I've been using DuckDuckGo.com on my ChromeOS laptop for the past few months. Works great and I haven't found any problems with my searches. Happy to have an alternative.
After all the airline IT problems in the past, I'm surprised that they are still running single point of failure legacy systems. Time for them to make serious investments.
The problem is that fossil fuels dump all kinds of toxins, CH4, CO2, NOx, etc. into the environment and these make people sick, cause them to die, and damage the environment. They currently get a free ride. They don't pay for the damage they cause. The IMF study puts a number on this damage. It's time fossil fuels started paying for this damage.
For those whose Google skills are limited. This is from an IMF study in 2015... probably more now. https://www.imf.org/en/News/Ar...
Energy subsidies are projected at US$5.3 trillion in 2015, or 6.5 percent of global GDP, according to a recent IMF study. Most of this arises from countries setting energy taxes below levels that fully reflect the environmental damage associated with energy consumption. Eliminating global energy subsidies could reduce deaths related to fossil-fuel emissions by over 50 percent and fossil-fuel related carbon emissions by over 20 percent. The revenue gain from eliminating energy subsidies is projected to be US$2.9 trillion (3.6 percent of global GDP) in 2015. This offers huge potential for reducing other taxes or strengthening revenue bases in countries where large informal sector constrains broader fiscal instruments.
Advanced economies would gain enough revenue to halve corporate income tax or cover one quarter of public health spending (Chart 2). In emerging economies, the revenue is worth double their corporate income tax revenues or public health spending. In low-income countries, it is about one and half times corporate income tax revenues or public health spending.
The net gain from reform, after subtracting the cost of higher energy prices to consumers from the fiscal and environmental gains, is projected at US$1.8 trillion (2.2 percent of global GDP) and could be much larger if the fiscal gain is used for growth-enhancing tax cuts on labor and capital or badly needed investments in education, health, and infrastructure.
Well, you'd need to get rid of the $5.3 trillion/year in fossil fuel subsidies then and I doubt the fossil fuel companies would want to have competition. They have bought the government and they will get whatever they want.
You're right. They already have left everyone else behind and they are only looking at scenarios for a final escape. I found this paragraph most interesting: "When the hedge funders asked me the best way to maintain authority over their security forces after “the event,” I suggested that their best bet would be to treat those people really well, right now. They should be engaging with their security staffs as if they were members of their own family. And the more they can expand this ethos of inclusivity to the rest of their business practices, supply chain management, sustainability efforts, and wealth distribution, the less chance there will be of an “event” in the first place. All this technological wizardry could be applied toward less romantic but entirely more collective interests right now."
The "rich" are asking the wrong question and don't want to hear the answer. They are only thinking that is will get worse and looking for a way out. The don't understand that the problem can be fixed and aren't willing to give up any of the entitled privilege.
This is a nationwide outage. How can a single cable failure cause this? I thought the Internet was supposed to route around damage. Something more seriously screwed up is going on.
I was referring to the manipulaters and scam artists who have taken over Wall Street. You're right. Invest in an index fund and ignore the manipulaters.
You're right. It's basically a master/slave relationship. You, the customer, are the master. The slave must do whatever you want (ever wonder why sexual harassment of female waitstaff is so high). Time to eliminate tipping so waitstaff won't have to prostitute themselves to earn a living. Just pay them a decent wage.
Since I don't eat meat or drink fizzy drinks, this would not be a problem for me. Probably would be healthier for most people to give up meat (heart disease, cancer) and fizzy drinks (diabetes, heart disease). OTOH, Beer would be a problem. We all need beer for good health. (Maybe we could prioritize beer over meat and fizzy drinks with a "national CO2 rationing board".)
If they worked, people would build them. If the problems of waste, high cost, long lead time were solved, people would build them. You can't modulate output so too much power at night. All nuclear has these problems. They don't work in any practical sense.
Other than the fact that breeder reactors don't work, it's a good theory. From Wikipedia: In 2010 the International Panel on Fissile Materials said "After six decades and the expenditure of the equivalent of tens of billions of dollars, the promise of breeder reactors remains largely unfulfilled and efforts to commercialize them have been steadily cut back in most countries". In Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, breeder reactor development programs have been abandoned.[57][58]
The US EPA just released a study showing that it's 60% cheaper to drive an EV than ICE car... and that's just the cost of the fuel. https://thinkprogress.org/driv...
Slashdot Mirror
I've been using DuckDuckGo.com on my ChromeOS laptop for the past few months. Works great and I haven't found any problems with my searches.
Happy to have an alternative.
After all the airline IT problems in the past, I'm surprised that they are still running single point of failure legacy systems.
Time for them to make serious investments.
Ah, yes. Breathing fossil fuel fumes and drinking contaminated water has definitely led to increased life expectancy ;),
Fossil fuels do not benefit society in any way.
The problem is that fossil fuels dump all kinds of toxins, CH4, CO2, NOx, etc. into the environment and these make people sick, cause them to die, and damage the environment. They currently get a free ride. They don't pay for the damage they cause. The IMF study puts a number on this damage. It's time fossil fuels started paying for this damage.
For those whose Google skills are limited. This is from an IMF study in 2015... probably more now.
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Ar...
Energy subsidies are projected at US$5.3 trillion in 2015, or 6.5 percent of global GDP, according to a recent IMF study. Most of this arises from countries setting energy taxes below levels that fully reflect the environmental damage associated with energy consumption.
Eliminating global energy subsidies could reduce deaths related to fossil-fuel emissions by over 50 percent and fossil-fuel related carbon emissions by over 20 percent. The revenue gain from eliminating energy subsidies is projected to be US$2.9 trillion (3.6 percent of global GDP) in 2015. This offers huge potential for reducing other taxes or strengthening revenue bases in countries where large informal sector constrains broader fiscal instruments.
Advanced economies would gain enough revenue to halve corporate income tax or cover one quarter of public health spending (Chart 2). In emerging economies, the revenue is worth double their corporate income tax revenues or public health spending. In low-income countries, it is about one and half times corporate income tax revenues or public health spending.
The net gain from reform, after subtracting the cost of higher energy prices to consumers from the fiscal and environmental gains, is projected at US$1.8 trillion (2.2 percent of global GDP) and could be much larger if the fiscal gain is used for growth-enhancing tax cuts on labor and capital or badly needed investments in education, health, and infrastructure.
Well, you'd need to get rid of the $5.3 trillion/year in fossil fuel subsidies then and I doubt the fossil fuel companies would want to have competition. They have bought the government and they will get whatever they want.
You're right. They already have left everyone else behind and they are only looking at scenarios for a final escape.
I found this paragraph most interesting:
"When the hedge funders asked me the best way to maintain authority over their security forces after “the event,” I suggested that their best bet would be to treat those people really well, right now. They should be engaging with their security staffs as if they were members of their own family. And the more they can expand this ethos of inclusivity to the rest of their business practices, supply chain management, sustainability efforts, and wealth distribution, the less chance there will be of an “event” in the first place. All this technological wizardry could be applied toward less romantic but entirely more collective interests right now."
The "rich" are asking the wrong question and don't want to hear the answer. They are only thinking that is will get worse and looking for a way out. The don't understand that the problem can be fixed and aren't willing to give up any of the entitled privilege.
This is a nationwide outage.
How can a single cable failure cause this?
I thought the Internet was supposed to route around damage.
Something more seriously screwed up is going on.
I was referring to the manipulaters and scam artists who have taken over Wall Street.
You're right. Invest in an index fund and ignore the manipulaters.
All it does is put hard working people in jail.
Time to put Wall Street in jail.
Keep the slaves happy with good tips.
You are the master.
You're right. It's basically a master/slave relationship.
You, the customer, are the master. The slave must do whatever you want (ever wonder why sexual harassment of female waitstaff is so high).
Time to eliminate tipping so waitstaff won't have to prostitute themselves to earn a living. Just pay them a decent wage.
Thanks for these references.
I think we agree that red meat (processed and unprocessed) causes cancer.
Definite agreement on sugar and diabetes.
Here's some perspective on alcohol and cancer:
https://theincidentaleconomist...
https://theincidentaleconomist...
Citations needed. I don't believe your alternative facts.
Since I don't eat meat or drink fizzy drinks, this would not be a problem for me. Probably would be healthier for most people to give up meat (heart disease, cancer) and fizzy drinks (diabetes, heart disease).
OTOH, Beer would be a problem. We all need beer for good health.
(Maybe we could prioritize beer over meat and fizzy drinks with a "national CO2 rationing board".)
If they worked, people would build them.
If the problems of waste, high cost, long lead time were solved, people would build them.
You can't modulate output so too much power at night.
All nuclear has these problems.
They don't work in any practical sense.
Your definition of "work" is different than mine.
Working as an experiment is much different than working as a viable commercial reactor. Definitely failed at that (all over the world).
Other than the fact that breeder reactors don't work, it's a good theory.
From Wikipedia:
In 2010 the International Panel on Fissile Materials said "After six decades and the expenditure of the equivalent of tens of billions of dollars, the promise of breeder reactors remains largely unfulfilled and efforts to commercialize them have been steadily cut back in most countries". In Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, breeder reactor development programs have been abandoned.[57][58]
I think you missed the part about "none of the data goes back to Firefox or Mozilla".
This is not for you. Don't use it.
The US EPA just released a study showing that it's 60% cheaper to drive an EV than ICE car... and that's just the cost of the fuel.
https://thinkprogress.org/driv...
Not a factor because the loading is done "offline". When the vehicle is loaded, then it enters the main tunnel.
The "concept" is 100% privately funded so no risk to Chicago.
If it works, it works. If it doesn't, Musk takes the hit.