Those are different kind of quakes, low in magnitude and certainly not deadly (we have them here as well). GP is right that drilling alone could not have caused a massive earthquake, but could very well have triggered one. The only thing changed by the drilling was the timing... Some think that by releasing the pent up energy early, the resulting quake is lower than the one that would have occurred later if it had been left alone, but it doesn't work as simple as that.
Ground resettling != Deadly earthquake. Since a few years we have our share of earthquakes, in a region with pretty much zero natural geological activity. These are minor: small amounts of energy released relatively close to the surface, resulting in small quakes of a magnitude between 2 and 3. But because these happen so close to the surface, they still do damage (in a small area). This is a simple case: pretty much everybody (including the oil companies) agrees that the quakes are caused by large scale gas production in the region since the 50s
When it comes to these deadly quakes, things are not so simple. The amounts of energy released are such that this cannot be explained merely by subsidence of the overburden. It is possible, as others have pointed out, that this subsidence has triggered a bigger quake... one that was already waiting to happen.
And less-than-basic taxes to pay for them. Don't get me wrong, I live in one of them countries and enjoy universal health care, but it's not all good. For one, our health care system suffers from many of the problems that the USA also has, for example having a small group of far too powerful insurers driving up prices. And our health care is expensive, while the premiums are affordable... or appear to be. According to some figures, our health care is one of the most expensive ones in the world (as % of GNP), but only 1.5% of that is paid for directly by patients, and few countries enjoy health care that cheap. But we pay a lot indirectly... in a pretty average middle class family where both mom and dad work, as much as 1/4 of their wages goes to health care indirectly, through income tax.
Oh and back to the topic at hand: Wallonia didn't "fold under pressure", the politician holdouts never had the intention of letting CETA tank; they simply saw this as an opportunity to wrangle out a couple of nice concessions for the region. Probably a few exemptions or some extra regional aid out of Brussels... and under the table, perhaps a few cushy jobs for the polticians themselves a few years down the line. It wouldn't be the first time such deals were made.
Could be even less. Our typical roof tiles last 40 years (mine are now at 75 years, and it's definitely time to replace), but solar panel output drops to a level where you need to replace them after 20 or so years. Longevity of the tiles isn't the issue, it's the dropping power output and the high cost of replacing the roof ever 20 years versus the cost of replacing the roof every 40 and separate panels every 20.
You don't have to connect all the tiles, you prefab them in 2x2, 3x3, 5x5 blocks, already interconnected. Or maybe in rows. So you only have to use single tiles at the edges or around windows.
I've met similar environmentalists who went as far as to say, in so many words: "We don't want solutions that don't force a reduction in greed". That was a while ago though, and thankfully that attitude has changed for the better with mainstream environmentalists. Nowadays, their line is that reduction of one type of pollution is good even if that kind of pollution turns out to be not much of a problem: reductions are often achieved by cleaner engines, improved efficiency and logistics, reduction of waste and so on, which means less overall pollution, and as a bonus, less dependancy on fossil fuels from craphole countries. There's money to be earned by being green.
I'd be very wary of anyone working on carbon credits though. It's a perfect vehicle for pushing ethics of certain people into the geopolitical arena, and part of it seems like a scam designed to line the pockets of Gore et al. But the good news is: emission levels in the developed world are dropping, we're now at 1990 levels in Europe, and the shift of manufacturing to the east only accounts for a small portion of that reduction. It is possible to achieve significant reductions without messing up our lifestyle too much (we can still be "greedy consumerist fucks" if we want to)
I doubt that's the real issue. The city of Amsterdam complained about tourists using AirBnB not paying their taxes, and simply made a deal with AirBnB. AirBnB now collects the taxes from tourists and pays the city.
The real problem cities have with AirBnB is that a lot of people, either landlords or tenants in subsidized or rent controlled housing, are effectively turning their homes into hotels, but without all the rules and regulations regarding fire safety, hygiene, registration and so on which real hotels do have to deal with.
Yes, I am in the same boat: I really prefer the size of my old 5S, but kind of had to upgrade for my app development work. Another thing: why on earth did they move the off button from to top of the phone to the side? When you pick up the phone you tend to squeeze it, often hitting that off button as a result.
That's just it: with the introduction of many previous models, Apple introduced some innovative or incremental improvement: better performance, Retina display, Siri, fingerprint scanner, high speed video recording, etc (even if some of those features could be enabled on older phones but weren't because Apple were being dicks about it). Those features must have convinced many people to upgrade early. But the last models didn't bring anything significantly new, except bigger screens for those who want that. If you are still hanging on to, say, a 5S, why would you upgrade to a 7?
What would it actually cost to produce a MacBook in the USA? My guess is that it'll be more expensive, but not by a factor 4. And in case of iPhones, which are sold at 3x the cost of manufacturing, I bet they could sell them at only a slightly higher price if they *gasp* would accept a lower markup.
Even so, I still expect people to go for the slave labour Macbook at $1699 instead of the $1899 "proudly manufactured in the USA" model, when given a choice. Especially when no one is looking.
The reaction to people mounting a camera to a lamp post and leaving it there is to ban doing that, take those cameras down, and fine the owners if you can find them. Not to ban cameras.
Drones with cameras have many legitimate purposes that do not violate the privacy of anyone. The first reaction should be to ban unacceptable use of such drones, not to ban the drones themselves. Only if there is widespread abuse and no practical way to prevent it and/or punish the owners should you consider banning them outright or only allow operation under a license. The reaction to drones flying into the path of other aircraft was not to ban them, but to get drone manufacturers around the table to discuss ways to keep drones out of no fly zones.
That's how the police think at least... they will take maximum advantage either by following the letter of the law (forcing people to unlock phones with a fingerprint is not self-incrimination), or by interpreting the spirit of the law (two drones filming each other violating the law does not make their actions lawful)
If someone offered me 24 billion for anything, even my hypothetical super-successful company that I built with my own blood, sweat, tears and sacrifice of a firstborn son, I would take it in a heartbeat. Same puzzlement over the Snapchat guys declining what I think was an overly generous offer for that company. Then again, I've never built such a company so I have no idea of what it means to give up control of it. Still... With 24 billion in your pocket you can pretty much do what you want, start your own new company, hell, start a space agency even...
That's unfair: sideshows are way more fun, even the seedy ones. This is more like monkeys at the zoo, flinging poo at each other. Even the campaigners' lingo fits the analogy: "find some dirt", "can we make it stick", etc.
I'm just glad my country hasn't sunk to this level.
Yes, it is, didn't you get the memo? Forbidden... well, only if you're running for office, for the time being.
Sarcasm aside, it does seem that these days a presidential candidate can't be someone who openly likes the ladies, or admits to that in a private conversation, or did inhale during his college days, or had alcohol before he turned 21, or is an atheïst, or did something dumb when he was young, or had premarital sex, or a DUI, or used the N word at a drunken blowout, or or or. Well, maybe you can find a candidate with a spotless record, who will remain standing under the closest scrutiny, no skeletons in the closet. Would such a person make a good president? Hell, the idea of someone like that telling the rest of us what to do scares me more than a little...
That's an interesting way of looking at it... But keep in mind that GP's argument about destroying shareholder value isn't just about a lower stock price due to a damaged brand, the actual value (assets) of the company may have decreased by a similar amount at the same time. Instead of paying $100 for an $80 item, you're now paying $50 for a $40 item. The price may be lower but it's still a crap buy.
it's only when its market value is at or below the value of its assets and expected revenues that it suddenly becomes something everyone could be interested in buying out
That is only true if you buy the company as a simple monetary investment: buy, break it up, draw divident, or sell it when you find someone willing to pay its actual value. But if you are buying because the company fits well with whatever your own business is, then its value may be a lot more than the value of its assets on the open market. For instance, the company's patent on rounded corners may be worth squat to anyone... except to the company who can use it to lock out a competitor (or prevent from being locked out themselves). And that's actually where the GPs argument falls flat: buyers who are not interested in Twitter's ability to sell ads but in other things (patents, talent, research, user data, or the users themselves) are not likely to care overly much about reduced ad revenue or a damaged brand name, and will be happy to see the share price plummet.
they see STEM as the future, the best way out of poverty and for modernising their country.
OTOH, look at the erosion of science courses in many western countries
Just look at the people studying science at those western universities. These days, a fair number of them are from Asia or the Middle East. And maybe it's a cultural thing, science isn't just unpopular here or perceived as "too hard", it's actually looked down on a little. I can remember when being an engineer in any field got you social status, and putting that title next to your name meant something. These days? Just listen to every single movie dad talking to their disappointing child: "you could have been a doctor or a lawyer".
Any simulator will greatly benefit from VR (flight, space, driving). RPGs and adventure games as well. So will shooters (also the sandbox variety, like Call of Duty or Battlefield). Pretty much any game that presents a first-person view of the world.
That's largely due to circumstances (economics and demographics) rather than one generation being "better" than the other; I hope you are joking about the millenials being more selfless. There's little doubt that the boomers have been more fortunate than any other generation in history, but there's no point (and little fairness) blaming the current state of affairs on them, same way that it's pointless to blame the circumstances in which the boomers got to "rape the planet" on the preceding generation.
They are not completely blameless though. For instance, our nation pays a small pension to anyone who has lived in the country for a certain (long) amount of time, regardless of work history or even nationality, and these pensions are paid from current contributions taken through taxes. It was known from the start that demographics would put a lot of pressure on the system, and in the 80s everybody knew that the system was more or less untenable. And yet the scheme was never changed... most voters around that time liked the scheme as the premiums were very low with a decent payout. But most people I know who are entering the workforce now are making their own arrangements, having no faith that the scheme still exists by the time they get to retire.
Hard work has almost no correlation to success, I've found. The ability to convince people you work hard is more important than actually working hard.
My own experience is somewhat limited, mostly working in office environments and people having a degree, but I have largely found that most employees treat their work seriously, will put in the extra effort when needed, and are generally keen to do a decent job. Of course they will also goof off at times, take personal days, or sneak out early to run a personal errand. Here is where things start to be about appearances: most people do not really know what their colleagues are actually doing, but they can see them around the office, when they get in and when they leave. You get no points for actual hard work, or working faster or more accurate than anyone else. You get points for showing up early and leaving late, i.e. for keeping your seat warm. And if you work irregular hours, people will remember you coming in late and leaving early, and forget you working late or showing up before the crack of dawn.
This mostly affects your general reputation around the office, though. Your manager who has a say in your promotion (or in renewing your contract) should know what you are actually up to, and often they do. If you consistently deliver good work on time, i.e. work hard, it does pay off. Just don't forget to demand (not ask, demand) that work to be recognized when you deserve it. Success comes from being good at negotiation your next job... being known as a hard and competent worker doesn't hurt your position in that negotiation, but it's only a small part of the equation.
There have been a few movies where 3D actually added a lot to the experience. A hell of a lot of immersion, mostly. But doing 3D at that level hasn't been cheap or easy. I suspect that VR will be like 3D, but amplified. Many directors will mess around with it for a bit, only a handful will get it right at great expense, but the result will be nothing short of amazing. And like 3D, those few successes will not be enough for mass adoption (and I don't mean people buying 3D TVs, I mean them actually watching 3D content).
However VR has an additional market: games. 3D adds little to games but VR is potentially (literally) a game changer in this area. And adding VR capability to a game is not hugely expensive like it would be for a movie. And with enough VR rigs in the hands of gaming consumers, movie producers may produce more content, as I expect viewers are willing to pay a premium for the experience.
Slashdot Mirror
Those are different kind of quakes, low in magnitude and certainly not deadly (we have them here as well). GP is right that drilling alone could not have caused a massive earthquake, but could very well have triggered one. The only thing changed by the drilling was the timing... Some think that by releasing the pent up energy early, the resulting quake is lower than the one that would have occurred later if it had been left alone, but it doesn't work as simple as that.
Ground resettling != Deadly earthquake. Since a few years we have our share of earthquakes, in a region with pretty much zero natural geological activity. These are minor: small amounts of energy released relatively close to the surface, resulting in small quakes of a magnitude between 2 and 3. But because these happen so close to the surface, they still do damage (in a small area). This is a simple case: pretty much everybody (including the oil companies) agrees that the quakes are caused by large scale gas production in the region since the 50s
When it comes to these deadly quakes, things are not so simple. The amounts of energy released are such that this cannot be explained merely by subsidence of the overburden. It is possible, as others have pointed out, that this subsidence has triggered a bigger quake... one that was already waiting to happen.
And less-than-basic taxes to pay for them. Don't get me wrong, I live in one of them countries and enjoy universal health care, but it's not all good. For one, our health care system suffers from many of the problems that the USA also has, for example having a small group of far too powerful insurers driving up prices. And our health care is expensive, while the premiums are affordable... or appear to be. According to some figures, our health care is one of the most expensive ones in the world (as % of GNP), but only 1.5% of that is paid for directly by patients, and few countries enjoy health care that cheap. But we pay a lot indirectly... in a pretty average middle class family where both mom and dad work, as much as 1/4 of their wages goes to health care indirectly, through income tax.
Oh and back to the topic at hand: Wallonia didn't "fold under pressure", the politician holdouts never had the intention of letting CETA tank; they simply saw this as an opportunity to wrangle out a couple of nice concessions for the region. Probably a few exemptions or some extra regional aid out of Brussels... and under the table, perhaps a few cushy jobs for the polticians themselves a few years down the line. It wouldn't be the first time such deals were made.
Could be even less. Our typical roof tiles last 40 years (mine are now at 75 years, and it's definitely time to replace), but solar panel output drops to a level where you need to replace them after 20 or so years. Longevity of the tiles isn't the issue, it's the dropping power output and the high cost of replacing the roof ever 20 years versus the cost of replacing the roof every 40 and separate panels every 20.
You don't have to connect all the tiles, you prefab them in 2x2, 3x3, 5x5 blocks, already interconnected. Or maybe in rows. So you only have to use single tiles at the edges or around windows.
Very well said, thank you.
I've met similar environmentalists who went as far as to say, in so many words: "We don't want solutions that don't force a reduction in greed". That was a while ago though, and thankfully that attitude has changed for the better with mainstream environmentalists. Nowadays, their line is that reduction of one type of pollution is good even if that kind of pollution turns out to be not much of a problem: reductions are often achieved by cleaner engines, improved efficiency and logistics, reduction of waste and so on, which means less overall pollution, and as a bonus, less dependancy on fossil fuels from craphole countries. There's money to be earned by being green.
I'd be very wary of anyone working on carbon credits though. It's a perfect vehicle for pushing ethics of certain people into the geopolitical arena, and part of it seems like a scam designed to line the pockets of Gore et al. But the good news is: emission levels in the developed world are dropping, we're now at 1990 levels in Europe, and the shift of manufacturing to the east only accounts for a small portion of that reduction. It is possible to achieve significant reductions without messing up our lifestyle too much (we can still be "greedy consumerist fucks" if we want to)
I doubt that's the real issue. The city of Amsterdam complained about tourists using AirBnB not paying their taxes, and simply made a deal with AirBnB. AirBnB now collects the taxes from tourists and pays the city.
The real problem cities have with AirBnB is that a lot of people, either landlords or tenants in subsidized or rent controlled housing, are effectively turning their homes into hotels, but without all the rules and regulations regarding fire safety, hygiene, registration and so on which real hotels do have to deal with.
Yes, I am in the same boat: I really prefer the size of my old 5S, but kind of had to upgrade for my app development work. Another thing: why on earth did they move the off button from to top of the phone to the side? When you pick up the phone you tend to squeeze it, often hitting that off button as a result.
That's just it: with the introduction of many previous models, Apple introduced some innovative or incremental improvement: better performance, Retina display, Siri, fingerprint scanner, high speed video recording, etc (even if some of those features could be enabled on older phones but weren't because Apple were being dicks about it). Those features must have convinced many people to upgrade early. But the last models didn't bring anything significantly new, except bigger screens for those who want that. If you are still hanging on to, say, a 5S, why would you upgrade to a 7?
What would it actually cost to produce a MacBook in the USA? My guess is that it'll be more expensive, but not by a factor 4. And in case of iPhones, which are sold at 3x the cost of manufacturing, I bet they could sell them at only a slightly higher price if they *gasp* would accept a lower markup.
Even so, I still expect people to go for the slave labour Macbook at $1699 instead of the $1899 "proudly manufactured in the USA" model, when given a choice. Especially when no one is looking.
Does that mean there is no legitimate (lawful) purpose of drones with cameras in Sweden?
The reaction to people mounting a camera to a lamp post and leaving it there is to ban doing that, take those cameras down, and fine the owners if you can find them. Not to ban cameras.
Drones with cameras have many legitimate purposes that do not violate the privacy of anyone. The first reaction should be to ban unacceptable use of such drones, not to ban the drones themselves. Only if there is widespread abuse and no practical way to prevent it and/or punish the owners should you consider banning them outright or only allow operation under a license. The reaction to drones flying into the path of other aircraft was not to ban them, but to get drone manufacturers around the table to discuss ways to keep drones out of no fly zones.
That's how the police think at least... they will take maximum advantage either by following the letter of the law (forcing people to unlock phones with a fingerprint is not self-incrimination), or by interpreting the spirit of the law (two drones filming each other violating the law does not make their actions lawful)
IT writers, popular press and especially Holywood have been getting the definition of "hacker" wrong for over 25 years.
It's a lost battle. The word "hacker" has pretty much been redefined to mean someone who breaks into computers. That's how language works.
"Show a tit, it's an X. Hack if off with a sword: PG13". Nicholson, IIRC.
If someone offered me 24 billion for anything, even my hypothetical super-successful company that I built with my own blood, sweat, tears and sacrifice of a firstborn son, I would take it in a heartbeat. Same puzzlement over the Snapchat guys declining what I think was an overly generous offer for that company. Then again, I've never built such a company so I have no idea of what it means to give up control of it. Still... With 24 billion in your pocket you can pretty much do what you want, start your own new company, hell, start a space agency even...
That's unfair: sideshows are way more fun, even the seedy ones. This is more like monkeys at the zoo, flinging poo at each other. Even the campaigners' lingo fits the analogy: "find some dirt", "can we make it stick", etc.
I'm just glad my country hasn't sunk to this level.
Yes, it is, didn't you get the memo? Forbidden... well, only if you're running for office, for the time being.
Sarcasm aside, it does seem that these days a presidential candidate can't be someone who openly likes the ladies, or admits to that in a private conversation, or did inhale during his college days, or had alcohol before he turned 21, or is an atheïst, or did something dumb when he was young, or had premarital sex, or a DUI, or used the N word at a drunken blowout, or or or. Well, maybe you can find a candidate with a spotless record, who will remain standing under the closest scrutiny, no skeletons in the closet. Would such a person make a good president? Hell, the idea of someone like that telling the rest of us what to do scares me more than a little...
it's only when its market value is at or below the value of its assets and expected revenues that it suddenly becomes something everyone could be interested in buying out
That is only true if you buy the company as a simple monetary investment: buy, break it up, draw divident, or sell it when you find someone willing to pay its actual value. But if you are buying because the company fits well with whatever your own business is, then its value may be a lot more than the value of its assets on the open market. For instance, the company's patent on rounded corners may be worth squat to anyone... except to the company who can use it to lock out a competitor (or prevent from being locked out themselves). And that's actually where the GPs argument falls flat: buyers who are not interested in Twitter's ability to sell ads but in other things (patents, talent, research, user data, or the users themselves) are not likely to care overly much about reduced ad revenue or a damaged brand name, and will be happy to see the share price plummet.
they see STEM as the future, the best way out of poverty and for modernising their country. OTOH, look at the erosion of science courses in many western countries
Just look at the people studying science at those western universities. These days, a fair number of them are from Asia or the Middle East. And maybe it's a cultural thing, science isn't just unpopular here or perceived as "too hard", it's actually looked down on a little. I can remember when being an engineer in any field got you social status, and putting that title next to your name meant something. These days? Just listen to every single movie dad talking to their disappointing child: "you could have been a doctor or a lawyer".
Or correctly pronounce the name of each station in the London Underground's system.
Any simulator will greatly benefit from VR (flight, space, driving). RPGs and adventure games as well. So will shooters (also the sandbox variety, like Call of Duty or Battlefield). Pretty much any game that presents a first-person view of the world.
That's largely due to circumstances (economics and demographics) rather than one generation being "better" than the other; I hope you are joking about the millenials being more selfless. There's little doubt that the boomers have been more fortunate than any other generation in history, but there's no point (and little fairness) blaming the current state of affairs on them, same way that it's pointless to blame the circumstances in which the boomers got to "rape the planet" on the preceding generation.
They are not completely blameless though. For instance, our nation pays a small pension to anyone who has lived in the country for a certain (long) amount of time, regardless of work history or even nationality, and these pensions are paid from current contributions taken through taxes. It was known from the start that demographics would put a lot of pressure on the system, and in the 80s everybody knew that the system was more or less untenable. And yet the scheme was never changed... most voters around that time liked the scheme as the premiums were very low with a decent payout. But most people I know who are entering the workforce now are making their own arrangements, having no faith that the scheme still exists by the time they get to retire.
Hard work has almost no correlation to success, I've found. The ability to convince people you work hard is more important than actually working hard.
My own experience is somewhat limited, mostly working in office environments and people having a degree, but I have largely found that most employees treat their work seriously, will put in the extra effort when needed, and are generally keen to do a decent job. Of course they will also goof off at times, take personal days, or sneak out early to run a personal errand. Here is where things start to be about appearances: most people do not really know what their colleagues are actually doing, but they can see them around the office, when they get in and when they leave. You get no points for actual hard work, or working faster or more accurate than anyone else. You get points for showing up early and leaving late, i.e. for keeping your seat warm. And if you work irregular hours, people will remember you coming in late and leaving early, and forget you working late or showing up before the crack of dawn.
This mostly affects your general reputation around the office, though. Your manager who has a say in your promotion (or in renewing your contract) should know what you are actually up to, and often they do. If you consistently deliver good work on time, i.e. work hard, it does pay off. Just don't forget to demand (not ask, demand) that work to be recognized when you deserve it. Success comes from being good at negotiation your next job... being known as a hard and competent worker doesn't hurt your position in that negotiation, but it's only a small part of the equation.
There have been a few movies where 3D actually added a lot to the experience. A hell of a lot of immersion, mostly. But doing 3D at that level hasn't been cheap or easy. I suspect that VR will be like 3D, but amplified. Many directors will mess around with it for a bit, only a handful will get it right at great expense, but the result will be nothing short of amazing. And like 3D, those few successes will not be enough for mass adoption (and I don't mean people buying 3D TVs, I mean them actually watching 3D content).
However VR has an additional market: games. 3D adds little to games but VR is potentially (literally) a game changer in this area. And adding VR capability to a game is not hugely expensive like it would be for a movie. And with enough VR rigs in the hands of gaming consumers, movie producers may produce more content, as I expect viewers are willing to pay a premium for the experience.