Spending money does not eliminate fossil fuels, this is what I'm getting at.
Political will is the impediment, and spending money isn't going to convince people to see the science as reality.
Know what happens when you spend money on the problem? That side of the issue just sees it as 'government corruption' and 'oh that research group is just after grant money so fuck their research'.
These things are the reality, you see it every time global warming is mentioned anywhere.
We have to get off this rock or we're fucked, global warming or not.
Spending more money doesn't make half the US population stop being deniers, which is literally the only thing blocking us from making substantial gains in reducing emissions here at least. The "world" is a whole other ballgame which, yep, you guessed it, spending money doesn't solve.
Because "a retarded 4 year old that can be trained to name colors with 75% accuracy" is a pretty trollish description of where machine learning is right now. I didn't mod it, but I'd agree with it.
Sys admins and web developers don't know shit about machine learning, and that's clear from reading slashdot every day.
You have to read the entire paper, not just cherry pick the thing that supports your agenda.
"If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses."
If things stay as they are currently it reverses the trend.
Not having to pay more during a period of high demand isn't basic morality. A fucking taxi is not a human right, what the hell is wrong with you people lol
If something does 'tremendous damage' and nothing happens as a result, and you can't point to single instance of actual impact, seems to be that particular branch isn't really useful.
I'd just like to point out that: "It's my job to make sure you have the tools to make it, not be your friend."
Is kinda of contradictory based upon your 'fuck you I don't care about your employers' attitude.
Bringing up the napalm girl isn't even close to relevant here, and um, that was indeed a controversial talking point at the time it was broadcast, and still today even.
We take photos of babies and post them on the internet. Before the internet we put them in books and then drug the books out whenever our kids brought home a significant other.
You don't recognize there's a massive difference in scale there? I mean really?
It's like you embraced the internet fully but didn't recognize that it's a completely different thing than the books on your shelves. Yours kids employers aren't going around looking at your bookshelves, they are looking at their social media if it's public.
I think the people you're looking for are the ones walking around with their phone constantly out and their eyes so glued to it they can't avoid common objects in front of them.
Not a large percentage of the population but they're out there.
Pretty sure none of my role models in technology had any media spotlight what so ever. Most of that is at most a mention in a textbook.
Maybe stop looking for role models on the tv or twitter. If you're idea of 'getting into IT' is 'standing up on a podium and talking about products and synergies' you're looking at the wrong degree. Get an MBA.
It is not a mainstay of "democratic" society, or should not be (IMO). There are some pretty famous "propagandists" who would look at this type of distribution of information and say "really, holy shit that just made my job way easier".
Dissemination of information based upon the feelings and opinions of the users to decide what is and is not 'news' is NEVER uncensored communication.
It cannot ever BE MADE to be uncensored. It is filtered.
If you're basing what you view as 'free communication' off of what is 'trending' that's a problem, and a HUGE one. The fact that people think this is a good thing is (in only my opinion of course) a travesty.
Slashdot Mirror
Spending money does not eliminate fossil fuels, this is what I'm getting at.
Political will is the impediment, and spending money isn't going to convince people to see the science as reality.
Know what happens when you spend money on the problem? That side of the issue just sees it as 'government corruption' and 'oh that research group is just after grant money so fuck their research'.
These things are the reality, you see it every time global warming is mentioned anywhere.
This does benefit humanity.
We have to get off this rock or we're fucked, global warming or not.
Spending more money doesn't make half the US population stop being deniers, which is literally the only thing blocking us from making substantial gains in reducing emissions here at least. The "world" is a whole other ballgame which, yep, you guessed it, spending money doesn't solve.
It's absolutely in the dev team decision domain, you know, the whole 'tradeoffs' thing. Maybe they don't teach that these days.
Don't use the app if it offends your sensibilities, or if you really 'must' use it, use the incognito mode.
Because "a retarded 4 year old that can be trained to name colors with 75% accuracy" is a pretty trollish description of where machine learning is right now. I didn't mod it, but I'd agree with it.
Sys admins and web developers don't know shit about machine learning, and that's clear from reading slashdot every day.
We have to pay the wireless router way less in order to get quality results.
"why is everything invented in America"
Because there are tons of top level people with money to blow on a risky venture. How the hell do people who read slashdot not realize this.
You have to read the entire paper, not just cherry pick the thing that supports your agenda.
"If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses."
If things stay as they are currently it reverses the trend.
Go look it up, I'm not your secretary. I already found you one easy answer using 10 seconds on the internet.
I don't subscribe to the "I think this with no evidence, you prove me wrong" line of thinking.
"The electricity sector in Norway relies predominantly on hydroelectricity." [Wikipedia]
Wow that took long. No wonder conservatives are considered fucking idiots.
"This will help us to control the market easier by blocking any unregulated application with us"
They aren't interested in just regulating what you've mentioned, they're also interested in regulating cost and pricing.
Not having to pay more during a period of high demand isn't basic morality. A fucking taxi is not a human right, what the hell is wrong with you people lol
Take a fucking bus.
Why is this insightful.
The actual analog is 'if you have cancer' the drug costs $5 * 3 = $15
Which actually does occur due to insurance premiums.
Or did Verizon not send them. I get these constantly when I'm towards 90% of my monthly allotment.
If something does 'tremendous damage' and nothing happens as a result, and you can't point to single instance of actual impact, seems to be that particular branch isn't really useful.
I'd just like to point out that: "It's my job to make sure you have the tools to make it, not be your friend."
Is kinda of contradictory based upon your 'fuck you I don't care about your employers' attitude.
Bringing up the napalm girl isn't even close to relevant here, and um, that was indeed a controversial talking point at the time it was broadcast, and still today even.
We take photos of babies and post them on the internet. Before the internet we put them in books and then drug the books out whenever our kids brought home a significant other.
You don't recognize there's a massive difference in scale there? I mean really?
It's like you embraced the internet fully but didn't recognize that it's a completely different thing than the books on your shelves. Yours kids employers aren't going around looking at your bookshelves, they are looking at their social media if it's public.
That's just for starters...
Who gets elected here isn't really the big problem on this planet. The EU imploding is an even worse one nobody seems to want to talk about.
Even when the US swings Nationalist, we've never gotten to Europe level of hatred.
That's because by and large Obama has failed many of the forces that lifted him to the presidency.
I think the people you're looking for are the ones walking around with their phone constantly out and their eyes so glued to it they can't avoid common objects in front of them.
Not a large percentage of the population but they're out there.
Yes, because comments on Slashdot are a huuuuge haven for the SJW population.
I'm sorry you can't understand the difference between 'Computer Science' and 'Business'.
"media events spotlighting"
Pretty sure none of my role models in technology had any media spotlight what so ever. Most of that is at most a mention in a textbook.
Maybe stop looking for role models on the tv or twitter. If you're idea of 'getting into IT' is 'standing up on a podium and talking about products and synergies' you're looking at the wrong degree. Get an MBA.
What's funny is you think I care if you 'detected I'm a dickhead'.
That's the FB/twitter/reddit mentality for you, downvote and discredit/suppress 'uncomfortable' ideas. Wouldn't want to trigger anybody.
That's what we're upholding as the 'mainstay of democracy' here, which is laughable at best.
It's a mainstay of society, I won't doubt that.
It is not a mainstay of "democratic" society, or should not be (IMO). There are some pretty famous "propagandists" who would look at this type of distribution of information and say "really, holy shit that just made my job way easier".
Dissemination of information based upon the feelings and opinions of the users to decide what is and is not 'news' is NEVER uncensored communication.
It cannot ever BE MADE to be uncensored. It is filtered.
If you're basing what you view as 'free communication' off of what is 'trending' that's a problem, and a HUGE one. The fact that people think this is a good thing is (in only my opinion of course) a travesty.