Irrelevant, offtopic. No one cares what idiots have said. That's completely orthogonal to the topic at hand.
If no one cares what idiots have to say, then why is this discussion even happening? If the Ada Initiative's handling of this was idiotic, and misusing rape issues, wouldn't that mean no one should care about what they are saying then?
They did more than just say idiotic stuff. They suppressed someone's speech because of that idiocy. That's actually harmful.
That was supposed to be an example that people could relate to a little more than maybe rape issues. The problem of taking what idiots say about a serious issue as to mean the issue is not so serious in general seems completely relevant and on-topic based on some of the replies this story has gotten so far.
It wasn't a good example. We don't care what idiots say on the internet because it doesn't affect us. The "rape trigger" people could someday be trying to censor our speech, not just weird people in San Francisco. They crossed the line from idiocy to harm.
Well, there are other studies that have concluded amazing things based on bullshit. So that's a bit more than NOTHING. Personally, I'm interested in how the study can claim labor has a temperature sensitivity of around 10% decline per degree C. That's huge. If it were true, then any sort of energy conservation via raising the thermostat in hot weather, would be greatly counterproductive.
Is it time for major companies like this, who offer arguably utility-like services for free in exchange for info, to start giving customers a choice about how to 'pay' for their service?
What about "utility" service allows one a choice in billing method? My impression is that "utility" here merely means some sort of public infrastructure or service. My experience with such hasn't yielded any that have such billing flexibility as the submitter of this particular article want.
In other words, voting is inherently broken. Either you vote in a verifiable way for whoever the powers that be want you to vote for, or you do so in an unverifiable way without your knowledge or consent.
Not much will be gained to dwell on why he has this need to be right (or make you wrong).
This isn't some religious right and wrong. This is logic. AK Marc has claimed that NASCAR racing isn't a "sport" because you can't do it on an amateur basis. You have to drop millions to race, while with say football (of either the international or US variants), you just need a ball, a field, and some players.
He then goes on to say that people who actually race cars on an amateur basis agree with him. Think about that. He says there isn't amateur racing (using that as his basis for the claim that NASCAR isn't a sport) and then turns around and says there is. WTF? This is his argument, not mine.
And when one goes by an actual, official definition of sports rather than some unrecognized, homebrew definition, it turns out that since racing is a contest of physical skill one needs not deliberate further. It's a sport by definition.
And I wouldn't call khallow a conservative. Real conservatives wouldn't care what other people are like (right, wrong, religious, atheist, gay, straight, etc). Real conservatives have no problem with different people as long the conservatives themselves (and their way of life) are left alone*
I just wish True Scotsmen would do the same.
Also, I'm curious what you think the point of a discussion forum like Slashdot is for. Is it just a place to dump opinions? Say in our thread, an essay-based poll for whether NASCAR is a sport or not? I had the impression that since there was a "Reply to This" button, one could interact with other users, say if someone posted something you happened to disagree with. Even possibly one could use it to persuade or illuminate.
As I see it, this is an opportunity for AK Marc to be educated and think better. It's not about NASCAR. It's not about conservatism. It's about thinking. Why should I hold back when I can help make him a better person?
Are you actually suggesting that hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") has no external costs?
Fracking hasn't had notable costs in the past before it got called fracking. What makes it different now?
AGW still is hypothetical [...]
I can see this is going to be an intellectual debate...
You should have thought about that before you just start asserting things without evidence. I should have said that the cost of AGW is hypothetical. It does appear that AGW is happening, but the claims made for it just don't appear to be that costly.
Modest rises in sea levels and temperature over the span of many decades and centuries just don't cost that much.
[...] and less severe with natural gas.
Less severe than what? Sure, natural gas releases slightly less CO2 than, say, burning coal, but remember, the comparison was to wind, here.
Ever hear the quote that wind power is a "natural gas play"? Wind power is an intermittent source. There isn't much demand that can use that sort of thing straight up. So you have three choices, roughly. You can store that wind power with storage of electricity being a rather expensive thing to do.
You can level that wind power, which currently is the most common approach. That means you have some sort of varying load generator which you can use to offset the variations in your wind power generation. In the US, it's common to use natural gas for that, hence, calling it a "natural gas play".
The outcome is that you have a baseload source which is somewhat cheaper after subsidy (and with somewhat less carbon emissions for what that is worth) than straight natural gas, but which requires considerable natural gas generation in order to integrate successfully into the power grid.
In Europe, the considerable hydroelectric power in Scandinavia could be used to level (and to a degree store) a lot of wind power so they might be better positioned here for wind power.
The third option is to find more demand that can directly use wind power as it becomes available such as hydrogen generation via electrolysis or charging electric car batteries or capacitors.
You have a bunch of unexamined assumptions here.
Are you actually suggesting that no one has studied global warming before?
From what you've written, I'd have to say that you aren't one of them. It's worth noting here that AGW predictions have tended to error on the extreme side for the last couple of decades. And even now, there is huge error in fundamental concepts such as the sensitivity of mean global temperature to a doubling of CO2 content.
So even though you have personal experience and the numerous arguments on this thread, including your own, against your claim, you still choose to be wrong? Be your guest.
America is fat. Clearly Freedom(TM) and the Free Market are not working. What is your solution?
Let America be fat and worry about stuff that are in the purview of a city government, such as the quality of police, fire fighting, and trash collecting services.
Smoking tobacco dumb-ass, not smoking in general. There are actually two issues. First you have second hand smoke which harms other people, especially kids. For freedom to pollute ends at my nostrils. The other issue is that there is clearly a difference between a substance that makes you mellow and one that gives you cancer.
The first issue can be addressed by making smoking areas optional. That's been long addressed. The second issue can be addressed by realizing that there isn't a difference between a marijuana cigarette and a marijuana cigarette that gives you cancer.
Are you really that naive to think that nukes are the modern-day end-all-be-all of weapons? Superpowers have weapons much more powerful than nukes. Superpowers can disable nukes before they leave enemy air space.
Naivety doesn't enter in at all. Superpowers don't have weapons more powerful than nukes. And superpowers don't have weapons that can disable launched nukes before they leave enemy air space.
No, I don't have a citation. Otherwise you'd know that nukes are play toys these days and Iran is way late to the party. They may know that and are just manipulating.
You don't have a citation because it didn't happen.
That means "hacking" and "cybersecurity" will be part of the military system - not only weapon systems. Similiar to how "decryption" was important during WWII.
But with the potential to be even more decisive than "decryption" was in the Second World War.
Christians do not have that kind of bond with each other and therefor don't understand why the Muslims go crazy when someone disses Mohammed or makes a YouTube video calling Islam a religion of terrorists.
I wouldn't mistaken apathy for ignorance. Not caring is not the same as not understanding.
There's a big problem with robots as they currently exist. Namely, that one can reprogram them. Wouldn't it, for example, be a big irony, if North Korea took over South Korea, using South Korea's own military robots? I bet that sort of thing will cut into the effectiveness of robots.
Last year in an IAEA report they said that iran doesn't refine its uranium to weapon's grade but to a metallic form that can be used in reactors but can not be refined further.
No such form exists. You can always react it with fluorine, do the centrifuge thing, and thereby increase the concentration of uranium 235. And since it is a higher grade than what Iran started with, it requires less energy to close the gap to weapon grade.
It seems that the IAEA has in all their reports strong indications that the nuclear program is peaceful.
No it doesn't. The statement you quote "no evidence of diversion of material and nuclear activities towards military purposes," just means that Iran currently isn't diverting that material to military purposes. That will come later when they have enough material and otherwise working fission bombs to use that material.
You don't admit you have nukes until you set one off openly. That's how several of the other nuclear powers did it.
Even if you increase the pressure to 5 atm and 'freeze' it at -56C, are you going to store it at that pressure forever?
I could chose to. Or I could chose not to. Industrial processes like this usually return the materials to standard temperature and pressure. The point isn't to store carbon dioxide at this point, but to pass your exhaust gas through this state so that carbon dioxide freezes out selectively, resulting in a mechanism that separates out carbon dioxide at cheap cost from the rest of the gases.
I didn't miss a sign
Again, you missed a sign. The actual energy cost of the process comes from the reduction of entropy associated with separating carbon dioxide from the other gases in your exhaust. All other energy changes are temporary and mostly recoverable. For example, the energy obtained from freezing carbon dioxide out of the exhaust stream can be put back in to vaporize the carbon dioxide.
It's worth noting that darts and bowling would count as sports on the basis of being contests of physical skill.
Of course, "physical exertion" doesn't really mean anything.
Well, it doesn't unless you use that same source to figure out the meaning of words. For "exertion" we have "physical or mental effort" and "effort" in turn means "a vigorous or determined attempt". So what's physically "vigorous or determined" about throwing cards or little plastic pieces on a table?
Slashdot Mirror
Irrelevant, offtopic. No one cares what idiots have said. That's completely orthogonal to the topic at hand.
If no one cares what idiots have to say, then why is this discussion even happening? If the Ada Initiative's handling of this was idiotic, and misusing rape issues, wouldn't that mean no one should care about what they are saying then?
They did more than just say idiotic stuff. They suppressed someone's speech because of that idiocy. That's actually harmful.
That was supposed to be an example that people could relate to a little more than maybe rape issues. The problem of taking what idiots say about a serious issue as to mean the issue is not so serious in general seems completely relevant and on-topic based on some of the replies this story has gotten so far.
It wasn't a good example. We don't care what idiots say on the internet because it doesn't affect us. The "rape trigger" people could someday be trying to censor our speech, not just weird people in San Francisco. They crossed the line from idiocy to harm.
Subject shows resistance. What does Alpha say?
Well, there are other studies that have concluded amazing things based on bullshit. So that's a bit more than NOTHING. Personally, I'm interested in how the study can claim labor has a temperature sensitivity of around 10% decline per degree C. That's huge. If it were true, then any sort of energy conservation via raising the thermostat in hot weather, would be greatly counterproductive.
Is it time for major companies like this, who offer arguably utility-like services for free in exchange for info, to start giving customers a choice about how to 'pay' for their service?
What about "utility" service allows one a choice in billing method? My impression is that "utility" here merely means some sort of public infrastructure or service. My experience with such hasn't yielded any that have such billing flexibility as the submitter of this particular article want.
In other words, voting is inherently broken. Either you vote in a verifiable way for whoever the powers that be want you to vote for, or you do so in an unverifiable way without your knowledge or consent.
Not much will be gained to dwell on why he has this need to be right (or make you wrong).
This isn't some religious right and wrong. This is logic. AK Marc has claimed that NASCAR racing isn't a "sport" because you can't do it on an amateur basis. You have to drop millions to race, while with say football (of either the international or US variants), you just need a ball, a field, and some players.
He then goes on to say that people who actually race cars on an amateur basis agree with him. Think about that. He says there isn't amateur racing (using that as his basis for the claim that NASCAR isn't a sport) and then turns around and says there is. WTF? This is his argument, not mine.
And when one goes by an actual, official definition of sports rather than some unrecognized, homebrew definition, it turns out that since racing is a contest of physical skill one needs not deliberate further. It's a sport by definition.
And I wouldn't call khallow a conservative. Real conservatives wouldn't care what other people are like (right, wrong, religious, atheist, gay, straight, etc). Real conservatives have no problem with different people as long the conservatives themselves (and their way of life) are left alone*
I just wish True Scotsmen would do the same.
Also, I'm curious what you think the point of a discussion forum like Slashdot is for. Is it just a place to dump opinions? Say in our thread, an essay-based poll for whether NASCAR is a sport or not? I had the impression that since there was a "Reply to This" button, one could interact with other users, say if someone posted something you happened to disagree with. Even possibly one could use it to persuade or illuminate.
As I see it, this is an opportunity for AK Marc to be educated and think better. It's not about NASCAR. It's not about conservatism. It's about thinking. Why should I hold back when I can help make him a better person?
Are you actually suggesting that hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") has no external costs?
Fracking hasn't had notable costs in the past before it got called fracking. What makes it different now?
AGW still is hypothetical [...]
I can see this is going to be an intellectual debate...
You should have thought about that before you just start asserting things without evidence. I should have said that the cost of AGW is hypothetical. It does appear that AGW is happening, but the claims made for it just don't appear to be that costly.
Modest rises in sea levels and temperature over the span of many decades and centuries just don't cost that much.
[...] and less severe with natural gas.
Less severe than what? Sure, natural gas releases slightly less CO2 than, say, burning coal, but remember, the comparison was to wind, here.
Ever hear the quote that wind power is a "natural gas play"? Wind power is an intermittent source. There isn't much demand that can use that sort of thing straight up. So you have three choices, roughly. You can store that wind power with storage of electricity being a rather expensive thing to do.
You can level that wind power, which currently is the most common approach. That means you have some sort of varying load generator which you can use to offset the variations in your wind power generation. In the US, it's common to use natural gas for that, hence, calling it a "natural gas play".
The outcome is that you have a baseload source which is somewhat cheaper after subsidy (and with somewhat less carbon emissions for what that is worth) than straight natural gas, but which requires considerable natural gas generation in order to integrate successfully into the power grid.
In Europe, the considerable hydroelectric power in Scandinavia could be used to level (and to a degree store) a lot of wind power so they might be better positioned here for wind power.
The third option is to find more demand that can directly use wind power as it becomes available such as hydrogen generation via electrolysis or charging electric car batteries or capacitors.
You have a bunch of unexamined assumptions here.
Are you actually suggesting that no one has studied global warming before?
From what you've written, I'd have to say that you aren't one of them. It's worth noting here that AGW predictions have tended to error on the extreme side for the last couple of decades. And even now, there is huge error in fundamental concepts such as the sensitivity of mean global temperature to a doubling of CO2 content.
So even though you have personal experience and the numerous arguments on this thread, including your own, against your claim, you still choose to be wrong? Be your guest.
And by what means does that calculation include the external costs
What external costs? AGW still is hypothetical and less severe with natural gas. You have a bunch of unexamined assumptions here.
Tipping (or "gift-giving") is a degrading and corrupting practice. It implies that the receiver is temporarily whoring himself to the tipper.
Ok, what makes it "degrading and corrupting"?
America is fat. Clearly Freedom(TM) and the Free Market are not working. What is your solution?
Let America be fat and worry about stuff that are in the purview of a city government, such as the quality of police, fire fighting, and trash collecting services.
Smoking tobacco dumb-ass, not smoking in general. There are actually two issues. First you have second hand smoke which harms other people, especially kids. For freedom to pollute ends at my nostrils. The other issue is that there is clearly a difference between a substance that makes you mellow and one that gives you cancer.
The first issue can be addressed by making smoking areas optional. That's been long addressed. The second issue can be addressed by realizing that there isn't a difference between a marijuana cigarette and a marijuana cigarette that gives you cancer.
A Slashdotter whining about imaginary grammar issues. I can cross that off my bucket list - for the zillionth time.
Are you really that naive to think that nukes are the modern-day end-all-be-all of weapons? Superpowers have weapons much more powerful than nukes. Superpowers can disable nukes before they leave enemy air space.
Naivety doesn't enter in at all. Superpowers don't have weapons more powerful than nukes. And superpowers don't have weapons that can disable launched nukes before they leave enemy air space.
No, I don't have a citation. Otherwise you'd know that nukes are play toys these days and Iran is way late to the party. They may know that and are just manipulating.
You don't have a citation because it didn't happen.
That means "hacking" and "cybersecurity" will be part of the military system - not only weapon systems. Similiar to how "decryption" was important during WWII.
But with the potential to be even more decisive than "decryption" was in the Second World War.
The muslims didn't come by force or in any way invaded Palestine.
Didn't happen that way. The region fell to the Rashidun Caliphate at the Battle of Yarmouk, a decisive victory over the Byzantines.
Christians do not have that kind of bond with each other and therefor don't understand why the Muslims go crazy when someone disses Mohammed or makes a YouTube video calling Islam a religion of terrorists.
I wouldn't mistaken apathy for ignorance. Not caring is not the same as not understanding.
There's a big problem with robots as they currently exist. Namely, that one can reprogram them. Wouldn't it, for example, be a big irony, if North Korea took over South Korea, using South Korea's own military robots? I bet that sort of thing will cut into the effectiveness of robots.
Last year in an IAEA report they said that iran doesn't refine its uranium to weapon's grade but to a metallic form that can be used in reactors but can not be refined further.
No such form exists. You can always react it with fluorine, do the centrifuge thing, and thereby increase the concentration of uranium 235. And since it is a higher grade than what Iran started with, it requires less energy to close the gap to weapon grade.
It seems that the IAEA has in all their reports strong indications that the nuclear program is peaceful.
No it doesn't. The statement you quote "no evidence of diversion of material and nuclear activities towards military purposes," just means that Iran currently isn't diverting that material to military purposes. That will come later when they have enough material and otherwise working fission bombs to use that material.
You don't admit you have nukes until you set one off openly. That's how several of the other nuclear powers did it.
University of California at Davis.
Even if you increase the pressure to 5 atm and 'freeze' it at -56C, are you going to store it at that pressure forever?
I could chose to. Or I could chose not to. Industrial processes like this usually return the materials to standard temperature and pressure. The point isn't to store carbon dioxide at this point, but to pass your exhaust gas through this state so that carbon dioxide freezes out selectively, resulting in a mechanism that separates out carbon dioxide at cheap cost from the rest of the gases.
I didn't miss a sign
Again, you missed a sign. The actual energy cost of the process comes from the reduction of entropy associated with separating carbon dioxide from the other gases in your exhaust. All other energy changes are temporary and mostly recoverable. For example, the energy obtained from freezing carbon dioxide out of the exhaust stream can be put back in to vaporize the carbon dioxide.
"Thank you for clearing that up for me."
Just copy and paste that next time, you get into one of these threads. NASCAR fits the definition of "sport". You need not worry about it any more.
Substitute "bible" for "koran" and "gun" for "sword" and see what happens . . .
Not much. What was supposed to happen?
I take it you've never been to any turtle races. What a loon!
Of course, "physical exertion" doesn't really mean anything.
Well, it doesn't unless you use that same source to figure out the meaning of words. For "exertion" we have "physical or mental effort" and "effort" in turn means "a vigorous or determined attempt". So what's physically "vigorous or determined" about throwing cards or little plastic pieces on a table?
and there is no real analog, aside from some "amateur" organizations generally filled with people who laugh and don't consider Nascar a sport either.
There we go. We have "sport" by your contrived definition.