Let me start by agreeing with you to the extent I can do. I've been looking for the solutions, and watching others look. My point above is that the solutions are hard at best, and ineffective in more cases than not. Corn Ethanol? uses more energy to produce than it provides. PV? don't get me started. And these are the best we have. Wind - sure if you're lucky to live where it's windy and you use energy in the spring and fall (you don't).
Drowning fields in petrochemicals is what allowed the human population to go from millions to Billions. Maybe you want to circle the parts of the map where the Human population should be reduced?
Finally; Pushing for alternatives is happy-talk. You might be right, maybe if everyone did 9 things to use less energy, the problem would be solved. I doubt it.
As I said, this is a hard problem, comparing it to getting out of bed in the morning belittles the magnitude of the challenge.
Falcon, The US consumes about 100 quads a year. Show me a way to reduce that by say 20% without a net reduction in GNP and standard of living.
This idea that everyone can live off the food in their own yard is happy-talk. If the world tried to provide its own food, we would quickly starve. Large fields are more efficient.
I applaud your personal experiment, but there isn't enough vegy oil for 1% of the population. I'm not saying its fully impossible to reduce energy without impacting the economy. But let me say this - we went to the moon without impacting the economy. Going to the moon is an easier task than solving our energy problems.
You should get the hell out of our planet - its in trouble.
What Absurdity. Getting out of ones house is an easy task achieved by 99% of the world's people on a daily basis. Reducing one's carbon consumption economically is by contrast almost impossible (ie, it has never been done.)
But feel free to make the comparison. Who knows you might even get rated Insightful.
Scientists agree on anthropogenic warming effect - The Headline here does not necessarily assert an authority for the second part of the Topic Sentence - specifically that scarcity is obstacle to a solution.
This second part (and the substance of this article) does not belong in the same sentence, because the authorities and qualifications are hopelessly incompatible - a fact that you quite broadly missed.
Listen to whomever you like, but conflating authorities is stupidity.
sure divide in base 10 by 3. go on i'll wait. meanwhile a third of a foot is 4 inches, a third of a circle is 120 degrees,
number systems which are easy to divide enable builders to complete building faster than non-divisible counting systems. I suppose the base10 crowd divides circles into 1000 degrees?
Right, This photographer is not skilled at portraiture. He flubbed the classic picture with a flag background. Notice on the O website, the pre-existing Obama/Biden portraits are the same - but Obama's ears do not stand out. The rule of thumb is to show one ear, not both. By moving the busy-ness of the flag in behind Obama, he could at least have blended one side into the background - diminishing the outline of the second ear. This is unprofessional photography.
It's a high-stakes gambit fer sure; but easy to understand.
The board (of shareholders) consists of investors - who at this point are probably last in line for any economic payback. The banks, vendors, employees and Novel are ahead of them at this point - so they've got bumpkus.
Investors are gamblers by definition. At every hand, they can fold, or throw in one more chip and see the next card. Like Texas hold'em, the lower they get, the cheaper it is for them to stay in the game. (A companies assets are at stake in a lawsuit - so no assets means no stakes).
They've got nothing left to lose. Sell the real assets off, and play poker with what's left.
The odds of winning are low, but the potential payoff is better than the marginal cost of surviving for one more ruling.
An Old Curse: May you have a lawsuit you believe you can win.
The kinks in harvesting algae don't just need time, they need high oil prices (which of course they got very briefly last year). But four months isn't enough.
I would take issue with that. Merely because something is not a good food, doesn't mean that it doesn't replace existing food production. BIO means photosynthesis, and whatever resources are used for photosynthesis/could/ quite fungibly be used for food production. Resources includes: tax subsidies, fresh water, farming tractors and fuels, land, farm workers, trains and silos.
We aren't burning our cotton clothing, so the resource use is minimal, and beer is a food with plenty of caloric content (perhaps too much).
The argument that biofuels directly compete with the poorest food consumers is alive and well.
I suspect initially, Algae production will be tied to coal consumption as an effort to create "clean-coal". By running the output gasses of a coal plant into an algae tank, one can expect to convert much of the CO2 back into a useful fuel. Being able to use our coal as both a fixed power source, and a transportation fuel is a Holy Grail.
I doubt the tanks will be tall as they need sunlight, and tall only increases the required strength and cost (without increasing sunlight much).
I would gently propose that you might have this backward. One could fairly ask if the more sophisticated driver wants a more sophisticated look, while the less sophisticated driver actually prefers the more obvious. In my experience, I see low-end outfits, like McDonalds for example, use bright colors and tacky advertising, while higher end products, like say Kay Jewelers for example, tend toward understatement and unsaturated colors. Kids want sweet, adults tend toward bitters, aged, complex and balanced. might cheaper cars may have more juvenile tastes because their customers have less developed brains?
It's true the Ivy Leagues aren't the only game. But they are part of the game, and thus they contribute to the statistics. As long as one school prefers legacies, and as long as that school's legacy includes bigotry, then college degrees will be fairly considered the fruit of a poisoned tree. Why shouldn't we demand a zero tolerance policy for discrimination?
I think you'd be right about that. It's the Ivy leagues which favor legacies, and I think it's also the Ivy Leagues which have a history of discrimination.
There is also a higher probability that you are not a jew or black, since EVEN TODAY many schools favor the children of prior graduates, and those prior graduates were probably excluded from being jews and black, Yeah us, progress is sweet!
Of course it's also a good way to reduce the chances that someone is a jew or black, since many universities CONTINUE to favor legacy, and the legacies of many schools are based on discrimination.
I see a second benefit mechanism for stupid beliefs; I see that "arbitrary" beliefs can form mutually exclusive groups, in which the cost of believing is the rejection from other groups, and the benefits are membership in the group with the same beliefs.
This need to demand exclusive loyalty better explains the outward expressions of belief.
How does this author explain the prevalence of outward expression, if there is no related benefits?
I don't see a lot of potential for the occasional telecommuter.
Personally, I've only telecommuted from other continents - certainly didn't drive in weekly.
This is not your daddy's telecommuting, I'm talking about. What I see is new companies with managers who are skilled in telemanaging, new systems oriented to telecommuting, and employees who are productive independently.
This isn't for people who are substituting work for a life; it's for people who have a life, and want to fit their work in around it.
I bring 40 new people on every day (ok sometimes its the same people) Never see them, never train them, It's simple work obviously, but I have management systems which verify their work, tell them when they're wrong, and they tell me when they have an issue. I manage people differently than your average manager. I manage Heuristically, not personally; ergo, I don't waste time, energy, or money in face to face or silly corporate meetings.
It's not a fun place to work, unless being with your kids is "fun". These are single mothers with kids in many cases, who might otherwise not have a job.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me start by agreeing with you to the extent I can do. I've been looking for the solutions, and watching others look. My point above is that the solutions are hard at best, and ineffective in more cases than not. Corn Ethanol? uses more energy to produce than it provides. PV? don't get me started. And these are the best we have. Wind - sure if you're lucky to live where it's windy and you use energy in the spring and fall (you don't).
Drowning fields in petrochemicals is what allowed the human population to go from millions to Billions. Maybe you want to circle the parts of the map where the Human population should be reduced?
Finally; Pushing for alternatives is happy-talk.
You might be right, maybe if everyone did 9 things to use less energy, the problem would be solved. I doubt it.
As I said, this is a hard problem, comparing it to getting out of bed in the morning belittles the magnitude of the challenge.
Falcon,
The US consumes about 100 quads a year.
Show me a way to reduce that by say 20% without a net reduction in GNP and standard of living.
This idea that everyone can live off the food in their own yard is happy-talk. If the world tried to provide its own food, we would quickly starve. Large fields are more efficient.
I applaud your personal experiment, but there isn't enough vegy oil for 1% of the population.
I'm not saying its fully impossible to reduce energy without impacting the economy. But let me say this - we went to the moon without impacting the economy. Going to the moon is an easier task than solving our energy problems.
You should get the hell out of our planet - its in trouble.
What Absurdity. Getting out of ones house is an easy task achieved by 99% of the world's people on a daily basis. Reducing one's carbon consumption economically is by contrast almost impossible (ie, it has never been done.)
But feel free to make the comparison. Who knows you might even get rated Insightful.
RTFHL*
Scientists agree on anthropogenic warming effect - The Headline here does not necessarily assert an authority for the second part of the Topic Sentence - specifically that scarcity is obstacle to a solution.
This second part (and the substance of this article) does not belong in the same sentence, because the authorities and qualifications are hopelessly incompatible - a fact that you quite broadly missed.
Listen to whomever you like, but conflating authorities is stupidity.
(*Headline)
curious...
You think Category III autopilot can land a plan without power?
sure divide in base 10 by 3.
go on i'll wait.
meanwhile a third of a foot is 4 inches,
a third of a circle is 120 degrees,
number systems which are easy to divide enable builders to complete building faster than non-divisible counting systems.
I suppose the base10 crowd divides circles into 1000 degrees?
Right,
This photographer is not skilled at portraiture.
He flubbed the classic picture with a flag background. Notice on the O website, the pre-existing Obama/Biden portraits are the same - but Obama's ears do not stand out.
The rule of thumb is to show one ear, not both. By moving the busy-ness of the flag in behind Obama, he could at least have blended one side into the background - diminishing the outline of the second ear.
This is unprofessional photography.
It's a high-stakes gambit fer sure; but easy to understand.
The board (of shareholders) consists of investors - who at this point are probably last in line for any economic payback. The banks, vendors, employees and Novel are ahead of them at this point - so they've got bumpkus.
Investors are gamblers by definition. At every hand, they can fold, or throw in one more chip and see the next card. Like Texas hold'em, the lower they get, the cheaper it is for them to stay in the game. (A companies assets are at stake in a lawsuit - so no assets means no stakes).
They've got nothing left to lose. Sell the real assets off, and play poker with what's left.
The odds of winning are low, but the potential payoff is better than the marginal cost of surviving for one more ruling.
An Old Curse: May you have a lawsuit you believe you can win.
The kinks in harvesting algae don't just need time, they need high oil prices (which of course they got very briefly last year). But four months isn't enough.
I would take issue with that. Merely because something is not a good food, doesn't mean that it doesn't replace existing food production. BIO means photosynthesis, and whatever resources are used for photosynthesis /could/ quite fungibly be used for food production. Resources includes: tax subsidies, fresh water, farming tractors and fuels, land, farm workers, trains and silos.
We aren't burning our cotton clothing, so the resource use is minimal, and beer is a food with plenty of caloric content (perhaps too much).
The argument that biofuels directly compete with the poorest food consumers is alive and well.
I suspect initially, Algae production will be tied to coal consumption as an effort to create "clean-coal". By running the output gasses of a coal plant into an algae tank, one can expect to convert much of the CO2 back into a useful fuel. Being able to use our coal as both a fixed power source, and a transportation fuel is a Holy Grail.
I doubt the tanks will be tall as they need sunlight, and tall only increases the required strength and cost (without increasing sunlight much).
And there's a dime's worth of difference?
I think the Hyundai Sonata looks a good bit like a jaguar.
I would gently propose that you might have this backward. One could fairly ask if the more sophisticated driver wants a more sophisticated look, while the less sophisticated driver actually prefers the more obvious. In my experience, I see low-end outfits, like McDonalds for example, use bright colors and tacky advertising, while higher end products, like say Kay Jewelers for example, tend toward understatement and unsaturated colors.
Kids want sweet, adults tend toward bitters, aged, complex and balanced. might cheaper cars may have more juvenile tastes because their customers have less developed brains?
It's true the Ivy Leagues aren't the only game. But they are part of the game, and thus they contribute to the statistics. As long as one school prefers legacies, and as long as that school's legacy includes bigotry, then college degrees will be fairly considered the fruit of a poisoned tree. Why shouldn't we demand a zero tolerance policy for discrimination?
I think you'd be right about that. It's the Ivy leagues which favor legacies, and I think it's also the Ivy Leagues which have a history of discrimination.
There is also a higher probability that you are not a jew or black, since EVEN TODAY many schools favor the children of prior graduates, and those prior graduates were probably excluded from being jews and black, Yeah us, progress is sweet!
Of course it's also a good way to reduce the chances that someone is a jew or black, since many universities CONTINUE to favor legacy, and the legacies of many schools are based on discrimination.
Godzilla would appear to be a variant of the rather theocentric initial syllable.
I would presume that trademarks which incorporate preexisting social ideas, cannot then be argued to be incorporable.
Bullsh&t,
Of course there's an easy way to tell,
Sarah Palin can authorize Yahoo to release a certified copy of her email account in total.
It's easy and fool proof.
Part of the way a democracy ensures openess is to punish closedness with rumor.
You don't like rumor - be open.
That's the rules and they ain't nuttin hard about it.
I see a second benefit mechanism for stupid beliefs;
I see that "arbitrary" beliefs can form mutually exclusive groups, in which the cost of believing is the rejection from other groups, and the benefits are membership in the group with the same beliefs.
This need to demand exclusive loyalty better explains the outward expressions of belief.
How does this author explain the prevalence of outward expression, if there is no related benefits?
Ha,
I have no idea how solving captchas is profitable.
Our projects are far more complicated.
Crowdsourcing image cognition generally.
I don't see a lot of potential for the occasional telecommuter.
Personally, I've only telecommuted from other continents - certainly didn't drive in weekly.
This is not your daddy's telecommuting, I'm talking about. What I see is new companies with managers who are skilled in telemanaging, new systems oriented to telecommuting, and employees who are productive independently.
This isn't for people who are substituting work for a life; it's for people who have a life, and want to fit their work in around it.
This is not true, perhaps as often as it is true.
I bring 40 new people on every day (ok sometimes its the same people) Never see them, never train them, It's simple work obviously, but I have management systems which verify their work, tell them when they're wrong, and they tell me when they have an issue. I manage people differently than your average manager. I manage Heuristically, not personally; ergo, I don't waste time, energy, or money in face to face or silly corporate meetings.
It's not a fun place to work, unless being with your kids is "fun". These are single mothers with kids in many cases, who might otherwise not have a job.