Being stupid has never been a "death sentence", there are trillions of non-human organisms living alongside us
You do realize that 'stupid' isn't measured on an IQ scale right? Stupid could be defined as not fucking up your environment...in which case humans are the only truly 'stupid' inhabitants of this rock.
As for the organisms living along side us...upwards of 50% of all new births don't survive. And for humans that rate was much higher than today even just a 100 years ago. We aren't weeding out the chaff anymore.
You need to go back farther. Stupid people 400 years ago did not survive long enough. Moreover, if they did manage to breed, both they and their kids likely died well before said kids could breed.
We've made basic survival much much easier than it used to be (and I'm not saying that's a bad thing) so people with moronic views who were previously shunned and run out of town simply can today survive just fine and find a million like minded morons and start a news channel...
A fair point. But with necessity being the mother of invention, many people in such situations have lots of macgyvered solutions to variable mains power.
I did some research on this around Y2K timeframe. My company was throwing away pallets worth of computers that didn't handle the changeover properly. Perfectly functional and usable, but just didn't meet their requirements. I was amazed how many charities didn't want slightly older computers. They listed their minimum specs and
I don't know the reasons but what would realistically be a perfect computer for low income or otherwise disadvantaged people just isn't something even charities are willing to spend the resources to deal with.
A more extreme example would be Africa. There millions of people in Africa who live in modern cities who could use any of the US's castoff computers. But the costs of transporting them make it completely unfeasible to ship them for the worth/value.
So...temps ARE rising and we have a Greenhouse gas time bomb, methane, that is only stable if temps DON'T rise...and we have another carbon store, coal, that is stable at any natural habitable environment temperature.
And somehow you'd argue the methane is more stable?
Eh, depending on some variables maybe it isn't that bad.
1. Assuming that they'd burn coal if they didn't use the methane.
2. Assuming the energy released from burning the methane is similar to the energy released from burning coal (I don't know)
then burning something that is inherently unstable like the Methane Hydrates in the oceans is far better than burning the coal. The coal is a nice stable solid at every human habitable temperature. They Hydrates aren't. If the ocean warms too much, the hydrates will just bubble out and poof, LOTS more methane in the atmosphere that didn't provide us anything useful - and we have the CO2 released from burning the coal.
So the devil is in the details, and the best solution is burning neither methane nor coal, but if you have to pick, choose the one that isn't likely to spontaneously turn into another form thus making your situation much much worse.
Then explain the first bundle which didn't have the same hype?
And if it won't work for individual works...so what? Lots of business models don't work for individual works. It's why stores carry lots of different items...
It's funny, people give shit away for free and most people actually PAY them money in spite of it being freely available...from the same damn web page you pay.
There are new models out there for businesses to experiment with. Nobody's guaranteed payment for anything.
And the 'free' culture of the web is well entrenched because people understand that the 'copy' you're selling me is literally costing you nothing to create and, if you use modern distribution channels like bittorent, absolutely nothing to distribute it to me.
I will not block ads from Slashdot. Or any site I frequent. However, if you outsource your ads so they come from a 3rd party I didn't agree to do business with? Block City baby.
Host ads yourself and I'll deal with them. But using the lazy and easily blockable way of having someone else do it for you means I get to have just as much lazy and easy to use blocking software.
Lets compare the number of people who 1. own a bike 2. capable of riding it to work and 3. Would ride it to work to the number of people who have homes.
We're already out of sync with them for a few months a year now - since we changed it from the normal 6ish month cycle to 4 months winter and 8 months summer schedules. I don't think anybody else did that when we did.
When lighting was a major part of a house's energy draw, using less candles saved significant money. Likewise in the early days of electricity, it saved a significant portion of the electric bill, since lights were the main user of electricity.
Today though, the amount of electricity used in a home by lighting is a small fraction of the total energy used. So today, no it doesn't save us much.
Since 'most' people work 9-5, significant daylight time after 5pm is a pretty attractive concept. The farmer works outside, so as you say it doesn't matter when it's light to him.
To the working stiffs, it does because if it's dark in the morning and on the way to work it doesn't affect them, but multiple hours of light after work is very beneficial.
Slashdot Mirror
Being stupid has never been a "death sentence", there are trillions of non-human organisms living alongside us
You do realize that 'stupid' isn't measured on an IQ scale right? Stupid could be defined as not fucking up your environment...in which case humans are the only truly 'stupid' inhabitants of this rock.
As for the organisms living along side us...upwards of 50% of all new births don't survive. And for humans that rate was much higher than today even just a 100 years ago. We aren't weeding out the chaff anymore.
You need to go back farther. Stupid people 400 years ago did not survive long enough. Moreover, if they did manage to breed, both they and their kids likely died well before said kids could breed.
We've made basic survival much much easier than it used to be (and I'm not saying that's a bad thing) so people with moronic views who were previously shunned and run out of town simply can today survive just fine and find a million like minded morons and start a news channel...
x News is an artifact of people consuming more information faster than ever.
Yes but unlike almost all other sources of major media outlets, Fox News actively mis-informs it viewers/readers.
A fair point. But with necessity being the mother of invention, many people in such situations have lots of macgyvered solutions to variable mains power.
Then my point stands. If they're being destructed for scrap, they are 'landfill' and not useable.
Which is why I *only* mentioned the people living in the cities...
He probably didn't buy them new and so doesn't keep them as long?
I thought it was asia myself, but either way, they don't end up there in a usable state do they? i.e. it's landfill isn't it?
"...minimum specs and they just outright wouldn't take them."
I did some research on this around Y2K timeframe. My company was throwing away pallets worth of computers that didn't handle the changeover properly. Perfectly functional and usable, but just didn't meet their requirements. I was amazed how many charities didn't want slightly older computers. They listed their minimum specs and
I don't know the reasons but what would realistically be a perfect computer for low income or otherwise disadvantaged people just isn't something even charities are willing to spend the resources to deal with.
A more extreme example would be Africa. There millions of people in Africa who live in modern cities who could use any of the US's castoff computers. But the costs of transporting them make it completely unfeasible to ship them for the worth/value.
So...temps ARE rising and we have a Greenhouse gas time bomb, methane, that is only stable if temps DON'T rise...and we have another carbon store, coal, that is stable at any natural habitable environment temperature.
And somehow you'd argue the methane is more stable?
Since we're continuing to conduct business without much regard to Global Warming, I'd say it's pretty unstoppable.
Even if it isn't, I'd say that removing an unstable time bomb of methane hydrates is better than using a stable carbon store.
meh, choose the one that IS likely to...
Eh, depending on some variables maybe it isn't that bad.
1. Assuming that they'd burn coal if they didn't use the methane.
2. Assuming the energy released from burning the methane is similar to the energy released from burning coal (I don't know)
then burning something that is inherently unstable like the Methane Hydrates in the oceans is far better than burning the coal. The coal is a nice stable solid at every human habitable temperature. They Hydrates aren't. If the ocean warms too much, the hydrates will just bubble out and poof, LOTS more methane in the atmosphere that didn't provide us anything useful - and we have the CO2 released from burning the coal.
So the devil is in the details, and the best solution is burning neither methane nor coal, but if you have to pick, choose the one that isn't likely to spontaneously turn into another form thus making your situation much much worse.
So you have hate Flash but have it installed? Whether content or ads, the vulnerabilities you claim to abhor are still there...
Then explain the first bundle which didn't have the same hype?
And if it won't work for individual works...so what? Lots of business models don't work for individual works. It's why stores carry lots of different items...
Ever hear of the Humble Bundles?
It's funny, people give shit away for free and most people actually PAY them money in spite of it being freely available...from the same damn web page you pay.
There are new models out there for businesses to experiment with. Nobody's guaranteed payment for anything.
And the 'free' culture of the web is well entrenched because people understand that the 'copy' you're selling me is literally costing you nothing to create and, if you use modern distribution channels like bittorent, absolutely nothing to distribute it to me.
I will not block ads from Slashdot. Or any site I frequent. However, if you outsource your ads so they come from a 3rd party I didn't agree to do business with? Block City baby.
Host ads yourself and I'll deal with them. But using the lazy and easily blockable way of having someone else do it for you means I get to have just as much lazy and easy to use blocking software.
Lets compare the number of people who 1. own a bike 2. capable of riding it to work and 3. Would ride it to work to the number of people who have homes.
:)
You're an insignificant statistic
We're already out of sync with them for a few months a year now - since we changed it from the normal 6ish month cycle to 4 months winter and 8 months summer schedules. I don't think anybody else did that when we did.
Perhaps in you perfect world you rise and shine with the sun and don't do anything at night.
In the rest of world, also known as reality, people want to stay up past 6-9pm. Hence it saves money in the real world.
Heat is a good bit cheaper than AC...Heck everything in the house adds heat TO the house which is what you want in winter.
Summer? Not so much.
DST doesn't save anything
When lighting was a major part of a house's energy draw, using less candles saved significant money. Likewise in the early days of electricity, it saved a significant portion of the electric bill, since lights were the main user of electricity.
Today though, the amount of electricity used in a home by lighting is a small fraction of the total energy used. So today, no it doesn't save us much.
The farmer has the same amount of daylight to use regardless of what hour it is labelled...
Since 'most' people work 9-5, significant daylight time after 5pm is a pretty attractive concept. The farmer works outside, so as you say it doesn't matter when it's light to him.
To the working stiffs, it does because if it's dark in the morning and on the way to work it doesn't affect them, but multiple hours of light after work is very beneficial.