Most of the debate comes from industries who stand to loose from climate based taxes.
On the one side, you have governments, NGOs and bankers who stand to make trillions from taxes and 'carbon trading', and energy companies who can benefit from destroying coal mining.
On the other you have... uh.... some bloggers and stuff.
The question is, were they already at 1% before they started stacking 32 on top of each other, because the drive firmware sure as hell can't cover up for 32%* of the drive being screwed.
If 1% of each of the 32 layers is broken, 1% of the drive is broken, not 32%.
It amazes me how hard it is to find a sub $500 laptop with ssd.
Why? For a cheap laptop, the manufacturer's choice is probably a 500GB-1TB hard drive, or a 60GB SSD, with half of that 60GB used by Window 8. Which one do you think people would rather buy?
'Our system utterly failed. Therefore we need more of it.'
A private company who intentionally allowed a convicted rapist to work for them in a situation where they could rape people would be sued into oblivion. When the government does it, the Mayor just gets to resign.
Sounds good. They'd have to try hard to kill more innocent people than cops do... the last stats I saw on the subject showed cops were about twice as likely to kill an innocent bystander than someone on the scene with a gun was.
I write and publish SF as a hobby. The stories that sell are the traditional space opera which is just the present day with spaceships. The stories that actually try to predict what a weird place the future will be sell far less, because that's not what most readers are looking for.
Nonsense, of course. Very little of the SF I read as a kid was just 'making it easier for people to examine the hot button issues without getting too emotional'. As far as I can see, that attitude was largely an invention of the 'New Wave' SF writers of the 60s.
Trying to convince people that Pluto isn't a planet is about as sensible as trying to convince people that a kilobyte isn't 1024 bytes. Deal with it, and come up with a different name for whatever wacky definitions you want to use in future.
The older you get, the more crucial job security and stability become.
Uh, what? When I was young, I either had to have a job, or move back in with my parents, because I had no savings. Now I could quit on a whim, knowing I can live for ten years before I have to work again.
Or did you mean 'when you've blown your next ten years income on a $1,000,000 house that should cost $200,000 in a sane world, and a Porsche you bought on credit, job security and stability is crucial'?
Yeah, I remember all those NASA launches where they soft-landed the first stage and reused it.
Oh, hang on, NASA talked about it a lot, but never did. The closest they got was reusing the metal shell around the SRBs, which probably cost more than it saved, since the fuel made up almost the entire cost of the SRBs.
If SpaceX is just 'taking ideas and engineering and research' from NASA, how did they manage to build a new rocket engine and two new rockets and launch them into space for less than NASA spent on putting a dummy stage on top of a Shuttle SRB and launching it into the ocean? How did they manage to develop their capsule and launch it to the space station with cargo for far less than NASA has spent just to build this one and launch it for a brief stay in orbit?
From what I've read, Orion is expected to cost nearly $10 billion before it flies into space with humans on board. That's around the cost of four or five trips to the Moon on a Saturn V. SLS will cost another $10 billion or more, even though it was supposed to be cheap because it was 'shuttle derived'. Cost per pound to orbit will probably be at least 10x as much as an expendable Falcon Heavy, if SpaceX get that to work.
This has to be one of the dumbest arguments of all time and I can't imagine anyone who actually has money ever actually operates this way or they're headed for ruin rather quickly.
Presumably because you're one of the people who collect more from taxes than they pay into them?
'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need' only works until the people of ability wise up, then you discover there's a distinct lack of ability and an infinite excess of need.
Show me anyone outside the 1% and even 99% of the 1%'ers that would choose to make less money because they where being taxed too heavily on it. That is a complete fallacy.
I'm not sure why this is tagged as 'insightful', because it's utter nonsense. I've refused to work longer hours myself, when most of the overtime I'd make would end up going to the government in one tax or another. I've seen many people online in the last year or so saying they're fed up with government in general and are cutting their spending so they can cut the hours they work, or stop working entirely.
Whenever the left want to stop people doing something, and can't ban it, they put a tax on it, because taxing it will make people do it less. Yet they continually claim that increasing taxes on working won't make people work less.
That's right. All those fancy-pants "scientists" are actually idiots and frauds. Nothing they say can be trusted.
They reason they're no longer trusted is because they make big announcements of amazing results and then... later have to admit that they were wrong. Or, worse, they don't admit they're wrong, and we have to wait for someone else to retry the experiment and find that out for themselves.
People freaking love double the battery life when it takes twice as long to do everything. I wonder why half the U-series underclocked 3rd gen chips are all on clearance right now...hmmm...
Why would a slower CPU in my laptop 'take twice as long to do everything' when the current CPU is running at 800MHz 99% of the time?
The difference between the local bar and the local glasshole is simple: the local bar is running cameras for safety and security purposes. Who knows what the local glasshole is using it for.
They're also not uploading it to the NSA. Sorry, Google.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the debate comes from industries who stand to loose from climate based taxes.
On the one side, you have governments, NGOs and bankers who stand to make trillions from taxes and 'carbon trading', and energy companies who can benefit from destroying coal mining.
On the other you have... uh.... some bloggers and stuff.
Why is everyone trying to turn Linux into Windows?
No, because the X11 programmers said 'who wants to be fixing bugs in crusty old code when we could be working on the New Shiny Wayland instead?'
The question is, were they already at 1% before they started stacking 32 on top of each other, because the drive firmware sure as hell can't cover up for 32%* of the drive being screwed.
If 1% of each of the 32 layers is broken, 1% of the drive is broken, not 32%.
Uh, this is France we're talking about.
It amazes me how hard it is to find a sub $500 laptop with ssd.
Why? For a cheap laptop, the manufacturer's choice is probably a 500GB-1TB hard drive, or a 60GB SSD, with half of that 60GB used by Window 8. Which one do you think people would rather buy?
'Our system utterly failed. Therefore we need more of it.'
A private company who intentionally allowed a convicted rapist to work for them in a situation where they could rape people would be sued into oblivion. When the government does it, the Mayor just gets to resign.
Sounds good. They'd have to try hard to kill more innocent people than cops do... the last stats I saw on the subject showed cops were about twice as likely to kill an innocent bystander than someone on the scene with a gun was.
Because it's not like anyone's ever been raped by a 'licensed and regulated' taxi driver.
Being a convicted rapist doesn't even seem to be an impediment to getting a taxi license in the UK:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-eng...
Uh... the Culture is just Commies In Space, but, this time, Communism works because everyone's so fluffy and lovely.
It's precisely the kind of story Stross should be whining about.
Mod parent up.
I write and publish SF as a hobby. The stories that sell are the traditional space opera which is just the present day with spaceships. The stories that actually try to predict what a weird place the future will be sell far less, because that's not what most readers are looking for.
Nonsense, of course. Very little of the SF I read as a kid was just 'making it easier for people to examine the hot button issues without getting too emotional'. As far as I can see, that attitude was largely an invention of the 'New Wave' SF writers of the 60s.
Trying to convince people that Pluto isn't a planet is about as sensible as trying to convince people that a kilobyte isn't 1024 bytes. Deal with it, and come up with a different name for whatever wacky definitions you want to use in future.
The older you get, the more crucial job security and stability become.
Uh, what? When I was young, I either had to have a job, or move back in with my parents, because I had no savings. Now I could quit on a whim, knowing I can live for ten years before I have to work again.
Or did you mean 'when you've blown your next ten years income on a $1,000,000 house that should cost $200,000 in a sane world, and a Porsche you bought on credit, job security and stability is crucial'?
Yeah, I remember all those NASA launches where they soft-landed the first stage and reused it.
Oh, hang on, NASA talked about it a lot, but never did. The closest they got was reusing the metal shell around the SRBs, which probably cost more than it saved, since the fuel made up almost the entire cost of the SRBs.
If SpaceX is just 'taking ideas and engineering and research' from NASA, how did they manage to build a new rocket engine and two new rockets and launch them into space for less than NASA spent on putting a dummy stage on top of a Shuttle SRB and launching it into the ocean? How did they manage to develop their capsule and launch it to the space station with cargo for far less than NASA has spent just to build this one and launch it for a brief stay in orbit?
From what I've read, Orion is expected to cost nearly $10 billion before it flies into space with humans on board. That's around the cost of four or five trips to the Moon on a Saturn V. SLS will cost another $10 billion or more, even though it was supposed to be cheap because it was 'shuttle derived'. Cost per pound to orbit will probably be at least 10x as much as an expendable Falcon Heavy, if SpaceX get that to work.
A petition with 40,000 signatures is hardly "a tiny but well organized minority".
It's tiny, in a country with a population of over 20,000,000. Though I could agree that it's not very well organized if it got so few signatures.
Companies are much too fast to cave to 'petitions' that represent a minute fraction of ther customer base.
This has to be one of the dumbest arguments of all time and I can't imagine anyone who actually has money ever actually operates this way or they're headed for ruin rather quickly.
Presumably because you're one of the people who collect more from taxes than they pay into them?
'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need' only works until the people of ability wise up, then you discover there's a distinct lack of ability and an infinite excess of need.
Show me anyone outside the 1% and even 99% of the 1%'ers that would choose to make less money because they where being taxed too heavily on it. That is a complete fallacy.
I'm not sure why this is tagged as 'insightful', because it's utter nonsense. I've refused to work longer hours myself, when most of the overtime I'd make would end up going to the government in one tax or another. I've seen many people online in the last year or so saying they're fed up with government in general and are cutting their spending so they can cut the hours they work, or stop working entirely.
Whenever the left want to stop people doing something, and can't ban it, they put a tax on it, because taxing it will make people do it less. Yet they continually claim that increasing taxes on working won't make people work less.
That's right. All those fancy-pants "scientists" are actually idiots and frauds. Nothing they say can be trusted.
They reason they're no longer trusted is because they make big announcements of amazing results and then... later have to admit that they were wrong. Or, worse, they don't admit they're wrong, and we have to wait for someone else to retry the experiment and find that out for themselves.
The real lesson these days is how to be a good little slave to your masters.
Hate to disappoint you, but that's what Prussian schooling has always been about.
Cats don't have nukes.
Why do you think an AI capable of replacing a human would be happy to work 24/7 as a slave?
Don't they mean Bing? I thought Yahoo farmed search out to Microsoft years ago.
People freaking love double the battery life when it takes twice as long to do everything. I wonder why half the U-series underclocked 3rd gen chips are all on clearance right now...hmmm...
Why would a slower CPU in my laptop 'take twice as long to do everything' when the current CPU is running at 800MHz 99% of the time?
The difference between the local bar and the local glasshole is simple: the local bar is running cameras for safety and security purposes. Who knows what the local glasshole is using it for.
They're also not uploading it to the NSA. Sorry, Google.