Despite a $47 billion market capitalization, however, GM is not offering monetary rewards
Market capitalization doesn't matter. They could have a market capitalization like that, and still be losing money every quarter.
In fact, net income for GM was $3.9billion, which is a more relevant number.
It is ironic when the very earliest posts go and say "Oh, right, so just because it can't solve all our problems, it must be no good at all" to defend nukes, and here you are using the same damn argument (which as you see above is specious) to detract from renewables.
I didn't say that. You misread. I have no problem with solar power, it's kind of cool.
That doesn't mean we can just build solar and wind and get rid of all our CO2 power generation. With current technology, the only practical way to do that is nuclear.
mdsolar, this is absolute trash. No citations, only "it can't work".
There's a link in the summary. I suggest clicking on it. It contains supporting evidence for what is stated in the summary, which is what most people would consider a 'citation.'
There are two problems with solar: night and clouds. There is one problem with wind: it's not always windy. Wind installations are typically combined with natural gas burners to supplement electricity when it's not windy enough.
Nuclear is the only power source that can handle a huge load constantly without interruption. That is why Hansen supports it, because if you want to stop releasing CO2 into the atmosphere without messing up our lifestyles, it's the only way with current technology.
The article cites this paper, which claims to have found a way to handle electricity generation from wind/water/solar while dealing with the interruptions. It assumes by 2050 all residential and commercial heating will have thermal storage, like this community in Alaska. It is up to you to decide if that is a reasonable or practical assumption.
I'm pretty sure that "Let's play" by itself is pretty much impossible to trademark due to the basic rules of getting a trademark
As opposed to say, "Windows?" Or "Word?" Or "Salesforce?" Or "Cloud?" Or "Boston?" Or "Oracle?"
Almost anything can be a trademark, that's not a problem. The question is whether they'll be able to use it to harass LPers. That would be a problem.
I don't know how to manipulate the natural flows of capitalism into a realistic, self-sustaining fix.
I would suggest building a mechanism by which people who have capital, that is money, can extend money out to other people, that is, allocate resources to the people who can use them to improve the economy. This will prevent the money from being hoarded and useless in the ground. Furthermore, those rich who are bad at allocating resources will quickly lose them. As a bonus, you can create a 'market' where anyone with a few dollars can by the means of production.
I don't know what you would call such a system. Can you suggest a name?
By that logic, money for food doesn't go to the employee, it gets transferred almost immediately to corporate grocery stores. Money spent on gas doesn't go to the employee either: it goes to corporate gas stations.
While the unions keep telling you that workers would relax during the extra time resulting from reduced work, in reality everyone tries to make a little extra on the side.
Yeah. It turns out people would rather work harder than get paid less. And if you do work 32 hours a week (purposely, for less pay, because you'd rather have time than money), your relatives and friends will think something is wrong with you and give you peer pressure to work harder.
True, true. Whether or not it is deemed secure has very little to do with whether it is actually secure. As Bruce Schneier says, "Anyone, from the most clueless amateur to the best cryptographer, can create an algorithm that he himself can't break."
If implemented correctly......our current software is full of bugs, full of security problems, but it doesn't need to be that way. When security is taken into consideration by every member of the team from the beginning, then security bugs will be an exception rather than something that happens every hour.
The problem is, companies don't care, and so programmers are not trained to focus on security. So we have the internet in the current messy state.
The problems haven't been fixed yet, the summary would be more accurate to say:
"[w]ith these problems solved, the researchers ultimately concluded that OAuth 2.0 WOULD BE secure enough to provide both authorization and authentication -- if implemented correctly."
The problems they found were two man-in-the-middle attacks. One of them is kind of silly: it uses an HTTP 307 redirect to redirect the login request to a malicious server. The malicious server will be given the user's credentials.
Those things are all easily overcome by malware writers by testing against existing antivirus. If the Antivirus detects it, then keep changing the malware until the Antivirus doesn't detect it.
Slashdot Mirror
Despite a $47 billion market capitalization, however, GM is not offering monetary rewards
Market capitalization doesn't matter. They could have a market capitalization like that, and still be losing money every quarter.
In fact, net income for GM was $3.9billion, which is a more relevant number.
Existing, mature technologies (batteries, thermal storage, hydrogen, etc.) are well up to the task
That's optimistic.
Further development in this area is worthwhile.
Indeed.
It is ironic when the very earliest posts go and say "Oh, right, so just because it can't solve all our problems, it must be no good at all" to defend nukes, and here you are using the same damn argument (which as you see above is specious) to detract from renewables.
I didn't say that. You misread. I have no problem with solar power, it's kind of cool.
That doesn't mean we can just build solar and wind and get rid of all our CO2 power generation. With current technology, the only practical way to do that is nuclear.
Before Windows, was window a common term in software?
Yeah, actually, it was.
mdsolar, this is absolute trash. No citations, only "it can't work".
There's a link in the summary. I suggest clicking on it. It contains supporting evidence for what is stated in the summary, which is what most people would consider a 'citation.'
There are two problems with solar: night and clouds. There is one problem with wind: it's not always windy. Wind installations are typically combined with natural gas burners to supplement electricity when it's not windy enough.
Nuclear is the only power source that can handle a huge load constantly without interruption. That is why Hansen supports it, because if you want to stop releasing CO2 into the atmosphere without messing up our lifestyles, it's the only way with current technology.
The article cites this paper, which claims to have found a way to handle electricity generation from wind/water/solar while dealing with the interruptions. It assumes by 2050 all residential and commercial heating will have thermal storage, like this community in Alaska. It is up to you to decide if that is a reasonable or practical assumption.
I'm pretty sure that "Let's play" by itself is pretty much impossible to trademark due to the basic rules of getting a trademark
As opposed to say, "Windows?" Or "Word?" Or "Salesforce?" Or "Cloud?" Or "Boston?" Or "Oracle?"
Almost anything can be a trademark, that's not a problem. The question is whether they'll be able to use it to harass LPers. That would be a problem.
I don't know how to manipulate the natural flows of capitalism into a realistic, self-sustaining fix.
I would suggest building a mechanism by which people who have capital, that is money, can extend money out to other people, that is, allocate resources to the people who can use them to improve the economy. This will prevent the money from being hoarded and useless in the ground. Furthermore, those rich who are bad at allocating resources will quickly lose them. As a bonus, you can create a 'market' where anyone with a few dollars can by the means of production.
I don't know what you would call such a system. Can you suggest a name?
By that logic, money for food doesn't go to the employee, it gets transferred almost immediately to corporate grocery stores. Money spent on gas doesn't go to the employee either: it goes to corporate gas stations.
If you look at total compensation, people actually have been getting paid more.
Going back a couple centuries, quite a bit.
Oh, you're a fool.
While the unions keep telling you that workers would relax during the extra time resulting from reduced work, in reality everyone tries to make a little extra on the side.
Yeah. It turns out people would rather work harder than get paid less. And if you do work 32 hours a week (purposely, for less pay, because you'd rather have time than money), your relatives and friends will think something is wrong with you and give you peer pressure to work harder.
"I predict we are going to discover that people seriously suck at predicting the future."
True, true. Whether or not it is deemed secure has very little to do with whether it is actually secure. As Bruce Schneier says, "Anyone, from the most clueless amateur to the best cryptographer, can create an algorithm that he himself can't break."
If implemented correctly......our current software is full of bugs, full of security problems, but it doesn't need to be that way. When security is taken into consideration by every member of the team from the beginning, then security bugs will be an exception rather than something that happens every hour.
The problem is, companies don't care, and so programmers are not trained to focus on security. So we have the internet in the current messy state.
"[w]ith these problems solved, the researchers ultimately concluded that OAuth 2.0 WOULD BE secure enough to provide both authorization and authentication -- if implemented correctly."
The problems they found were two man-in-the-middle attacks. One of them is kind of silly: it uses an HTTP 307 redirect to redirect the login request to a malicious server. The malicious server will be given the user's credentials.
Yeah, he's probably arone.
A lot of people think it was aimed at China.
Those things are all easily overcome by malware writers by testing against existing antivirus. If the Antivirus detects it, then keep changing the malware until the Antivirus doesn't detect it.
Which data set do you like?
None in particular, I just don't find the terrestrial record trustworthy in the least.
This is my favorite theory of why N Korea detonated a bomb, because China snubbed the dear-leader's hand-picked girl band. Things are strange over there.
Not so true, in fact some generate false positives because of various techniques used to infer a risky file.
Which part of what I said do you consider not true? That Antivirus fails a lot of times? Here's a citation for you, with a quote:
no single AV vendor can detect most malware most of the time.
Yeap, you are right. The simplicity just makes it easier to verify that it is accurate.
How much confidence do you have in the terrestrial record?
Good answer.