ANY BACK DOORS YOU PUT INTO ENCRYPTION WILL BE USED BY EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE GOVERNMENT! Moreover, any back doors you put into encryption will be ABUSED by everyone...INCLUDING the Government.
Solar is not 24x7. Wind is not 24x7. They are not stable, predictable power sources. It is logistically IMPOSSIBLE to build in enough storage to stabilize their output.
As such, they CANNOT BE BASE LOAD.
Any solar/wind plant promising 24x7 power is a solar plant with another form of power generation (generally natgas) picking up the slack.
I'm sorry that facts hurt.
But rolling blackouts because some dumbass thought he was going to hook a Tesla battery up to the grid and run every AC unit in the country will hurt far worse.
Which is laudable. And I'm not talking to actual situations like that. Because they ARE working to reduce emissions via efficiency.
Some people here seem to be arguing that their increased emissions are "okay" because there's more people to spread out the per-person impact. They're also ignoring the exact situation I described. Because you can't tell them ANYTHING.
His argument is "you put out more per-person". Great, fine, wonderful. SO WHAT? The per-person amount is meaningless if you're putting out more OVERALL. It's not like the atmosphere goes "Oh! This is CHINESE CO2. It's all good brah!"
We've cut emissions by taking out 100 coal plants! We've also cut emissions by installing new 700 new coal plants, each of which only produce half the emissions of the old ones!
1: Mass transit sounds nice. The problem is, they generally have a history of failing to make money or even break even. Americans are rather attached to the freedom their cars provide.
2: Cost and feasibility. Solar panels on EVERY building doesn't work in dense urban high rise as a majority of the panels in place are shaded by adjacent buildings most of the day, basically waste.
3: You still haven't come up with an economic or feasibility argument for grid providers. Solar, by itself, is just an uncontrolled input on the grid, generally producing most at times when it isn't required, and the cost to store that excess is astronomical. Not to mention that we simply cannot PRODUCE that much storage capacity.
Well, if you want to walk down a path that's killed a hundred million people over simple ideology, and always results in detrimental totalitarianism, on the off chance that YOU would be special?
Knock yourself out. You can presented as another negative example to future generations.
It is the correct legal term. Not only for adults who cross the border illegally, but for the child as well. It doesn't automatically mean "career criminal". It means that they are in this country illegally. Perhaps not by choice, but that doesn't change the fact that they're here and should not be.
The "But if Nazi Germany" argument is a deliberate rhetorical faceplant though. Quite simply, you're dealing with an impossible situation (Nazi Germany, dead for over 70 years, alive and using your software) with the benefit of that 70+ years of historical perspective.
The problem is, nobody in the time of Nazi Germany had that sort of perspective. If they had, Hitler would have been murdered well before taking power.
So it remains a pointless, facile argument.
As for ISIS, it again comes down to ability to enforce. How does one tell ISIS "no no no", when you don't have the ability to force them?
Because we're hallucinating when we hear protesters chanting "Ban ICE!" and "No ban. No wall. No borders at all."
Right?
We're imagining that Democratic leaders insist on mangling the language to the point where they can't even say the legal term "Illegal aliens". And they're more concerned about the illegal aliens than the people they murder...
Right?
As to your BS assertion about cracking down on people employing illegal immigrants. What do you THINK was going on?
If their children are to be detained also, like the immigrant children are, then why shouldn't they be detained together?
Because the law was changed, years ago, so that children couldn't be incarcerated in adult facilities.
However, I note this didn't happen under Bush or Obama.
You are mistaken.
I'll also note that when citizens are detained awaiting trial, their children aren't just shipped some place without sufficient documentation to reunite them.
Those are citizens. Different rules apply to citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, you don't have any notion of what you're talking about. Or you're trolling.
Education time.
With base load/brown power, the grid has to be carrying a certain amount of capacity to meet off-peak demand.
It's called many things and YES, IT EXISTS.
It's not a subsidy to coal. It's a fact of running a power grid.
And I believe that stupid intelligence apparat need to be executed in the most inhumane and humiliating manner possible. ON LIVE TV!
Isn't it nice to have beliefs?
Also, beliefs are what you have when you lack any real evidence (in short, you're making shit up).
ANY BACK DOORS YOU PUT INTO ENCRYPTION WILL BE USED BY EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE GOVERNMENT!
Moreover, any back doors you put into encryption will be ABUSED by everyone...INCLUDING the Government.
So. In response.
No. Eat a dick.
You wanna translate that from SoundByte into English?
Solar is not 24x7.
Wind is not 24x7.
They are not stable, predictable power sources.
It is logistically IMPOSSIBLE to build in enough storage to stabilize their output.
As such, they CANNOT BE BASE LOAD.
Any solar/wind plant promising 24x7 power is a solar plant with another form of power generation (generally natgas) picking up the slack.
I'm sorry that facts hurt.
But rolling blackouts because some dumbass thought he was going to hook a Tesla battery up to the grid and run every AC unit in the country will hurt far worse.
Sure. The thing is, a per-capita count on output is pointless masturbation.
The overall amount is what's important. The atmosphere doesn't go "Oh! That's CHINESE CO2! It's less per person! ALL GOOD BRAH!"
And right now, China is out-outputting the US by a factor of two.
Which is laudable. And I'm not talking to actual situations like that. Because they ARE working to reduce emissions via efficiency.
Some people here seem to be arguing that their increased emissions are "okay" because there's more people to spread out the per-person impact.
They're also ignoring the exact situation I described. Because you can't tell them ANYTHING.
Ah. One of their 1%'ers.
Figures.
His argument is "you put out more per-person". Great, fine, wonderful. SO WHAT?
The per-person amount is meaningless if you're putting out more OVERALL. It's not like the atmosphere goes "Oh! This is CHINESE CO2. It's all good brah!"
They're saying that reactors are not nuclear bombs.
The reactors themselves didn't explode.
The cooling systems are what exploded.
Yes. And on average, a US citizen's input for GDP is over 3x that of your average Chinese citizen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In the US, solar cannot be base load. Wind cannot be base load.
And it's logistically impossible to create enough power storage capacity.
We've cut emissions by taking out 100 coal plants!
We've also cut emissions by installing new 700 new coal plants, each of which only produce half the emissions of the old ones!
So.
100*A
vs
700*(A/2)
Math?
The problem is, renewables still aren't a replacement for base load. As we are limited in the amount of storage capacity we can produce.
Sure there is.
1: Mass transit sounds nice. The problem is, they generally have a history of failing to make money or even break even. Americans are rather attached to the freedom their cars provide.
2: Cost and feasibility. Solar panels on EVERY building doesn't work in dense urban high rise as a majority of the panels in place are shaded by adjacent buildings most of the day, basically waste.
3: You still haven't come up with an economic or feasibility argument for grid providers. Solar, by itself, is just an uncontrolled input on the grid, generally producing most at times when it isn't required, and the cost to store that excess is astronomical. Not to mention that we simply cannot PRODUCE that much storage capacity.
Hey, if you want to volunteer to live in the same world poverty conditions that a huge chunk of Chinese citizens do, knock yourself out dude.
Well, if you want to walk down a path that's killed a hundred million people over simple ideology, and always results in detrimental totalitarianism, on the off chance that YOU would be special?
Knock yourself out. You can presented as another negative example to future generations.
The problem with saying illegal alien...
Is that it hurts someone's fee fees.
Period.
It is the correct legal term. Not only for adults who cross the border illegally, but for the child as well.
It doesn't automatically mean "career criminal". It means that they are in this country illegally. Perhaps not by choice, but that doesn't change the fact that they're here and should not be.
The rest of your argument is simply handwavium.
The "But if Nazi Germany" argument is a deliberate rhetorical faceplant though.
Quite simply, you're dealing with an impossible situation (Nazi Germany, dead for over 70 years, alive and using your software) with the benefit of that 70+ years of historical perspective.
The problem is, nobody in the time of Nazi Germany had that sort of perspective.
If they had, Hitler would have been murdered well before taking power.
So it remains a pointless, facile argument.
As for ISIS, it again comes down to ability to enforce.
How does one tell ISIS "no no no", when you don't have the ability to force them?
OFF WITH HIS HEADS!
The little one first!
Congratulations on missing the point.
Okay Abe Skrillex. Calm down.
Because we're hallucinating when we hear protesters chanting "Ban ICE!" and "No ban. No wall. No borders at all."
Right?
We're imagining that Democratic leaders insist on mangling the language to the point where they can't even say the legal term "Illegal aliens". And they're more concerned about the illegal aliens than the people they murder...
Right?
As to your BS assertion about cracking down on people employing illegal immigrants.
What do you THINK was going on?
The manpower of ICE is limited.
You say this not knowing what went on behind the scenes at the software project.
What if I told you the person was given the opportunity to keep their position while willingly retracting the new licensing terms...and refused?
How does THAT change the narrative in your head?
If their children are to be detained also, like the immigrant children are, then why shouldn't they be detained together?
Because the law was changed, years ago, so that children couldn't be incarcerated in adult facilities.
However, I note this didn't happen under Bush or Obama.
You are mistaken.
I'll also note that when citizens are detained awaiting trial, their children aren't just shipped some place without sufficient documentation to reunite them.
Those are citizens. Different rules apply to citizens.
Because the project he did it to wasn't solely "his".