Even that argumentation is questionable. One has to remember that socialists are almost guaranteed to lose the presidential elections in a few years, and UMP/Republicans are effectively guaranteed to cancel this policy regardless.
It's their plan, and yes, it's questionable. French politics are such that the politics of going non-nuclear while at the same time supporting ITER and the LHC are incompatible (unless they also plan to pull out of ITER).
I'm now currently laughing a little at being modded down, since there were no nuclear closures announced as part of the plan; someone is bad at math:
100% = 75% + 25%; if the 75% is to turn into 50%, then 75% + 75% = 150%. So they plan to increase utilization 50%, if they do not plan plant closures, otherwise the amount provided by nuclear not changing doesn't work out.:^)
The big clues are right there in the summary. It's probably doable without a vast amount of effort since a lot of it will come down to insulation, ducting and awnings or similar window shading. There is already a subway in place so improvements there come down to better equipment instead of expensive tunnelling or land aquistion.
Awnings and shading will reduce cooling costs. Heating oil is not used for cooling, electricity is. They will increase heating oil consumption. Insulation will help in both directions, but it's largely not an option for existing buildings. You believe that the 80% of the legacy building can be refit to save the 40% of the energy costs? That's 65% of the legacy buildings you would need to effectively reconstruct. It's not going to happen.
The subway isn't an issue, except to say that, operating on electricity, it's just "carbon shifting" to move the greenhouse gas generation elsewhere than NYC, and then pretend that NYC has reduced its own greenhouse emissions as a result of increasing them in Camden, NJ. See my other post (below) on how "deck chair accounting" is just fudging the numbers.
What makes 40% or so possible is buildings constructed with no thought for energy consumption in some cases need only minor modifications to for a major reduction in use. We've seen that in other place with "no-brainers" such as painting a roof white making a major difference to AC use. It's not hard to use less if a lot is being thrown away.
What percentage of buildings in Manhattan are less than 10 years old? The new Trade Center doesn't count, since I doubt NYC is prepared to withstand that kind of "urban renewal" on a large scale.
It's a lot easier to be more efficient in higher density areas. A metro rail line for example can replace 100,000 cars, and anything electric can be offset by buying carbon credits. Not saying it will be easy, but it's good to see someone is trying.
Read the article, and then read the linked document I provided on the sourcing of greenhouse gasses in NYC: It's predominantly from buildings. Adding square footage by rebuilding up is going to increase this; even if you do a "green building" as you build higher, you're going to increase heating pressure on your neighbors as you block their sunlight.
Use of heating oil and boilers is the reason there are greenhouse gasses from buildings; a secondary sourcing of greenhouse gasses comes from summer cooling costs. If you look at the graphs (again, in the linked document), you'll see this called out a "CDD + HDD", which are the total number of days in which greenhouse expenditures must go up for combined cooling and heating, per year. These have been increasing since 2012, and we are climbing out of the 2012 CDD+HDD minima for the current sunspot cycle, so this will be unlikely to reverse trend before 2.5 years from now: expect larger pendulum swings, resulting in higher CDD+HDD until the 11 year cycle starts in the other direction.
Bottom line is: more people = more energy usage, and you aren't going to "green" or rebuild every skyscraper in Manhattan over night -- if at all -- without an insane amount of investment (as in: demolition and rebuilding, which for sky scrapers tends to be expensive).
You could potentially make a (small) dent in the proposed reduction numbers by getting rid of all gasoline vehicles, and replacing them with electric, or forcing people onto public transportation. However, this is already reaching its limits; rich people simply pay the penalty, rather than foregoing private transportation. This is probably great for the city coffers in terms of revenue, but does nothing for the environment, even if that's the excuse being used to enrich the city coffers. There is no shortage of rich people in Manhattan.
You could make a (much larger) dent in the proposed reduction numbers by moving from heating oil to electric, and from fossil fuels for cooling energy.
However...
This is deck-chair shifting, in the same way that you can select "green energy producers" on your power bill, pay a higher cost, and thus force other energy consumers to be "less green". Further, the carbon debt under grid loading is a green energy swap; that is, the energy you use will be from a fossil fuel plant when the grid is loaded, and then you will "pay it back" by accounting those kWh as "borrowed", and then later "pay them back" by accounting other people's green energy use as your own (and theirs as fossil fuel usage that you "borrowed" from them).
Likewise, moving to electric -- and the electrics used in the subway system and other public transportation -- is what's called "carbon shifting". You move the generation of the electricity to elsewhere on the grid, and so the greenhouse gas generation has been NIMBY'ed away into someone else's jurisdiction, making you definitionally "greener".
Short of moving away from fossil fuels, while simultaneously keeping up with increased demand for energy -- and let's not kid ourselves, renewables will not cut this Gordian Knot, we are talking nuclear or space-based solar -- there's just no way to *ACTUALLY* hit those 40% numbers, with the current building and population trends.
"if a homeowner neglects to cover a window with drapes, he would lose his reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to a viewer looking into the window from outside of his property,"
That's OK.
A viewer looking into my window from outside my property loses his reasonable expectation of eyesight while I am conducting laser experiments.
The gun is legal but his use of the solenoid to depress the trigger may not have been. It may have transformed the "legal handgun" to simply being one component of an NFA automatic-weapon.
So what you are saying... is that when I build my own weaponized drone, I should arm it with a flamethrower instead of a hand gun?
Spain has a history of doing stupid things involving the Internet.
Their "unintended consequence" to forcing search services to not list headlines from news services unless payment for the content happened, was that they got delisted from news.google.com and other Google search results.
"We wanted you to pay us, not delist us!" was a stupid response to the delisting.
The unintended consequence in this case, should the court agree to hear it, is that there will be a single law on the books regulating taxi companies in all EU countries as a result.
This "cure" will likely be worse than the "disease", in terms of overall fallout.
What can you do with UBER, as a user? You may request a cab and pay for the ride. What about a driver? You get ride requests, payments for the rides and incentives to buy your own car. The final service: take passenger from point A to point B.
As a user, you can't request a taxi; taxi's are run, at least in France, by a monopoly; you can request a driver with a car, and pay for the ride.
As a DRIVER, you can request a car and pay for a ride as well.
Isn't this exactly what the "cab unions" have been doing for decades with voucher systems and a telephone central?
No. Uber also adds "actually showing up" because of their ratings system, and "not obstructing traffic every time the Uber contractors decide to get pissy about something". Both of these are substantial benefits that taxis don't have.
Sounds like it is not a taxi company if you can take away their taxis (cars) away and they can do something else.
How it that different from any other taxi company?
Uber doesn't own the cars, and the taxi company owns the cars. Since, you know, they could dispatch people with mules instead of people with cars; are they now a drayage company, as well?
We were on a Mountain Gorilla trek, and after a few hours of hiking our guide pointed out, with the note, "don't be afraid" - a guy in green way up in a tree with an assault rifle.
They're basically campers.
They were camping the Mountain Gorilla respawn point?
If they're just going to respawn, then it's not really killing, is it?
There are plenty of people who will, for $100, take the certification tests for you. The certifying "authorities" never ask for a state issued picture ID to prove you are who you say you are -- and in fact, most modern certification testing and issuing happens online. You can pretty much get a certification in nearly everything.
Even in the case of a them checking IDs, you can have the test taker be a person who "perpetually fails at these tests", and swap test sheets/booklets with them by way of writing down each others names on the materials in question, after getting in to take the test under their own name. That's how people fake the LCAT and MCAT tests to get higher scores so they can get into Ivy League colleges.
You can pretty much have as many certifications as you want.
when Microsoft, the company complaining about the worker shortage, fired 6,000 people
To be perfectly fair, they were mostly Finnish...
What Microsoft really wants is more choice without paying for choice. They have a picky hiring process and want what they want. They don't care about society issues or trade-imbalances, that's somebody's else' problem. They just want cheap young choice, and lobby heavily for it.
The correct code word for "younger workers" this week is "digital native". Last week it was "recent graduate". We have "whippersnapper" penciled in for next Tuesday.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, the haze is reddish-brown, rather than Purple Haze.
Even that argumentation is questionable. One has to remember that socialists are almost guaranteed to lose the presidential elections in a few years, and UMP/Republicans are effectively guaranteed to cancel this policy regardless.
It's their plan, and yes, it's questionable. French politics are such that the politics of going non-nuclear while at the same time supporting ITER and the LHC are incompatible (unless they also plan to pull out of ITER).
I'm now currently laughing a little at being modded down, since there were no nuclear closures announced as part of the plan; someone is bad at math:
100% = 75% + 25%; if the 75% is to turn into 50%, then 75% + 75% = 150%. So they plan to increase utilization 50%, if they do not plan plant closures, otherwise the amount provided by nuclear not changing doesn't work out. :^)
The big clues are right there in the summary. It's probably doable without a vast amount of effort since a lot of it will come down to insulation, ducting and awnings or similar window shading. There is already a subway in place so improvements there come down to better equipment instead of expensive tunnelling or land aquistion.
Awnings and shading will reduce cooling costs. Heating oil is not used for cooling, electricity is. They will increase heating oil consumption. Insulation will help in both directions, but it's largely not an option for existing buildings. You believe that the 80% of the legacy building can be refit to save the 40% of the energy costs? That's 65% of the legacy buildings you would need to effectively reconstruct. It's not going to happen.
The subway isn't an issue, except to say that, operating on electricity, it's just "carbon shifting" to move the greenhouse gas generation elsewhere than NYC, and then pretend that NYC has reduced its own greenhouse emissions as a result of increasing them in Camden, NJ. See my other post (below) on how "deck chair accounting" is just fudging the numbers.
What makes 40% or so possible is buildings constructed with no thought for energy consumption in some cases need only minor modifications to for a major reduction in use. We've seen that in other place with "no-brainers" such as painting a roof white making a major difference to AC use.
It's not hard to use less if a lot is being thrown away.
What percentage of buildings in Manhattan are less than 10 years old? The new Trade Center doesn't count, since I doubt NYC is prepared to withstand that kind of "urban renewal" on a large scale.
Growing square footage, population... good luck.
It's a lot easier to be more efficient in higher density areas. A metro rail line for example can replace 100,000 cars, and anything electric can be offset by buying carbon credits. Not saying it will be easy, but it's good to see someone is trying.
Read the article, and then read the linked document I provided on the sourcing of greenhouse gasses in NYC: It's predominantly from buildings. Adding square footage by rebuilding up is going to increase this; even if you do a "green building" as you build higher, you're going to increase heating pressure on your neighbors as you block their sunlight.
Use of heating oil and boilers is the reason there are greenhouse gasses from buildings; a secondary sourcing of greenhouse gasses comes from summer cooling costs. If you look at the graphs (again, in the linked document), you'll see this called out a "CDD + HDD", which are the total number of days in which greenhouse expenditures must go up for combined cooling and heating, per year. These have been increasing since 2012, and we are climbing out of the 2012 CDD+HDD minima for the current sunspot cycle, so this will be unlikely to reverse trend before 2.5 years from now: expect larger pendulum swings, resulting in higher CDD+HDD until the 11 year cycle starts in the other direction.
Bottom line is: more people = more energy usage, and you aren't going to "green" or rebuild every skyscraper in Manhattan over night -- if at all -- without an insane amount of investment (as in: demolition and rebuilding, which for sky scrapers tends to be expensive).
You could potentially make a (small) dent in the proposed reduction numbers by getting rid of all gasoline vehicles, and replacing them with electric, or forcing people onto public transportation. However, this is already reaching its limits; rich people simply pay the penalty, rather than foregoing private transportation. This is probably great for the city coffers in terms of revenue, but does nothing for the environment, even if that's the excuse being used to enrich the city coffers. There is no shortage of rich people in Manhattan.
You could make a (much larger) dent in the proposed reduction numbers by moving from heating oil to electric, and from fossil fuels for cooling energy.
However...
This is deck-chair shifting, in the same way that you can select "green energy producers" on your power bill, pay a higher cost, and thus force other energy consumers to be "less green". Further, the carbon debt under grid loading is a green energy swap; that is, the energy you use will be from a fossil fuel plant when the grid is loaded, and then you will "pay it back" by accounting those kWh as "borrowed", and then later "pay them back" by accounting other people's green energy use as your own (and theirs as fossil fuel usage that you "borrowed" from them).
Likewise, moving to electric -- and the electrics used in the subway system and other public transportation -- is what's called "carbon shifting". You move the generation of the electricity to elsewhere on the grid, and so the greenhouse gas generation has been NIMBY'ed away into someone else's jurisdiction, making you definitionally "greener".
Short of moving away from fossil fuels, while simultaneously keeping up with increased demand for energy -- and let's not kid ourselves, renewables will not cut this Gordian Knot, we are talking nuclear or space-based solar -- there's just no way to *ACTUALLY* hit those 40% numbers, with the current building and population trends.
Canada: land of retrying a case until you win
---Round one:
City of Toronto: "Uber is a Taxi service!"
Canadian Judge: "No, it's not."
---Round two (this one):
Taxi driver: "Uber is a taxi service!"
Canadian Judge: (hope they get the same one) -- case in progress
---Round three:
Place your bets now!
Growing square footage, population... good luck.
Not to mention the climate swings that have been increasing since 2004, requiring both more cooling in the summer and more heating in the winter.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc...
Maybe they can build vertical solar farms, and pass an ordinance that the sun has to shine horizontally...
TL;DR translation... "We plan on increasing our energy use by 50%, but do not plan on building additional nuclear plants to provide that capacity".
i launched a DOS attack on 127.0.0.1, i'm not sure how effective it will be though for some reason my computer has suddenly gotten really really slow.
You should have launched a Windows 3.11 attack instead.
"if a homeowner neglects to cover a window with drapes, he would lose his reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to a viewer looking into the window from outside of his property,"
That's OK.
A viewer looking into my window from outside my property loses his reasonable expectation of eyesight while I am conducting laser experiments.
The gun is legal but his use of the solenoid to depress the trigger may not have been. It may have transformed the "legal handgun" to simply being one component of an NFA automatic-weapon.
So what you are saying... is that when I build my own weaponized drone, I should arm it with a flamethrower instead of a hand gun?
Good to know...
Spain has a history of doing stupid things involving the Internet.
Their "unintended consequence" to forcing search services to not list headlines from news services unless payment for the content happened, was that they got delisted from news.google.com and other Google search results.
"We wanted you to pay us, not delist us!" was a stupid response to the delisting.
The unintended consequence in this case, should the court agree to hear it, is that there will be a single law on the books regulating taxi companies in all EU countries as a result.
This "cure" will likely be worse than the "disease", in terms of overall fallout.
What can you do with UBER, as a user? You may request a cab and pay for the ride. What about a driver? You get ride requests, payments for the rides and incentives to buy your own car. The final service: take passenger from point A to point B.
As a user, you can't request a taxi; taxi's are run, at least in France, by a monopoly; you can request a driver with a car, and pay for the ride.
As a DRIVER, you can request a car and pay for a ride as well.
Isn't this exactly what the "cab unions" have been doing for decades with voucher systems and a telephone central?
No. Uber also adds "actually showing up" because of their ratings system, and "not obstructing traffic every time the Uber contractors decide to get pissy about something". Both of these are substantial benefits that taxis don't have.
Sounds like it is not a taxi company if you can take away their taxis (cars) away and they can do something else.
How it that different from any other taxi company?
Uber doesn't own the cars, and the taxi company owns the cars. Since, you know, they could dispatch people with mules instead of people with cars; are they now a drayage company, as well?
We were on a Mountain Gorilla trek, and after a few hours of hiking our guide pointed out, with the note, "don't be afraid" - a guy in green way up in a tree with an assault rifle.
They're basically campers.
They were camping the Mountain Gorilla respawn point?
If they're just going to respawn, then it's not really killing, is it?
The term "genocide" only applies to people.
genocide
jensd/
noun
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
If you want a certification, buy one.
There are plenty of people who will, for $100, take the certification tests for you. The certifying "authorities" never ask for a state issued picture ID to prove you are who you say you are -- and in fact, most modern certification testing and issuing happens online. You can pretty much get a certification in nearly everything.
Even in the case of a them checking IDs, you can have the test taker be a person who "perpetually fails at these tests", and swap test sheets/booklets with them by way of writing down each others names on the materials in question, after getting in to take the test under their own name. That's how people fake the LCAT and MCAT tests to get higher scores so they can get into Ivy League colleges.
You can pretty much have as many certifications as you want.
Thing is, for every success story like yours, there's plenty of technically inclined people who at best make it to a help desk position.
Wanting to be a good singer... being "musically inclined... doesn't mean that you aren't tone deaf, and couldn't carry a tune in a bucket.
There's a heck of a lot of difference between being "technically inclined" and actually having technical ability.
To be perfectly fair, they were mostly Finnish...
What Microsoft really wants is more choice without paying for choice. They have a picky hiring process and want what they want. They don't care about society issues or trade-imbalances, that's somebody's else' problem. They just want cheap young choice, and lobby heavily for it.
The correct code word for "younger workers" this week is "digital native". Last week it was "recent graduate". We have "whippersnapper" penciled in for next Tuesday.
The express version of Visual Studio is too crippled to use, forcing the purchase of the full version.
I'm still looking for the full version of Visual Studio on my Commodore 64...
You had me with you until you said Social Security.
You are aware that every penny put into the Social Security Trust fund is immediately "borrowed" back into the general fund via bond purchases, right?
Also: H1B workers pay into Social Security already, with no chance of ever seeing that money themselves (not like any of us will ever see it, either).
Does anyone who didn't graduate from IIT Bombay actually use the word "Mechatronics"?
Maybe you could get an apprenticeship in that?
P.S.: a DeVry Associate Degree in Web Graphic Design graduate probably is more qualified to write software than most 16 year olds.
The mission was launched in 2006 (January 19, 2006, 19:00 UTC). At the time of the launch, Pluto was still classified as a planet.
It only became a non-planet according to the IAU, who didn't want to classify Charon as a planet, too, later in August 2006.
So they launched the spacecraft at a planet.
Pylons. No grading necessary.
Nokia sold the design patents, ~8,400 of them, to Microsoft. The other patents were license to Microsoft for a limited time.
So no, Nokia did not retain all their patents.
If you want to take a train an extra 200 miles, you need to lay track AND fuel it. With the plane you only need the fuel..
Unless you want to land?
Or, at least, land intact, then take off again after landing?