...is that all of our attempts to farm wild species always end up with concentrations of large numbers of fish in confined spaces, essentially living in their own "fish sewage".
The genius of wild fishing is that the "pollution" from feces and the potential for spreading of diseases is spread out in a free-to-migrate wild population. What nature has evolved cares not an iota about arbitrary Human profit margins and motives, but is self-optimizing and adaptive to the conditions that maintain healthy fish populations. It remains to the human species to LIMIT THE HUMAN TAKE of the productivity that nature provides. Anything less is asking for disasters, such as the collapse of entire fisheries.
We, Humans, need to control our own carnal proclivities and our own numbers to avoid overloading the natural services provided by natural systems. Life is not a game of financial monopoly. Life on the planet cares very little about the corporate bottom line obsessions of a psychotically obsessed rogue species.
Humans will learn to cooperate, or they will die in the cesspools of their own making.
You are complaining about crappy, cheap toy lights, made to absorb the consumer's wallet, not the best that the real technology produces. Of course, a capitalist is free to produce whatever cheap crap that they think they can sell quickly, and the American consumer is always ready to buy the latest in this throw-away garbage if it comes with enough manufactured hype from a frivolous social media marketing campaign: It's what the marketers have been training the consumer to do for decades: acceptance of the flashy and cheap with the full understanding that none of it will last out the year.
People revel in their self-administered stupidity and willingly waste their shrinking paychecks on whatever the next flashy TV ad is pushing. It is what drives the consumer's dollars towards filling the bank accounts of the international global corporations and ultimately what is causing the huge gap in wealth inequality.
Why do you suppose the GNP keeps rising? It's because people have been convinced to keep buying flashy trinkets that become trash before the year is out. The producers of this crap have no care for the mountains of garbage this creates in our landfills: they do not have to pay for the trash collection and waste disposal. They are already laughing at them all the way to the bank while coming up with the next campaign for removing fools from their money.Consumers are the most ignorant of all sheep.
Except for Trump supporters, who are just as undereducated and willfully misinformed as their sociopathic orange-man leader.
Also in Arizona, ranchers have protected access to huge tracts of private lands due to the open range laws which checkerboarded square mile sections of public BLM land with square mile sections of private land, declaring it all "open range" and requiring the private landowner to construct fencing to keep cattle and other livestock off their land. If the livestock is injured by a fence that was not up to code the private land owner is held liable for any injuries and must pay damages. If a cow damages the private fence and causes other damages, it's Tough shit! Too bad! The owner of the fence gets to pay for the repairs!
Crony Capitalism at it's finest! And it's the law!
I think it's a good thing that people with access to ride sharing services would stop buying their own personal transportation.
I can also see how a city might want to support car sales (and the excise taxes they can raise) by outlawing those services. Historically, preservation of the status quo is a strong driver of decisions by government functionaries.
But the economic decisions of individuals IS a primary tenant of free market capitalism, is it not?
Let's see how this cognitive dissonance will play itself out in the real world. Such a perfect example to test how well a free economy actually works in practice, isn't it?
1: Forcing their beliefs on others is inherent to Islam. Only a complete idiot could think their very presence is not a threat to Western civilization.
Replace Islam with Christianity, and you can see what a specious argument this is, just in terms of the illogical nature of the statement.
I think the subject line may give too much credit to Trump's causal relationship with anything Republican. It seems to be more of a correlative relationship to me.
But then, I disagree with most things Republican these days, so I suppose my opinions are also considered suspect by a large percentage of the readership of/. articles.
I think of them as a potential "learning moment" opportunity.
So for Trumper's good PR, Wisconsin taxpayers get to pay Foxcomm's $3 billion tax bill.
Once again, taxpayers get duped, big business takes a walk on taxes.
After all, Trump has lots of experience doing this with his own taxes (for which that asshat lied about releasing the records).
But that's just fine because like Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize before he actually did anything,
Trumper gets credit for fake jobs when big business was sitting on tons of cash and withholding jobs, waiting for Obama to get out of office, just to keep from giving a black president any credit.
(Yes, I'm saying they were playing the race card during Obama's entire two terms!)
More smoke and mirrors, same political garbage. Nothing new. Politicians are still corrupt, lying sacks of cow dung and voters are still incredibly stupid: dumber than a box of jello hammers!
Ah, but USA is still the best country in the world for a dumb-ass to blend in. Fucking idiots!
Note that the rate of change has been slowing, showing that the momentum on China's growth is actually slowing down. It's really hard to do with a population the size of China's, so they are trying, despite the propaganda you are trying to spread.
A bigger population, combined with older technology, will continue to produce more pollution.
Renewable sources of energy are an emergent technology, as are the means of storing that energy. Batteries made of toxic substances will not be the only methods for solving the immediacy problems associated with renewable sources. IMO, you don't give human ingenuity enough credit in your assessments.
I don't care about what you don't want to hear when you construct your carefully contrived scenarios. Why not allow for a wider choice of solutions? What have you got to lose?
...would relieve the politicians from having to order extermination squads to kill off all those pesky poor people. Want to bet on how rich you'll have to be to afford survival?
To the contrary, actions by individuals are very important, especially when it comes to developing personal integrity and character.
But you mischaracterize all government actions as being heavy handed, just as you also mischaracterize individual actions as being ineffective. Those are your inferences, not mine.
You twist my words to fit your own preconceptions of how society must be organized. You use your own world view to justify the systematic suppression of the ideas of people who may have life experiences different from your own or who may have a different vision of how the world should be and desire the freedom to work to make changes.
Your choices may have worked well for you, but that does not give you the right to disallow any changes that others might require to achieve equal justice for themselves even if that might threaten the status quo that gives you privileges that are not extended to everyone.
Life is full of changes; perhaps the only constant is that changes will happen. It is very foolish to demand that society must not change, especially when the traditional way of doing things is unjust and places an unjust burden on the weaker and more vulnerable segments of a society.
One primary function of government is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority so that all segments of society have the same access to the blessings of liberty and the pursuit of their own hapiness as is afforded to any other segment of that society. Sometimes that requires that one group of people must learn to tolerate the diversity of thoughts and actions of others that are different from their own.
What happens to all the matter sucked up by black holes?
If some of the mass is converted to energy inside the black hole, could that affect our perception of the mass of those black holes?
Essentially, would an amount of mass that is being converted to energy inside the black hole affect the amount of mass we attribute to a black hole from our vantage point on the outside of said black hole?
Would it behave like some sort of "anti-gravity" effect, or would it act as a "gravity enhancing" effect?
I'm just a layman here, so please forgive my ignorance, but I am serious about getting an answer to the questions.
...given the Luddites that the politicians have placed at the helm of the FCC!
I have no doubt that these turkeys have only one goal: to further restrict the access to a quality, high bandwidth Internet connection to the high rollers in the financial industry, and for other paternalistic traditional purveyors of limited and targeted information access points.
This does not bode well for a functioning and just democratic process in the U.S.A.
Thank you for your calculations. They are very informative and show us where we need some new ideas to match the new technologies.
Just on the face of it, rather than use the same electric tractor for the entire trip, a cargo company could set up the equivalent of Pony Express stations and merely swap out a fully charged tractor for the depleted tractor. Probably could be done in the time the driver would need for a bathroom break or to grab some lunch.
There might even be third-party companies that do nothing but recharge the EV tractor units for a number of cargo haulers. Or this would be accomplished by vertical integrating a network of service yards at convenient distances apart. Or some combination of the logistical models, some of which have not even been thought of yet.
I shouldn't be so surprised at the reactionary lack of imagination of so many commenters on/.
I blame their lack of imagination on the planned destruction of our once excellent public school system by reactionary and self-serving Luddites in business and government, who consistently sabotage progressive ideas in order to protect their own sinecured policies of paternalistic and privileged tradition.
When more cars are EV, parking lots in shopping malls or at workplaces will be outfitted with Universal Chargers which will charge a vehicle as it sits while the driver is off doing whatever...
Your straw man objection is sopping wet, like your besotted lack of imagination.
Thanks for doing the research to present this relevant informative material in such a dispassionate manner! Such a rarity among the usual/. claptrap of mindless criticism.
I agree with you, I think. I would hope that a company's success is based on a better understanding of both a customer's needs and an awareness of what the outcomes of those needs will have on the larger picture, including the possibility that the effects of a customer's goals or even the company's goals may be wrong or harmful in the long run.
It's not a set-and-forget rule book that must never change. A company or a customer may have to reinvent itself as a result of changes in the wider scope of reality.
One of the many challenges of living in interesting times...
From the vitriol of most of the comments made on/. I'd say the SJW positions are fully vindicated.
Privilege is threatened when those reactionary privileges are exposed, especially when a company attempts to correct the cultural bias that has been the norm for so long.
This is not to say that creating a more level playing field is an easy thing to accomplish. That will most likely take time and many more non-threatening open discussions of the problems to arrive at better solutions.
That being said, crossing the line should not be justification for firing the offender, but rather a teaching moment that could possibly arrive at a better policy for everyone.
So much for the lie that converting to Renewable Energy would bring ruin to the world's economies.
So much for the fallacy that the oil companies wanted to let the invisible hand of a free marketplace guide economic decisions.
Maybe the environmentalists had the right idea all along, and that listening to them 30 years ago could have already improved the lives of so many people.
Awaiting the clickity-clack of the imploding minds of many/. conservative pundits who will continue to insist on the purity of their foolish lies.
You don't know what changes I have made while suffering the effects other people's livelihoods may have had on our shared environment. The world does not revolve around individual actions, although sometimes an individual can make a difference by making a big enough fuss about what's going on in the world.
Your "Marketplace" solutions assume that people are not swayed by lies, misinformation campaigns, and the political influence of special interests using the wealth derived from extracting the natural resources the planet's Commons for their private gain.
Funny how YOUR preferred solutions are the same as those that have been actively suppressed by the Republicans and conservative ideologues. Their primary reasons seem to have been to extend the profits of a particularly destructive business model by delaying the change to new technologies and the competition they represented to their own protected and well-subsidized profit margins. Why would you keep your preferred solutions to yourself, merely because you saw the advantages. Your actions as a single individual may well have given you a personal benefit but did little to extend that solution at the larger scale of the global problem we're talking about.
Your self-centered, "I've got mine--fuck everyone else" attitudes and condescending libertarian clap-trap ideologies are destructive and wasteful of the planet's shared resources, especially if adopted by everyone on the planet.
Funny how I never said that adaptation was evil. To the contrary, I contend that those adaptations are what the conservative political philosophies have been suppressing because it would necessitate a change in their well-established business models of further concentrating wealth into the hands of the few by limiting the opportunities and political power of the less wealthy.
That historical gender roles exist is not in question. The extent to which the gender roles is PURELY biological, and not societal in nature due is the question, for the reasons I tried to point out. The facts are that some women can perform just as well or better than some men have been supported by the science.
What Google is attempting is to allow society to catch up with the science. They may well be off the mark if they try to insist on a strict 50-50 ratio as the sole measure of parity.
Also, I can see a case for encouraging more diverse inputs in the software and hardware engineering fields at every stage of the design-build process that would fulfill legitimate business goals. It hasn't been that long ago that designs for the left-handed were unheard of.
I don't see this as a case of "...If you have a faulty premise (men and women are the same)..."
They are NOT the same. That is not what is being called out here. The sexism is in not including the differences in the designs from the start, and then blaming sexism for the statistics that proved a case for correcting the original problem of sexist treatment of women in the first place.
That's the problem that arises during these transitional periods when we try to shift an unjust status quo towards justice.Those who were on top in the status quo will feel slighted if their previous sinecure is impeached. They will survive it, but they may face stiffer competition for their positions, requiring some more effort to stay on top.
But that extra effort should not be to merely force a return to the same old status quo as before.
It would be like building a narrow cantilevered walkway/carport above all the cars which had all the electrical connections built into it, with stairways to get up & down to the parking level. Expensive, probably, but doable, especially as Electric Vehicles (EVs) begin to outnumber Internal Combustion Engines (ICEs).
Raising the walkways would be cheaper than raising the roadways for obvious engineering reasons. The walkways would also provide more protection from the elements for the cars. People will always have their 'brellies!
Slashdot Mirror
...is that all of our attempts to farm wild species always end up with concentrations of large numbers of fish in confined spaces, essentially living in their own "fish sewage".
The genius of wild fishing is that the "pollution" from feces and the potential for spreading of diseases is spread out in a free-to-migrate wild population. What nature has evolved cares not an iota about arbitrary Human profit margins and motives, but is self-optimizing and adaptive to the conditions that maintain healthy fish populations. It remains to the human species to LIMIT THE HUMAN TAKE of the productivity that nature provides. Anything less is asking for disasters, such as the collapse of entire fisheries.
We, Humans, need to control our own carnal proclivities and our own numbers to avoid overloading the natural services provided by natural systems. Life is not a game of financial monopoly. Life on the planet cares very little about the corporate bottom line obsessions of a psychotically obsessed rogue species.
Humans will learn to cooperate, or they will die in the cesspools of their own making.
You are complaining about crappy, cheap toy lights, made to absorb the consumer's wallet, not the best that the real technology produces. Of course, a capitalist is free to produce whatever cheap crap that they think they can sell quickly, and the American consumer is always ready to buy the latest in this throw-away garbage if it comes with enough manufactured hype from a frivolous social media marketing campaign: It's what the marketers have been training the consumer to do for decades: acceptance of the flashy and cheap with the full understanding that none of it will last out the year.
People revel in their self-administered stupidity and willingly waste their shrinking paychecks on whatever the next flashy TV ad is pushing. It is what drives the consumer's dollars towards filling the bank accounts of the international global corporations and ultimately what is causing the huge gap in wealth inequality.
Why do you suppose the GNP keeps rising? It's because people have been convinced to keep buying flashy trinkets that become trash before the year is out. The producers of this crap have no care for the mountains of garbage this creates in our landfills: they do not have to pay for the trash collection and waste disposal. They are already laughing at them all the way to the bank while coming up with the next campaign for removing fools from their money.Consumers are the most ignorant of all sheep.
Except for Trump supporters, who are just as undereducated and willfully misinformed as their sociopathic orange-man leader.
Also in Arizona, ranchers have protected access to huge tracts of private lands due to the open range laws which checkerboarded square mile sections of public BLM land with square mile sections of private land, declaring it all "open range" and requiring the private landowner to construct fencing to keep cattle and other livestock off their land. If the livestock is injured by a fence that was not up to code the private land owner is held liable for any injuries and must pay damages. If a cow damages the private fence and causes other damages, it's Tough shit! Too bad! The owner of the fence gets to pay for the repairs!
Crony Capitalism at it's finest! And it's the law!
"In a law book which your dumb ass should've read."
If everyone did that (read the law books), a lot of lawyers would be out of work. Why are you so against lawyers, anyway?
(I'd be joking if it wasn't so true!)
I think it's a good thing that people with access to ride sharing services would stop buying their own personal transportation.
I can also see how a city might want to support car sales (and the excise taxes they can raise) by outlawing those services. Historically, preservation of the status quo is a strong driver of decisions by government functionaries.
But the economic decisions of individuals IS a primary tenant of free market capitalism, is it not?
Let's see how this cognitive dissonance will play itself out in the real world. Such a perfect example to test how well a free economy actually works in practice, isn't it?
1: Forcing their beliefs on others is inherent to Islam. Only a complete idiot could think their very presence is not a threat to Western civilization.
Replace Islam with Christianity, and you can see what a specious argument this is, just in terms of the illogical nature of the statement.
I think the subject line may give too much credit to Trump's causal relationship with anything Republican. It seems to be more of a correlative relationship to me.
But then, I disagree with most things Republican these days, so I suppose my opinions are also considered suspect by a large percentage of the readership of /. articles.
I think of them as a potential "learning moment" opportunity.
So for Trumper's good PR, Wisconsin taxpayers get to pay Foxcomm's $3 billion tax bill.
Once again, taxpayers get duped, big business takes a walk on taxes.
After all, Trump has lots of experience doing this with his own taxes (for which that asshat lied about releasing the records).
But that's just fine because like Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize before he actually did anything,
Trumper gets credit for fake jobs when big business was sitting on tons of cash and withholding jobs, waiting for Obama to get out of office, just to keep from giving a black president any credit.
(Yes, I'm saying they were playing the race card during Obama's entire two terms!)
More smoke and mirrors, same political garbage. Nothing new. Politicians are still corrupt, lying sacks of cow dung and voters are still incredibly stupid: dumber than a box of jello hammers!
Ah, but USA is still the best country in the world for a dumb-ass to blend in. Fucking idiots!
Scroll down to the Population of China (2017 and historical) chart on this site:
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/china-population/
Note that the rate of change has been slowing, showing that the momentum on China's growth is actually slowing down. It's really hard to do with a population the size of China's, so they are trying, despite the propaganda you are trying to spread.
A bigger population, combined with older technology, will continue to produce more pollution.
Renewable sources of energy are an emergent technology, as are the means of storing that energy. Batteries made of toxic substances will not be the only methods for solving the immediacy problems associated with renewable sources. IMO, you don't give human ingenuity enough credit in your assessments.
I don't care about what you don't want to hear when you construct your carefully contrived scenarios. Why not allow for a wider choice of solutions? What have you got to lose?
...would relieve the politicians from having to order extermination squads to kill off all those pesky poor people. Want to bet on how rich you'll have to be to afford survival?
What a ridiculous straw man argument!
So, did you ever wonder why the more people live in urban areas, the more liberal they appear to be?
To the contrary, actions by individuals are very important, especially when it comes to developing personal integrity and character.
But you mischaracterize all government actions as being heavy handed, just as you also mischaracterize individual actions as being ineffective. Those are your inferences, not mine.
You twist my words to fit your own preconceptions of how society must be organized. You use your own world view to justify the systematic suppression of the ideas of people who may have life experiences different from your own or who may have a different vision of how the world should be and desire the freedom to work to make changes.
Your choices may have worked well for you, but that does not give you the right to disallow any changes that others might require to achieve equal justice for themselves even if that might threaten the status quo that gives you privileges that are not extended to everyone.
Life is full of changes; perhaps the only constant is that changes will happen. It is very foolish to demand that society must not change, especially when the traditional way of doing things is unjust and places an unjust burden on the weaker and more vulnerable segments of a society.
One primary function of government is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority so that all segments of society have the same access to the blessings of liberty and the pursuit of their own hapiness as is afforded to any other segment of that society. Sometimes that requires that one group of people must learn to tolerate the diversity of thoughts and actions of others that are different from their own.
What happens to all the matter sucked up by black holes?
If some of the mass is converted to energy inside the black hole, could that affect our perception of the mass of those black holes?
Essentially, would an amount of mass that is being converted to energy inside the black hole affect the amount of mass we attribute to a black hole from our vantage point on the outside of said black hole?
Would it behave like some sort of "anti-gravity" effect, or would it act as a "gravity enhancing" effect?
I'm just a layman here, so please forgive my ignorance, but I am serious about getting an answer to the questions.
...given the Luddites that the politicians have placed at the helm of the FCC!
I have no doubt that these turkeys have only one goal: to further restrict the access to a quality, high bandwidth Internet connection to the high rollers in the financial industry, and for other paternalistic traditional purveyors of limited and targeted information access points.
This does not bode well for a functioning and just democratic process in the U.S.A.
Thank you for your calculations. They are very informative and show us where we need some new ideas to match the new technologies.
Just on the face of it, rather than use the same electric tractor for the entire trip, a cargo company could set up the equivalent of Pony Express stations and merely swap out a fully charged tractor for the depleted tractor. Probably could be done in the time the driver would need for a bathroom break or to grab some lunch.
There might even be third-party companies that do nothing but recharge the EV tractor units for a number of cargo haulers. Or this would be accomplished by vertical integrating a network of service yards at convenient distances apart. Or some combination of the logistical models, some of which have not even been thought of yet.
I shouldn't be so surprised at the reactionary lack of imagination of so many commenters on /.
I blame their lack of imagination on the planned destruction of our once excellent public school system by reactionary and self-serving Luddites in business and government, who consistently sabotage progressive ideas in order to protect their own sinecured policies of paternalistic and privileged tradition.
When more cars are EV, parking lots in shopping malls or at workplaces will be outfitted with Universal Chargers which will charge a vehicle as it sits while the driver is off doing whatever...
Your straw man objection is sopping wet, like your besotted lack of imagination.
Thanks for doing the research to present this relevant informative material in such a dispassionate manner! Such a rarity among the usual /. claptrap of mindless criticism.
I agree with you, I think. I would hope that a company's success is based on a better understanding of both a customer's needs and an awareness of what the outcomes of those needs will have on the larger picture, including the possibility that the effects of a customer's goals or even the company's goals may be wrong or harmful in the long run.
It's not a set-and-forget rule book that must never change. A company or a customer may have to reinvent itself as a result of changes in the wider scope of reality.
One of the many challenges of living in interesting times...
From the vitriol of most of the comments made on /. I'd say the SJW positions are fully vindicated.
Privilege is threatened when those reactionary privileges are exposed, especially when a company attempts to correct the cultural bias that has been the norm for so long.
This is not to say that creating a more level playing field is an easy thing to accomplish. That will most likely take time and many more non-threatening open discussions of the problems to arrive at better solutions.
That being said, crossing the line should not be justification for firing the offender, but rather a teaching moment that could possibly arrive at a better policy for everyone.
Thanks for the well-balanced summation of the political-economic history of global warming...
So much for the lie that converting to Renewable Energy would bring ruin to the world's economies.
So much for the fallacy that the oil companies wanted to let the invisible hand of a free marketplace guide economic decisions.
Maybe the environmentalists had the right idea all along, and that listening to them 30 years ago could have already improved the lives of so many people.
Awaiting the clickity-clack of the imploding minds of many /. conservative pundits who will continue to insist on the purity of their foolish lies.
Muwahahaha!
You missed the point.
You don't know what changes I have made while suffering the effects other people's livelihoods may have had on our shared environment. The world does not revolve around individual actions, although sometimes an individual can make a difference by making a big enough fuss about what's going on in the world.
Your "Marketplace" solutions assume that people are not swayed by lies, misinformation campaigns, and the political influence of special interests using the wealth derived from extracting the natural resources the planet's Commons for their private gain.
Funny how YOUR preferred solutions are the same as those that have been actively suppressed by the Republicans and conservative ideologues. Their primary reasons seem to have been to extend the profits of a particularly destructive business model by delaying the change to new technologies and the competition they represented to their own protected and well-subsidized profit margins. Why would you keep your preferred solutions to yourself, merely because you saw the advantages. Your actions as a single individual may well have given you a personal benefit but did little to extend that solution at the larger scale of the global problem we're talking about.
Your self-centered, "I've got mine--fuck everyone else" attitudes and condescending libertarian clap-trap ideologies are destructive and wasteful of the planet's shared resources, especially if adopted by everyone on the planet.
Funny how I never said that adaptation was evil. To the contrary, I contend that those adaptations are what the conservative political philosophies have been suppressing because it would necessitate a change in their well-established business models of further concentrating wealth into the hands of the few by limiting the opportunities and political power of the less wealthy.
That historical gender roles exist is not in question. The extent to which the gender roles is PURELY biological, and not societal in nature due is the question, for the reasons I tried to point out. The facts are that some women can perform just as well or better than some men have been supported by the science.
What Google is attempting is to allow society to catch up with the science. They may well be off the mark if they try to insist on a strict 50-50 ratio as the sole measure of parity.
Also, I can see a case for encouraging more diverse inputs in the software and hardware engineering fields at every stage of the design-build process that would fulfill legitimate business goals. It hasn't been that long ago that designs for the left-handed were unheard of.
I don't see this as a case of "...If you have a faulty premise (men and women are the same)..."
They are NOT the same. That is not what is being called out here. The sexism is in not including the differences in the designs from the start, and then blaming sexism for the statistics that proved a case for correcting the original problem of sexist treatment of women in the first place.
That's the problem that arises during these transitional periods when we try to shift an unjust status quo towards justice.Those who were on top in the status quo will feel slighted if their previous sinecure is impeached. They will survive it, but they may face stiffer competition for their positions, requiring some more effort to stay on top.
But that extra effort should not be to merely force a return to the same old status quo as before.
It would be like building a narrow cantilevered walkway/carport above all the cars which had all the electrical connections built into it, with stairways to get up & down to the parking level. Expensive, probably, but doable, especially as Electric Vehicles (EVs) begin to outnumber Internal Combustion Engines (ICEs).
Raising the walkways would be cheaper than raising the roadways for obvious engineering reasons. The walkways would also provide more protection from the elements for the cars. People will always have their 'brellies!
Local commuters will soon get wise to which ones are painted on and pretty soon will be back up to speed.
The only way to make them work over time would be to randomly replace the painted version with the real thing.