nothing special about starcraft. It is the style of game, it is much more complex to write smart AI for a RTS as the strategy is constantly evolving second by second. As bots improve they will easily demolish real players in RTS games as a human simply cannot compete with a machine that can make order of magnitude more game moves than you
I wonder how the bots do if both humans and bots are constrained to something like 60 moves a minute?
Developers testing their own shit subconsciously avoid the shoddy parts.
The trouble with developers testing their own code is their objective is to finish the feature and move onto the next issue, not to find bugs.
A developer who spends 50% longer debugging their code is likely to get a reputation as a slow coder, if a bug shows up 6 months later it might not even get attributed to their change. And even if there is some potential blowback in 6 months time, it's hard to take that into account when your manager is breathing down your neck because the project is behind. I know I've taken heat in performance reviews for not finishing features quicker, I also know I've spent a lot of time fixing other people's bugs.
The reason for a QA department isn't that they've better at finding bugs in new features, they aren't. Rather the QA department gets to focus on the testing that developers have no incentive to do. QA also tests the features that developers don't work on, because every once in a while changing number of wings on a butterfly triggers a null pointer on the other side of the source tree.
Had this been any other president or political candidate, airlines would be diverting traffic to extradite this guy already.
But hey, if 'cause Trump' finally gets the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act the scrutiny it sorely needs, then I'm all for it.
Why? Because a Twitter account got deactivated for a couple hours? Turn off Fox News and rejoin the real world.
Some contractor decided to pull a dumb stunt, the meaningful consequences of which were precisely zilch.
The guy should be sued and/or face some additional legal consequences, it should certainly impact his future employment prospects because he's proven he'll abuse his access.
Considering the high cost of these vehicles (especially Teslas), the effect of the current subsidy system is to transfer tax dollars to the already well-off. There are no middle or low-income families that drive these vehicles, only upper-class. And especially with the Teslas, these vehicles are not only a form of transportation, but also status symbols.
(Full disclosure: I got about $2000 when I bought a Prius back in 2005 or so. Perhaps I'm a hypocrite, but the subsidy made a bit more sense for Priuses as they helped close the gap in price between them and equivalent cars, like a Civic or Camry or Taurus. But subsidizing $75,000 cars for the upper class makes no sense)
Though in this case the well-off are also subsidizing the development of the technology, and helping the rest of us by driving vehicles with lower emissions.
And you'd need a competent economist to do the math, but even ignoring AGW gasoline cars carries significant costs. There's a crapload of subsidies, direct and indirect, that go towards oil, and the actual exhaust causes a lot of damage. Your EV is in many ways cheaper for the government than a gasoline vehicle, tax policy pushing you to an EV is just good economics.
I wonder whether, in today's climate of tearing down statues of famous slavers and imperialists (Jackson, Rhodes etc), people would advocate tearing down the pyramids which, for all their architectural genius, were built at a cost of thousands of lives. They're like Qatari football stadia x1000.
I hope you're not legitimately having trouble differentiating structures built thousands of years ago to celebrate gods with statues built a little over 100 years ago to remind black people that the whites were still in charge.
If we do *not* get the results predicted by the study above, would that invalidate the theory of global warming?
No, it would invalidate the results of this specific piece of research.
Well, partially invalidate... their model is statistical so fail or succeed analysis of what specifically happened would be required to figure out if their results were correct. It could be their research was flawless but some nutjob started WWIII and caused a Nuclear winter.
If not, what testable predictions does the global warming theory make, whose failure *would* invalidate the theory?
1) Carbon continues to skyrocket but temperatures plummet or even plateau. 2) Another mechanism is found that better explains the temperatures. 3) More research suggests that the positive feedbacks won't kick in, or at least not to the extent we predict. 4) A negative feedback is discovered that will counteract the warming and the positive feedbacks. 5) It turns out there's a bad assumption shared by all the models, and if you correct it the extreme warming goes away.
The only one that feels remotely plausible is #3, and maybe a little bit of #5 (though 5 could go the other way and underestimate the warming), but even there the certainty is growing stronger, not weaker.
The obvious follow-up question is what could convince you that AGW is a real thing?
Is this a standard practice (that's only getting noted because OBL)? Is it so widely distributed internally and to other agencies that they figure it will leak out regardless, so they might as well do it on their terms? Or do they think this has legitimate value for researchers and counter-terrorism researchers?
For people to lazy to look, the White population has 4.5% of the population in top 10 surnames (last names) and would require 239 surnames to make up 25% of the population.
The Black population has 13% in the top 10 surnames and only 43 surnames to make up 25% of population.
And the the Hispanic population is 16.3% for top 10 surnames and 26 surnames to cover 25% of population.
Don't worry, it sounds like the officials have some discretion so not every flagged name will be immediately crossed off.
If some officials happen to cross off minorities with much greater frequency than whites... well I guess that's unfortunate but surely not an entirely desired and expected outcome.
Because the Democrats won't provide one in Blue States (and in some states, it's not a part of the dataset to begin with, which to me, proves the Republican point that Democrats are into voter fraud).
I, on the other hand, consider evidence of fraudulent votes to be evidence of "voter fraud".
But I guess if you can't find any evidence of fraudulent votes then you need to take whatever kame argument is available to justify disenfranchising legal voters.
How do you "demonstrate" the whole planet will warm into an unstoppable Venus like unlivable atmosphere? Because that's why we were told to fear CO2.
Meanwhile in real life even though CO2 increases exponentially, we see only the same slow warming trend we have been seeing for a while. Even the IPCC now forecasts MAYBE 2C warming over 100 years. So what? There's not any reason to fear that; unless you fear more livable landmass and better crop production the world over.
What makes you think 2C would give us more livable landmass and better crop production? The majority of studies project the exact opposite (and regardless, those are far from the only consequence).
Even the article says CO2 was at this level 800,000 years ago, and the temperatures were 2-3C warmer - so what happened to that runway effect then? Why did everything not die then? Apparently it was all fine and everything carried on, so why are you worried NOW when humans have the technology to overcome even drastic climate shifts, much less the mild climate shifts we are actually getting.
Your post claims to be rational, yet you seem to fear something that we already no happened to no ill effect.
So the fact that 800K years ago we had a functioning (though radically different) ecosystem is something you cite as evidence as there being nothing to worry about.
But you don't even mention the 10-20 difference in sea levels.
I'm not trying to hold you to the standard of peer reviewed literature... but can you at least stop cherry picking evidence from the summary?
How can you claim rationality when you deny such conclusive evidence to the contrary?
Indeed, if you had any kind of rational thought process to climate you would be down on your knees crying with gratitude that we may have held off the next ice age cycle a little while longer.
I'll let you all have the last word, because as I have seen in the past bringing rational thought to a discussion on climate sadly doesn't seem to have any effect - fear seems to be a lot stronger than intellect, so only time will heal the self-inflicted wounds you are causing.
Yes, carrying out a massive experiment on the global climate is the "rational" course of action. Excuse me while we all bow to your super-duper amazing intellect.
Firing is still harsh. Plus, if he was an important employee, it will be costly to replace him. It's possible he was already on the edge, one more mistake from being fired, and this was the last straw. But it doesn't sound like that at all. His daughter could be totally mistaken, her parents could have spun a big illusion to keep her from worrying, but she claims Apple liked him.
As the saying goes, the graveyard is full of indispensable people. I'm sure he was a good employee, but he will be replaced.
Apple could have docked him some pay. Have him not get the bonus, accept a pay cut, even demand he take an unpaid leave of absence. Summarily firing him sends all kinds of bad messages
Firing him sent exactly the message they wanted, leak company secrets and you get fired.
Apple more than any other IT company is a marketing company, the secrecy that surrounds their new products is part of their marketing campaign. That means you need to be extremely harsh on someone who leaks anything because a single screenshot can spill the beans on a major new product announcement.
Hillary's server was wiped, and the circumstances under which is was wiped (and who decided to do what when) was thoroughly investigated and no one was charged (though the admin probably should have been), and the files were recovered.
Hopefully this server wiping is as thoroughly investigated.
If solar and wind are as cheap without subsidies as recent stories claim, why do countries need to set targets like this? If renewables are really that cheap, shouldn't the free markets phase out coal power without government regulation? Countries setting targets like this and regulating the sources of energy seems to suggest that the claims made about renewables are false. Why else would the government need to intervene?
a) Depending on circumstances they might not be as cheap, but when you factor in CO2 it's a worthwhile investment. b) Even if it it's cheaper for new infrastructure it still probably costs more to phase out some old infrastructure. b) Renewables are cheap enough that initiatives like this are feasible.
If the article is correct, which it might not be, I think the situation is actually reversed.
Previously the Republicans were investigating Clinton's emails with the goal of turning them into an election issue.
Now, two Republicans are investigating the FBI investigation of Clinton's emails and asking why the FBI turned it into an election issue.
Maybe they're just trying to whitewash it, but whatever side you're on it's hard to argue that the FBI didn't bungle the election campaign really, really badly.
The stereotype of a tortured genius may have a basis in reality after a new study found that people with higher IQs are more at risk of developing mental illness. A team of U.S. researchers surveyed 3,715 members of American Mensa with an IQ higher than 130. An "average IQ score" or "normal IQ score" can be defined as a score between 85 and 115.
Another interpretation of the data is that people who join American Mensa have a higher probability of having a mental illness. There's even a very plausible mechanism for this, people with a mental illness often look for ways to treat that illness, joining a group of people they can potentially relate to (ie Mensa) is one way to deal with their illness.
Progressives have a death grip on the educational system. It's good that some, like you, can deprogram themselves. Even by the 80's, things like the population explosion,
Global population is still rising, the rate of growth is slowing now, but I'm really skeptical it will continue.
peak oil,
For the US, peak oil has come and gone and conventional production has plateaued world wide. Even ignoring CO2 there's only a limited amount of oil in the ground and we're using up the stuff that's easy to get to. People aren't extracting from oil sands and shale oil because they're such a wonderfully convenient resource. They're crappy sources that are becoming feasible because there's no longer enough easy stuff to get to.
Pacific Blob? How are you so confident there wasn't a "pacific blob" in the 1600s? Do we have satellite observations of oceanic temperatures from the 17th century to back that up? Are you assembling that data from observations? Did they have calibrated temperature probes taking measurements day and night thousands of miles out at sea?
<br><br>
It seems to me that a lot of your belief system is built on inferences and assumptions. The largest of those being that the weather events of the 21st century have somehow made a biblical deviation from the norm. Anything approaching a climate "norm" is based on such a limited understanding of the world, it's hard to accept as the truth. Global Warming may be a new phenomenon. But if it is we need to treat it like a science with skepticism, and not like a religion.
Global warming very much is a science, and the researchers involved do examine their data and conclusions with a lot of skepticism and they do a lot of work figuring out how to test their assumptions (I suspect there's a bunch of actual papers dedicated to figuring out if there was a "pacific blob" in the 1600s). Of course there is some uncertainty over how serious the problem will be (though as evidence mounts the problem seems to be getting worse).
But you also need to be prudent. We're talking about taking mitigating action against the cautious projections. You are correct we're dealing with a lot of unknowns. If the scientists are underestimating we might be in a lot more trouble than we realize, this isn't some computer game where someone gave us a nice path to galactic colonization, it's quite possible that the byproducts of industrialization prove disastrous for human civilization.
You mean a report completely lacking in the aforementioned Eh Veh Dence from the same professional liars who sold you on Saddam plotting 911
You gotta love the right, misrepresent evidence from the CIA to justify a war, then point your previous deception as reason to doubt evidence of your latest misdeeds.
If so you should send me your money before some Nigerian prince steals it from you. The story went from Russia hacking servers and emails, to Russia colluding with Trump, and now we're down to talking about Pokemon and Facebook ads. But Russiagaters have to keep talking about this - if they stop, they'd have to admit they were a million megatons of bullshit crammed into a five pound sack.
Yeah... the story isn't actually changing, there's just more chapters.
It's like how when a new woman comes out and accuses Harvey Weinstien of assaulting her people don't go "wait, I thought the story was that Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted 20 women, now it's claimed he assaulted 21??? The story is changing!! It's all bullshit!!!"
... Realize that the MSM(ratings), politicians(votes) and external forces(espionage) are at place to cause anger? The common American goes about their day, trying to earn enough to provide for their loved ones. But the left is eating up anything and everything divisive, projecting all kinds of ill will towards anyone who has a differing opinion
You do remember the years of insisting that the first black president was not American and was a secret Muslim? The insane conspiracy theories claiming that illegal immigrants were voting and stealing elections. Claims that scientists were part of some bizarre global warming conspiracy? Treating gay and transgendered people like second class citizens.
These aren't fringe ideas from the right. These are right in the main-stream of the Republican party.
SO MUCH SO, that a person who should not be the president of the US, IS the president of the US, because there was no other choice.
On the Republican side, no, there wasn't a lot of choice. The sad reality of GOP primary was that their best realistic choice might have been Jeb Bush.
The runner up (Ted Cruz) almost drove the US into bankruptcy as a PR stunt.
Clinton wasn't a great candidate, but she wasn't that bad either. The underlying flaws for which she was vilified (special rules because she's the boss) are pretty much standard practice for politicians. It's disappointing she wasn't better but she wasn't an outlier, the GOP just realized that if they just keep repeating that something is inexcusable that a certain percentage of the public will believe them.
And what has happened since the US election? The left has double downed on portraying any and all who don't think exactly as they do, as misogynists(oh the irony there) and racists(check out the founding and core of the Democratic party for the TRUE racists.
Pushing people so far will yield someone who is not afraid to push back, and that was who was elected - the only person is not afraid to push back against all the crap that is constantly slung against the right.
Keep on looking down your nose at fly over country, and this will NOT get any better. In fact, it will get MUCH worse.
I'm sorry that powerful men will insist you grant them sexual favours if you want to succeed in your career.... oh sorry that's women.
I'm sorry that you're subject to constant police harassment and no one seems to give a damn... oh sorry that's black people.
I'm sorry that your feelings are mildly hurt now that people are finally calling you out on some of your BS.
*Please done take this as the right is perfect, because I am greatly saddened that Trump can't act like an adult. He had the perfect opportunity, and has done nothing but blow it.
You were bound to be disappointed. The GOP has a better alternative to Obamacare, massive tax cuts for the rich will reduce the deficit, banning Muslims will eliminate terrorism, the Iranian nuclear deal was a bad deal, etc, etc.
These are all thing the GOP elites sold to their base to win elections but generally didn't believe themselves. This irritated the base since the policy didn't match the rhetoric.
Trump won the primary because he actually did believe the the lies, so his policies did match his rhetoric.
That's why you were bound to be disappointed, because someone so incompetent that they can't see the con even while they're a candidate is someone too incompetent to govern.
for, no, the word "for", bracket, I mean open bracket, i equals 0 semi-colon* i less than, I mean less than symbol, oh fuck it
* look at that, four syllables for a single keypress.
Keyboards aren't going anywhere for a long time yet.
Though, to be fair, if we develop speech recognition good enough to replace a keyboard we can also make a programming language that's easier to speak than C.
Riiiiight. The same Hillary Clinton -- you know, that champion of womens' rights Hillary Clinton shown grabbing rapist Harvey Weinstein's man-tits at some multi-million dollar DNC shindig -- would *never* do anything "extraordinarily inappropriate."
Now that we've gotten your off-topic talking point of the week out of the way...
Because she would respect the Constitution, just like Obama did when he took a big steamer on it with warrantless wiretaps, FISA courts, and every other shitty abuse of power he doubled-down on from GWB and before.
What a freakin' homer.
Whatever you think of the constitutionality of those various actions they were done for the purposes of law enforcement, generally terrorism. And to the extend they went after the logs of websites they were generally pretty extreme sites.
Trump was trying to ID people who protested him, that's not a criminal act.
Like many of Trump's actions the comparisons don't hold up, Trump is not normal and his actions are completely unacceptable.
If Obama had started acting the way Trump has I think the cabinet rightfully would have declared him mentally incompetent. The only reason to not do the same for Trump is that voters apparently decided to elect an incompetent president and it doesn't seem right to override their decision.
Slashdot Mirror
nothing special about starcraft. It is the style of game, it is much more complex to write smart AI for a RTS as the strategy is constantly evolving second by second. As bots improve they will easily demolish real players in RTS games as a human simply cannot compete with a machine that can make order of magnitude more game moves than you
I wonder how the bots do if both humans and bots are constrained to something like 60 moves a minute?
Developers testing their own shit subconsciously avoid the shoddy parts.
The trouble with developers testing their own code is their objective is to finish the feature and move onto the next issue, not to find bugs.
A developer who spends 50% longer debugging their code is likely to get a reputation as a slow coder, if a bug shows up 6 months later it might not even get attributed to their change. And even if there is some potential blowback in 6 months time, it's hard to take that into account when your manager is breathing down your neck because the project is behind. I know I've taken heat in performance reviews for not finishing features quicker, I also know I've spent a lot of time fixing other people's bugs.
The reason for a QA department isn't that they've better at finding bugs in new features, they aren't. Rather the QA department gets to focus on the testing that developers have no incentive to do. QA also tests the features that developers don't work on, because every once in a while changing number of wings on a butterfly triggers a null pointer on the other side of the source tree.
It's a fucking travesty!
Had this been any other president or political candidate, airlines would be diverting traffic to extradite this guy already.
But hey, if 'cause Trump' finally gets the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act the scrutiny it sorely needs, then I'm all for it.
Why? Because a Twitter account got deactivated for a couple hours? Turn off Fox News and rejoin the real world.
Some contractor decided to pull a dumb stunt, the meaningful consequences of which were precisely zilch.
The guy should be sued and/or face some additional legal consequences, it should certainly impact his future employment prospects because he's proven he'll abuse his access.
But otherwise, it's just not that big a deal.
Considering the high cost of these vehicles (especially Teslas), the effect of the current subsidy system is to transfer tax dollars to the already well-off. There are no middle or low-income families that drive these vehicles, only upper-class. And especially with the Teslas, these vehicles are not only a form of transportation, but also status symbols.
(Full disclosure: I got about $2000 when I bought a Prius back in 2005 or so. Perhaps I'm a hypocrite, but the subsidy made a bit more sense for Priuses as they helped close the gap in price between them and equivalent cars, like a Civic or Camry or Taurus. But subsidizing $75,000 cars for the upper class makes no sense)
Though in this case the well-off are also subsidizing the development of the technology, and helping the rest of us by driving vehicles with lower emissions.
And you'd need a competent economist to do the math, but even ignoring AGW gasoline cars carries significant costs. There's a crapload of subsidies, direct and indirect, that go towards oil, and the actual exhaust causes a lot of damage. Your EV is in many ways cheaper for the government than a gasoline vehicle, tax policy pushing you to an EV is just good economics.
Walking around the office and chatting with co-workers is one skill that's really difficult to outsource.
I wonder whether, in today's climate of tearing down statues of famous slavers and imperialists (Jackson, Rhodes etc), people would advocate tearing down the pyramids which, for all their architectural genius, were built at a cost of thousands of lives. They're like Qatari football stadia x1000.
I hope you're not legitimately having trouble differentiating structures built thousands of years ago to celebrate gods with statues built a little over 100 years ago to remind black people that the whites were still in charge.
Those are testable predictions.
If we do *not* get the results predicted by the study above, would that invalidate the theory of global warming?
No, it would invalidate the results of this specific piece of research.
Well, partially invalidate... their model is statistical so fail or succeed analysis of what specifically happened would be required to figure out if their results were correct. It could be their research was flawless but some nutjob started WWIII and caused a Nuclear winter.
If not, what testable predictions does the global warming theory make, whose failure *would* invalidate the theory?
1) Carbon continues to skyrocket but temperatures plummet or even plateau.
2) Another mechanism is found that better explains the temperatures.
3) More research suggests that the positive feedbacks won't kick in, or at least not to the extent we predict.
4) A negative feedback is discovered that will counteract the warming and the positive feedbacks.
5) It turns out there's a bad assumption shared by all the models, and if you correct it the extreme warming goes away.
The only one that feels remotely plausible is #3, and maybe a little bit of #5 (though 5 could go the other way and underestimate the warming), but even there the certainty is growing stronger, not weaker.
The obvious follow-up question is what could convince you that AGW is a real thing?
Tesla must really be in trouble. Shills are shilling so hard that this one posted the same comment twice from two different accounts
https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
It's not a shill, the second one BeauHD+(Home+UID), looks to be some kind of bot re-posting other people's comments.
Not sure what the tactic is, maybe once the account gets enough karma it will add a link into its sig or something.
To be honest I've always wondered how /. avoids bot abuse.
Is this a standard practice (that's only getting noted because OBL)? Is it so widely distributed internally and to other agencies that they figure it will leak out regardless, so they might as well do it on their terms? Or do they think this has legitimate value for researchers and counter-terrorism researchers?
For people to lazy to look, the White population has 4.5% of the population in top 10 surnames (last names) and would require 239 surnames to make up 25% of the population.
The Black population has 13% in the top 10 surnames and only 43 surnames to make up 25% of population.
And the the Hispanic population is 16.3% for top 10 surnames and 26 surnames to cover 25% of population.
Don't worry, it sounds like the officials have some discretion so not every flagged name will be immediately crossed off.
If some officials happen to cross off minorities with much greater frequency than whites... well I guess that's unfortunate but surely not an entirely desired and expected outcome.
Because the Democrats won't provide one in Blue States (and in some states, it's not a part of the dataset to begin with, which to me, proves the Republican point that Democrats are into voter fraud).
I, on the other hand, consider evidence of fraudulent votes to be evidence of "voter fraud".
But I guess if you can't find any evidence of fraudulent votes then you need to take whatever kame argument is available to justify disenfranchising legal voters.
CO2's effect has been demonstrated conclusively.
Really, in what way?
How do you "demonstrate" the whole planet will warm into an unstoppable Venus like unlivable atmosphere? Because that's why we were told to fear CO2.
Meanwhile in real life even though CO2 increases exponentially, we see only the same slow warming trend we have been seeing for a while. Even the IPCC now forecasts MAYBE 2C warming over 100 years. So what? There's not any reason to fear that; unless you fear more livable landmass and better crop production the world over.
What makes you think 2C would give us more livable landmass and better crop production? The majority of studies project the exact opposite (and regardless, those are far from the only consequence).
Even the article says CO2 was at this level 800,000 years ago, and the temperatures were 2-3C warmer - so what happened to that runway effect then? Why did everything not die then? Apparently it was all fine and everything carried on, so why are you worried NOW when humans have the technology to overcome even drastic climate shifts, much less the mild climate shifts we are actually getting.
Your post claims to be rational, yet you seem to fear something that we already no happened to no ill effect.
So the fact that 800K years ago we had a functioning (though radically different) ecosystem is something you cite as evidence as there being nothing to worry about.
But you don't even mention the 10-20 difference in sea levels.
I'm not trying to hold you to the standard of peer reviewed literature... but can you at least stop cherry picking evidence from the summary?
How can you claim rationality when you deny such conclusive evidence to the contrary?
Indeed, if you had any kind of rational thought process to climate you would be down on your knees crying with gratitude that we may have held off the next ice age cycle a little while longer.
I'll let you all have the last word, because as I have seen in the past bringing rational thought to a discussion on climate sadly doesn't seem to have any effect - fear seems to be a lot stronger than intellect, so only time will heal the self-inflicted wounds you are causing.
Yes, carrying out a massive experiment on the global climate is the "rational" course of action. Excuse me while we all bow to your super-duper amazing intellect.
Firing is still harsh. Plus, if he was an important employee, it will be costly to replace him. It's possible he was already on the edge, one more mistake from being fired, and this was the last straw. But it doesn't sound like that at all. His daughter could be totally mistaken, her parents could have spun a big illusion to keep her from worrying, but she claims Apple liked him.
As the saying goes, the graveyard is full of indispensable people. I'm sure he was a good employee, but he will be replaced.
Apple could have docked him some pay. Have him not get the bonus, accept a pay cut, even demand he take an unpaid leave of absence. Summarily firing him sends all kinds of bad messages
Firing him sent exactly the message they wanted, leak company secrets and you get fired.
Apple more than any other IT company is a marketing company, the secrecy that surrounds their new products is part of their marketing campaign. That means you need to be extremely harsh on someone who leaks anything because a single screenshot can spill the beans on a major new product announcement.
Nope. Not a single one. I am not clicking any link associated with story!
Hillary's server was wiped, and the circumstances under which is was wiped (and who decided to do what when) was thoroughly investigated and no one was charged (though the admin probably should have been), and the files were recovered.
Hopefully this server wiping is as thoroughly investigated.
If solar and wind are as cheap without subsidies as recent stories claim, why do countries need to set targets like this? If renewables are really that cheap, shouldn't the free markets phase out coal power without government regulation? Countries setting targets like this and regulating the sources of energy seems to suggest that the claims made about renewables are false. Why else would the government need to intervene?
a) Depending on circumstances they might not be as cheap, but when you factor in CO2 it's a worthwhile investment.
b) Even if it it's cheaper for new infrastructure it still probably costs more to phase out some old infrastructure.
b) Renewables are cheap enough that initiatives like this are feasible.
You keep doing it, ad infinitum.
If the article is correct, which it might not be, I think the situation is actually reversed.
Previously the Republicans were investigating Clinton's emails with the goal of turning them into an election issue.
Now, two Republicans are investigating the FBI investigation of Clinton's emails and asking why the FBI turned it into an election issue.
Maybe they're just trying to whitewash it, but whatever side you're on it's hard to argue that the FBI didn't bungle the election campaign really, really badly.
The stereotype of a tortured genius may have a basis in reality after a new study found that people with higher IQs are more at risk of developing mental illness. A team of U.S. researchers surveyed 3,715 members of American Mensa with an IQ higher than 130. An "average IQ score" or "normal IQ score" can be defined as a score between 85 and 115.
Another interpretation of the data is that people who join American Mensa have a higher probability of having a mental illness. There's even a very plausible mechanism for this, people with a mental illness often look for ways to treat that illness, joining a group of people they can potentially relate to (ie Mensa) is one way to deal with their illness.
Progressives have a death grip on the educational system. It's good that some, like you, can deprogram themselves. Even by the 80's, things like the population explosion,
Global population is still rising, the rate of growth is slowing now, but I'm really skeptical it will continue.
peak oil,
For the US, peak oil has come and gone and conventional production has plateaued world wide. Even ignoring CO2 there's only a limited amount of oil in the ground and we're using up the stuff that's easy to get to. People aren't extracting from oil sands and shale oil because they're such a wonderfully convenient resource. They're crappy sources that are becoming feasible because there's no longer enough easy stuff to get to.
Pacific Blob? How are you so confident there wasn't a "pacific blob" in the 1600s? Do we have satellite observations of oceanic temperatures from the 17th century to back that up? Are you assembling that data from observations? Did they have calibrated temperature probes taking measurements day and night thousands of miles out at sea?
<br><br>
It seems to me that a lot of your belief system is built on inferences and assumptions. The largest of those being that the weather events of the 21st century have somehow made a biblical deviation from the norm. Anything approaching a climate "norm" is based on such a limited understanding of the world, it's hard to accept as the truth. Global Warming may be a new phenomenon. But if it is we need to treat it like a science with skepticism, and not like a religion.
Global warming very much is a science, and the researchers involved do examine their data and conclusions with a lot of skepticism and they do a lot of work figuring out how to test their assumptions (I suspect there's a bunch of actual papers dedicated to figuring out if there was a "pacific blob" in the 1600s). Of course there is some uncertainty over how serious the problem will be (though as evidence mounts the problem seems to be getting worse).
But you also need to be prudent. We're talking about taking mitigating action against the cautious projections. You are correct we're dealing with a lot of unknowns. If the scientists are underestimating we might be in a lot more trouble than we realize, this isn't some computer game where someone gave us a nice path to galactic colonization, it's quite possible that the byproducts of industrialization prove disastrous for human civilization.
You mean a report completely lacking in the aforementioned Eh Veh Dence from the same professional liars who sold you on Saddam plotting 911
You gotta love the right, misrepresent evidence from the CIA to justify a war, then point your previous deception as reason to doubt evidence of your latest misdeeds.
If so you should send me your money before some Nigerian prince steals it from you. The story went from Russia hacking servers and emails, to Russia colluding with Trump, and now we're down to talking about Pokemon and Facebook ads. But Russiagaters have to keep talking about this - if they stop, they'd have to admit they were a million megatons of bullshit crammed into a five pound sack.
https://consortiumnews.com/201...
Yeah... the story isn't actually changing, there's just more chapters.
It's like how when a new woman comes out and accuses Harvey Weinstien of assaulting her people don't go "wait, I thought the story was that Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted 20 women, now it's claimed he assaulted 21??? The story is changing!! It's all bullshit!!!"
... Realize that the MSM(ratings), politicians(votes) and external forces(espionage) are at place to cause anger? The common American goes about their day, trying to earn enough to provide for their loved ones. But the left is eating up anything and everything divisive, projecting all kinds of ill will towards anyone who has a differing opinion
You do remember the years of insisting that the first black president was not American and was a secret Muslim? The insane conspiracy theories claiming that illegal immigrants were voting and stealing elections. Claims that scientists were part of some bizarre global warming conspiracy? Treating gay and transgendered people like second class citizens.
These aren't fringe ideas from the right. These are right in the main-stream of the Republican party.
SO MUCH SO, that a person who should not be the president of the US, IS the president of the US, because there was no other choice.
On the Republican side, no, there wasn't a lot of choice. The sad reality of GOP primary was that their best realistic choice might have been Jeb Bush.
The runner up (Ted Cruz) almost drove the US into bankruptcy as a PR stunt.
Clinton wasn't a great candidate, but she wasn't that bad either. The underlying flaws for which she was vilified (special rules because she's the boss) are pretty much standard practice for politicians. It's disappointing she wasn't better but she wasn't an outlier, the GOP just realized that if they just keep repeating that something is inexcusable that a certain percentage of the public will believe them.
And what has happened since the US election? The left has double downed on portraying any and all who don't think exactly as they do, as misogynists(oh the irony there) and racists(check out the founding and core of the Democratic party for the TRUE racists.
Pushing people so far will yield someone who is not afraid to push back, and that was who was elected - the only person is not afraid to push back against all the crap that is constantly slung against the right.
Keep on looking down your nose at fly over country, and this will NOT get any better. In fact, it will get MUCH worse.
I'm sorry that powerful men will insist you grant them sexual favours if you want to succeed in your career.... oh sorry that's women.
I'm sorry that you're subject to constant police harassment and no one seems to give a damn... oh sorry that's black people.
I'm sorry that your feelings are mildly hurt now that people are finally calling you out on some of your BS.
*Please done take this as the right is perfect, because I am greatly saddened that Trump can't act like an adult. He had the perfect opportunity, and has done nothing but blow it.
You were bound to be disappointed. The GOP has a better alternative to Obamacare, massive tax cuts for the rich will reduce the deficit, banning Muslims will eliminate terrorism, the Iranian nuclear deal was a bad deal, etc, etc.
These are all thing the GOP elites sold to their base to win elections but generally didn't believe themselves. This irritated the base since the policy didn't match the rhetoric.
Trump won the primary because he actually did believe the the lies, so his policies did match his rhetoric.
That's why you were bound to be disappointed, because someone so incompetent that they can't see the con even while they're a candidate is someone too incompetent to govern.
Exactly. How long does it take to type:
for (i=0; i<10; i++) {
compared to saying
for, no, the word "for", bracket, I mean open bracket, i equals 0 semi-colon* i less than, I mean less than symbol, oh fuck it
* look at that, four syllables for a single keypress.
Keyboards aren't going anywhere for a long time yet.
Though, to be fair, if we develop speech recognition good enough to replace a keyboard we can also make a programming language that's easier to speak than C.
Riiiiight. The same Hillary Clinton -- you know, that champion of womens' rights Hillary Clinton shown grabbing rapist Harvey Weinstein's man-tits at some multi-million dollar DNC shindig -- would *never* do anything "extraordinarily inappropriate."
Now that we've gotten your off-topic talking point of the week out of the way...
Because she would respect the Constitution, just like Obama did when he took a big steamer on it with warrantless wiretaps, FISA courts, and every other shitty abuse of power he doubled-down on from GWB and before.
What a freakin' homer.
Whatever you think of the constitutionality of those various actions they were done for the purposes of law enforcement, generally terrorism. And to the extend they went after the logs of websites they were generally pretty extreme sites.
Trump was trying to ID people who protested him, that's not a criminal act.
Like many of Trump's actions the comparisons don't hold up, Trump is not normal and his actions are completely unacceptable.
If Obama had started acting the way Trump has I think the cabinet rightfully would have declared him mentally incompetent. The only reason to not do the same for Trump is that voters apparently decided to elect an incompetent president and it doesn't seem right to override their decision.