Insurance companies and the military think long term;-)
You'd think the right-wing pro military would think it was something important (ala the 'green fleet initiative'), but no they say it's political pressure on the military:)
Some would say we should already be heading into the next ice age. And yet we're overcoming that cooling trend with AGW.
It would be quite the irony if we ended up 'needing' the coal plants to keep us from freezing;-) Though it seems we aren't quite at the point just yet.
Bubbles are manufactured, the follow predictable patterns and allow profits on the upside and the downside.
Indeed they are, usually in the ABSENCE of rigorous regulation of the industry in question. More regulations mean less ability to fudge the numbers and create said bubble.
Of course too much regulation isn't good either, but as we saw in the financial meltdown, sometimes less is definitely not more.
What you don't get apparently is those 'regulations' are there for your protection. So that when an 'big event' happens you don't just have mom & pop insurance companies who go out of business and leave you hanging. The Gov't regulates insurance companies so they can pay out even beyond worse case scenarios.
It's why we SHOULD have had more regulation on wall street to cover the financial meltdown but didn't, so we got the meltdown. Regulation does increase prices - because we actually want them to be able to handle the worse case scenarios.
Again, a CRIMINAL didn't do this. Or Columbine, or just about any of the mass shootings. Criminals aren't using assault rifles.
How about when people are irresponsible, we let them take the fall instead of bailing them out? How about instead of coddling a murderer and spending millions caring for them and trying to "figure out why they did it", we instead just shoot them and spend the money helping the victims?
You call the constitution sacrosanct and then want to through jurisprudence out the window? JUST WOW
Or, shockingly enough, since no one is armed... they just use other weapons to do the same damn thing to their victims.
And you know what? A lot less people die because they use weapons that aren't as massively lethal as a 30 round clip.
Take Australia. Not a single mass shooting since they banned assault rifles in 1996. Homicides by gun went down 60% between 1996 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in deaths by other weapons.
academic examples aren't bad in and of themselves. They are specifically teaching you how to do 'X'.
In production you have to know how to apply X, Y, Z, B, E, and G. But you don't start by trying to learn all of them at once. You learn simplistic examples that hopefully teach you the theories and best concepts for 'X'.
Hmmm, I guess my assumption was this would be inside a building...with a roof;-)
So you're right it does go outside and up, but I'm still guessing the actual wind speeds aren't going to be anywhere an actual tornado and not likely to seriously effect the local climate. But probably worth of some study.
This tragedy was not committed by a CRIMINAL. Criminals don't generally use assault rifles, they use handguns. Rifles are really hard to conceal ya know?
There are 300 million guns in this country. As such it's pathetically easy to get your hands on them legally or criminally. If there were only 1 million guns in this country, the rate of violent crime from guns would drop precipitously.
Sandy Hook, Columbine and Tuscon were all done by people who weren't criminals. If the guns simply weren't in circulation, they wouldn't have had access to them to use.
So you remove them from the environment and hey, how do you shoot someone with a gun that doesn't exist?
Obviously they do exist now and banning them takes time to take effect, but isn't removing assault rifles from civilian hands a good idea?
Re: Bombs. # of bomb deaths vs # of gun deaths. The former isn't a serious problem. And hey, we regulated fertilizer after OKC...so you're ok to regulate guns now right?
"In theory there's no difference between theory and reality....in reality it's the other way around"
Seriously, real world code is by definition 'real world' and doesn't live by the theoretical pillars of design. It has to deal with actual deadlines, finite resources and of course office politics.
It's all self contained, it's not like its using 'real' thunderstorms out in the 'wild'. It won't effect the outside world at all realistically. And the winds generated won't be anywhere near actual tornado force as that would be an actual tornado with associated damage to the turbines.
Which is why I bought my stash of 10+ Win7 licenses a month or two ago. And why I'm upgrading my Mom's old computer to Win7 for Xmas...I am NOT supporting that crap.
Yes it does. It's the 'metro' interface which has exactly ONE app on screen at any one time (apparently random times too!).
When people say, it's a good app, I use the Desktop...they're saying that Win8 isn't good and Win7, which is what the Desktop basically is, is what they prefer to use.
Video's point stands. the WIN 8 interface SUCKS for PCs.
The potential damage from a failed nuclear plant is 10,000s of dead and 100,000s of extra cancer risk, plus 100s sq miles rendered uninhabitable for decades if not centuries.
NOTHING else we use for power has that type of potential destruction, for ONE PLANT.
Sure they are, provided we have a suitable energy storage technology. Which is what I actually said. The aren't the solution 'by themselves', but they are part of the only long term sustainable solution we currently have.
*Everything* costs associated with the infrastructure.
*Everything BUT renewable* has costs associated with fuel.
So nuclear is the same as everything but renewables.
Full lifecycle nuclear will have lower CO2 than coal or natural gas...unless processing the fuel is so massively expensive that we really shouldn't be using nuclear in the first place...
Indeed there's more energy in the sunlight that hits the earth in a 'hour' than the entire planet uses in an entire year. It's just a matter of collecting and storing it.
Atomic energy is absolutely the only viable method of generating power without carbon emissions that we have
I could write that the opposite way "Coal energy is absolutely the only viable method of generating power without nuclear waste that we have".
Nuclear waste is an 'emission' in every sense that CO2 is. Now nuclear is going to be a necessary part of our system for probably 50-100 years, meaning current reactor types. I'm not really up to speed on fusion reactors should we manage to get them actually working so maybe that works.
But the renewable sources path is the only currently viable one we have right now. Everything else has significant problems. The one single problem with renewables is energy storage. And there are lots of promising ways to do that that are much closer than fusion reactors.
Flight 93 shows that box cutters wouldn't have worked if people had known what was going to happen. We know now that the rules of hijackings are forever changed and you and I are going to fight them to the death.
9/11 took advantage of the rule that if you play nice you'll eventually be let go, but it won't happen twice. Unless you intend to sit idly by while someone hijacks your plane?
Slashdot Mirror
Insurance companies and the military think long term ;-)
:)
You'd think the right-wing pro military would think it was something important (ala the 'green fleet initiative'), but no they say it's political pressure on the military
Some would say we should already be heading into the next ice age. And yet we're overcoming that cooling trend with AGW.
;-) Though it seems we aren't quite at the point just yet.
It would be quite the irony if we ended up 'needing' the coal plants to keep us from freezing
Bubbles are manufactured, the follow predictable patterns and allow profits on the upside and the downside.
Indeed they are, usually in the ABSENCE of rigorous regulation of the industry in question. More regulations mean less ability to fudge the numbers and create said bubble.
Of course too much regulation isn't good either, but as we saw in the financial meltdown, sometimes less is definitely not more.
What you don't get apparently is those 'regulations' are there for your protection. So that when an 'big event' happens you don't just have mom & pop insurance companies who go out of business and leave you hanging. The Gov't regulates insurance companies so they can pay out even beyond worse case scenarios.
It's why we SHOULD have had more regulation on wall street to cover the financial meltdown but didn't, so we got the meltdown. Regulation does increase prices - because we actually want them to be able to handle the worse case scenarios.
How about when people are irresponsible, we let them take the fall instead of bailing them out? How about instead of coddling a murderer and spending millions caring for them and trying to "figure out why they did it", we instead just shoot them and spend the money helping the victims?
You call the constitution sacrosanct and then want to through jurisprudence out the window? JUST WOW
Or, shockingly enough, since no one is armed... they just use other weapons to do the same damn thing to their victims.
And you know what? A lot less people die because they use weapons that aren't as massively lethal as a 30 round clip.
Take Australia. Not a single mass shooting since they banned assault rifles in 1996. Homicides by gun went down 60% between 1996 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in deaths by other weapons.
Care to try again?
Care to name them? Because we're higher than all the rest of the industrialized countries...
academic examples aren't bad in and of themselves. They are specifically teaching you how to do 'X'.
In production you have to know how to apply X, Y, Z, B, E, and G. But you don't start by trying to learn all of them at once. You learn simplistic examples that hopefully teach you the theories and best concepts for 'X'.
his assertion (and rock solid design principle) is that your GUI should be CONSISTENT unless there's a compelling reason not to be.
What compelling reason is there for the Metro interface on a Desktop PC?
Hmmm, I guess my assumption was this would be inside a building...with a roof ;-)
So you're right it does go outside and up, but I'm still guessing the actual wind speeds aren't going to be anywhere an actual tornado and not likely to seriously effect the local climate. But probably worth of some study.
This tragedy was not committed by a CRIMINAL. Criminals don't generally use assault rifles, they use handguns. Rifles are really hard to conceal ya know?
There are 300 million guns in this country. As such it's pathetically easy to get your hands on them legally or criminally. If there were only 1 million guns in this country, the rate of violent crime from guns would drop precipitously.
Sandy Hook, Columbine and Tuscon were all done by people who weren't criminals. If the guns simply weren't in circulation, they wouldn't have had access to them to use.
So you remove them from the environment and hey, how do you shoot someone with a gun that doesn't exist?
Obviously they do exist now and banning them takes time to take effect, but isn't removing assault rifles from civilian hands a good idea?
Re: Bombs. # of bomb deaths vs # of gun deaths. The former isn't a serious problem. And hey, we regulated fertilizer after OKC...so you're ok to regulate guns now right?
"In theory there's no difference between theory and reality....in reality it's the other way around"
Seriously, real world code is by definition 'real world' and doesn't live by the theoretical pillars of design. It has to deal with actual deadlines, finite resources and of course office politics.
It's all self contained, it's not like its using 'real' thunderstorms out in the 'wild'. It won't effect the outside world at all realistically. And the winds generated won't be anywhere near actual tornado force as that would be an actual tornado with associated damage to the turbines.
Indeed, also see 'game changer' since if it pans out it is ridiculously lower than anything else available.
No but when I'm working on a native Japanese car, I can still see the damn steering wheel in the front...
Which is why I bought my stash of 10+ Win7 licenses a month or two ago. And why I'm upgrading my Mom's old computer to Win7 for Xmas...I am NOT supporting that crap.
Yes it does. It's the 'metro' interface which has exactly ONE app on screen at any one time (apparently random times too!).
When people say, it's a good app, I use the Desktop...they're saying that Win8 isn't good and Win7, which is what the Desktop basically is, is what they prefer to use.
Video's point stands. the WIN 8 interface SUCKS for PCs.
Wait, you're saying well Win8 is no different than Linux....for USER INTERFACES? ouchie
'in the US' you could also say 'so far'.
The potential damage from a failed nuclear plant is 10,000s of dead and 100,000s of extra cancer risk, plus 100s sq miles rendered uninhabitable for decades if not centuries.
NOTHING else we use for power has that type of potential destruction, for ONE PLANT.
renewables aren't suitable for baseload power
Sure they are, provided we have a suitable energy storage technology. Which is what I actually said. The aren't the solution 'by themselves', but they are part of the only long term sustainable solution we currently have.
*Everything* costs associated with the infrastructure.
*Everything BUT renewable* has costs associated with fuel.
So nuclear is the same as everything but renewables.
Full lifecycle nuclear will have lower CO2 than coal or natural gas...unless processing the fuel is so massively expensive that we really shouldn't be using nuclear in the first place...
Indeed there's more energy in the sunlight that hits the earth in a 'hour' than the entire planet uses in an entire year. It's just a matter of collecting and storing it.
Atomic energy is absolutely the only viable method of generating power without carbon emissions that we have
I could write that the opposite way "Coal energy is absolutely the only viable method of generating power without nuclear waste that we have".
Nuclear waste is an 'emission' in every sense that CO2 is. Now nuclear is going to be a necessary part of our system for probably 50-100 years, meaning current reactor types. I'm not really up to speed on fusion reactors should we manage to get them actually working so maybe that works.
But the renewable sources path is the only currently viable one we have right now. Everything else has significant problems. The one single problem with renewables is energy storage. And there are lots of promising ways to do that that are much closer than fusion reactors.
And no, box cutters didn't take down the towers.
Flight 93 shows that box cutters wouldn't have worked if people had known what was going to happen. We know now that the rules of hijackings are forever changed and you and I are going to fight them to the death.
9/11 took advantage of the rule that if you play nice you'll eventually be let go, but it won't happen twice. Unless you intend to sit idly by while someone hijacks your plane?
Because a gun is a world fucking different than a 'sharp pointy thing'?