ROFL Haven't laughed so hard in days!:-) Reminds me of crap like oh, internet-connected BBQs! turn it on remotely! What could possibly go wrong? Even as a geed the attraction for putting technology where it doesn't belong astounds me. Simple is best.
Yes we need to attack the problem in multiple ways. But the evidence is that carbon pricing / taxing (choose your name) can be very effective at improving efficiency and reducing waste - and it's something that can be implemented relatively quickly.
If you have 5 min, this video includes some good reporting of what happened when Australia brought in, and later repealed (for bonkers political reasons), a carbon pricing scheme. And it lists some of tangible changes that it (briefly) made:
https://youtu.be/6fV6eeckxTs?t=371
tl;dr - the kicker around 12m: the companies who were initially opposed it, then asked for it back.
> It is also implausible that nobody has noticed this massive worldwide catastrophe before this lone researcher stumbled onto the evidence of our life support systems "collapsing".
More than merely implausible, you can go and look up the previously found results.:-) Thankfully insect geeks do exist, and guess what...
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/germany-s-insects-are-disappearing... they found similar declines. What makes this new data-point particularly informing is, aside from the scale, its location and how that was not an area previously expected to be hit so badly.
> So far AGW has warmed the earth by 1.3 C (2 F).
That's a world average, but that same level of warming can bring local extremes more like +/- 4 C
As the article states: “The number of hot spells, temperatures above 29C, have increased tremendously,”
The article never said Anthropogenic or human-caused. Sorry, but YOU (and many commenters) inserted that. If you really care about such topics, this should alert you to your own biases in interpreting information.
For folk who just headline-skimmed then jumped to the comments: the article offers into good reasons why heat-thresholds are crossed regularly now but not before make the changing climate a likely candidate, and how pesticides and other "usual suspects" are unlikely to be factors in this scenario. Remember also that a changing climate can bring much more extreme _local_ variations than just the "world average" increase.
So how did MS apply "machine learning" to make Bing not suck? By holding an internal competition to see who's algorithm processed "user improvement program" data best. So that essentially meant training it up to match Google search results (and presumably, which links "consenting" users clicked).
(OK, I'm sure they've come a long way since then on their own merits, but we can't let them live that one down;-)
(As quoted from a German friend.) And in my small sampling, their airports seem to uphold that motto. And they don't bother you with pathetic forms requiring you to enter your home address (are you listening Heathrow!?!)
Scenario 1: Cops have guns to protect themselves. Bad guys have guns to protect themselves. Problem is: when they cross that adds a lotta incentive to be the first to shoot.
Scenario 2: Cops don't carry gun. Bad guys now don't have such a need to carry. When they cross, even bad guy with gun needn't panic and think he has to shoot first. (Or run down the cop with a car, etc.). On measure, cop is safer.
The vast majority of bad guys aren't murderous psychos and a life sentence for cop killing is an effective deterrent. (So if a cop is after a known murderer / similarly desperate person, THEN bring the guns.)
Anyway, I'm not so naive to think places like scenario 1 can simply change - I just know where I preferred living.
Coming from New Zealand, banking on the internet was really simple. I had a card that would spend MY money on the internet. This is called a "debit card": anyone can have one, no questions - because you're spending your own money. I've had one since I was 14 (some 16 years ago now), and even back then I could use it in stores with a PIN number. Once internet shopping was "invented" it also worked online.
I've since moved to the UK, and here it's a completely different story. If you don't put £1000 into the bank every month, you don't get a "good" debit card. (NB: I'm in the good category, so I'm not moaning about myself!) No... if you aren't rich enough, the banks give you some crappy card that only works in 30% of the stores and almost never on the internet.
Why do they discriminate like this????
The only logic I've come up woith is that it encourages "not-so-rich people" to go get Credit cards instead. I'm guessing the banks want you to spend their money on the internet. The "not-so-rich people" are more likely to get trapped not paying off the interest each month... and the banks cash in on the interest fees.
I guess this is the same bank-card black-hole that the school kids are in. Their parents and banks (quite rightly!) disallow them from usung credit cards.
SOLUTION: Why not simply give out "internet quality" debit cards to everyone with a bank account? Surely it's technically possible to check a bank account balance during an online transaction?!? They've managed to do it in NZ for 10+ years.
I'm interested: what's it like in the US? Other countries? Can people trivially spend their OWN money online, or are many people forced to use credit cards too?
From the FAQ: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can I improve my karma? Tip 1: Post Intelligently: Interesting, insightful, thought provoking comments are rated higher on a fairly consistent basis. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flamebait -- Flamebait refers to comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage. If someone is not-so-subtly picking a fight (racial insults are a dead giveaway), it's Flamebait.
My thoughts, after re-reading and considering my post?
Yup, still thought provoking.
Surely the moderator just disagreed with my opinion.
Q: How can one dig themselves out when their first post in 4 years gets moderated down? A: they won't bother.
Given the attention span of your average internet reader, I imagine many people WILL miss the satire. However, which lies are worse?
The lies of the author, claiming to be John Howard? A desperate ploy in desperate times, an attempt to catch the attention of people who may not have read the truth behind all the Pre-War propaganda. (With a healthy dose of humour, once you catch on)
Or the lies and exagerations of the propaganda to gain public approval? Just get the impression out that it's not really that bad: first impressions count, not boring facts that come out later on. It's all right Joe Public, sit back and watch the news like another TV show. Don't complain to your ministers. There's no real people in TV land, are there?
I'm pretty sure they go way beyond simple delay effects (like the tricks a Sound-Blaster Live can do when wearing headphones, to simulate sounds going behind you and above+below you).
They say: "Unlike virtual surround systems, which employ psycho-acoustic techniques to simulate a surround sound effect, and require rigid listening conditions to be met the Digital Sound Project produces genuine surround sound within a wide listening area" They definately talk about sound-beams which reflect off walls to produce sound which appears to originate on the wall.
Quotes on this page make me think this is going to be something special
A brittish company "1-limited" must be using something like this too, because they have created a home-theatre system that provides full surround sound, but only requires ONE speaker! You can reposition the "virtual speakers" around the room using a remote control. It currently does up to 6 channels, but they claim it can be extended to 8 (without hardware upgrade) if new surround sound formats are invented. Have a look at the.PDF that is on this page. They don't give away many technical details unfortunately.
Slashdot Mirror
ROFL Haven't laughed so hard in days! :-) Reminds me of crap like oh, internet-connected BBQs! turn it on remotely! What could possibly go wrong? Even as a geed the attraction for putting technology where it doesn't belong astounds me. Simple is best.
Yes we need to attack the problem in multiple ways. But the evidence is that carbon pricing / taxing (choose your name) can be very effective at improving efficiency and reducing waste - and it's something that can be implemented relatively quickly.
If you have 5 min, this video includes some good reporting of what happened when Australia brought in, and later repealed (for bonkers political reasons), a carbon pricing scheme. And it lists some of tangible changes that it (briefly) made:
https://youtu.be/6fV6eeckxTs?t=371
tl;dr - the kicker around 12m: the companies who were initially opposed it, then asked for it back.
> It is also implausible that nobody has noticed this massive worldwide catastrophe before this lone researcher stumbled onto the evidence of our life support systems "collapsing".
More than merely implausible, you can go and look up the previously found results. :-) Thankfully insect geeks do exist, and guess what...
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/germany-s-insects-are-disappearing ... they found similar declines. What makes this new data-point particularly informing is, aside from the scale, its location and how that was not an area previously expected to be hit so badly.
> So far AGW has warmed the earth by 1.3 C (2 F).
That's a world average, but that same level of warming can bring local extremes more like +/- 4 C
As the article states: “The number of hot spells, temperatures above 29C, have increased tremendously,”
The article never said Anthropogenic or human-caused. Sorry, but YOU (and many commenters) inserted that. If you really care about such topics, this should alert you to your own biases in interpreting information.
For folk who just headline-skimmed then jumped to the comments: the article offers into good reasons why heat-thresholds are crossed regularly now but not before make the changing climate a likely candidate, and how pesticides and other "usual suspects" are unlikely to be factors in this scenario. Remember also that a changing climate can bring much more extreme _local_ variations than just the "world average" increase.
> Wouldn't it be more effective to build a "solar roof" over the highway,
Like this 20-mile long one in Korea... ? http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/13/solar-bike-lane-korean-highway-video/
Just looking at it, it seems way more simple & practical than that freakin' other idea... ;-) (critique: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocV-RnVQdcs)
Let the pitchforks fly!! A paper has to present something non-obvious and of value, this fails on both counts.
I'm just waiting for the next article "Newsflash: solving a sudouk puzzle by hand is faster than software - under certain conditions"
So how did MS apply "machine learning" to make Bing not suck? By holding an internal competition to see who's algorithm processed "user improvement program" data best. So that essentially meant training it up to match Google search results (and presumably, which links "consenting" users clicked).
(OK, I'm sure they've come a long way since then on their own merits, but we can't let them live that one down ;-)
A week back the BBC posted a chart comparing world gas prices. Might be of interest:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-21238363
(As quoted from a German friend.) And in my small sampling, their airports seem to uphold that motto. And they don't bother you with pathetic forms requiring you to enter your home address (are you listening Heathrow!?!)
Scenario 1: Cops have guns to protect themselves. Bad guys have guns to protect themselves. Problem is: when they cross that adds a lotta incentive to be the first to shoot.
Scenario 2: Cops don't carry gun. Bad guys now don't have such a need to carry. When they cross, even bad guy with gun needn't panic and think he has to shoot first. (Or run down the cop with a car, etc.). On measure, cop is safer.
The vast majority of bad guys aren't murderous psychos and a life sentence for cop killing is an effective deterrent. (So if a cop is after a known murderer / similarly desperate person, THEN bring the guns.)
Anyway, I'm not so naive to think places like scenario 1 can simply change - I just know where I preferred living.
"Four innocent bystanders were shot during that shooting, most likely from police bullets." Bingo.
Our cops don't carry guns.
Coming from New Zealand, banking on the internet was really simple. I had a card that would spend MY money on the internet. This is called a "debit card": anyone can have one, no questions - because you're spending your own money. I've had one since I was 14 (some 16 years ago now), and even back then I could use it in stores with a PIN number. Once internet shopping was "invented" it also worked online.
I've since moved to the UK, and here it's a completely different story. If you don't put £1000 into the bank every month, you don't get a "good" debit card. (NB: I'm in the good category, so I'm not moaning about myself!) No... if you aren't rich enough, the banks give you some crappy card that only works in 30% of the stores and almost never on the internet.
Why do they discriminate like this????
The only logic I've come up woith is that it encourages "not-so-rich people" to go get Credit cards instead. I'm guessing the banks want you to spend their money on the internet. The "not-so-rich people" are more likely to get trapped not paying off the interest each month... and the banks cash in on the interest fees.
I guess this is the same bank-card black-hole that the school kids are in. Their parents and banks (quite rightly!) disallow them from usung credit cards.
SOLUTION: Why not simply give out "internet quality" debit cards to everyone with a bank account? Surely it's technically possible to check a bank account balance during an online transaction?!? They've managed to do it in NZ for 10+ years.
I'm interested: what's it like in the US? Other countries? Can people trivially spend their OWN money online, or are many people forced to use credit cards too?
From the FAQ:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How can I improve my karma?
Tip 1: Post Intelligently: Interesting, insightful, thought provoking comments are rated higher on a fairly consistent basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Flamebait -- Flamebait refers to comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage. If someone is not-so-subtly picking a fight (racial insults are a dead giveaway), it's Flamebait.
My thoughts, after re-reading and considering my post?
Yup, still thought provoking.
Surely the moderator just disagreed with my opinion.
Q: How can one dig themselves out when their first post in 4 years gets moderated down? A: they won't bother.
I think I was unfairly moderated (on a different post) so this is just a test, in an old topic.
Does my karma of 'bad' now mean all comments I post get score 0?
The irony! I just got censored in a slashdot censorship post! ;)
wooo... sorry for having an opinion. Just trying to start participating.
(You're right, I do smell something burning)
Given the attention span of your average internet reader, I imagine many people WILL miss the satire. However, which lies are worse?
The lies of the author, claiming to be John Howard? A desperate ploy in desperate times, an attempt to catch the attention of people who may not have read the truth behind all the Pre-War propaganda. (With a healthy dose of humour, once you catch on)
Or the lies and exagerations of the propaganda to gain public approval? Just get the impression out that it's not really that bad: first impressions count, not boring facts that come out later on. It's all right Joe Public, sit back and watch the news like another TV show. Don't complain to your ministers. There's no real people in TV land, are there?
I'm pretty sure they go way beyond simple delay effects (like the tricks a Sound-Blaster Live can do when wearing headphones, to simulate sounds going behind you and above+below you).
They say: "Unlike virtual surround systems, which employ psycho-acoustic techniques to simulate a surround sound effect, and require rigid listening conditions to be met the Digital Sound Project produces genuine surround sound within a wide listening area" They definately talk about sound-beams which reflect off walls to produce sound which appears to originate on the wall.
Quotes on this page make me think this is going to be something special
A brittish company "1-limited" must be using something like this too, because they have created a home-theatre system that provides full surround sound, but only requires ONE speaker! You can reposition the "virtual speakers" around the room using a remote control. It currently does up to 6 channels, but they claim it can be extended to 8 (without hardware upgrade) if new surround sound formats are invented. Have a look at the .PDF that is on this page. They don't give away many technical details unfortunately.