These days cell towers have electronically steerable arrays for antennas, so they can better use their available spectrum space to service more phones at higher data rates.
by manually ensuring that you don't have that 'required space' ?
I bet there will be nag dialogs endlessly until you 'let them' do an update to your system.
man, I hate win10. we are forced to use it at work but thankfully I can do 99% of my daily stuff with linux. those who must use win10 - I feel sorry for you. its not a fun experience having to be the 'operator' of a computer you don't really own anymore..
To be fair that's a lose lose situation for Microsoft. Be aggressive about updates and the user is annoyed, let the users install updates at their own leisure and they get hopping mad when their computer is infected by malware because of an un-patched vulnerability they could have fixed by installing in a timely fashion the updates that they have been putting off installing for weeks. At least you're getting the damn updates.
Keep doing that great Trump advertising. Every single slashdot article. You know the saying - no such thing as bad publicity! For free, too. You're gonna help us come 2020. Terrific job, terrific. I'm sure he thanks you bigly.
Will it even come to an election in 2020? Trump is already behaving like a Monarch so it should not become as a surprise if he dispenses with such tiresome theatre as elections and crowns himself on the White House lawn?
100% Offtopic?... after I cleverly worked the word 'monarch' into the post, UNFAIR!!!!:-(
Keep doing that great Trump advertising. Every single slashdot article. You know the saying - no such thing as bad publicity! For free, too. You're gonna help us come 2020. Terrific job, terrific. I'm sure he thanks you bigly.
Will it even come to an election in 2020? Trump is already behaving like a Monarch so it should not become as a surprise if he dispenses with such tiresome theatre as elections and crowns himself on the White House lawn?
You haven't considered your default case. It isn't some hippy renewable silliness.
Your choices are: burn new oil and use shitty plastic or burn shitty plastic and make new plastic out of oil.
Actually you first have to figure out a way to separate the plastic by chemistry, but even if you assume the hard part is done, it still makes sense to just burn the plastic.
Well I was only commenting on the two choices presented in that post which were burning it or burying it and neither requires sophisticated chemistry. My idea would be to limit the use of plastics to the absolute minimum necessary, provide incentives for industry to come up with less damaging alternatives to plastics and pressure the Asian countries responsible for these 85% of oceanic plastic pollution into cracking down on that plastic pollution. If somebody like Ocean Cleanup can then clean up a significant amount of the existing plastic pollution within a reasonable timeframe at reasonable cost then that's a project worth pursuing. As for it making sense to burn, what is it now? 15 million? tons of annually added oceanic plastic pollution instead of dumping it in the ocean, never mind burning all of the much, much, much larger amount of plastic garbage that accumulates on land annually, that only makes sense if one is some kind of deluded Trumpkin who thinks human driven thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax (hint: It isn't) because plastic in the end is sequestered carbon.
Mixed plastics are best recycled by being used as fuel. That is a harsh economic fact.
If you can't incinerate for power, then burying is the next best option. 'Throwing into nearest river' isn't in the top ten, neither is 'losing money hand sorting by chemistry so you can mix it with new plastic and make extra brittle new things'.
Mixed plastics being burned is releasing sequestered carbon into the atmosphere making the problem of climate change worse. Those are harsh environmental and climatic facts. Of the two choices presented here neither choice is a good one but burying the plastic (a.k.a. sequestered carbon) is better than burning it and releasing more carbon into the atmosphere which should have remained buried in the first place back when it was still oil. Personally, I think plastics cannot be banned quickly enough.
Manufacturing can be clean or dirty, depending on how you do it but it's 100% pollution free after that.
Fossil fuels also go through a manufacturing process which can be clean or dirty and it's 100% polluting after that.
What does that even mean? There are 100 years old hydroelectric power plants still in use today, the average coal plant in the USA is over 40 years old, the expected life span of a PV panel is 20-25 years, the expected lifespan of a wind turbine is still 20-25 years. You can NOT just say "heck, it is pollution free after manufacturing", that is like saying that a plastic fork is "pollution free" after manufacturing, so it is more environment friendly than a steel fork that you have to wash regularly (pro hint: in that case, it is exactly the other way around).
Measuring the real environmental impact of a given process is very hard, even subjective to some extent (are there pollutants better than others?). Measuring the real environmental impact _per energy produced_ is even more complex; if you take into account non-measurable quantities, like energy quality, availability etc. it is all politics.
Note: I did not delve into maintenance and upkeep costs. Usually, if it costs, it pollutes, so, no, nothing is 100% pollution free after manufacturing.
Assume that you build a wind park that lasts 25 years during which it has an almost inconsequential carbon footprint. If you then renew that wind park after 25 years and replace it with one that lasts 35 years because of improvements in material science during the proceeding 25 years the old one was chugging along, whatever carbon footprint those two wind parks had from production to recycling will be dwarfed by the carbon footprint of operating a coal fired power plant for 60 years. There is just no way you can argue that building coal fired power plants causes the same or even less of a carbon or other pollution footprint than wind and solar. Plus, our problem is not the carbon footprint caused during production or recycling. It is the carbon emissions generated during decades of service life that is the problem and here a wind park has undeniable advantages. The carbon footprint of a wind turbine in production is about 11 g CO2/kWh, the carbon footprint of a coal fired plant is 870 g CO2/kWh (Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2018...). The carbon footprint of a coal fired power plant is almost two orders of magnitude greater than that of a wind turbine alternative. That makes the choice between the two types of power plant kind of a no-brainer especially since the wind turbine generated electricity is cheaper than coal generated electricity.
Why not just find a hill, dig a hole, throw the person in upside down and plant a tree in their arsehole? We need more trees anyway.
Why wait years to be able to pick apples form the tree that grew in your dead congressman's ass when you can eat the crops grown in the compost soil that used to be him in months and get your dead corrupt politician laced food much quicker?
They were less than 10% in 2016, I don't think we've more than tripled our generation in California. And yes, I live in California. For the US, it's closer to 5%, not 18%.
The GP and you are confusing two different numbers. The GP is talking about total deployment. You are taking about how much power was actually produced. Which illustrates a great point. A 200MW wind farm doesn't equal a 200MW reactor. Solar and wind load factors are in the single digit percents. Nuclear's is north of 90%. So our 5% deployed nuclear generates 9% of our energy, but 18% of deployed renewables generates 5% of the power. Either way the real problem is the batteries needed to handle renewable deployments of more than about 20% energy generation. Without those batteries, its nuclear or natural gas.
Load factors for Wind, Solar and Hydro in the UK in 2017 according to the Digest of UK Energy Statistics published by the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
The load factor for UK nuclear plants hovered betweeen 65 and 77% and onshore wind in particular beats UK Nuclear on energy prices quite handily, onshore wind even managed to beat Combined Cycle Gas Turbines.
Now please start talking about 'breeder reactors' I have some choice quotes from the US navy and some scientific publications on those things.
Precisely. Nameplate capacity is irrelevant; generation is everything. And with wind turbine lifespans at half of original claims, that means the installed base needs to be doubled beyond their original estimates. Battery storage won't get you there, pumped storage MAY do it (but that's a big no-no for most environmentalists as well)... Nuclear really is the only realistic solution for power generation outside of fossil fuels.
No, cost is everything and both wind and solar are cheaper than nuclear in N-Europe for example. In southern Europe Solar is also way more competitive. The problem with nuclear is and always will be the same, it is very expensive and extremely unpopular. Oh, and your source is a 6 year old article in a Tory newspaper?... Really? At least pick some kind of tech publication next time.
However the real question is - will this have any impact or energy prices or availability in the EU, or in Spain?
If not, great. But if it does cause prices to rise, or it means electricity becomes more reliably... well then perhaps there was more to the subsidy than just supporting coal.
Ending the use of coal is a noble goal, if for no other reason than the reduction of real pollution. But we also have to be careful not to leave too many people out in the cold, to have alternatives.
So basically, you are against subsidies except if they result in price increases for you? You can't have your cake and eat it...
I look forward to well-reasoned arguments that are totally not Sinophobic and dog whistle racism, just like all the other threads that mention China.
It's not that I distrust the Chinese any more than other countries, it's just that I simply credit the Chinese with being capable of the same skulduggery as the US, European countries or Russia. So when I see them getting in on the ground level in the emerging LEO satellite internet industry and knowing that in China no company is really private, the Chinese government always has their fingers in everything to some degree, I have to ask: Is there a better way for the Chinese to do what they are seeing the NSA doing than to build large international presence in the LEO satellite internet market, so they can to conduct wholesale interception and archiving of every scrap of as much internet data foreign and domestic that passes through their satellite internet backbone? This isn't paranoia, in view of that the US/UK in particular are doing, the Chinese would be dumber than a brick if they did not do this as well.
Though I understood about a tenth of what you wrote, you seem to be saying that you're against monopolies. While I disagree with that premise, the seeming introduction of non-sequiturs (passing laws, criminality, threats, jail time, country X, swearing oaths, employment, blacklisting, BDS, Israel, posting as AC) and your conclusion, I suppose it's at least an argument. That's all I asked for, and you sure delivered a fascinating one.
Though I understood about a tenth of what you wrote, you seem to be saying that you're against monopolies. While I disagree with that premise, the seeming introduction of non-sequiturs (passing laws, criminality, threats, jail time, country X, swearing oaths, employment, blacklisting, BDS, Israel, posting as AC) and your conclusion, I suppose it's at least an argument. That's all I asked for, and you sure delivered a fascinating one.
I'll take another jab at explaining this to you, it is not particularly complicated. Boycotting Israeli products looks like it is be about to be come a crime punishable by incarceration in the US and some other countries, in fact in the US some companies and state governments require employees and contractors to sign a declaration and swear an oath that they will not boycott Israeli products. I will gladly swear an oath of fealty to my own country but I see no reason why I should be denied a job because I won't swear fealty to Israel for the simple reason that I am not an Israeli. Furthermore since there is not yet a law banning me from boycotting corporations I will boycott them if that corporation's business practices offend me and I will boycott Israeli products, Russian products, Chinese products if those countries' policies offend me no matter what laws congress passes. Basically the damn government has no business telling any citizen who they can and cannot boycott. Let them slap me with the $1 million fine and 20 year prison sentence in their proposed Israel Anti-Boycott Act for refusing to buy Israeli oranges (or gene modified rice if they ever extend the anti boycott act to corporations) and see how that verdict holds up in the supreme court (hint: 1st amendment). If you don't like that then... well.. tough! If this rant does not light the proverbial bulb floating over your head I'm sorry but this is really the most I can dumb this down short of drawing you a picture and I quite frankly have better things to do. Oh, and you forgot to post as AC again.
Apparently motivation enough that ad hominems suffice to counter criticism. Why even bother with presenting evidence or arguments! =)
I'm not anti-capitalism or anti-science, I'm anti monopoly which is what cloned asexual staple crop varieties are all about. I am also against passing laws that make me a criminal and threaten me with jail time for consciously avoiding the products of country X and I am anti being made to swear an oath not to boycott country X as a precondition for remaining employed and not being blacklisted. So... get over it! While I am not looking at serious jail time for boycotting agri-science companies in the business of setting up seed monopolies like I soon seem likely to get for supporting BDS on top of the Israel loyalty oath some US states and even countries are starting to demand, I'm going to boycott these agri-science companies and as many of their products as I can. Oh, and you forgot to post AC:-)
Boycott these foodstuffs. These bozos are not Israel and boycotting them is not a crime, heresy and treason all rolled up into one... at least not yet.
Canning on a large scale was first practiced by the French who used glass jars on a huge scale to preserve food for Napoleonic period armies. In fact the invention was the result of a bounty offered by the French government. It was the British who introduced metal 'tins' during the 1820s made of tinned iron and (stroke of genius here) soldered with lead.
When I need information it's now one-stop shopping in Estonia. All the people's information in one convenient place. No muss, no fuss, Hack once and live a lifetime.
BTW, what happens when, not if, Russia decides that uppity former republic needs to be taught a lesson? We've seen what they're trying to do in the Ukraine. Imagine a country with a population less than the city of Philadelphia being taken down when nothing works because somehow, mysteriously, large amounts of data are lost or corrupted.
What's that saying about putting all your eggs in one basket?
Estonia is a NATO member and an EU member and Britain and Germany have deployed forces in the Baltic nations. They are safe.
Those are token forces. Unless the Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian armies are able to deal with massive armour and airborne invasions and delay the Russians for a significant amount of time while NATO forces deploy to the theatre the Russians can overrun those countries in hours and judging from what I've seen in terms of training of Baltic forces by NATO that seems to be the strategy. Once the Ivans are occupying them these countries will become another frozen conflict like the E-Ukraine or those disputed territories in Georgia... unless the Russians decides to annex Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to 'protect' the inhabitants. After that it becomes a question of whether NATO is willing to put up rather large armoured invasion force to liberate these countries. To that purpose they must first deal with a massive Russian SAM and fighter umbrella and judging from what Trump has been saying I'd be sceptical the US would ever agree to it and they'd be the ones who'd have to provide a large part of the air defence suppression assets in particular (read: cruise missiles and stealth bombers). As for the internet, I suppose the Russians would cause some damage in the event of an war, probably quite a lot, but I don't think it would be win-the-war-in-six-hours type damage and I'd also be surprised if there aren't plans to isolate Russia from the ROW internet by a button press in the event of a war.
Smart phone market has saturated, and the shakeout is coming. I am sure the handsets with headphones will thrive, market research will show the value and it will come back.
Same way the free checked bags will come back. Aviation kerosene prices are set to plunge in five years. It will remove all the nickel and diming from the air lines, 35$ for exit row seats, 25$ for guaranteed aisle seat...
But the 40$ late fee for credit cards will stay. The banksters are cruel jerks and they got poor people by their balls. They are not going to stop squeezing anytime soon.
Aren't you special? Lot's of "gear" and "stuff". Very hip and modern. I'm sure you drink the right kind of latte too with lots of soy milk.
You want low tech? Even assuming the Trumps wall will be built coast to coast, 30 feet high with self targeting brown people seeking robot machine guns, the thing will be defeated by a bunch of Mexicans with shovel inside of a couple of months. The damn thing is a massively over expensive publicity stunt. Even the US border guard thinks that Trump's wall will be useless and that you can get better results for a fraction of the money with more guards, more training, better equipment, helicopters, vehicles, sensors drones, and surveillance satellites.
Trump will start giving us over 1 Trillion dollar deficits for the as long as the eye can see because those nice corporations and rich people were being taxed too much...
There is nothing illegal about doing legitimate business with Russia or any other country as long as you do not violate any government imposed sanctions. Until Trump was elected he was a private US citizen and under no obligation to only participate in politically correct business ventures. His campaign was also free to communicate with any Russian or other foreign national. The whole "collusion" accusations have no legal foundation because because the government investigators have manipulated the term to turn innocuous communications into some kind of crime. And the collusion investigation has not charged anyone with any crime between the Trump campaign and Russia. And other than Trump being an idiot Russia has not gained one concession from the US. On the contrary Trump has ramped up the economic sanctions, seized Russian real estate across the US, and expelled over a hundred diplomatic staff members from the country. The US has not cooperated with Russia in any of the many international on-going conflicts. On the contrary the US has brushed aside Russia's concerns with ease. The US fired cruise missiles that flew directly over the Russian ships parked beside Syria. When Russia decided to use their state sponsored mercenary group combined with a few natives to launch an offensive towards the US forces in Syria the US killed over 300 of the attackers with air and ground based artillery assets. If Russia wanted Trump to win the election they royally fucked up. Russia is a bit player on the world stage who operate on past glories and skillful propaganda. They have nuclear weapons which cannot be used without destroying themselves. Their conventional forces are a mere shadow of what they were during the Cold War. They also lack the most important tool needed for spreading their influence on the global stage which is money. The state of California has a higher GDP than Russia. Compared to the US and China Russia is a 3rd world country run the Russian oligarchs who operate like the mafia.
You can do legitimate business in Russia?... without paying off the Government/Mafia?... I hear the two are pretty much the same these days.
You'll never see his tax returns because you would see that a) he did nothing illegal, and b) it would point out all the loop holes in the tax code to make everything he did legal that congress refuses to patch because they use them too.
The biggest problem with useful idiots such as yourself is to think "your guy" is in any way better than "the other guy".
Firstly, I don't have a 'my guy' I'm a very fair minded person in that I despise all politicians equally regardless of where on the left-right scale they are. I only make a handful of exceptions for a few left and right who proved themselves to be relatively un-scumbaggy (as politicians go). Secondly, the tax loopholes are thoroughly documented and well known to most of the public, that is one of the major reasons that congress' approval rating stands at ~20%. Thirdly, if you think that your biblically prophesied dear leader, a veteran New York real estate developer who's dealt extensively in the countries of the former Soviet Union (which is basically a bag of the most corrupt countries on earth) has never done anything illegal you are dumber than a bag of hammers.
Great advice. Of course that doesn't change anything about this decision in Oslo, why are you bringing it up except as a whattabout-distraction? I don't see how this is a threat to Putin or his local affiliate, why the red herring?
Firstly you can untwist your panties because there is no way Norway will stop selling oil, especially while it is being ruled by a bunch of right wing parties. Secondly, WTF does Putin have to do with any of this?
Slashdot Mirror
These days cell towers have electronically steerable arrays for antennas, so they can better use their available spectrum space to service more phones at higher data rates.
They've had that for at least 15 years.
by manually ensuring that you don't have that 'required space' ?
I bet there will be nag dialogs endlessly until you 'let them' do an update to your system.
man, I hate win10. we are forced to use it at work but thankfully I can do 99% of my daily stuff with linux. those who must use win10 - I feel sorry for you. its not a fun experience having to be the 'operator' of a computer you don't really own anymore..
To be fair that's a lose lose situation for Microsoft. Be aggressive about updates and the user is annoyed, let the users install updates at their own leisure and they get hopping mad when their computer is infected by malware because of an un-patched vulnerability they could have fixed by installing in a timely fashion the updates that they have been putting off installing for weeks. At least you're getting the damn updates.
Keep doing that great Trump advertising. Every single slashdot article. You know the saying - no such thing as bad publicity! For free, too. You're gonna help us come 2020. Terrific job, terrific. I'm sure he thanks you bigly.
Will it even come to an election in 2020? Trump is already behaving like a Monarch so it should not become as a surprise if he dispenses with such tiresome theatre as elections and crowns himself on the White House lawn?
100% Offtopic? ... after I cleverly worked the word 'monarch' into the post, UNFAIR!!!! :-(
Keep doing that great Trump advertising. Every single slashdot article. You know the saying - no such thing as bad publicity! For free, too. You're gonna help us come 2020. Terrific job, terrific. I'm sure he thanks you bigly.
Will it even come to an election in 2020? Trump is already behaving like a Monarch so it should not become as a surprise if he dispenses with such tiresome theatre as elections and crowns himself on the White House lawn?
You haven't considered your default case. It isn't some hippy renewable silliness.
Your choices are: burn new oil and use shitty plastic or burn shitty plastic and make new plastic out of oil.
Actually you first have to figure out a way to separate the plastic by chemistry, but even if you assume the hard part is done, it still makes sense to just burn the plastic.
Well I was only commenting on the two choices presented in that post which were burning it or burying it and neither requires sophisticated chemistry. My idea would be to limit the use of plastics to the absolute minimum necessary, provide incentives for industry to come up with less damaging alternatives to plastics and pressure the Asian countries responsible for these 85% of oceanic plastic pollution into cracking down on that plastic pollution. If somebody like Ocean Cleanup can then clean up a significant amount of the existing plastic pollution within a reasonable timeframe at reasonable cost then that's a project worth pursuing. As for it making sense to burn, what is it now? 15 million? tons of annually added oceanic plastic pollution instead of dumping it in the ocean, never mind burning all of the much, much, much larger amount of plastic garbage that accumulates on land annually, that only makes sense if one is some kind of deluded Trumpkin who thinks human driven thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax (hint: It isn't) because plastic in the end is sequestered carbon.
Mixed plastics are best recycled by being used as fuel. That is a harsh economic fact.
If you can't incinerate for power, then burying is the next best option. 'Throwing into nearest river' isn't in the top ten, neither is 'losing money hand sorting by chemistry so you can mix it with new plastic and make extra brittle new things'.
Mixed plastics being burned is releasing sequestered carbon into the atmosphere making the problem of climate change worse. Those are harsh environmental and climatic facts. Of the two choices presented here neither choice is a good one but burying the plastic (a.k.a. sequestered carbon) is better than burning it and releasing more carbon into the atmosphere which should have remained buried in the first place back when it was still oil. Personally, I think plastics cannot be banned quickly enough.
Manufacturing can be clean or dirty, depending on how you do it but it's 100% pollution free after that. Fossil fuels also go through a manufacturing process which can be clean or dirty and it's 100% polluting after that.
What does that even mean? There are 100 years old hydroelectric power plants still in use today, the average coal plant in the USA is over 40 years old, the expected life span of a PV panel is 20-25 years, the expected lifespan of a wind turbine is still 20-25 years. You can NOT just say "heck, it is pollution free after manufacturing", that is like saying that a plastic fork is "pollution free" after manufacturing, so it is more environment friendly than a steel fork that you have to wash regularly (pro hint: in that case, it is exactly the other way around). Measuring the real environmental impact of a given process is very hard, even subjective to some extent (are there pollutants better than others?). Measuring the real environmental impact _per energy produced_ is even more complex; if you take into account non-measurable quantities, like energy quality, availability etc. it is all politics. Note: I did not delve into maintenance and upkeep costs. Usually, if it costs, it pollutes, so, no, nothing is 100% pollution free after manufacturing.
Assume that you build a wind park that lasts 25 years during which it has an almost inconsequential carbon footprint. If you then renew that wind park after 25 years and replace it with one that lasts 35 years because of improvements in material science during the proceeding 25 years the old one was chugging along, whatever carbon footprint those two wind parks had from production to recycling will be dwarfed by the carbon footprint of operating a coal fired power plant for 60 years. There is just no way you can argue that building coal fired power plants causes the same or even less of a carbon or other pollution footprint than wind and solar. Plus, our problem is not the carbon footprint caused during production or recycling. It is the carbon emissions generated during decades of service life that is the problem and here a wind park has undeniable advantages. The carbon footprint of a wind turbine in production is about 11 g CO2/kWh, the carbon footprint of a coal fired plant is 870 g CO2/kWh (Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2018...). The carbon footprint of a coal fired power plant is almost two orders of magnitude greater than that of a wind turbine alternative. That makes the choice between the two types of power plant kind of a no-brainer especially since the wind turbine generated electricity is cheaper than coal generated electricity.
Why not just find a hill, dig a hole, throw the person in upside down and plant a tree in their arsehole? We need more trees anyway.
Why wait years to be able to pick apples form the tree that grew in your dead congressman's ass when you can eat the crops grown in the compost soil that used to be him in months and get your dead corrupt politician laced food much quicker?
Solar and wind load factors are in the single digit percents. Nuclear's is north of 90%.
The capacity factor figures are also higher than you claim.
They were less than 10% in 2016, I don't think we've more than tripled our generation in California. And yes, I live in California. For the US, it's closer to 5%, not 18%.
The GP and you are confusing two different numbers. The GP is talking about total deployment. You are taking about how much power was actually produced. Which illustrates a great point. A 200MW wind farm doesn't equal a 200MW reactor. Solar and wind load factors are in the single digit percents. Nuclear's is north of 90%. So our 5% deployed nuclear generates 9% of our energy, but 18% of deployed renewables generates 5% of the power. Either way the real problem is the batteries needed to handle renewable deployments of more than about 20% energy generation. Without those batteries, its nuclear or natural gas.
Load factors for Wind, Solar and Hydro in the UK in 2017 according to the Digest of UK Energy Statistics published by the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
Onshore wind: 28.0%
Solar photovoltaics: 10.7%
Offshore wind: 38.9%
Hydro: 36.5%
The load factor for UK nuclear plants hovered betweeen 65 and 77% and onshore wind in particular beats UK Nuclear on energy prices quite handily, onshore wind even managed to beat Combined Cycle Gas Turbines.
Now please start talking about 'breeder reactors' I have some choice quotes from the US navy and some scientific publications on those things.
Precisely. Nameplate capacity is irrelevant; generation is everything. And with wind turbine lifespans at half of original claims, that means the installed base needs to be doubled beyond their original estimates. Battery storage won't get you there, pumped storage MAY do it (but that's a big no-no for most environmentalists as well)... Nuclear really is the only realistic solution for power generation outside of fossil fuels.
No, cost is everything and both wind and solar are cheaper than nuclear in N-Europe for example. In southern Europe Solar is also way more competitive. The problem with nuclear is and always will be the same, it is very expensive and extremely unpopular. Oh, and your source is a 6 year old article in a Tory newspaper? ... Really? At least pick some kind of tech publication next time.
Subsidies in general I'm against...
However the real question is - will this have any impact or energy prices or availability in the EU, or in Spain?
If not, great. But if it does cause prices to rise, or it means electricity becomes more reliably... well then perhaps there was more to the subsidy than just supporting coal.
Ending the use of coal is a noble goal, if for no other reason than the reduction of real pollution. But we also have to be careful not to leave too many people out in the cold, to have alternatives.
So basically, you are against subsidies except if they result in price increases for you? You can't have your cake and eat it...
I look forward to well-reasoned arguments that are totally not Sinophobic and dog whistle racism, just like all the other threads that mention China.
It's not that I distrust the Chinese any more than other countries, it's just that I simply credit the Chinese with being capable of the same skulduggery as the US, European countries or Russia. So when I see them getting in on the ground level in the emerging LEO satellite internet industry and knowing that in China no company is really private, the Chinese government always has their fingers in everything to some degree, I have to ask: Is there a better way for the Chinese to do what they are seeing the NSA doing than to build large international presence in the LEO satellite internet market, so they can to conduct wholesale interception and archiving of every scrap of as much internet data foreign and domestic that passes through their satellite internet backbone? This isn't paranoia, in view of that the US/UK in particular are doing, the Chinese would be dumber than a brick if they did not do this as well.
Though I understood about a tenth of what you wrote, you seem to be saying that you're against monopolies. While I disagree with that premise, the seeming introduction of non-sequiturs (passing laws, criminality, threats, jail time, country X, swearing oaths, employment, blacklisting, BDS, Israel, posting as AC) and your conclusion, I suppose it's at least an argument. That's all I asked for, and you sure delivered a fascinating one.
Though I understood about a tenth of what you wrote, you seem to be saying that you're against monopolies. While I disagree with that premise, the seeming introduction of non-sequiturs (passing laws, criminality, threats, jail time, country X, swearing oaths, employment, blacklisting, BDS, Israel, posting as AC) and your conclusion, I suppose it's at least an argument. That's all I asked for, and you sure delivered a fascinating one.
I'll take another jab at explaining this to you, it is not particularly complicated. Boycotting Israeli products looks like it is be about to be come a crime punishable by incarceration in the US and some other countries, in fact in the US some companies and state governments require employees and contractors to sign a declaration and swear an oath that they will not boycott Israeli products. I will gladly swear an oath of fealty to my own country but I see no reason why I should be denied a job because I won't swear fealty to Israel for the simple reason that I am not an Israeli. Furthermore since there is not yet a law banning me from boycotting corporations I will boycott them if that corporation's business practices offend me and I will boycott Israeli products, Russian products, Chinese products if those countries' policies offend me no matter what laws congress passes. Basically the damn government has no business telling any citizen who they can and cannot boycott. Let them slap me with the $1 million fine and 20 year prison sentence in their proposed Israel Anti-Boycott Act for refusing to buy Israeli oranges (or gene modified rice if they ever extend the anti boycott act to corporations) and see how that verdict holds up in the supreme court (hint: 1st amendment). If you don't like that then ... well .. tough! If this rant does not light the proverbial bulb floating over your head I'm sorry but this is really the most I can dumb this down short of drawing you a picture and I quite frankly have better things to do. Oh, and you forgot to post as AC again.
Apparently motivation enough that ad hominems suffice to counter criticism. Why even bother with presenting evidence or arguments! =)
I'm not anti-capitalism or anti-science, I'm anti monopoly which is what cloned asexual staple crop varieties are all about. I am also against passing laws that make me a criminal and threaten me with jail time for consciously avoiding the products of country X and I am anti being made to swear an oath not to boycott country X as a precondition for remaining employed and not being blacklisted. So ... get over it! While I am not looking at serious jail time for boycotting agri-science companies in the business of setting up seed monopolies like I soon seem likely to get for supporting BDS on top of the Israel loyalty oath some US states and even countries are starting to demand, I'm going to boycott these agri-science companies and as many of their products as I can. Oh, and you forgot to post AC :-)
Boycott these foodstuffs. These bozos are not Israel and boycotting them is not a crime, heresy and treason all rolled up into one ... at least not yet.
In 1820 they didn't use aluminium.
Canning on a large scale was first practiced by the French who used glass jars on a huge scale to preserve food for Napoleonic period armies. In fact the invention was the result of a bounty offered by the French government. It was the British who introduced metal 'tins' during the 1820s made of tinned iron and (stroke of genius here) soldered with lead.
When I need information it's now one-stop shopping in Estonia. All the people's information in one convenient place. No muss, no fuss, Hack once and live a lifetime. BTW, what happens when, not if, Russia decides that uppity former republic needs to be taught a lesson? We've seen what they're trying to do in the Ukraine. Imagine a country with a population less than the city of Philadelphia being taken down when nothing works because somehow, mysteriously, large amounts of data are lost or corrupted. What's that saying about putting all your eggs in one basket?
Estonia is a NATO member and an EU member and Britain and Germany have deployed forces in the Baltic nations. They are safe.
Those are token forces. Unless the Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian armies are able to deal with massive armour and airborne invasions and delay the Russians for a significant amount of time while NATO forces deploy to the theatre the Russians can overrun those countries in hours and judging from what I've seen in terms of training of Baltic forces by NATO that seems to be the strategy. Once the Ivans are occupying them these countries will become another frozen conflict like the E-Ukraine or those disputed territories in Georgia ... unless the Russians decides to annex Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to 'protect' the inhabitants. After that it becomes a question of whether NATO is willing to put up rather large armoured invasion force to liberate these countries. To that purpose they must first deal with a massive Russian SAM and fighter umbrella and judging from what Trump has been saying I'd be sceptical the US would ever agree to it and they'd be the ones who'd have to provide a large part of the air defence suppression assets in particular (read: cruise missiles and stealth bombers). As for the internet, I suppose the Russians would cause some damage in the event of an war, probably quite a lot, but I don't think it would be win-the-war-in-six-hours type damage and I'd also be surprised if there aren't plans to isolate Russia from the ROW internet by a button press in the event of a war.
Smart phone market has saturated, and the shakeout is coming. I am sure the handsets with headphones will thrive, market research will show the value and it will come back.
Same way the free checked bags will come back. Aviation kerosene prices are set to plunge in five years. It will remove all the nickel and diming from the air lines, 35$ for exit row seats, 25$ for guaranteed aisle seat...
But the 40$ late fee for credit cards will stay. The banksters are cruel jerks and they got poor people by their balls. They are not going to stop squeezing anytime soon.
Like 8-track audio tape and Betamax?
Aren't you special? Lot's of "gear" and "stuff". Very hip and modern. I'm sure you drink the right kind of latte too with lots of soy milk.
You want low tech? Even assuming the Trumps wall will be built coast to coast, 30 feet high with self targeting brown people seeking robot machine guns, the thing will be defeated by a bunch of Mexicans with shovel inside of a couple of months. The damn thing is a massively over expensive publicity stunt. Even the US border guard thinks that Trump's wall will be useless and that you can get better results for a fraction of the money with more guards, more training, better equipment, helicopters, vehicles, sensors drones, and surveillance satellites.
Trump will start giving us over 1 Trillion dollar deficits for the as long as the eye can see because those nice corporations and rich people were being taxed too much...
He's already at 2 trillion and counting.
There is nothing illegal about doing legitimate business with Russia or any other country as long as you do not violate any government imposed sanctions. Until Trump was elected he was a private US citizen and under no obligation to only participate in politically correct business ventures. His campaign was also free to communicate with any Russian or other foreign national. The whole "collusion" accusations have no legal foundation because because the government investigators have manipulated the term to turn innocuous communications into some kind of crime. And the collusion investigation has not charged anyone with any crime between the Trump campaign and Russia. And other than Trump being an idiot Russia has not gained one concession from the US. On the contrary Trump has ramped up the economic sanctions, seized Russian real estate across the US, and expelled over a hundred diplomatic staff members from the country. The US has not cooperated with Russia in any of the many international on-going conflicts. On the contrary the US has brushed aside Russia's concerns with ease. The US fired cruise missiles that flew directly over the Russian ships parked beside Syria. When Russia decided to use their state sponsored mercenary group combined with a few natives to launch an offensive towards the US forces in Syria the US killed over 300 of the attackers with air and ground based artillery assets. If Russia wanted Trump to win the election they royally fucked up. Russia is a bit player on the world stage who operate on past glories and skillful propaganda. They have nuclear weapons which cannot be used without destroying themselves. Their conventional forces are a mere shadow of what they were during the Cold War. They also lack the most important tool needed for spreading their influence on the global stage which is money. The state of California has a higher GDP than Russia. Compared to the US and China Russia is a 3rd world country run the Russian oligarchs who operate like the mafia.
You can do legitimate business in Russia? ... without paying off the Government/Mafia? ... I hear the two are pretty much the same these days.
You'll never see his tax returns because you would see that a) he did nothing illegal, and b) it would point out all the loop holes in the tax code to make everything he did legal that congress refuses to patch because they use them too.
The biggest problem with useful idiots such as yourself is to think "your guy" is in any way better than "the other guy".
Firstly, I don't have a 'my guy' I'm a very fair minded person in that I despise all politicians equally regardless of where on the left-right scale they are. I only make a handful of exceptions for a few left and right who proved themselves to be relatively un-scumbaggy (as politicians go). Secondly, the tax loopholes are thoroughly documented and well known to most of the public, that is one of the major reasons that congress' approval rating stands at ~20%. Thirdly, if you think that your biblically prophesied dear leader, a veteran New York real estate developer who's dealt extensively in the countries of the former Soviet Union (which is basically a bag of the most corrupt countries on earth) has never done anything illegal you are dumber than a bag of hammers.
It requires that federal agencies must publish any "non-sensitive" info in a "machine-readable" format
I take it the dear leader's tax returns are still deemed 'sensitive information' ?? Suppose we'll have to wait for the house to subpoena them.
Great advice. Of course that doesn't change anything about this decision in Oslo, why are you bringing it up except as a whattabout-distraction? I don't see how this is a threat to Putin or his local affiliate, why the red herring?
Firstly you can untwist your panties because there is no way Norway will stop selling oil, especially while it is being ruled by a bunch of right wing parties. Secondly, WTF does Putin have to do with any of this?