They're going to basically spend all this money paying for power from "renewable" sources.
Yet, in all likelihood, they're going to be delivered locally generated power from nuclear sources.
And exactly HOW many cars are on the road in Chicago EVERY DAMN DAY?
Also, Metra DOES have one Electric district train setup.
But the majority of their trains are diesel.
So shortsighted...
If they were REALLY looking to make big gains, they'd go after low-hanging fruit in building retrofits.
Remember, roughly 40% of ALL energy demand in the country is for HVAC load.
Take a thermal camera and look at most Chicago buildings.
They leak heat like a sieve.
Basically this means that excessive amounts of money are being spent trying to keep these buildings at livable temperatures, because they're losing heat via conduction and convection.
Simple changes in building codes for new and retrofit construction, along with incentives to do so could yield massive decreases in energy CONSUMPTION.
To be fair, just because there are lots of polluting cars in Chicago does not mean they should not switch to renewables. That said, you are right, the whole switching to renewables project would go a lot faster and be easier if they offered tax breaks (or some other form of incentive) for people who insulate their houses since the less houses leak heat the less power you need and the slower demand for power grows. As for the cars, I think the pollution from gasoline cars will probably solve itself, particularly if the city encouraged the construction of charging points for electric cars. You can't just pick the issue apart and focus on individual aspects of it, you have to approach it with a holistic set of solutions.
I'm not convinced that's the case. I'm raising a kid these days and he goes to a high school where they're told engineering and science has no future and they should instead focus on law and finance. It's actually more of a cluelessness. They are brainwashed from the time they're young into considering that gambling is "the free market economy". Many of them are good people and genuinely altruistic.
I actually believe that what they're doing is a good thing. They lack foresight into many things. For example, investing in real estate typically ensures that your money grows relative to the cost of living. Therefore, it's a inflation adjusted investment that allows you to put $100 in today and in 30 years, you can get $100 rate adjusted back out.
Wall Street investments don't work in those terms. Generally, most of their investments on behalf of who they represent earn them fast cash now, but causes their customers to not necessarily equal or outpace the rate of inflation over time.
My experience with their altruism is that it has mostly to do with the fact that their altruism is mostly motivated by the fact that they gain tax exemptions and in a way it is also a coping mechanism to placate what little sliver of a conscience they have left for the way they screw over the public and ruin people's lives by goading them into pump-n-dump schemes like the dot-com scam the subprime scam and, lately, crypto currencies. As for the idea that there is no future in engineering and science, excuse me while I roll on the floor laughing my a** off.... ok, that took a while but I'm done laughing, I agree, that is cluelessness. Some of these financial service industry types do serve a purpose and do useful work but a whole lot of these Wall Street bozos are just a bunch of grifters. Apart from pump-n-dump scam artist like Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and the rest of them (there is a legion of them from many different countries) who pump up the market to then deliberately watch it crash so they can short the assets they goaded their own customers into buying, I reserve particular scorn for high frequency traders, these people just make money off market noise, they literally contribute nothing useful to the economy.
When you saturate the market to the point where you can't grow anymore, you got to raise prices. Their cost of doing business hasn't gone up, so there's no real reason to raise prices other than to appease Wall Street.
Wall Street: A bunch of greedy sociopaths with a sprinkling of hallucinating schizophrenics (also known as 'market analysts') thrown in.
Oh let me guess, the all knowing government would do it much better.
No, but that does not change the fact that Wall Street is primarily composed of greedy sociopaths.
When you saturate the market to the point where you can't grow anymore, you got to raise prices. Their cost of doing business hasn't gone up, so there's no real reason to raise prices other than to appease Wall Street.
Wall Street: A bunch of greedy sociopaths with a sprinkling of hallucinating schizophrenics (also known as 'market analysts') thrown in.
if a gas turbine was only 30% efficient, why would anyone buy one?
I don't know, how about you ask the people buying them? Also, tell me how efficient they are if you dispute the 30% efficiency. Oh, and provide a citation, like this one:
When the gas turbine is used solely for shaft power, its thermal efficiency is about 30%
Then you can tell me again on how solar power is "reliable" while natural gas is "dispatchable". Your answer lies in those definitions.
Natural gas turbines have a max realistic efficiency of about 60%. The main problem with them from a business point of view is firstly the prospect of one day having to actually pay for the emissions, which most of the industry currently does not have to do, and secondly the fluctuations in fuel prices. With wind and solar you don't have those problems. The business case becomes much more predictable and less risky. Granted, you need grid storage for them but for large segments of the market solar packaged sell with a battery storage package that will give you anywhere from one to three or four days of power and the grid storage problem is solvable. Generally the extraction costs of gas are on a general upward trend and there is an ever looming possibility of gas turbine operators having to pay for their carbon emissions while Wind and Solar don't have any extraction costs and produce hardly any carbon footprint. The argument you are having is basically whether film cameras (gas/coal/oil) are the future or digital camera (wind/solar/grid storage) are the future my money is on the latter. If fusion turns out to be possible that's gravy.
We've seen how accurate you are snowflake "Trump is going to lose by a landslide and nothing you can do will stop that." https://slashdot.org/comments.... you lose idiot sore loser.
Sure he will... November 3, 2020... I'm pretty sure that the time up until then is way more than enough for him to mess up positively everything else that can be messed up.
Power storage via batteries, or physical energy storage like flywheels, water / weight, all can make wind and solar more viable, as well as improving usage of traditional power as well.
...cheap and efficient coal power...
Coal has been completely outcompeted cost-efficiency and emissionswise by practically everything else on the market.
You're correct. The rise of two-engine, long-range planes such as the A350 and 787 has given rise to the so-called "skinny and long" routes that don't have too many passengers, and are long-distance. The Dreamliner has enabled 170 new routes that wouldn't have been profitable before. Moreover, having two airplanes allows two flights a day, for instance, rather than one flight a day, which gives a convenience that the passenger may prefer.
Well the A350, more than the 787 since Boeing made a lot of customers nervous by completely messing up the development of the 787 and also the running of the Charleston assembly line which has led some customers to stipulate they'll only accept aircraft made in Seattle.
So the A380 can carry the same amount of passengers on four engines with one crew on one landing slot as two A350 or a two 777 on four engines, with two crews and two landing slots. That equals more efficiency, not less.
Airlines are not operating on crew and landing slot efficiency basis. Crew are comparatively cheap. Landing slots are only critical in a hub model, and these days secondary airports are highly used. For the real metric (fuel per mile per passenger seat), the modern twinjets beat the A380.
This is not the only problem. It has four engines instead of two like the 777 or the A350, which causes servicing to take longer and be more expensive and making it less fuel efficient.
Furthermore the wings are constructed to house more fuel tanks than actually used, making the wings unnecessarily complicated and heavy, decreasing efficency and increasing costs. In this case, preparation for an ultra long distance version which never was ordered created a problem for the versions in operation.
What I heard is that it is more fuel efficient. You can cram almost as many people into one A380 as a 777 or a A350 and that is with the normal A380 since the potential for stretch versions will now never be tapped. So the A380 can carry the same amount of passengers on four engines with one crew on one landing slot as two A350 or a two 777 on four engines, with two crews and two landing slots. That equals more efficiency, not less. This it what the A380 was conceived for, travel between large hubs over long distances, not trips between Farmerssville Kansas and Someburg in Texas. The real issue here from what I can gather is business models airlines are increasingly using. Airlines are increasingly using smaller aircraft to create connections between smaller airports and bypassing the big hubs so A380 demand remains weaker than anticipated. Additionally there was some talk about the big hubs being reluctant to make the changes needed for the A380, although I don't really think that is an insurmountable obstacle. All in all the A380 is an aircraft that will probably be highly sought after on the second hand market years from now when the market has expanded to the point where the capacity it offers is more sorely needed.
When did CEOs become so much smarter than the rest of us? In my experience the vast majority of CEOs is simply more greedy and sociopathic than the rest of us, intelligence is not a variable in that equation nor is competence. A whole legion of these people managed to backstab their way to the top of the food chain in the years leading up to the that oopsie-daisy in 2007 where they crashed the world economy. Not exactly a shining example of intelligence that...
It is expected to be priced lower than Apple's cheapest iPhone, the XR, which starts at $749.
That's odd. I bought a bottom-end unlocked iPhone SE at Target in December for about $200. Required that I buy one month of pay-as-you-go service for an additional $30. Have they gone up that much since?
To be fair, a lot of C's early use was to create tools for trusted users that were run from a commandline and typically didn't even need to worry too much about memory, as the OS would deal with clearing up anything the application didn't clear up after it exits.
I'm not sure that the designers could have predicted the rise of the internet, and our globally connected world where inherent trust just isn't applicable.
True, but C has also suffered from stagnant development and downright neglect. C could have benefitted immensely from some project like the C++ boost project whose features get integrated into progressive C updates a long time ago.
This is seen as a cost saving measure. It seems that customers wanting faster iPhone charge times will still have to buy accessories, like the 12W iPad charger.
Will have to buy one? I have had one for years and use it to charge everything from iPhones to Garmin devices, Android devices and headphones.
Absurd. Accusations against Huawei are not mostly speculation. Then you pull a whataboutism with speculation on the US government, and claim the latter is a stronger case.
Either that post is nationalism or a troll, because it isn't internally consistent, let alone truthful.
"In view of the fact that Huawei spying for the Chinese govt. is so far mostly speculation" - No, it isn't. They're a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chinese government and the spying IN PLAIN SIGHT is documented over 6 times. You're a moron.
It's you who is a moron. Firstly I vividly remember stating that I don't trust Huawei even as far as I can throw them Secondly, the fact that they are owned by the Chinese govt. does not prove they are spying on their customer base. But by all means, do amaze us with your secret trove of evidence of Huawei's spring activities. Perhaps in the form of a torrent file to a multi gigabyte tarball of data?
Recall that Huawei isn't just on the US ban-list due to supposed state espionage fears. They've also been accused of stealing intellectual property from Nortel, Cisco, and possibly Motorola (source). It wouldn't be outrageous to assume they have targeted Ericsson, Nokia, or Alcatel-Lucent as well.
Worse, given the opaque relationship between Huawei and the Chinese government, we have no idea how much of that corporate espionage was performed by government teams, an issue the US has been fighting for some time (source), nor how much financial support the government is providing to subsidize pricing.
In short, banning Huawei is probably a good idea for those more mundane reasons alone.
In view of the fact that Huawei spying for the Chinese govt. is so far mostly speculation but that the US has been caught with it's pants down planting backdoors in the equipment of US manufacturers and that we have no idea to what extent these US companies were actually cooperating with the NSA backdooring operations, I'd say that there is a stronger case for banning Nortel, Cisco, Motorola, and friends than there is for banning Huawei. That being said I'm still not willing to trust Huawei even as far as I can throw them.
I've not had this problem. But I have not used anything other than Windows for most of 26 years. Every attempt, no library issues.
Of course I gave up each time so it was not long lived. So what are these libraries?
That kind of depends on the distribution you are using, some of them are crap when it comes to this but there are enterprise distributions that do some good and proper quality control. However, if you pick some thing like the Ubuntu or Fedora community distributions you are going to have this problem because those people have no issues with backwards compatibility, a lot of them just don't understand what all the fuss is about. The people running the enterprise distributions do understand it because they get angry phone calls and e-mails from customers every time, for example, the Python team decides to break backwards compatibility because they came up with a more elegant way to structure their API. You could also make the case that Windows is better because of QA and they do good QA these days but keep in mind that there you are limited to one distribution and no tech support worth mentioning unless you pay through the nose. I used to work for a telco that had a gold plated support agreement with Microsoft but apparently that didn't even include a provision for Microsoft to get off their ass and fix bugs. All the local MS dealer seemed to do was collect extra payments for marginally better support. For proper support from MS you needed a solid gold, platinum plated diamond encrusted support agreement that ships in an unobtanium case and that we could not afford. With FOSS you can at least either change distributions or hire a mercenary coder to fix your issue because you have the source.
but meth has no opiates...bad analogy is bad. you should have said a pill popper switching to heroin, because switching to meth ain't gonna do much for them withdrawals except make it worse.
Heron == high, Crystal meth == high, Junkies don't think much farther than that any more than right-wing petroleum industry groupies when it comes to climate change.
So, they have discovered a method to convert millions of tons of plastic into fossil fuels that can be burned to release yet more sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. That's sure to solve our ongoing problem with carbon emissions causing climate change.
Not exactly. The petrochemical industry is driven by the thirst for liquid fuels not solid plastics. Plastics are a byproduct of the oil and gas industry. If we can reuse plastic as a liquid fuel source then we would offset pumping yet more liquid out of the ground for burning, net emissions stay somewhat equal. What we do end up with is less plastic in the landfills.
You can't solve global warming at the fuel production stage, you need to solve it at the consumption stage.
If somebody comes up with a more efficient and cost effective way to power your [whatever] just watch the fossil fuel industry go the way of buggy whip manufacturers. This is already happening, we are already sailing into a duck curve where electric will beat fossils on every level and no amount of conservatives hammering on about how fracking and using fossil fuels is patriotism can change that.
Slashdot Mirror
Lobbyist: One of the lowest forms of life that crawls across the surface of this planet.
They're going to basically spend all this money paying for power from "renewable" sources. Yet, in all likelihood, they're going to be delivered locally generated power from nuclear sources. And exactly HOW many cars are on the road in Chicago EVERY DAMN DAY?
Also, Metra DOES have one Electric district train setup. But the majority of their trains are diesel.
So shortsighted...
If they were REALLY looking to make big gains, they'd go after low-hanging fruit in building retrofits. Remember, roughly 40% of ALL energy demand in the country is for HVAC load.
Take a thermal camera and look at most Chicago buildings. They leak heat like a sieve. Basically this means that excessive amounts of money are being spent trying to keep these buildings at livable temperatures, because they're losing heat via conduction and convection.
Simple changes in building codes for new and retrofit construction, along with incentives to do so could yield massive decreases in energy CONSUMPTION.
To be fair, just because there are lots of polluting cars in Chicago does not mean they should not switch to renewables. That said, you are right, the whole switching to renewables project would go a lot faster and be easier if they offered tax breaks (or some other form of incentive) for people who insulate their houses since the less houses leak heat the less power you need and the slower demand for power grows. As for the cars, I think the pollution from gasoline cars will probably solve itself, particularly if the city encouraged the construction of charging points for electric cars. You can't just pick the issue apart and focus on individual aspects of it, you have to approach it with a holistic set of solutions.
I'm not convinced that's the case. I'm raising a kid these days and he goes to a high school where they're told engineering and science has no future and they should instead focus on law and finance. It's actually more of a cluelessness. They are brainwashed from the time they're young into considering that gambling is "the free market economy". Many of them are good people and genuinely altruistic. I actually believe that what they're doing is a good thing. They lack foresight into many things. For example, investing in real estate typically ensures that your money grows relative to the cost of living. Therefore, it's a inflation adjusted investment that allows you to put $100 in today and in 30 years, you can get $100 rate adjusted back out. Wall Street investments don't work in those terms. Generally, most of their investments on behalf of who they represent earn them fast cash now, but causes their customers to not necessarily equal or outpace the rate of inflation over time.
My experience with their altruism is that it has mostly to do with the fact that their altruism is mostly motivated by the fact that they gain tax exemptions and in a way it is also a coping mechanism to placate what little sliver of a conscience they have left for the way they screw over the public and ruin people's lives by goading them into pump-n-dump schemes like the dot-com scam the subprime scam and, lately, crypto currencies. As for the idea that there is no future in engineering and science, excuse me while I roll on the floor laughing my a** off .... ok, that took a while but I'm done laughing, I agree, that is cluelessness. Some of these financial service industry types do serve a purpose and do useful work but a whole lot of these Wall Street bozos are just a bunch of grifters. Apart from pump-n-dump scam artist like Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and the rest of them (there is a legion of them from many different countries) who pump up the market to then deliberately watch it crash so they can short the assets they goaded their own customers into buying, I reserve particular scorn for high frequency traders, these people just make money off market noise, they literally contribute nothing useful to the economy.
When you saturate the market to the point where you can't grow anymore, you got to raise prices. Their cost of doing business hasn't gone up, so there's no real reason to raise prices other than to appease Wall Street.
Wall Street: A bunch of greedy sociopaths with a sprinkling of hallucinating schizophrenics (also known as 'market analysts') thrown in.
Oh let me guess, the all knowing government would do it much better.
No, but that does not change the fact that Wall Street is primarily composed of greedy sociopaths.
When you saturate the market to the point where you can't grow anymore, you got to raise prices. Their cost of doing business hasn't gone up, so there's no real reason to raise prices other than to appease Wall Street.
Wall Street: A bunch of greedy sociopaths with a sprinkling of hallucinating schizophrenics (also known as 'market analysts') thrown in.
if a gas turbine was only 30% efficient, why would anyone buy one?
I don't know, how about you ask the people buying them? Also, tell me how efficient they are if you dispute the 30% efficiency. Oh, and provide a citation, like this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
When the gas turbine is used solely for shaft power, its thermal efficiency is about 30%
Then you can tell me again on how solar power is "reliable" while natural gas is "dispatchable". Your answer lies in those definitions.
Natural gas turbines have a max realistic efficiency of about 60%. The main problem with them from a business point of view is firstly the prospect of one day having to actually pay for the emissions, which most of the industry currently does not have to do, and secondly the fluctuations in fuel prices. With wind and solar you don't have those problems. The business case becomes much more predictable and less risky. Granted, you need grid storage for them but for large segments of the market solar packaged sell with a battery storage package that will give you anywhere from one to three or four days of power and the grid storage problem is solvable. Generally the extraction costs of gas are on a general upward trend and there is an ever looming possibility of gas turbine operators having to pay for their carbon emissions while Wind and Solar don't have any extraction costs and produce hardly any carbon footprint. The argument you are having is basically whether film cameras (gas/coal/oil) are the future or digital camera (wind/solar/grid storage) are the future my money is on the latter. If fusion turns out to be possible that's gravy.
We've seen how accurate you are snowflake "Trump is going to lose by a landslide and nothing you can do will stop that." https://slashdot.org/comments.... you lose idiot sore loser.
Sure he will ... November 3, 2020 ... I'm pretty sure that the time up until then is way more than enough for him to mess up positively everything else that can be messed up.
Power storage via batteries, or physical energy storage like flywheels, water / weight, all can make wind and solar more viable, as well as improving usage of traditional power as well.
...cheap and efficient coal power...
Coal has been completely outcompeted cost-efficiency and emissionswise by practically everything else on the market.
You're correct. The rise of two-engine, long-range planes such as the A350 and 787 has given rise to the so-called "skinny and long" routes that don't have too many passengers, and are long-distance. The Dreamliner has enabled 170 new routes that wouldn't have been profitable before. Moreover, having two airplanes allows two flights a day, for instance, rather than one flight a day, which gives a convenience that the passenger may prefer.
Well the A350, more than the 787 since Boeing made a lot of customers nervous by completely messing up the development of the 787 and also the running of the Charleston assembly line which has led some customers to stipulate they'll only accept aircraft made in Seattle.
Airlines are not operating on crew and landing slot efficiency basis. Crew are comparatively cheap. Landing slots are only critical in a hub model, and these days secondary airports are highly used. For the real metric (fuel per mile per passenger seat), the modern twinjets beat the A380.
link.
The A380 is (was) having order problems. The A350 XWB not so much.
That's kind of what I was saying.
This is not the only problem. It has four engines instead of two like the 777 or the A350, which causes servicing to take longer and be more expensive and making it less fuel efficient.
Furthermore the wings are constructed to house more fuel tanks than actually used, making the wings unnecessarily complicated and heavy, decreasing efficency and increasing costs. In this case, preparation for an ultra long distance version which never was ordered created a problem for the versions in operation.
What I heard is that it is more fuel efficient. You can cram almost as many people into one A380 as a 777 or a A350 and that is with the normal A380 since the potential for stretch versions will now never be tapped. So the A380 can carry the same amount of passengers on four engines with one crew on one landing slot as two A350 or a two 777 on four engines, with two crews and two landing slots. That equals more efficiency, not less. This it what the A380 was conceived for, travel between large hubs over long distances, not trips between Farmerssville Kansas and Someburg in Texas. The real issue here from what I can gather is business models airlines are increasingly using. Airlines are increasingly using smaller aircraft to create connections between smaller airports and bypassing the big hubs so A380 demand remains weaker than anticipated. Additionally there was some talk about the big hubs being reluctant to make the changes needed for the A380, although I don't really think that is an insurmountable obstacle. All in all the A380 is an aircraft that will probably be highly sought after on the second hand market years from now when the market has expanded to the point where the capacity it offers is more sorely needed.
Hrs quoting the article you fucking moron. Those aren't his facts.
Well if he quoted it he must have believed it ... you fucking salivating moron.
So Hard Even the CEO Can't Do It.
When did CEOs become so much smarter than the rest of us? In my experience the vast majority of CEOs is simply more greedy and sociopathic than the rest of us, intelligence is not a variable in that equation nor is competence. A whole legion of these people managed to backstab their way to the top of the food chain in the years leading up to the that oopsie-daisy in 2007 where they crashed the world economy. Not exactly a shining example of intelligence that ...
It is expected to be priced lower than Apple's cheapest iPhone, the XR, which starts at $749.
That's odd. I bought a bottom-end unlocked iPhone SE at Target in December for about $200. Required that I buy one month of pay-as-you-go service for an additional $30. Have they gone up that much since?
a quick search tells me retail is $399, but I can get one for $125: https://www.digitaltrends.com/...
Stop ruining his fantasy world with 'facts' ...
To be fair, a lot of C's early use was to create tools for trusted users that were run from a commandline and typically didn't even need to worry too much about memory, as the OS would deal with clearing up anything the application didn't clear up after it exits.
I'm not sure that the designers could have predicted the rise of the internet, and our globally connected world where inherent trust just isn't applicable.
True, but C has also suffered from stagnant development and downright neglect. C could have benefitted immensely from some project like the C++ boost project whose features get integrated into progressive C updates a long time ago.
Their prices have gone up dramatically. Apple have lost the plot lately.
They seem to have finally woken up to that: https://www.bbc.com/news/busin...
If they are actually wanting to make such claims about their products, I highly doubt that they'd care what the FDA has to say.
They'll start caring plenty quick when they get sued, if not by the FDA then by their victims or, preferably, both.
This is seen as a cost saving measure. It seems that customers wanting faster iPhone charge times will still have to buy accessories, like the 12W iPad charger.
Will have to buy one? I have had one for years and use it to charge everything from iPhones to Garmin devices, Android devices and headphones.
I am sure they were aware. They likely just badly misjudged the typical quality of coders.
More likely they just didn't anticipate the degree of maliciousness we have today and they probably also didn't expect C to have such a long lifespan.
Absurd. Accusations against Huawei are not mostly speculation. Then you pull a whataboutism with speculation on the US government, and claim the latter is a stronger case.
Either that post is nationalism or a troll, because it isn't internally consistent, let alone truthful.
Really? https://www.reuters.com/articl...
"In view of the fact that Huawei spying for the Chinese govt. is so far mostly speculation" - No, it isn't. They're a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chinese government and the spying IN PLAIN SIGHT is documented over 6 times. You're a moron.
It's you who is a moron. Firstly I vividly remember stating that I don't trust Huawei even as far as I can throw them Secondly, the fact that they are owned by the Chinese govt. does not prove they are spying on their customer base. But by all means, do amaze us with your secret trove of evidence of Huawei's spring activities. Perhaps in the form of a torrent file to a multi gigabyte tarball of data?
Recall that Huawei isn't just on the US ban-list due to supposed state espionage fears. They've also been accused of stealing intellectual property from Nortel, Cisco, and possibly Motorola (source). It wouldn't be outrageous to assume they have targeted Ericsson, Nokia, or Alcatel-Lucent as well.
Worse, given the opaque relationship between Huawei and the Chinese government, we have no idea how much of that corporate espionage was performed by government teams, an issue the US has been fighting for some time (source), nor how much financial support the government is providing to subsidize pricing.
In short, banning Huawei is probably a good idea for those more mundane reasons alone.
In view of the fact that Huawei spying for the Chinese govt. is so far mostly speculation but that the US has been caught with it's pants down planting backdoors in the equipment of US manufacturers and that we have no idea to what extent these US companies were actually cooperating with the NSA backdooring operations, I'd say that there is a stronger case for banning Nortel, Cisco, Motorola, and friends than there is for banning Huawei. That being said I'm still not willing to trust Huawei even as far as I can throw them.
I've not had this problem. But I have not used anything other than Windows for most of 26 years. Every attempt, no library issues.
Of course I gave up each time so it was not long lived. So what are these libraries?
That kind of depends on the distribution you are using, some of them are crap when it comes to this but there are enterprise distributions that do some good and proper quality control. However, if you pick some thing like the Ubuntu or Fedora community distributions you are going to have this problem because those people have no issues with backwards compatibility, a lot of them just don't understand what all the fuss is about. The people running the enterprise distributions do understand it because they get angry phone calls and e-mails from customers every time, for example, the Python team decides to break backwards compatibility because they came up with a more elegant way to structure their API. You could also make the case that Windows is better because of QA and they do good QA these days but keep in mind that there you are limited to one distribution and no tech support worth mentioning unless you pay through the nose. I used to work for a telco that had a gold plated support agreement with Microsoft but apparently that didn't even include a provision for Microsoft to get off their ass and fix bugs. All the local MS dealer seemed to do was collect extra payments for marginally better support. For proper support from MS you needed a solid gold, platinum plated diamond encrusted support agreement that ships in an unobtanium case and that we could not afford. With FOSS you can at least either change distributions or hire a mercenary coder to fix your issue because you have the source.
but meth has no opiates...bad analogy is bad. you should have said a pill popper switching to heroin, because switching to meth ain't gonna do much for them withdrawals except make it worse.
Heron == high, Crystal meth == high, Junkies don't think much farther than that any more than right-wing petroleum industry groupies when it comes to climate change.
So, they have discovered a method to convert millions of tons of plastic into fossil fuels that can be burned to release yet more sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. That's sure to solve our ongoing problem with carbon emissions causing climate change.
Not exactly. The petrochemical industry is driven by the thirst for liquid fuels not solid plastics. Plastics are a byproduct of the oil and gas industry. If we can reuse plastic as a liquid fuel source then we would offset pumping yet more liquid out of the ground for burning, net emissions stay somewhat equal. What we do end up with is less plastic in the landfills.
You can't solve global warming at the fuel production stage, you need to solve it at the consumption stage.
If somebody comes up with a more efficient and cost effective way to power your [whatever] just watch the fossil fuel industry go the way of buggy whip manufacturers. This is already happening, we are already sailing into a duck curve where electric will beat fossils on every level and no amount of conservatives hammering on about how fracking and using fossil fuels is patriotism can change that.