while operating an authorized emergency vehicle".
Apparently they totally failed to check whether the dude might have violated the law that says you should not kill people by driving over them with your car, which he obviously did violate.
Apparently killing people with your car is illegal UNLESS you're doing it while operating an electronic communications device in a police car; in that case you actually get a reward: the job you applied for over a year ago. How odd...