Will Microsoft be fixing the situation where their Windows Update servers are carrying fucked up Win7 Manifests? The whole reason I got off Win7 was because Windows Updates would run for 12+ hours, then fail out. And you'd have to keep running it until you hit a server with an undamaged manifest.
Currently students spend THOUSANDS of dollars on textbooks. Textbooks written YEARS or DECADES ago, and only mildly edited every year to justify "new" purchase pricing instead of feeding the used market. Yet, more and more, we're seeing pushback from courses not using said golden geese. What's NEXT to boost the profits. Cut out the costs of the physically printing and/or shipping the book! And will prices come DOWN on such electronic distribution?...... What the fuck are YOU smoking? OF COURSE NOT!
On top of that, they can put them out in a proprietary format that "expires" the material after X-months/years. Meaning you'll essentially RENT your textbooks from now on...
Sorry, the government officials had a meeting of the minds with Amazon when the deal was struck. Others, who had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROCESS, had no actual skin in the game, and likely didn't understand what was being done here (AOC) AT ALL came in and basically stuck their noses where they weren't wanted.
Now, 25K jobs. GONE. Tax revenues in the billions. GONE.
Simply because Google/YouTube returns something in a search doesn't mean it's responsible for the content in the search. And if some potato heads choose to play "pretend" that the world is a dinner plate, that's fine. We are NOT the friggin' Thought Police.
We simply correct for it elsewhere (such as if said potato heads gain some form of temporal authority).
Because there are a host of medical conditions out there that will ALWAYS require preventative/palliative care.
Blowing out as much in the way of disease/etc as possible with actual CURES stops the medical apparatus from being overwhelmed. Especially by serious conditions that require extensive (and expensive), ongoing medical support.
It allows us to "right size" our medical industry. Rather than building out this huge industry that has to stretch to cover ongoing care for every conceivable medical issue Homo Sapiens is capable of manifesting.
Some of it is a tradeoff. Yeah, marble countertops, rainfall shower room, hardwood floors. Or you initially furnish more modestly, split the difference on your physical plant and wind up with a home that isn't going to require enormous monetary input that goes right up a flue or rots out in 5-10 years.
Passive House and Net Zero have been around for decades. The problem is inertia in the building trades. And the fact that a house that costs you a quarter of your current bills isn't as sexy as something with marble countertops, oak trim, wood floors, and all the home-bling-bling.
And again, nobody is forcing anyone to build new or retrofit at any given point.
The idea is that, when you do, you simply conform to the newer standard. And in an ideal situation, because of the way this type of building trades off, the final bill for everything should be at or under that of a current code minimum home (the absolute shittiest new/re-build the law allows.
Why the fuck didn't you just make things simple and penalize the people who aren't doing what you want them to do from the start? Because people are idiots and don't realize when they're being fucked over.
Because the science and technology behind this sort of thing has come a LONG LONG WAY in just the last 30 years. The average building age in Chicago is 32+ years. And the code minimums have gone UP quite a bit in that time.
Something built in 1990 has only slightly better thermal and air sealing characteristics than a turn-of-the-century barn. You can build a modern home in the same style, yet require less than half the HVAC plant and less than a quarter of the actual power consumption.
Not "We're inspecting you and you need to come up to this in X-days." That's forced "New Green Deal" bullshit.
I'm talking improvements in code-minimums for new construction and retrofits. So, if it were to change TODAY, exactly NOBODY would be immediately affected.
The act of submitting a new building for construction, or for a retrofit project is what would trigger this. If they decide to NOT move forward, there's no residual onus on them to make the changes anyhow.
Like right now, code for insulation in walls in Chicago.
Walls (existing): R13 Walls (new): R21
New values would be determined (honestly, in a place like Chicago, going beyond R21 in walls doesn't yield terribly better performance.
There would be codes for things like air-sealing and elimination of cold bridges through the structure.
And remediation of things like this don't have to be hideously expensive or involved. There are inexpensive ways to get this stuff done, even on a macro scale like a high rise or skyscraper.
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.
Yeah, that's still not gonna work in the US. Notice how the generator station STILL relies on a large elevation change, even with everything subterranean to operate.
I think you're forgetting just how FLAT the Central US can be. And there's 750,000 or so square miles of flat.
Yes, like with nuclear, geothermal, etc, it can be a locational/situational thing.
I merely think that a hybrid nuclear+renewables solution is a more intelligent fit.
No. Because simply BURNING hydrogen is still less energy dense than gasoline. Worse, it needs to be kept at high pressures in a very heavy containment vessel.
And your comparison between an electric engine and an ICE isn't cogent. Because you're comparing the equivalent of the gas tank in one vehicle to the source of motive power in the other.
You don't run the wheels in a Tesla directly off the batteries. You hook the batteries to an electric motor. The batteries are the "gas tank". And the electric motor is the several hundred pounds of "engine", gearbox, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
They were violating it while it was being signed, and never actually lived up to any part of it.
Will Microsoft be fixing the situation where their Windows Update servers are carrying fucked up Win7 Manifests?
The whole reason I got off Win7 was because Windows Updates would run for 12+ hours, then fail out. And you'd have to keep running it until you hit a server with an undamaged manifest.
Currently students spend THOUSANDS of dollars on textbooks. ... ...
Textbooks written YEARS or DECADES ago, and only mildly edited every year to justify "new" purchase pricing instead of feeding the used market.
Yet, more and more, we're seeing pushback from courses not using said golden geese.
What's NEXT to boost the profits.
Cut out the costs of the physically printing and/or shipping the book!
And will prices come DOWN on such electronic distribution?
What the fuck are YOU smoking? OF COURSE NOT!
On top of that, they can put them out in a proprietary format that "expires" the material after X-months/years. Meaning you'll essentially RENT your textbooks from now on...
Sorry, the government officials had a meeting of the minds with Amazon when the deal was struck.
Others, who had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROCESS, had no actual skin in the game, and likely didn't understand what was being done here (AOC) AT ALL came in and basically stuck their noses where they weren't wanted.
Now, 25K jobs. GONE.
Tax revenues in the billions. GONE.
Smooth fuckin' move...
Gets introduced, works okay for a while, and then just stops working after about a year...
Simply because Google/YouTube returns something in a search doesn't mean it's responsible for the content in the search.
And if some potato heads choose to play "pretend" that the world is a dinner plate, that's fine.
We are NOT the friggin' Thought Police.
We simply correct for it elsewhere (such as if said potato heads gain some form of temporal authority).
Because there are a host of medical conditions out there that will ALWAYS require preventative/palliative care.
Blowing out as much in the way of disease/etc as possible with actual CURES stops the medical apparatus from being overwhelmed. Especially by serious conditions that require extensive (and expensive), ongoing medical support.
It allows us to "right size" our medical industry. Rather than building out this huge industry that has to stretch to cover ongoing care for every conceivable medical issue Homo Sapiens is capable of manifesting.
Yep! No wonder the kid's such a sociopath...
It's a miracle the kid hasn't killed and dismembered (and not necessarily in that order) his parents yet.
Bingo.
So now I'm supposed to posit an argument however YOU decide I should.
Pfft. Fuck off.
Some of it is a tradeoff.
Yeah, marble countertops, rainfall shower room, hardwood floors.
Or you initially furnish more modestly, split the difference on your physical plant and wind up with a home that isn't going to require enormous monetary input that goes right up a flue or rots out in 5-10 years.
No. I'm simply pointing out that the issues in Chicago are multifaceted.
Passive House and Net Zero have been around for decades.
The problem is inertia in the building trades.
And the fact that a house that costs you a quarter of your current bills isn't as sexy as something with marble countertops, oak trim, wood floors, and all the home-bling-bling.
And again, nobody is forcing anyone to build new or retrofit at any given point.
The idea is that, when you do, you simply conform to the newer standard.
And in an ideal situation, because of the way this type of building trades off, the final bill for everything should be at or under that of a current code minimum home (the absolute shittiest new/re-build the law allows.
Why the fuck didn't you just make things simple and penalize the people who aren't doing what you want them to do from the start? Because people are idiots and don't realize when they're being fucked over.
Because the science and technology behind this sort of thing has come a LONG LONG WAY in just the last 30 years.
The average building age in Chicago is 32+ years.
And the code minimums have gone UP quite a bit in that time.
Something built in 1990 has only slightly better thermal and air sealing characteristics than a turn-of-the-century barn.
You can build a modern home in the same style, yet require less than half the HVAC plant and less than a quarter of the actual power consumption.
Note: I said changes to codes.
Not "We're inspecting you and you need to come up to this in X-days."
That's forced "New Green Deal" bullshit.
I'm talking improvements in code-minimums for new construction and retrofits.
So, if it were to change TODAY, exactly NOBODY would be immediately affected.
The act of submitting a new building for construction, or for a retrofit project is what would trigger this.
If they decide to NOT move forward, there's no residual onus on them to make the changes anyhow.
Like right now, code for insulation in walls in Chicago.
Walls (existing): R13
Walls (new): R21
New values would be determined (honestly, in a place like Chicago, going beyond R21 in walls doesn't yield terribly better performance.
There would be codes for things like air-sealing and elimination of cold bridges through the structure.
And remediation of things like this don't have to be hideously expensive or involved.
There are inexpensive ways to get this stuff done, even on a macro scale like a high rise or skyscraper.
Except most people don't have a 100+ year track record and supposedly 3 million members that, ostensibly, agree with the "party" line.
Social capital and lobbying dollars (mainly the second).
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.
Well, not only that, but think about the idiotic war on humor in PC culture nowadays...
Well...only do THAT if you wanna be depressed...
If only it were that simple.
Why to you think colleges are such intersectional, communist crybaby spaces now?
"Captain? Why did you "space" your crew morale person?"
"He told that joke last month! It wasn't funny then! It still ain't funny now!"
Yeah, that's still not gonna work in the US. Notice how the generator station STILL relies on a large elevation change, even with everything subterranean to operate.
I think you're forgetting just how FLAT the Central US can be. And there's 750,000 or so square miles of flat.
Yes, like with nuclear, geothermal, etc, it can be a locational/situational thing.
I merely think that a hybrid nuclear+renewables solution is a more intelligent fit.
No. Because simply BURNING hydrogen is still less energy dense than gasoline. Worse, it needs to be kept at high pressures in a very heavy containment vessel.
And your comparison between an electric engine and an ICE isn't cogent. Because you're comparing the equivalent of the gas tank in one vehicle to the source of motive power in the other.
You don't run the wheels in a Tesla directly off the batteries. You hook the batteries to an electric motor.
The batteries are the "gas tank". And the electric motor is the several hundred pounds of "engine", gearbox, etc.
Exactly.
The devil comes in the details.
And you'll always have some dumbfuck tripping over a dollar to pick up a dime.