The ground station temperature data has been quite thoroughly manipulated, always "adjusted" in the direction of confirming the theories of the researcher making the adjustment
What would you expect to happen if there are correctable errors in the data and the theories are correct?
But now there's this new satellite data that must be "processed" to be understood.
The raw data should be open and verifiable against the original film so that anyone can double check the data and the conclusions. But somehow I don't think even that will be enough to convince the skeptics that the conclusions are correct.
if all your neighbors have solar, it will exceed consumption during times of bright sunlight.
That can only happen if the price of electricity during times of bright sunlight is above market equilibrium. Smart meters and smart appliances solve that problem, and it doesn't require energy storage.
I can't believe you got upvoted for advocating revenge (a.k.a. "retribution"). Revenge won't make the streets safer, so it won't really solve anything, and it makes a jury hesitant to convict.
No, the best way to deal with this is to permanently take away his driver's license, unless and until he proves, through a battery of psychological tests, that he no longer has a problem with distracted driving. What jury would say no to that?
It's essentially extortion because at that point the organization is so many millions of dollars into it that they're willing to spend millions more to make it functional.
Surely community service would create the same deterrence and benefit society more than rewarding him with free room and board and medical care at the taxpayer's expense?
Those telcos are forced to provide service to everybody at the same price, which means they make a profit on tightly packed businesses in the city and that offsets their losses on the more widespread customers out of town.
Subsidies like this for suburban and rural residents is why we have sprawl.
I wouldn't mind paying $10 per gallon of milk in exchange for lower taxes and lower utility costs. (Especially because I'm lactose intolerant!)
the worst transport freeloaders are cyclists who pay zero usage taxes yet use the roads and have their own special lanes/paths built for them.
Those aren't really for bicyclists. They're for motorists, to get bicyclists out of their way, because motorists don't want to have to share the road with bicyclists.
But you're correct that bicyclists don't pay any user fees for the roads. I propose a mileage fee to cover the road damage caused by the vehicle which is proportional to the 4th power of the weight of the vehicle. If a 2-ton vehicle owner pays $200 per year for the roads, then a 200-pound bicyclist going the same distance would pay 1/8th of a cent per year. Plus maybe an administrative fee of $10 per vehicle. That's fair, isn't it?
Airports are not expensive to set up and maintain...
In cities, they are extremely expensive, if you include the opportunity cost of capital. In other words, how much could you earn in a year by investing $(the monetary value of the land occupied by an airport) in the market? That is how much the land alone costs the city every year.
I'll never live anywhere that won't let me have a car or where for whatever reason cars are uneconomical.
Please name one city in your country where cars are economical without subsidies, such as sales taxes to finance freeways, and without preferential treatment, such as minimum parking requirements to force business owners to build more than the economically optimal amount of parking.
In my country (the USA), I don't think any such city exists.
And what if the driver doing 45 pulled in front of the one doing 90, leaving less than a second for the latter to react?
That's probably an unsafe lane change, unless the person going 45 couldn't see you because you were speeding around a blind curve or weaving in and out of traffic.
But bumping someone who's going 45 when you're going 90 will result in a major accident.
The one going 90 should have watched where he was going. Unless it's more important to pay attention to what's behind you than to what's in front of you?
It would be good if the USA adopted the Autobahn's rule of cruising in the right lane and passing only on the left, to separate fast moving traffic from slow moving traffic.
The driver's handbook in California explicitly states that you should at all times keep up with traffic, even if it means exceeding the speed limit a little bit, so that all cars are driving at roughly the same speed.
Driving slower than other vehicles
or stopping suddenly can be just as
dangerous as speeding, if not more
dangerous, because you may cause
a rear end collision or cause other
drivers to swerve to avoid hitting
your vehicle. If you are in the fast
lane and you notice vehicles moving
to the right lane to pass you, or
a line of vehicles is forming behind
you, the best thing to do is move into
the right lane, when it is safe, and
let the vehicle(s) pass.
Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic...
If a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, peeping tom laws already say you cannot look or take photos. So it doesn't appear that the proposed law will bring any meaningful benefit. It's bloatware.
"[E]nergy companies [are feeling] the pinch from...weak demand..."
"[M]any EU countries...are facing an energy capacity crunch"
The above two quotes contradict each other. The first says there's weak demand, but the second says there's a "capacity crunch" (a shortage) which means there's too much demand. So which is it, a surplus of energy or a shortage of energy? It can't be both.
Resolving this contradiction will lead to the real problem. Then we can think about ways to solve it.
For years, Southern California Edison imported electricity from the Four Corners Power Plant, a coal-fired facility in northwestern New Mexico... [a few months after the carbon market took effect in 2013] the company sold its interest in the coal plant to an Arizona utility (APS, 2013)... this transaction will not reduce net greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. The coal plant will keep emitting pollution just as before--only now it serves customers in Arizona, not California.
As other states follow California's lead, it will become more and more difficult for coal plants to stay in operation.
For the period 1863-1870 there were...143 [fatalities per million of population] on roads... for the period 1891-1900 the corresponding [figure was] 107... for the period 1931-1938...311... and for the year 1963... 278
So the roads are twice as dangerous now as they were before the introduction of the motor vehicle. And no doubt it would be even worse if children didn't find ways to entertain themselves indoors because the streets are not as safe as they used to be.
If we had continued to keep the automobile speed limit at 10 mph year-after-year because a few lazy old farts refused to give up their goddamned horses and buggies, we'd still be driving around today at 10 mph.
And there would be much less carnage on the streets.
I hope that in 10-20 years when driverless cars have proliferated, that the safety of our streets will be back up to where it was a century ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops, that's 0.47 TB for $19.45, which is $41.38 per terabyte.
Here is 1.25 TB for $22.95, which is $18.36 per terabyte. You won't be able to fit 160 TB of that in a 4U enclosure, but maybe in a filing cabinet.
That's $125 per terabyte. Here is 4.7TB for $19.45, which is $4.14 per terabyte.
What would you expect to happen if there are correctable errors in the data and the theories are correct?
The raw data should be open and verifiable against the original film so that anyone can double check the data and the conclusions. But somehow I don't think even that will be enough to convince the skeptics that the conclusions are correct.
That can only happen if the price of electricity during times of bright sunlight is above market equilibrium. Smart meters and smart appliances solve that problem, and it doesn't require energy storage.
I can't believe you got upvoted for advocating revenge (a.k.a. "retribution"). Revenge won't make the streets safer, so it won't really solve anything, and it makes a jury hesitant to convict.
No, the best way to deal with this is to permanently take away his driver's license, unless and until he proves, through a battery of psychological tests, that he no longer has a problem with distracted driving. What jury would say no to that?
So Oracle took Oregon's money, and the hit on their own reputation. I wonder if it was worth it?
This is a good example of the sunk cost fallacy.
And at 0 degrees C.
Surely community service would create the same deterrence and benefit society more than rewarding him with free room and board and medical care at the taxpayer's expense?
Subsidies like this for suburban and rural residents is why we have sprawl.
I wouldn't mind paying $10 per gallon of milk in exchange for lower taxes and lower utility costs. (Especially because I'm lactose intolerant!)
Those aren't really for bicyclists. They're for motorists, to get bicyclists out of their way, because motorists don't want to have to share the road with bicyclists.
But you're correct that bicyclists don't pay any user fees for the roads. I propose a mileage fee to cover the road damage caused by the vehicle which is proportional to the 4th power of the weight of the vehicle. If a 2-ton vehicle owner pays $200 per year for the roads, then a 200-pound bicyclist going the same distance would pay 1/8th of a cent per year. Plus maybe an administrative fee of $10 per vehicle. That's fair, isn't it?
In cities, they are extremely expensive, if you include the opportunity cost of capital. In other words, how much could you earn in a year by investing $(the monetary value of the land occupied by an airport) in the market? That is how much the land alone costs the city every year.
Phoenix uses the Proposition 400 sales tax to finance freeways, San Francisco has Proposition K, Los Angeles has Measure R, and San Diego has TransNet. Texas found that "no road [in the state] pays for itself in gas taxes and [user] fees."
Are there any cities in the USA where cars are economical without road subsidies or preferential treatment such as minimum parking requirements?
Please name one city in your country where cars are economical without subsidies, such as sales taxes to finance freeways, and without preferential treatment, such as minimum parking requirements to force business owners to build more than the economically optimal amount of parking.
In my country (the USA), I don't think any such city exists.
That's probably an unsafe lane change, unless the person going 45 couldn't see you because you were speeding around a blind curve or weaving in and out of traffic.
The one going 90 should have watched where he was going. Unless it's more important to pay attention to what's behind you than to what's in front of you?
It would be good if the USA adopted the Autobahn's rule of cruising in the right lane and passing only on the left, to separate fast moving traffic from slow moving traffic.
The 2014 manual says, on page 69:
From the link I posted above:
(emphasis added)
That could only work in a city where the police don't enforce laws against obstructing traffic.
If a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, peeping tom laws already say you cannot look or take photos. So it doesn't appear that the proposed law will bring any meaningful benefit. It's bloatware.
The above two quotes contradict each other. The first says there's weak demand, but the second says there's a "capacity crunch" (a shortage) which means there's too much demand. So which is it, a surplus of energy or a shortage of energy? It can't be both.
Resolving this contradiction will lead to the real problem. Then we can think about ways to solve it.
As other states follow California's lead, it will become more and more difficult for coal plants to stay in operation.
Cap bandwidth during (and only during) peak usage periods, similar to "unlimited nights and weekends" voice plans.
So the roads are twice as dangerous now as they were before the introduction of the motor vehicle. And no doubt it would be even worse if children didn't find ways to entertain themselves indoors because the streets are not as safe as they used to be.
And there would be much less carnage on the streets.
I hope that in 10-20 years when driverless cars have proliferated, that the safety of our streets will be back up to where it was a century ago.