So, it took two years after some random internet stranger had an argument with multiple other random internet strangers about things they weren't really informed about, to have fully driverless cars. You're right, that's hardly any progress.
they're never mothers and children fleeing for their lives, or men with their wiife and children, who just want to get them away to safety
There are a few yes. But estimating from the pictures of the boats and the riots in Greece and Italy, 80%-90% of them are young men, old enough to have a wife and children that they left behind.
All immigrants fleeing violence should just stay there instead, fight with sticks and rocks, and get their asses shot off by their government or the criminal gangs
How do you know the immigrants are not the people from the criminal gangs ? Or do you think people that have to fight with sticks have a few thousand dollars they can use for the trip ?
Oh look it's another first-worlder sitting in his nice comfy safe house, commenting on how people in 3rd world countries should conduct their lives. Bug off.
LOL. You're the one telling others what to do, sitting in your comfy safe house. I'm just saying that they are selfish dicks, just like us.
It does matter for the question whether we should hurry up and build EVs/batteries, or that we should hurry up and build hydrocarbon synthesizers (or what to spend more research on). It also matters for the design of the grid. Hydrocarbon synthesizers need huge amounts of energy in one spot, whereas EVs need huge amounts of energy in a distributed fashion. In the first case, it would work better with a local nuclear plant, or large wind/solar farm. In the second case, it would combine better with local rooftop solar generation.
You answered a different question.
So, pick a number on what you think you will need for transportation energy as electrical generation and compute
That depends on whether we're going for hydrocarbons or batteries, and their relative efficiencies. Suppose, for the sake of the argument that batteries are 10 times more efficient than hydrocarbons, then we'll need 10 times the generating capacity.
The people that are coming over from Africa to Europe are all selfish dicks too. Most of them are young, strong men that are lucky enough to have the money to pay for the fare. Instead of helping to overthrow their corrupt government, they quit, and leave the problems for the less fortunate to solve.
I'm willing to bet that everyone who wants to "drop back to the natural carrying capacity of the land" assumes that they'll be part of the 0.001% who survives
I can't speak for the others, but I'm more than happy to be part of the 99.999% myself.
We could all do our part by having fewer kids; no one has to be killed off to reduce the population. Will we make that choice?
Evolution does not look kindly on individuals that lower their own fitness. Some people will make that choice, yes, but they will go extinct, leaving only those that make the other choice.
100 times as much water is used to create a lb of beef than a lb of crops!
Your simplication is mostly wrong. The water requirements depend a lot on location and type of crop. Also you have to consider the type of water that's used. Rainwater that's falling out of the sky for free is a different than potable tap water, or ancient well water.
Producing 1 calorie of animal protein uses over 10 times as much fossil fuels as 1 calorie of plant protein!
Again, not true. There's a huge difference between protein content of different plant sources, as well as fossil fuel requirements. Very little fossil fuel is involved when you let a bunch of goats graze on grassy mountainside. A lot more is used when you grow cucumbers in a greenhouse.
I think in the long run the only chance we have is for us all to go vegan
Not at all. The optimal mix should at least include eating animals grazing on land that's not otherwise useful.
diesel engines are pretty much the poster child for the kind of agenda that maximizes mileage and minimizes C02 emissions
Diesel has better mileage, but the fuel has has longer carbon chains, so it produces more CO2 per liter. In the end, there's not much difference between diesel and gasoline powered cars in terms of CO2/mile.
No, it won't. The energy needed for transportation will be derived from electricity. This can be direct in the case of the EV or indirect in the case of the synthesized fuel.
You neglected the part where I mentioned differences in efficiencies.
You are arguing over the tiny portion of our energy needs that are passenger cars when so much energy is used for heating, lighting, industry, and other transportation.
The US Navy has developed a means to produce hydrocarbon based fuels using seawater (and the CO2 dissolved in it) and nuclear power. This can be used commercially for replacing oil from the ground
Can it ? I mean, can it produce enough hydrocarbons at a commercially attractive price ?
Do the calculations for the amount of nuclear power also take into account the cost and materials needed for synthetic hydrocarbon plants ? Or does it count on transportation going mostly electric ?
Since the warmistas don't embrace nuclear power, that suggests to me that they don't really believe it.
Nope, you are confused. The acceptance of the theory of anthropogenic global warming is independent of the acceptance of any kind of particular remedy.
If you have so much CPU power and knowledge of the surroundings then how the fuck did it end up in a life and death situation where it would need to take such action
Because of other people doing stupid things, like running a red light, as in the GP example.
Slashdot Mirror
You clicked on it, didn't you ?
Bet you don't feel so smart right now, do you ?
Until you dig up some evidence, I still feel smart.
So, it took two years after some random internet stranger had an argument with multiple other random internet strangers about things they weren't really informed about, to have fully driverless cars. You're right, that's hardly any progress.
Cyanobacteria wiped out 90% of life on the planet. They still have us beat by a landslide.
Patience. We have only really started our efforts in the last century. I'm sure we'll catch up. Maybe we'll even get the cyanobacteria to pitch in.
they're never mothers and children fleeing for their lives, or men with their wiife and children, who just want to get them away to safety
There are a few yes. But estimating from the pictures of the boats and the riots in Greece and Italy, 80%-90% of them are young men, old enough to have a wife and children that they left behind.
All immigrants fleeing violence should just stay there instead, fight with sticks and rocks, and get their asses shot off by their government or the criminal gangs
How do you know the immigrants are not the people from the criminal gangs ? Or do you think people that have to fight with sticks have a few thousand dollars they can use for the trip ?
Oh look it's another first-worlder sitting in his nice comfy safe house, commenting on how people in 3rd world countries should conduct their lives. Bug off.
LOL. You're the one telling others what to do, sitting in your comfy safe house. I'm just saying that they are selfish dicks, just like us.
This was unexpected and for decades economists predicted that this was a temporary anomaly which would soon "correct".
I think it still will "correct", but probably not soon. We're currently depleting three major ingredients: topsoil, ancient water, and phosphorous.
I answered your question, it doesn't matter.
It does matter for the question whether we should hurry up and build EVs/batteries, or that we should hurry up and build hydrocarbon synthesizers (or what to spend more research on). It also matters for the design of the grid. Hydrocarbon synthesizers need huge amounts of energy in one spot, whereas EVs need huge amounts of energy in a distributed fashion. In the first case, it would work better with a local nuclear plant, or large wind/solar farm. In the second case, it would combine better with local rooftop solar generation.
You answered a different question.
So, pick a number on what you think you will need for transportation energy as electrical generation and compute
That depends on whether we're going for hydrocarbons or batteries, and their relative efficiencies. Suppose, for the sake of the argument that batteries are 10 times more efficient than hydrocarbons, then we'll need 10 times the generating capacity.
stop being a selfish dick
The people that are coming over from Africa to Europe are all selfish dicks too. Most of them are young, strong men that are lucky enough to have the money to pay for the fare. Instead of helping to overthrow their corrupt government, they quit, and leave the problems for the less fortunate to solve.
I'm willing to bet that everyone who wants to "drop back to the natural carrying capacity of the land" assumes that they'll be part of the 0.001% who survives
I can't speak for the others, but I'm more than happy to be part of the 99.999% myself.
The only possible goal for this action is to literally starve the people outside our nation. You are a monster.
If you don't let them starve, they'll make more people, and then more of them will starve after a few generations. You are a monster.
We could all do our part by having fewer kids; no one has to be killed off to reduce the population. Will we make that choice?
Evolution does not look kindly on individuals that lower their own fitness. Some people will make that choice, yes, but they will go extinct, leaving only those that make the other choice.
Primarily spent fuel disposition has been solved by waste reprocessing.
According to recent studies, waste reprocessing is more costly than direct geological disposal.
Insurance: What insurance?
If you have to ask what insurance, then never mind.
100 times as much water is used to create a lb of beef than a lb of crops!
Your simplication is mostly wrong. The water requirements depend a lot on location and type of crop. Also you have to consider the type of water that's used. Rainwater that's falling out of the sky for free is a different than potable tap water, or ancient well water.
Producing 1 calorie of animal protein uses over 10 times as much fossil fuels as 1 calorie of plant protein!
Again, not true. There's a huge difference between protein content of different plant sources, as well as fossil fuel requirements. Very little fossil fuel is involved when you let a bunch of goats graze on grassy mountainside. A lot more is used when you grow cucumbers in a greenhouse.
I think in the long run the only chance we have is for us all to go vegan
Not at all. The optimal mix should at least include eating animals grazing on land that's not otherwise useful.
AGW follows from basic science of greenhouse gases. This science doesn't depend on whether or not we use hydroelectric power.
China figured out how to make nuclear power economical. One thing they do to keep costs down is shoot any protestors that hold up construction.
So how do you explain the relatively small contribution of nuclear to China's energy mix in future plans ?
diesel engines are pretty much the poster child for the kind of agenda that maximizes mileage and minimizes C02 emissions
Diesel has better mileage, but the fuel has has longer carbon chains, so it produces more CO2 per liter. In the end, there's not much difference between diesel and gasoline powered cars in terms of CO2/mile.
No, it won't. The energy needed for transportation will be derived from electricity. This can be direct in the case of the EV or indirect in the case of the synthesized fuel.
You neglected the part where I mentioned differences in efficiencies.
You are arguing over the tiny portion of our energy needs that are passenger cars when so much energy is used for heating, lighting, industry, and other transportation.
I never mentioned passenger cars.
The US Navy has developed a means to produce hydrocarbon based fuels using seawater (and the CO2 dissolved in it) and nuclear power. This can be used commercially for replacing oil from the ground
Can it ? I mean, can it produce enough hydrocarbons at a commercially attractive price ?
This is a fixed cost regardless and so doesn't mean much if anything in where this energy comes from.
But there's a difference in efficiency between EV and ICE + synthetic hydrocarbons, which would impact the total energy requirements.
Do the calculations for the amount of nuclear power also take into account the cost and materials needed for synthetic hydrocarbon plants ? Or does it count on transportation going mostly electric ?
Since the warmistas don't embrace nuclear power, that suggests to me that they don't really believe it.
Nope, you are confused. The acceptance of the theory of anthropogenic global warming is independent of the acceptance of any kind of particular remedy.
If Bitcoin doesn't generate value, then the mining should stop shortly, and the problem will solve itself long before 2033.
They reduce average stack size. They don't reduce the worst case stack size, which is what you care about.
But its a black swan event, a very rare event that you really can't leave out of your plans, because when it does happen it spells "crisis".
Killing a few people in traffic a couple of times a year is hardly a crisis.
If you have so much CPU power and knowledge of the surroundings then how the fuck did it end up in a life and death situation where it would need to take such action
Because of other people doing stupid things, like running a red light, as in the GP example.