The more I look at this, the more confused I am at what Target supposedly did wrong. The OP claimed "Target told a man his daughter was pregnant." Um, no, Target sent the man's daughter mail, which he opened and found coupons for. If there was any invasion of privacy, it was the man reading his daughter's mail. I would argue a father has the right to do so, precisely in order to find out these kind of things, since the father is probably going to end up helping to raise this baby at least financially and probably more so, but that's not my call. The point is, target sent private mail to the girl and it was intercepted. Even if it was a big postcard that says "congratulations on your teenage pregnancy," I would think they did nothing wrong.
Actually, the article you quote makes jellomizer's point.
But Target didn't stop the creepy target marketing -- it just got sneakier about it.
"With the pregnancy products, though, we learned that some women react badly," the executive said. "Then we started mixing in all these ads for things we knew pregnant women would never buy, so the baby ads looked random. We'd put an ad for a lawn mower next to diapers. We'd put a coupon for wineglasses next to infant clothes. That way, it looked like all the products were chosen by chance.
"And we found out that as long as a pregnant woman thinks she hasn't been spied on, she'll use the coupons. She just assumes that everyone else on her block got the same mailer for diapers and cribs. As long as we don't spook her, it works."
The author of the article says it's creepy, but actually I think it's clever and discreet.
Well, you can be as amazed as you like, but there are two flaws to your argument from where I sit. First, you claim that it will take a hundred years to develop and deploy a new technology and I'm curious as to what the basis is for that number -- I think you pulled it out of your ass. Second, you seem to be claiming that is it more reasonable to go with existing technologies which are already deployed but do not address the problem of climate change (remember, that's the real problem), rather than developing new technologies that actually will address the problem. You claim the new technologies will not address the problem, I can see your skepticism, but you do not show how the existing technologies will address the problem. A 1% change is not worth doing.
That's an empty claim, because no existing technology can meet the need. Wind, photovoltaic, geothermal, ocean energy, where is the energy? It's only in the sun and in the atom. Fission does not scale. So we have to turn to nonexistent technologies, to research. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. It would be nice to just 'scale up nuclear power' or something, but you haven't put a real option on the table.
It's good to ask questions and be skeptical. I think of people as deniers only when they are not willing to look as skeptically at their pet theory that global climate change is occurring naturally, without man made forcings, or that it is not going to have important and dire consequences. Tree rings are not by any means the only basis for thinking global climate change is being caused by man-made forcings -- evidence is pouring in from literally all corners of the earth and across scientific disciplines. So even if the tree ring analysis is flawed, what theory explains the climate change that is occurring? Anyone is qualified to ask questions, but we should be realistic about the limits of our ability to analyze the data and the need to turn to experts in the field. And there are definitely shills at work in this debate. You do not seem to be a shill, I suspect you might be a denier but that's just a nervous twitch on my part, LOL, and neither one of us is probably a climate authority, but I'm not an evolutionary biologist either and I'm sure evolution is occurring and explains what we see in nature very well.
What existing technology will ramp up, Mr. Realist?:-) I don't know what you're talking about there. There is no existing technology that ramps up, that's my point. 15 TW.
I don't agree that you are necessarily correct. There is a chance it will pay off. Assuming your timetable is correct, then yes it's useless, but why does that mean we should not hurry it up but rather give up on it? And honestly, look at the way things are gong right now. EVERYTHING is too late now. We are basically just continuing to pollute at an increasing rate. We aren't going to act until it's painfully obvious there is a problem, as in major catastrophes on a regular basis. By then, the only cure will be taking CO2 out of the atmosphere or just living with the disasters. Most likely we will choose the latter. That's what it looks like to me.
Yes, it includes that energy of course; any scheme to combat climate change must. In order to address climate change, we have to move off fossil fuels, right? The good news is that we can continue to burn hydrocarbons, if we create them using solar energy in a pseudo-photosynthetic process. Again, I claim that the biggest impediment (other than that my proposed technology does not exist yet) is that uneducated people think climate change is not a settled "theory," kind of like evolution and the big bang. It's just way too scientific and "out there" to be real. Gotta keep those hamster wheels turning!
You are probably right, but not definitely right. Fusion is worth gambling a few billion dollars on if only for the long term payoff. Solar to fuel is really our best hope. I got the idea from Steven Chu and it strikes me as eminently sensible. No new infrastructure needed, inherent carbon neutrality, plenty of available power. There's just the little detail that it doesn't exist yet.:-)
Well, apparently, looking at the polls, Fear and doomsday has not worked.
I think it has. Most people vote against the worst candidate, not for the best one. But I agree that we should be telling the truth and not exaggerating or lying to make a point. Against your point also -- look at the reaction to the reactor leaks in Japan. They shut down their whole program based on fear and doomsday.
Also, you assume that the nascent nuclear industry (technology wise it is just learning to walk) will not mature. It is not unreasonable to expect far greater efficiency and power output.
I think it's unreasonable to expect efficiency to more than double in the next 20 years, during which we still have to build some of those 1 billion reactors I mentioned. How many are scheduled to be built in the next 10 years? LOL. Even if efficiency goes up a factor of 10, we need a million plants worldwide. Also, fission (as opposed to fusion) has a proliferation risk (Iran -- cough) and a waste disposal problem (solvable), plus the risk of radiation leak. I'm no luddite, but let's get real: we cannot just build fission reactors to solve the problem. We need massive research funding to develop game-changing technologies.
Last, if replacing all the fossil fuel power plants with nuclear, which are blamed for the majority of CO2 production, what on else earth do you imagine could be done about it?
I believe I answered this question already: fusion + solar-to-fuel. Those are the only two I know of with the energy potential to solve the problem in a truly safe way.
Hansen would be garner more support from a wider base and generally more acceptance if instead of trying to stop people from doing things he encouraged them to do something...such as invest in nuclear power...People respond better when you come to them with a solution rather than admonishments, guilt and doomsday predictions.
I agree with the admonishments and guilt part, but doomsday predictions are entirely appropriate and will work,, because people respond to fear. I'd love a reasonable, science-based debate, but the climate change debate is all about fear, and humans are wired to avoid danger and to overvalue threat information. You might get a friendlier discussion with hope and change, per those lying bastards the Democrats, but you'll get more vote with fear and disgust, per those lying bastard Republicans. So it depends on how you define "respond better." I think.
If the AGW crowd expended only half as much energy advocating and educating the public about nuclear power, and how it could solve the AGW problem, as they do with silly stunts and way over the top scenarios (50 feet higher eh?), it would be a win win. CO2 would be cut and we could tell the Oil Tyrants to fuck off and die.
50 feet higher is what will happen if we burn all the Canadian oil sands. It's only an overstatement in that it overstates perhaps how much oil we're going to consume in the near term, but Dr Hansen is not exaggerating the effects of doing so. Nuclear fission is not a panacea -- there is none. This is going to be a tough challenge, on a global scale, and we need something better than nuclear fission to solve it. It takes 15 Terawatts to power the world and each fission reactor apparently provides about 1 gigawatt, so to furnish 50% of the world's energy needs of today with nuclear, we'd need to build 1 billion nuclear fission reactors. I think we need a combination of fusion + solar-to-fuel (artificial photosynthetic fuel) technologies and that's going to take massive research funding. Maybe if we stopped the NFL budget for a year, we could solve the problem, LOL
I know that Hansen supports nuclear, including Breeder reactors for waste recycling, but he's not very vocal about it.
As a scientist, I'm frustrated by the apparent fact that most people don't care about the science. What we need to be vocal about is that climate change is real and something needs to be done about it. In America, many people don't even think this is a problem. My business school friend thinks that scientists are making this up in order to get research grants and Obama is pushing it so he can create a command economy. Seriously, that's how deniers think.
No. We should hire EVERYBODY. Open source the code, open source the machines. Have a wide-open system that people can verify independently. I'm no FSF fanboy, but this is one place where open source makes a lot of sense.
I won't get Verizon because their network implementation is CDMA/LTE, and incompatible with most of the good Android phones out there. How's that for an answer? I know I'm not alone in this.
It's a good answer.:-) I won't get Verizon because they have notoriously bad customer service. It used to be AT&T was terrible in that area, but they have greatly improved. I wonder if verizon have improved as well. I think they have better coverage.
Now everybody can be accused of terrorism: We caught this man attempting a global warming attack by emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. In fact, we had to put him down as he would not stop even after being caught, threatening the security of our agents.
I can't believe this was modded "funny." The truth is, it's already happening and our government is definitely using more tyranny every day to "keep us safe." Sigh
This article misses a major clue -- people who are buying iPhones are not doing so because their carrier steers them towards them. As many people know about the iPhone as know about Verizon. There are people who wouldn't switch to Verizon because they didn't offer the iPhone. Name another phone that people do that for. The truth is, if Apple pushes people away from Verizon it will make a bigger difference for Verizon than it will for Apple if Verizon steers people away from iPhone.
when the government is the one that manages "how access is delivered." What does it even mean to "deliver access?" How orwellian. He makes it sound like access is something you need the government to provide for you.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought "quote the fucking cartoon perfectly" was the funny part.
I hope you get modded up
Your joke might be funny if you didn't post as an anonymous coward. As it is, you just sound like a dick. ;-)
It's as much of a word as wealthychef is.
LOL fair enough. :-)
The more I look at this, the more confused I am at what Target supposedly did wrong. The OP claimed "Target told a man his daughter was pregnant." Um, no, Target sent the man's daughter mail, which he opened and found coupons for. If there was any invasion of privacy, it was the man reading his daughter's mail. I would argue a father has the right to do so, precisely in order to find out these kind of things, since the father is probably going to end up helping to raise this baby at least financially and probably more so, but that's not my call. The point is, target sent private mail to the girl and it was intercepted. Even if it was a big postcard that says "congratulations on your teenage pregnancy," I would think they did nothing wrong.
"Dogrape" is not a word. :-P
But Target didn't stop the creepy target marketing -- it just got sneakier about it.
"With the pregnancy products, though, we learned that some women react badly," the executive said. "Then we started mixing in all these ads for things we knew pregnant women would never buy, so the baby ads looked random. We'd put an ad for a lawn mower next to diapers. We'd put a coupon for wineglasses next to infant clothes. That way, it looked like all the products were chosen by chance.
"And we found out that as long as a pregnant woman thinks she hasn't been spied on, she'll use the coupons. She just assumes that everyone else on her block got the same mailer for diapers and cribs. As long as we don't spook her, it works."
The author of the article says it's creepy, but actually I think it's clever and discreet.
Australian civil libertarians know that in a country with no constitutionally-protected civil rights, people will be surveilled for political reasons.
Fixed that for you.
Well, you can be as amazed as you like, but there are two flaws to your argument from where I sit. First, you claim that it will take a hundred years to develop and deploy a new technology and I'm curious as to what the basis is for that number -- I think you pulled it out of your ass. Second, you seem to be claiming that is it more reasonable to go with existing technologies which are already deployed but do not address the problem of climate change (remember, that's the real problem), rather than developing new technologies that actually will address the problem. You claim the new technologies will not address the problem, I can see your skepticism, but you do not show how the existing technologies will address the problem. A 1% change is not worth doing.
That's an empty claim, because no existing technology can meet the need. Wind, photovoltaic, geothermal, ocean energy, where is the energy? It's only in the sun and in the atom. Fission does not scale. So we have to turn to nonexistent technologies, to research. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. It would be nice to just 'scale up nuclear power' or something, but you haven't put a real option on the table.
So name the existing technology that will ramp up. It doesn't exist. I think I've demonstrated that fission will not, but you perhaps disagree.
It's good to ask questions and be skeptical. I think of people as deniers only when they are not willing to look as skeptically at their pet theory that global climate change is occurring naturally, without man made forcings, or that it is not going to have important and dire consequences. Tree rings are not by any means the only basis for thinking global climate change is being caused by man-made forcings -- evidence is pouring in from literally all corners of the earth and across scientific disciplines. So even if the tree ring analysis is flawed, what theory explains the climate change that is occurring? Anyone is qualified to ask questions, but we should be realistic about the limits of our ability to analyze the data and the need to turn to experts in the field. And there are definitely shills at work in this debate. You do not seem to be a shill, I suspect you might be a denier but that's just a nervous twitch on my part, LOL, and neither one of us is probably a climate authority, but I'm not an evolutionary biologist either and I'm sure evolution is occurring and explains what we see in nature very well.
What existing technology will ramp up, Mr. Realist? :-) I don't know what you're talking about there. There is no existing technology that ramps up, that's my point. 15 TW.
I don't agree that you are necessarily correct. There is a chance it will pay off. Assuming your timetable is correct, then yes it's useless, but why does that mean we should not hurry it up but rather give up on it? And honestly, look at the way things are gong right now. EVERYTHING is too late now. We are basically just continuing to pollute at an increasing rate. We aren't going to act until it's painfully obvious there is a problem, as in major catastrophes on a regular basis. By then, the only cure will be taking CO2 out of the atmosphere or just living with the disasters. Most likely we will choose the latter. That's what it looks like to me.
Yes, it includes that energy of course; any scheme to combat climate change must. In order to address climate change, we have to move off fossil fuels, right? The good news is that we can continue to burn hydrocarbons, if we create them using solar energy in a pseudo-photosynthetic process. Again, I claim that the biggest impediment (other than that my proposed technology does not exist yet) is that uneducated people think climate change is not a settled "theory," kind of like evolution and the big bang. It's just way too scientific and "out there" to be real. Gotta keep those hamster wheels turning!
You are probably right, but not definitely right. Fusion is worth gambling a few billion dollars on if only for the long term payoff. Solar to fuel is really our best hope. I got the idea from Steven Chu and it strikes me as eminently sensible. No new infrastructure needed, inherent carbon neutrality, plenty of available power. There's just the little detail that it doesn't exist yet. :-)
Well, apparently, looking at the polls, Fear and doomsday has not worked.
I think it has. Most people vote against the worst candidate, not for the best one. But I agree that we should be telling the truth and not exaggerating or lying to make a point. Against your point also -- look at the reaction to the reactor leaks in Japan. They shut down their whole program based on fear and doomsday.
Also, you assume that the nascent nuclear industry (technology wise it is just learning to walk) will not mature. It is not unreasonable to expect far greater efficiency and power output.
I think it's unreasonable to expect efficiency to more than double in the next 20 years, during which we still have to build some of those 1 billion reactors I mentioned. How many are scheduled to be built in the next 10 years? LOL. Even if efficiency goes up a factor of 10, we need a million plants worldwide. Also, fission (as opposed to fusion) has a proliferation risk (Iran -- cough) and a waste disposal problem (solvable), plus the risk of radiation leak. I'm no luddite, but let's get real: we cannot just build fission reactors to solve the problem. We need massive research funding to develop game-changing technologies.
Last, if replacing all the fossil fuel power plants with nuclear, which are blamed for the majority of CO2 production, what on else earth do you imagine could be done about it?
I believe I answered this question already: fusion + solar-to-fuel. Those are the only two I know of with the energy potential to solve the problem in a truly safe way.
Hansen would be garner more support from a wider base and generally more acceptance if instead of trying to stop people from doing things he encouraged them to do something...such as invest in nuclear power...People respond better when you come to them with a solution rather than admonishments, guilt and doomsday predictions.
I agree with the admonishments and guilt part, but doomsday predictions are entirely appropriate and will work,, because people respond to fear. I'd love a reasonable, science-based debate, but the climate change debate is all about fear, and humans are wired to avoid danger and to overvalue threat information. You might get a friendlier discussion with hope and change, per those lying bastards the Democrats, but you'll get more vote with fear and disgust, per those lying bastard Republicans. So it depends on how you define "respond better." I think.
If the AGW crowd expended only half as much energy advocating and educating the public about nuclear power, and how it could solve the AGW problem, as they do with silly stunts and way over the top scenarios (50 feet higher eh?), it would be a win win. CO2 would be cut and we could tell the Oil Tyrants to fuck off and die.
50 feet higher is what will happen if we burn all the Canadian oil sands. It's only an overstatement in that it overstates perhaps how much oil we're going to consume in the near term, but Dr Hansen is not exaggerating the effects of doing so. Nuclear fission is not a panacea -- there is none. This is going to be a tough challenge, on a global scale, and we need something better than nuclear fission to solve it. It takes 15 Terawatts to power the world and each fission reactor apparently provides about 1 gigawatt, so to furnish 50% of the world's energy needs of today with nuclear, we'd need to build 1 billion nuclear fission reactors. I think we need a combination of fusion + solar-to-fuel (artificial photosynthetic fuel) technologies and that's going to take massive research funding. Maybe if we stopped the NFL budget for a year, we could solve the problem, LOL
I know that Hansen supports nuclear, including Breeder reactors for waste recycling, but he's not very vocal about it.
As a scientist, I'm frustrated by the apparent fact that most people don't care about the science. What we need to be vocal about is that climate change is real and something needs to be done about it. In America, many people don't even think this is a problem. My business school friend thinks that scientists are making this up in order to get research grants and Obama is pushing it so he can create a command economy. Seriously, that's how deniers think.
No. We should hire EVERYBODY. Open source the code, open source the machines. Have a wide-open system that people can verify independently. I'm no FSF fanboy, but this is one place where open source makes a lot of sense.
I won't get Verizon because their network implementation is CDMA/LTE, and incompatible with most of the good Android phones out there. How's that for an answer? I know I'm not alone in this.
It's a good answer. :-) I won't get Verizon because they have notoriously bad customer service. It used to be AT&T was terrible in that area, but they have greatly improved. I wonder if verizon have improved as well. I think they have better coverage.
Now everybody can be accused of terrorism: We caught this man attempting a global warming attack by emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. In fact, we had to put him down as he would not stop even after being caught, threatening the security of our agents.
I can't believe this was modded "funny." The truth is, it's already happening and our government is definitely using more tyranny every day to "keep us safe." Sigh
This article misses a major clue -- people who are buying iPhones are not doing so because their carrier steers them towards them. As many people know about the iPhone as know about Verizon. There are people who wouldn't switch to Verizon because they didn't offer the iPhone. Name another phone that people do that for. The truth is, if Apple pushes people away from Verizon it will make a bigger difference for Verizon than it will for Apple if Verizon steers people away from iPhone.
when the government is the one that manages "how access is delivered." What does it even mean to "deliver access?" How orwellian. He makes it sound like access is something you need the government to provide for you.
Perhaps it's slash dotted, but I get "Failed to Open Page" when I click on the link which points to http://5m4rylprkig4swgg.onion/
Interesting -- what strategy is this?