> The sane response to that would be to send a geek with a screwdriver to unmount it, and have it analysed in a lab. Not to lock everything down, and send a Blackhawk.
No, because tampering with evidence in what may become a serious federal investigation may get you into even more trouble.
If this hypothesis is correct, then it makes sense that government spooks would be all over it; They want to secure the device ASAP, keep everyone without adequate security clearance away, and keep the details as secret as possible for as long as possible. Nothing good can come from letting a potential enemy/spy learn about what you may or may not know. =Smidge=
NASDAQ companies - those that survived - actually produce goods and services; things of value that people want. Recovery is *almost* guaranteed as those businesses recover.
Cryptocurrencies offer nothing but themselves as the product, and once the public loses faith in their value and ability to exchange them, they have nothing to base a recovery on. All they can hope for is more speculation from people too dumb to learn the lesson the first time. =Smidge=
That's all fine and good, but in this context it's not about natural gas; It's about renewable energy. When it comes to securing our energy sources from attack and diversifying, you'd think we'd be all about renewable energy!
> 6. Again using the Northeast as an example, a large winter storm would temporarily wipe out most renewables. Utility-scale solar panels would be covered by snow and wind turbines may need to be shut down and blades feathered due to excessive wind.
I live in the northeast. I was without power for three weeks following Sandy. I can tell you point #6 is bullshit 'cause the only places that had power were places that had island-capable renewable power, such as wind turbines and solar panels with batteries. Spreading the generating capacity over a larger area and incorporating it into the neighborhoods that it serves *increases* robustness.
(Aside) Fun fact: Natural gas is liquefied during the summer and stored for use during the winter. Aside from the massive storage tanks and very impressive fire detection/suppression systems it's a fairly mundane operation. =Smidge=
My evidence is observable reality. In a bid to save coal and nuclear power plants - which are unable to stay in business against cheaper alternatives - Trump has asked the DOE to force utilities to buy a certain amount of their power from these sources.
The DOE thankfully seems to be dragging their feet a little, and to my knowledge has yet to actually issue a formal order to enforce this. There is no active directive, but there is probably a draft one (the DOE's website for browsing draft directives is not working at the moment so I can't check). I suspect that the draft directive includes the 24-month investigation and temporary purchasing requirements mentioned in the articles. =Smidge=
> Technological change cannot happen in a vacuum. It takes years of planning, research, development, and funding to implement the change.
Which is why the target date is 2045.
A requirement like this is more or less the kind of pressure that is required to drive the investment of time and resources to make it happen. It should not be the legislator's job to dictate "the plan" - they set the requirement, and it's up to those who actually generate and distribute the power to figure out how to meet that requirement.
That said, I'm sure the bill was not written in a total vacuum and the target date was not chosen arbitrarily. There was probably lots of meetings and discussions with engineers and industry representatives to determine what the range of realistic goals could be, and the requirements based on that. =Smidge=
Imports represent ~29% of total electrical energy for 2017. Only about 20 GWh of what was imported was carbon (coal + gas) sources. This represents just 7% of all their electrical energy for that year.
Cleaning this up is relatively easy; since electricity is fungible, you can specifically pay for renewable energy to make sure your money goes towards those sources. Nobody is forcing anyone to burn coal (except the coal industry and the Trump administration) and if everyone insists on buying renewable energy, then that's what providers will invest in and develop. =Smidge=
I was once working at an office that was across the street from a train station, and was next to a hospital... and between the hospital and train station there were multiple bus lines that converged within a block of my office. There was also bus stop less than 100 feet from my front door.
However, because my morning commute would be eastbound, and NYC is to the west - and so virtually all public transport was optimized for conveying people westward in the morning - it was literally impossible for me to take any combination of bus or train to work. With the schedules ans service routes as they were, I would have to leave for work before I had gotten home from the previous day.
It was also too far to reasonably commute by bike, to say nothing of the weather not being very cooperative most of the year. It was also somewhat common that I'd need to leave the office to visit a job site, which again limited my public transit options. =Smidge=
> What does that have to do with mass transit? People simply die without access to affordable food. Hence grocery stores for most people...which they get to and from using transit. They also use transit to get to and from work, which they do to earn money to buy those groceries in the first place. So as dumb as the argument is, the OP's argument is even dumber. =Smidge=
Then you didn't dig far enough. Their article is based on this paper which says its "research builds on a growing body of literature which suggests that SLR is occurring at a more rapid pace than even some of the more liberal projections can account for". So - accelerating sea level.
That's not what the part you quoted says; the rate isn't increasing, it's just that the rate is higher than expected.
Reading further, they actually do claim an acceleration - but it's on the order of mm per year per decade; far to small to readily see on the graphs PSMSL offers. A specific example is given as Virginia Key, FL (From 3+/-2 mm/yr to 9+/-4mm/yr in the past decade) and if you stand back and squint you can kinda see an upward trend. I'm sure analyzing the actual tabular data directly makes the trends easier to see, but that's an exercise for the reader.
> You're assuming that people don't already turn off the lights when they leave a room and that one isn't already installed.
They don't, and they aren't unless they were installed per some higher standard prior to 2014 (or to code 2014 and after). It may shock you just how bad people in general actually are at this.
> Heat pumps don't work well in cold climates as they can't generate enough heat.
Modern heat pumps are a lot better than you give them credit for. We now use heat pumps as far north as Albany and they work fine for the vast majority of real use cases, and merely OKish for design-day cases in which case you can use supplemental heat, ideally straight electric.
> I can go on about it, but that's one of the main flaws of the flaw of the bill: if you're already using energy efficient technologies, there isn't a lot to do but you're still required to cut usage by 60%.
That's a huge "IF" innit? Maybe let those of us who do HVAC engineering in New York City worry about it. =Smidge=
> After you've replaced your bulbs with CFs or LEDs, there's not really a next huge leap you can take.
Nonsense, there's lots you can do.
Smarter lighting (daylight harvesting, occupancy sensing) can reduce energy usage by 20% or more right off the top regardless of lighting type. (The now enforced 2016 ECC goes absolutely bonkers with this kind of stuff)
Replace older AC units with more efficient heat pumps.
Replace older fuel burning appliances (especially oil fired boilers) with newer, more efficient ones. If you've got hydronic heating there is basically zero reason to not use a low mass condensing boiler on your next replacement.
Domestic hot water is a huge energy hog and there's lots you can do to make it more efficient, including better heaters, recirc systems and controls.
Demand based energy recovery ventilation is a must-have for any commercial projects I've worked on in NYC. They are amazing machines. =Smidge=
Well presumably you are giving to charity X because you want to support the specific mission/work that charity X does. Your scenario only applies to a specific case where two or more charities have significantly similar functions.
But even if that wasn't the case, I'd rather give my $1 to a charity that will spend it on fundraising and turn it into $6, than a charity that will spend it on their program goals and only have $1 to spend.
Nohow, you've added "executive salaries" into the calculus which has nothing to do with the original topic of fundraiser spending. Don't hurt yourself moving that goalpost. =Smidge=
If they can turn my $1 donation into $6.67 of additional donations, that's exactly equivalent to me donating $6.67 and them spending nothing on fundraising.
But if they spend nothing on fundraising they might not have gotten my $1 in the first place.
How does the existence of other charities effect this calculation? =Smidge=
If only there was some website linked several times in this story's comment section that had some kind of breakdown of their expenditures...
And I disagree; it really doesn't matter that much what percent is used to actually help people; If you multiply your money by 6X through fundraising that's 6X more money helping people regardless of the proportions... =Smidge=
Would it kill you that much to read the charitynavigator site a bit?
Assuming the "Research and Medical Support" is what's been cut (since they cut research grants) then $3M in cuts is nearly 12% of that sector's budget. Is it *NOT* immediately obvious that money is completely liquid across the entire organization. For example, it can't be assumed that they can simply cut $3M from administration and transfer that cash to the research department.
It's also worth considering that they're looking at a ~$12M budget shortfall overall, so the other functions are probably taking a cut as well. =Smidge=
What's wrong with fundraising expenses? Fundraising is how they make money in the first place. Like any other business - for-profit or otherwise - you need raise and maintain public awareness to make money.
According to the charity navigator site you linked to, MOD has a "Fundraising Efficiency" of $0.15. Per the attached description, that means they spend $0.15 for every dollar in donations they receive. If they take $1 in donations and spend it on fundraising efforts, which in turn generates $6.67 in additional donations, that's a pretty damn good use of money. =Smidge=
A Blu-Ray disc is 4.7 inches in diameter, which is 3.14*2.35*2.35 = 17.34 square inches.
But here's where the "cheat" comes in; they use multiple layers in the higher capacity Blu-Ray disks. I believe the 128GB ones 4 layers? So that's really almost 70 square inches to store that data... =Smidge=
Slashdot Mirror
> The sane response to that would be to send a geek with a screwdriver to unmount it, and have it analysed in a lab. Not to lock everything down, and send a Blackhawk.
No, because tampering with evidence in what may become a serious federal investigation may get you into even more trouble.
If this hypothesis is correct, then it makes sense that government spooks would be all over it; They want to secure the device ASAP, keep everyone without adequate security clearance away, and keep the details as secret as possible for as long as possible. Nothing good can come from letting a potential enemy/spy learn about what you may or may not know.
=Smidge=
NASDAQ companies - those that survived - actually produce goods and services; things of value that people want. Recovery is *almost* guaranteed as those businesses recover.
Cryptocurrencies offer nothing but themselves as the product, and once the public loses faith in their value and ability to exchange them, they have nothing to base a recovery on. All they can hope for is more speculation from people too dumb to learn the lesson the first time.
=Smidge=
That's all fine and good, but in this context it's not about natural gas; It's about renewable energy. When it comes to securing our energy sources from attack and diversifying, you'd think we'd be all about renewable energy!
> 6. Again using the Northeast as an example, a large winter storm would temporarily wipe out most renewables. Utility-scale solar panels would be covered by snow and wind turbines may need to be shut down and blades feathered due to excessive wind.
I live in the northeast. I was without power for three weeks following Sandy. I can tell you point #6 is bullshit 'cause the only places that had power were places that had island-capable renewable power, such as wind turbines and solar panels with batteries. Spreading the generating capacity over a larger area and incorporating it into the neighborhoods that it serves *increases* robustness.
(Aside) Fun fact: Natural gas is liquefied during the summer and stored for use during the winter. Aside from the massive storage tanks and very impressive fire detection/suppression systems it's a fairly mundane operation.
=Smidge=
> DOE isn't dragging their feet, there is a regulatory agency in charge of the national power grid that rejected the idea as unsubstantiated.
Do you have a source for this? I haven't seen any updates in the past few months. As far as I'm aware they're still doing the investigation.
=Smidge=
My evidence is observable reality. In a bid to save coal and nuclear power plants - which are unable to stay in business against cheaper alternatives - Trump has asked the DOE to force utilities to buy a certain amount of their power from these sources.
https://www.powermag.com/repor...
The DOE thankfully seems to be dragging their feet a little, and to my knowledge has yet to actually issue a formal order to enforce this. There is no active directive, but there is probably a draft one (the DOE's website for browsing draft directives is not working at the moment so I can't check). I suspect that the draft directive includes the 24-month investigation and temporary purchasing requirements mentioned in the articles.
=Smidge=
> Technological change cannot happen in a vacuum. It takes years of planning, research, development, and funding to implement the change.
Which is why the target date is 2045.
A requirement like this is more or less the kind of pressure that is required to drive the investment of time and resources to make it happen. It should not be the legislator's job to dictate "the plan" - they set the requirement, and it's up to those who actually generate and distribute the power to figure out how to meet that requirement.
That said, I'm sure the bill was not written in a total vacuum and the target date was not chosen arbitrarily. There was probably lots of meetings and discussions with engineers and industry representatives to determine what the range of realistic goals could be, and the requirements based on that.
=Smidge=
Imports represent ~29% of total electrical energy for 2017. Only about 20 GWh of what was imported was carbon (coal + gas) sources. This represents just 7% of all their electrical energy for that year.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/alman...
Cleaning this up is relatively easy; since electricity is fungible, you can specifically pay for renewable energy to make sure your money goes towards those sources. Nobody is forcing anyone to burn coal (except the coal industry and the Trump administration) and if everyone insists on buying renewable energy, then that's what providers will invest in and develop.
=Smidge=
> They're called "trees"
I think they're hoping for a slightly less... flammable solution.
=Smidge=
Meanwhile, Dogecoin is doing relatively well. It's down since yesterday up 300% form last month!
=Smidge=
I was once working at an office that was across the street from a train station, and was next to a hospital... and between the hospital and train station there were multiple bus lines that converged within a block of my office. There was also bus stop less than 100 feet from my front door.
However, because my morning commute would be eastbound, and NYC is to the west - and so virtually all public transport was optimized for conveying people westward in the morning - it was literally impossible for me to take any combination of bus or train to work. With the schedules ans service routes as they were, I would have to leave for work before I had gotten home from the previous day.
It was also too far to reasonably commute by bike, to say nothing of the weather not being very cooperative most of the year. It was also somewhat common that I'd need to leave the office to visit a job site, which again limited my public transit options.
=Smidge=
> What does that have to do with mass transit? People simply die without access to affordable food. Hence grocery stores for most people ...which they get to and from using transit. They also use transit to get to and from work, which they do to earn money to buy those groceries in the first place. So as dumb as the argument is, the OP's argument is even dumber.
=Smidge=
Then you didn't dig far enough. Their article is based on this paper which says its "research builds on a growing body of literature which suggests that SLR is occurring at a more rapid pace than even some of the more liberal projections can account for". So - accelerating sea level.
That's not what the part you quoted says; the rate isn't increasing, it's just that the rate is higher than expected.
Reading further, they actually do claim an acceleration - but it's on the order of mm per year per decade; far to small to readily see on the graphs PSMSL offers. A specific example is given as Virginia Key, FL (From 3+/-2 mm/yr to 9+/-4mm/yr in the past decade) and if you stand back and squint you can kinda see an upward trend. I'm sure analyzing the actual tabular data directly makes the trends easier to see, but that's an exercise for the reader.
=Smidge=
Nowhere in the article or summary does it mention anything about acceleration, or even comment on the rate of increase at all.
Meanwhile the page you linked clearly shows a steady upward trend in tide height.
=Smidge=
> You're assuming that people don't already turn off the lights when they leave a room and that one isn't already installed.
They don't, and they aren't unless they were installed per some higher standard prior to 2014 (or to code 2014 and after). It may shock you just how bad people in general actually are at this.
> Heat pumps don't work well in cold climates as they can't generate enough heat.
Modern heat pumps are a lot better than you give them credit for. We now use heat pumps as far north as Albany and they work fine for the vast majority of real use cases, and merely OKish for design-day cases in which case you can use supplemental heat, ideally straight electric.
> I can go on about it, but that's one of the main flaws of the flaw of the bill: if you're already using energy efficient technologies, there isn't a lot to do but you're still required to cut usage by 60%.
That's a huge "IF" innit? Maybe let those of us who do HVAC engineering in New York City worry about it.
=Smidge=
> After you've replaced your bulbs with CFs or LEDs, there's not really a next huge leap you can take.
Nonsense, there's lots you can do.
Smarter lighting (daylight harvesting, occupancy sensing) can reduce energy usage by 20% or more right off the top regardless of lighting type. (The now enforced 2016 ECC goes absolutely bonkers with this kind of stuff)
Replace older AC units with more efficient heat pumps.
Replace older fuel burning appliances (especially oil fired boilers) with newer, more efficient ones. If you've got hydronic heating there is basically zero reason to not use a low mass condensing boiler on your next replacement.
Domestic hot water is a huge energy hog and there's lots you can do to make it more efficient, including better heaters, recirc systems and controls.
Demand based energy recovery ventilation is a must-have for any commercial projects I've worked on in NYC. They are amazing machines.
=Smidge=
> At what point does one realize that he's holding the digital equivalent of Monopoly money?
Probably not until there's nobody left who is willing to buy it off them for real money.
=Smidge=
> Unlike you I did look to see if that was the case before I posted and could find no sign of it.
Well, you fuckin' failed didn't you?
I'd say stick to trolling but you're not very good at that either.
=Smidge=
Well presumably you are giving to charity X because you want to support the specific mission/work that charity X does. Your scenario only applies to a specific case where two or more charities have significantly similar functions.
But even if that wasn't the case, I'd rather give my $1 to a charity that will spend it on fundraising and turn it into $6, than a charity that will spend it on their program goals and only have $1 to spend.
Nohow, you've added "executive salaries" into the calculus which has nothing to do with the original topic of fundraiser spending. Don't hurt yourself moving that goalpost.
=Smidge=
> According to the google, at most 52% is spent on helping people.
Provide links of GTFO.
https://www.charitynavigator.o...
According to their tax filings, over 75% of their income goes towards their stated purpose.
=Smidge=
Yeah, I don't follow...
If they can turn my $1 donation into $6.67 of additional donations, that's exactly equivalent to me donating $6.67 and them spending nothing on fundraising.
But if they spend nothing on fundraising they might not have gotten my $1 in the first place.
How does the existence of other charities effect this calculation?
=Smidge=
> I don't know what that percentage is
If only there was some website linked several times in this story's comment section that had some kind of breakdown of their expenditures...
And I disagree; it really doesn't matter that much what percent is used to actually help people; If you multiply your money by 6X through fundraising that's 6X more money helping people regardless of the proportions...
=Smidge=
Would it kill you that much to read the charitynavigator site a bit?
Assuming the "Research and Medical Support" is what's been cut (since they cut research grants) then $3M in cuts is nearly 12% of that sector's budget. Is it *NOT* immediately obvious that money is completely liquid across the entire organization. For example, it can't be assumed that they can simply cut $3M from administration and transfer that cash to the research department.
It's also worth considering that they're looking at a ~$12M budget shortfall overall, so the other functions are probably taking a cut as well.
=Smidge=
What's wrong with fundraising expenses? Fundraising is how they make money in the first place. Like any other business - for-profit or otherwise - you need raise and maintain public awareness to make money.
According to the charity navigator site you linked to, MOD has a "Fundraising Efficiency" of $0.15. Per the attached description, that means they spend $0.15 for every dollar in donations they receive. If they take $1 in donations and spend it on fundraising efforts, which in turn generates $6.67 in additional donations, that's a pretty damn good use of money.
=Smidge=
A Blu-Ray disc is 4.7 inches in diameter, which is 3.14*2.35*2.35 = 17.34 square inches.
But here's where the "cheat" comes in; they use multiple layers in the higher capacity Blu-Ray disks. I believe the 128GB ones 4 layers? So that's really almost 70 square inches to store that data...
=Smidge=
Yeah, if only they had some way to view and edit your post before submitting. Some kind of pre-submission view perhaps?. A "pre-view" if you will...
=Smidge=