Was bored out of my mind on a long flight and figured, "how bad could it be?". Turns out, pretty damn awful, got through maybe half of it and then decided it's better to wallow in boredom than to suffer any more of that butchery of film history.
Uhuh, we have so many batteries that everyone can have an electric car and charge it from another battery that is charged from a solar panel or a windmill. Wait what, that's not the reality we live in? Well, not today though and not quite yet tomorrow, maybe few decades down the line. World battery production is several orders of magnitude short of such an utopia, if it wasn't batteries would not be so expensive. It's not that we can't make them cheaply enough, it's that we can't make enough, period.
Sure it works, as long as you have all of base load capacity worth of fossil fuel stations ready to take up slack as needed. You might even have so many windmills that you only need to burn fossil fuels on a single day in a year, but you still need them to be completely ready all the time. That's the problem with wind and solar, they displace CO2, they don't displace power stations, the capacity still needs to be there in full.
Historic emissions are largely a moot point, the world is currently outputting over 6X as much as it did 1950 and anything before 1900 is negilible. Besides, what's done is done, we can only change the future.
Of course the abilities are same, it's not like there is some biological machinery dedicated for solving algebra, STEM problems are purely social constructs and so are any differences in solving them. But the study does in fact suggest girls are doing worse at STEM fields, better title would be "girls school performance degrades to boys level in STEM fields". It's no secret that girls are doing generally better at school than boys, better study discipline, less laziness and fewer instances of goofing off and doing stupid things instead of studying.
Hardly anyone knowingly chooses the path of drug addiction, mostly it comes down to people not really knowing what they are playing with. Even prevention campaigns saying "drugs are bad, don't do it" doesn't really get the message across. Largely because they don't quite stick to the facts and its obvious even to the kids, they tend to embellish dangers in some places and fail to show some of the more gruesome aspects properly. Bring a crack-whore to school and let her answer how many cocks a day she needs to swallow to make enough cash, that ought to get the point across.
The only places in the world where firearms in the hands of the population are any kind of problem are some shitty third world countries and US. Rest of the world has very few guns in private hands and/or very few problems with it.
If the proof is a dud or just some nonsense, it get's written off as an unfortunate case of dementia, doesn't invalidate lifetime of excellent work. If it checks out however, well solving a millennium problem at age 90 is just a cherry on top.
No this is a process mistake, it's like line worker getting wrong instructions and nobody ever checking if the finished product meets the original specs.
If you have a nuclear plant, it's best to utilize it to it's fullest, to run it at full power all the time, limited only by demand. And you need to have enough baseload capacity to cover all of demand, regardless of wind or solar availability. That doesn't leave much room for wind or solar. Cost of power from coal or gas comes down to fuel cost, renewables are a great replacement there. For nuclear cost comes down to operating the plant, regardless of running it at 20% or 100% capacity. If you have enough nuclear plants to cover all of demand, what the hell do you need solar panels for?
You could live right next to Chernobyl reactor without much issue if you wanted to, thing is, nobody wants to. Social stigma of living in a nuclear disaster zone far exceeds the actual dangers, so yes, it's quite possible the area will remain inhabited for thousands of years, not because you can't live there, but because people wont. So the entire area is shaping up to be a very nice nature reserve, wildlife has no social pressures to worry about.
No, that is not the case at all, in manufacturing like that everything that can be automated, already is automated. You still need ungodly amounts of laborers to do the things nobody has figured out how to automate. It's not as simple as carting in a robot and flipping a switch, enormous amounts of effort go into automating even the simplest of operations and bunch of things, there is just no feasible way to automate at all. The problem is sheer number of sequential assembly steps that must succeed and cumulative yield losses that occur along the way. There is not a single smartphone manufacturer on the planet that could automate from start to finish without thousands of laborers in between. You know these tiny screws that hold every smartphone together? Nobody has figured out how to insert them using a robot and end up with an acceptable yield rate. That's just an example of problems in automation, not even the hardest hurdle.
True, false, right or wrong, regardless the situation is FUBAR, Trump has been very busy making enemies and failed to make any friends. It's clear now, how much instability his courses of action have sowed. He has precious little credibility and support left, I'd be surprised if he makes it to end of term if he continues in this manner.
"a 45-year-old teacher.... She drew on savings, an insurance policy and a $25,000 loan."
You know things are about to go tits up when "investors" such as these start crawling out of the woodworks.
LES would have gotten away from AMOS-6 type scenario, that's pretty well determined. Sitting on the ground is when it's easiest for LES to get away from the exploding rocket, if LES can't get away from a fueling explosion one would have to ask, what's the point of LES to begin with? Because it sure as hell wouldn't get away from the rocket under acceleration.
Not only will it be done, it has to be done so there would be any hope of surviving as a species long term. Simple matter is, that as great as modern medicine is, it's also royally mucking up our collective gene pool. Take premature babies for example, in a normal course of things any genetic traits that cause premature birth would be instantly removed from gene pool. Modern medicine saves these lives, but as a downside these genetic defects get passed on. As a species we are collecting genetic defects like trophies, it has to be dealt with eventually. If we don't fix our gene pool ourselves, then eventually nature will do it for us, accumulating problems will become so severe that conventional medicine will be unable to do anything about it.
Good enough against sheepherders from a military perspective. But it's completely useless against any sort of real advecary. For any semi-competent air defence it's easy pickings. Imagine trying to fly that thing over Donbass, hah, it would be downed before you can say "Buk".
Sorry to disappoint you, but temperature is proportional to fourth root of solar irradiation, space reflectors are about the most inefficient way to go about it imaginable.
Many companies would benefit from robo-CEOs, alas that's not quite the reality yet. But if it was, would there be anything objectionable about that? If the actual work gets done either way, why would you need a human to do it, work for the sake of work? In a competitive environment, the cost of anything boils down to human effort required to provide the goods or services in question. If required effort approaches zero, then does the cost and isn't that a nice thing. Heck, the internet is full of perfect examples, the cost of providing services to billions is so low, that you can cover it with advertisement and still make a helluva profit. Imagine a reality where that was not the case, where you would have to pay money for every single service you access on the internet. That's the reality we live in with the entire rest of the economy.
States are corporations are not going to be a problem for MS, they have a budget for software expenses. The problem is home user, who might be tight on money at any given month or just be unwilling to spend. Tell me, if you can't continue to use an opsys, because you can't find money for it, what are you going to do, stop using your computer altogether until next payday? I don't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, hey, don't diss milliard, long scale is awesome, pity English speaking world no longer uses it.
Was bored out of my mind on a long flight and figured, "how bad could it be?". Turns out, pretty damn awful, got through maybe half of it and then decided it's better to wallow in boredom than to suffer any more of that butchery of film history.
Uhuh, we have so many batteries that everyone can have an electric car and charge it from another battery that is charged from a solar panel or a windmill. Wait what, that's not the reality we live in? Well, not today though and not quite yet tomorrow, maybe few decades down the line. World battery production is several orders of magnitude short of such an utopia, if it wasn't batteries would not be so expensive. It's not that we can't make them cheaply enough, it's that we can't make enough, period.
Sure it works, as long as you have all of base load capacity worth of fossil fuel stations ready to take up slack as needed. You might even have so many windmills that you only need to burn fossil fuels on a single day in a year, but you still need them to be completely ready all the time. That's the problem with wind and solar, they displace CO2, they don't displace power stations, the capacity still needs to be there in full.
Historic emissions are largely a moot point, the world is currently outputting over 6X as much as it did 1950 and anything before 1900 is negilible. Besides, what's done is done, we can only change the future.
Of course the abilities are same, it's not like there is some biological machinery dedicated for solving algebra, STEM problems are purely social constructs and so are any differences in solving them. But the study does in fact suggest girls are doing worse at STEM fields, better title would be "girls school performance degrades to boys level in STEM fields". It's no secret that girls are doing generally better at school than boys, better study discipline, less laziness and fewer instances of goofing off and doing stupid things instead of studying.
Didn't they already pay something like half a billion to EU for the IE debacle? Do they really want to repeat that?
Hardly anyone knowingly chooses the path of drug addiction, mostly it comes down to people not really knowing what they are playing with. Even prevention campaigns saying "drugs are bad, don't do it" doesn't really get the message across. Largely because they don't quite stick to the facts and its obvious even to the kids, they tend to embellish dangers in some places and fail to show some of the more gruesome aspects properly. Bring a crack-whore to school and let her answer how many cocks a day she needs to swallow to make enough cash, that ought to get the point across.
The only places in the world where firearms in the hands of the population are any kind of problem are some shitty third world countries and US. Rest of the world has very few guns in private hands and/or very few problems with it.
If the proof is a dud or just some nonsense, it get's written off as an unfortunate case of dementia, doesn't invalidate lifetime of excellent work. If it checks out however, well solving a millennium problem at age 90 is just a cherry on top.
No this is a process mistake, it's like line worker getting wrong instructions and nobody ever checking if the finished product meets the original specs.
If you have a nuclear plant, it's best to utilize it to it's fullest, to run it at full power all the time, limited only by demand. And you need to have enough baseload capacity to cover all of demand, regardless of wind or solar availability. That doesn't leave much room for wind or solar. Cost of power from coal or gas comes down to fuel cost, renewables are a great replacement there. For nuclear cost comes down to operating the plant, regardless of running it at 20% or 100% capacity. If you have enough nuclear plants to cover all of demand, what the hell do you need solar panels for?
You could live right next to Chernobyl reactor without much issue if you wanted to, thing is, nobody wants to. Social stigma of living in a nuclear disaster zone far exceeds the actual dangers, so yes, it's quite possible the area will remain inhabited for thousands of years, not because you can't live there, but because people wont. So the entire area is shaping up to be a very nice nature reserve, wildlife has no social pressures to worry about.
No, that is not the case at all, in manufacturing like that everything that can be automated, already is automated. You still need ungodly amounts of laborers to do the things nobody has figured out how to automate. It's not as simple as carting in a robot and flipping a switch, enormous amounts of effort go into automating even the simplest of operations and bunch of things, there is just no feasible way to automate at all. The problem is sheer number of sequential assembly steps that must succeed and cumulative yield losses that occur along the way. There is not a single smartphone manufacturer on the planet that could automate from start to finish without thousands of laborers in between. You know these tiny screws that hold every smartphone together? Nobody has figured out how to insert them using a robot and end up with an acceptable yield rate. That's just an example of problems in automation, not even the hardest hurdle.
True, false, right or wrong, regardless the situation is FUBAR, Trump has been very busy making enemies and failed to make any friends. It's clear now, how much instability his courses of action have sowed. He has precious little credibility and support left, I'd be surprised if he makes it to end of term if he continues in this manner.
They can just make the cable out of unobtanium, no problemo.
"a 45-year-old teacher.... She drew on savings, an insurance policy and a $25,000 loan."
You know things are about to go tits up when "investors" such as these start crawling out of the woodworks.
LES would have gotten away from AMOS-6 type scenario, that's pretty well determined. Sitting on the ground is when it's easiest for LES to get away from the exploding rocket, if LES can't get away from a fueling explosion one would have to ask, what's the point of LES to begin with? Because it sure as hell wouldn't get away from the rocket under acceleration.
How exactly does a carbonate mineral sequester more CO2? MgCO3 + CO2 => what exactly?
Not only will it be done, it has to be done so there would be any hope of surviving as a species long term. Simple matter is, that as great as modern medicine is, it's also royally mucking up our collective gene pool. Take premature babies for example, in a normal course of things any genetic traits that cause premature birth would be instantly removed from gene pool. Modern medicine saves these lives, but as a downside these genetic defects get passed on. As a species we are collecting genetic defects like trophies, it has to be dealt with eventually. If we don't fix our gene pool ourselves, then eventually nature will do it for us, accumulating problems will become so severe that conventional medicine will be unable to do anything about it.
Good enough against sheepherders from a military perspective. But it's completely useless against any sort of real advecary. For any semi-competent air defence it's easy pickings. Imagine trying to fly that thing over Donbass, hah, it would be downed before you can say "Buk".
Not a design issue, it's a "lets not cook the fish" issue.
Sorry to disappoint you, but temperature is proportional to fourth root of solar irradiation, space reflectors are about the most inefficient way to go about it imaginable.
Many companies would benefit from robo-CEOs, alas that's not quite the reality yet. But if it was, would there be anything objectionable about that? If the actual work gets done either way, why would you need a human to do it, work for the sake of work? In a competitive environment, the cost of anything boils down to human effort required to provide the goods or services in question. If required effort approaches zero, then does the cost and isn't that a nice thing. Heck, the internet is full of perfect examples, the cost of providing services to billions is so low, that you can cover it with advertisement and still make a helluva profit. Imagine a reality where that was not the case, where you would have to pay money for every single service you access on the internet. That's the reality we live in with the entire rest of the economy.
States are corporations are not going to be a problem for MS, they have a budget for software expenses. The problem is home user, who might be tight on money at any given month or just be unwilling to spend. Tell me, if you can't continue to use an opsys, because you can't find money for it, what are you going to do, stop using your computer altogether until next payday? I don't think so.