But, having said that, 100+ IQ AI is a fantasy, there does not appear to be anyone on this planet who is anywhere close to knowing how to create that along with self-awareness.
Why is that a problem? We'll just get the computer to do that for us!
Seriously, if climate change really does affecting trillions of dollars in Big Oil revenue, then where's the vast tsunami of propaganda against climate change? It's all the other way with politicians and businesses (including oil companies!) going out of their way to brag about how green they are.
My take is that the restrictions from things like carbon caps and taxes are more than countered by a reduction in the supply of oil and in the restrictions on operation of developed world refineries. That's why in a supposedly hostile world, oil companies are seeing record revenue and profits.
I see a bunch on that list. Start with all those oil and gas companies first. They profit in two ways. The more important way is by reduction in competition from "green" countries hamstringing competitors based in those countries( I think this has resulted in record profits over the past decade for these oil companies). Second, by directly profiting from subsidies and other government-funded opportunities in renewables. The Chinese based companies also are involved in rare earth mining, which has the renewable power fad as a sink for subsidized mining.
Numerous automobile manufacturers can use climate-based alarmism to speed up the life cycle of their products and subsidize "green" variants.
Several of the financial services and "conglomerate" companies probably profit from a variety of angles (the carbon emissions cap markets, financing loans backed by government loan guarantees, climate-based insurance, etc).
With a bunch of residential solar panels feeding electricity back into the grid during the day when people are not home, the providers can afford to supply electricity at night when they were giving it away for free before.
Who's paying to store this power for supply at night? And without an increase in demand (say from a hoard of electric cars recharging), you just made the oversupply problem even worse.
Utilities such as these should be there to serve the people. They should only worry about covering costs, not making a profit.
They aren't trying to predict a very chaotic system, like the weather, ten years out. Energy production is a pretty staid field and I think it is possible to make predictions and build up likely scenarios.
For example, people aren't going to magically stop driving cars or plugging stuff into wall outlets (unless, of course, you're in some sort of near future apocalyptic scenario) over ten years. And without massive government-level interference, demand and demand trends aren't likely to change that much over the span of ten years. Meanwhile on the supply side, you have decision processes that take years to decades to implement. This is exactly the sort of slowly changing system where making predictions can work.
I can't picture what you think the traffic flow is like. My understanding is that there's a lot of iron ore shipments going both ways (some mining occurs in both the Mississippi River basin and the Great Lakes, similarly, there's steelworks in both the Mid-Atlantic states and southern Alabama. Further, ships need to return so there would always be two-way traffic going through the Chicago canal.
It's also possible that Native Americans were responsible for some of this. It can't be that hard to move fish eggs from one pond to another.
Further, there is at least one example of non-human spread of fish species. The cut throat trout of Yellowstone Lake in Yellowstone National Park came originally from the Snake River watershed, but the lake currently drains into the Missouri River.
At one time during the last glacial period, the Yellowstone Lake was dammed by a glacier and drained into the Snake River instead (its current level is about 150-200 feet shy in elevation of the Continental Divide which separates the two drainage basins. That gave the cut throat trout the opportunity to reach the lake. They aren't throughout the Missouri/Mississippi basin because there are two large waterfalls between the lake and the rest of the system. The higher waterfall is over 400 feet in height.
But I often wonder what was in these waters before we crashed and rebooted the fish populations.
Probably not much of anything. These lakes are probably all less than 14,000 years old and due to glacial activity.
And if he's not even remotely interested in that sort of pointless and phony redemption, he could do other, more constructive things with that money. After all, he'll still be guilty of thoughtcrime while white.
creep
What has he actually done that makes him more of a "creep" than you? He's certainly no more bigoted.
There is only one "Best" spectrum for a given problem.
I can't tell, if you're serious or not. But almost nothing actually runs at the "best" choice due to all the frequency conflicts (there's no global frequency allotment standard, for example, for most would-be applications).
Giving a private party ownership in perpetuity of a natural monopoly breaks capitalism.
How? No "natural monopoly" is an actual monopoly. There's always other ways to provide the service. Here, competitors can offer services on different spectrum or via other means.
The government shouldn't be selling it. It should be leasing it.
It is leasing it. Price is determined via auction. It's very straightforward.
You seem to be confused by "existing" - obviously the existing regulations haven't worked.
One could make the same claim of driving or speech. There are bad actors, hence, the activity isn't regulated well enough and should be banned as a result.
Then work 40 hours. Of course, it's not as simple as you put it, since you then aren't meeting the expectations of the employer who isn't paying you to work a certain number of hours, but rather to do a job.
The difference here is that common safe work environments mean less harm to employees and saved lives. Shorter work weeks means more jobs required to make ends meet (assuming one is still employable). It just makes life suck more for a lot of hard working people.
Slashdot Mirror
There's still the matter of whether it occurs during anyone's lifetime. Pretending such things are inevitable doesn't make them so.
if you notice the temperature increasing in response to adding fuel... ...and you keep adding fuel...
This sort of observation is important only if preventing temperature increase is your only goal. That simply is not true for the human race.
And once again, you still have to demonstrate that we are close to a so-called "boil" in order for your concerns to matter.
But, having said that, 100+ IQ AI is a fantasy, there does not appear to be anyone on this planet who is anywhere close to knowing how to create that along with self-awareness.
Why is that a problem? We'll just get the computer to do that for us!
Seriously, if climate change really does affecting trillions of dollars in Big Oil revenue, then where's the vast tsunami of propaganda against climate change? It's all the other way with politicians and businesses (including oil companies!) going out of their way to brag about how green they are.
My take is that the restrictions from things like carbon caps and taxes are more than countered by a reduction in the supply of oil and in the restrictions on operation of developed world refineries. That's why in a supposedly hostile world, oil companies are seeing record revenue and profits.
Unless, of course, you don't know if you're adding enough fuel to bring the water to a boil under its current circumstances.
I see a bunch on that list. Start with all those oil and gas companies first. They profit in two ways. The more important way is by reduction in competition from "green" countries hamstringing competitors based in those countries( I think this has resulted in record profits over the past decade for these oil companies). Second, by directly profiting from subsidies and other government-funded opportunities in renewables. The Chinese based companies also are involved in rare earth mining, which has the renewable power fad as a sink for subsidized mining.
Numerous automobile manufacturers can use climate-based alarmism to speed up the life cycle of their products and subsidize "green" variants.
Several of the financial services and "conglomerate" companies probably profit from a variety of angles (the carbon emissions cap markets, financing loans backed by government loan guarantees, climate-based insurance, etc).
Low wages don't mean low cost of employment. People tend to forget that the developed world punishes employment.
Utilities could get in to the solar game themselves
They can always get into the solar game later when it makes economic sense to do so. Or a government could pay them a few billion dollars to dabble.
With a bunch of residential solar panels feeding electricity back into the grid during the day when people are not home, the providers can afford to supply electricity at night when they were giving it away for free before.
Who's paying to store this power for supply at night? And without an increase in demand (say from a hoard of electric cars recharging), you just made the oversupply problem even worse.
Utilities such as these should be there to serve the people. They should only worry about covering costs, not making a profit.
They aren't trying to predict a very chaotic system, like the weather, ten years out. Energy production is a pretty staid field and I think it is possible to make predictions and build up likely scenarios.
For example, people aren't going to magically stop driving cars or plugging stuff into wall outlets (unless, of course, you're in some sort of near future apocalyptic scenario) over ten years. And without massive government-level interference, demand and demand trends aren't likely to change that much over the span of ten years. Meanwhile on the supply side, you have decision processes that take years to decades to implement. This is exactly the sort of slowly changing system where making predictions can work.
Utilities such as these should be there to serve the people. They should only worry about covering costs, not making a profit.
A profitable utility is a utility which is covering its costs.
Most of the debate comes from industries who stand to loose from climate based taxes.
Or from the various powerful special interests that stand to gain from climate-based spending and taxes.
Sentences assert things.
Except when they don't. A sentence that asserts something is an assertion. A sentence that doesn't, isn't an assertion.
Just because *some* or even *most* profit is reasonable, doesn't mean all profit is reasonable.
I really hate all those imaginary people who make that argument. Grrrrr.
The issue isn't *that* we dislike them. It's *why* we dislike them that makes them profiteers.
Sure.
I can't picture what you think the traffic flow is like. My understanding is that there's a lot of iron ore shipments going both ways (some mining occurs in both the Mississippi River basin and the Great Lakes, similarly, there's steelworks in both the Mid-Atlantic states and southern Alabama. Further, ships need to return so there would always be two-way traffic going through the Chicago canal.
Further, there is at least one example of non-human spread of fish species. The cut throat trout of Yellowstone Lake in Yellowstone National Park came originally from the Snake River watershed, but the lake currently drains into the Missouri River.
At one time during the last glacial period, the Yellowstone Lake was dammed by a glacier and drained into the Snake River instead (its current level is about 150-200 feet shy in elevation of the Continental Divide which separates the two drainage basins. That gave the cut throat trout the opportunity to reach the lake. They aren't throughout the Missouri/Mississippi basin because there are two large waterfalls between the lake and the rest of the system. The higher waterfall is over 400 feet in height.
But I often wonder what was in these waters before we crashed and rebooted the fish populations.
Probably not much of anything. These lakes are probably all less than 14,000 years old and due to glacial activity.
He used Franklin's data, obtained via underhanded means, without her permission, and then smeared her in his book
(It's fairly likely she would have shared the Nobel, but it is not granted posthumously.)
Forgot about that. Still think you could find a better ax to grind.
creep
What has he actually done that makes him more of a "creep" than you? He's certainly no more bigoted.
There is only one "Best" spectrum for a given problem.
I can't tell, if you're serious or not. But almost nothing actually runs at the "best" choice due to all the frequency conflicts (there's no global frequency allotment standard, for example, for most would-be applications).
Giving a private party ownership in perpetuity of a natural monopoly breaks capitalism.
How? No "natural monopoly" is an actual monopoly. There's always other ways to provide the service. Here, competitors can offer services on different spectrum or via other means.
The government shouldn't be selling it. It should be leasing it.
It is leasing it. Price is determined via auction. It's very straightforward.
You seem to be confused by "existing" - obviously the existing regulations haven't worked.
One could make the same claim of driving or speech. There are bad actors, hence, the activity isn't regulated well enough and should be banned as a result.
So why is the proposed fix, a banning of fracking rather than enforcement of existing regulation?
Then work 40 hours. Of course, it's not as simple as you put it, since you then aren't meeting the expectations of the employer who isn't paying you to work a certain number of hours, but rather to do a job.
Seriously, family is much more important.
Unless, of course, it's not. Assertions are always true, except when they aren't.
The difference here is that common safe work environments mean less harm to employees and saved lives. Shorter work weeks means more jobs required to make ends meet (assuming one is still employable). It just makes life suck more for a lot of hard working people.