The problem is, capitalism optimizes toward what people perceive and value. If people en mass cannot perceive the problem due to its scale and complexity, and if the time scale of the problem is that it will harm your unborn grandchildren (or more likely, someone else's grandchildren halfway round the world) and the harm you will personally feel will be quite dilute if any, and also unattributable in the particular case to the cause, due to the complexity and scale and stochastic nature of the mechanism, well... Then you won't value the solution will you.
No, this is the kind of problem that needs to be identified and fixed by competent, highly educated experts and generally intelligent leaders, through government policy. It's kind of too bad that mocking experts and "lefty science" is the meme of the decade at least in American populist political culture, and also too bad that the leader of the country that needs to make the biggest change is a bird-brained tweeter (with apologies to intelligent bird species).
So for example, if corn farmers exclusively used solar and wind powered electric tractors, and didn't dump fertilizers on that have a fossil-fuel intensive production process, then maybe corn ethanol would also make sense. But that doesn't happen, so it doesn't make sense.
or are you saying otherwise? Like that there are little people and big people, and big people (who live over here) are allowed to each pollute more than little people (who live over there), or something along those lines?
Yeah but the US cumulative emissions per capita to date is still 10x China emissions. Touche!...and US current emissions per capita are still 3x China. Point!
Search results (for generic terms) are not repeatable. Web content evolves, as do search ranking algorithms, as well as google's knowledge about you.
So if I find something that is an above average quality reference on something or example of something, I want to preserve a link to that exact resource on the web, not to some average-quality page that's kind of like it.
There is supposedly a bookmarks export function in delicious, but
"We're sorry, but due to heavy load on our database we are no longer able to offer an export function. Our engineers are working on this and we will restore it as soon as possible."
They've been "working on this" for about 6 months now. In other words the message is BS by unscrupulous site owners.
or asking people who are not exactly like you what they know, value, and believe. Then your knowledge will become less limited and you will be free to choose.
The thought-police do not yet have the tools to know what you really think inside your mind.
I'm pretty sure there are a lot of secret atheists in mandatory-religion states. They can recite the words like robots, but they can ignore it and laugh at it on the inside.
What I'm really saying is that blaming climate change on China given that you've been 10 times worse a contributor to it is the absolute height of hypocrisy.
The US has no valid arguments as to why its velocity of emissions reduction should not be the greatest among all countries, in any agreement on reductions.
1) It has contributed by far the most CO2 per person to the atmosphere. 2) It is roughly the wealthiest and most able to move (and to help others move). 3) Its emissions per capita are STILL more than double China's and more than three times the world average.
This is the position Trump should be talking from. Humility, recognition of outsized role in causing the problem, and determination to be a world leader in correcting the problem. Instead he's pathetically mansplaining some excuse not to act, and blaming it on his little brother like a toddler. Pathetic and lame to the extreme. Dumb, counterproductive, harmful.
The reason that the Paris agreement allows for example China to take longer before putting on the brakes has to do with fairness.
Since 1850, the average US person has contributed 10 x the GHGs to the atmosphere as the average Chinese person. US economic growth has been built on that 10x bigger fossil-fuel energy consumption and emissions per person.
China starts by saying, well look, in a sense, we have as a population have a right to emit like 10x more than we've ever collectively emitted, starting from after the moment you (US) cut to 0 emissions, for our total historical emissions to be the same per person (US to China).
Then China sees itself CONCEDING from that "right" down to "ok we'll consume for 13 more years than you" then rapidly ramp down with you, or more rapidly than you.
It's all about perspective. They have a damn good point.
America was not always being laughed at. It's true that some people get laughed at occasionally because of their small "hands", but that does not extend to the international diplomatic stage. So try to get over that particular insecurity.
Because now you have a real insecurity to worry about. The rest of the world will now be both laughing at and thinking of creative ways to economically punish the USA, because of its leaderships' small brain.
Headline: America withdraws into isolated hide-and-seek "safe place". Rest of world does not bother to look for it.
The report doesn't mention how sucking four trillion dollars (as a tax on fossil fuel use) out of the economy actually impacts the climate in any way.
Let me read between the lines for you, using this neat trick some of us have called inference.
Taxing fossil fuel use increases price and reduces demand for fossil fuel. Because people still require the services (transport, heating, powering industry etc) that fossil fuel currently is employed for, demand is increased for alternative GHG-emissions-free means of performing those services in the economy. So the economy is on a path to de-carbonization: de-coupling of GHG emissions from the functioning of the economy. This allows CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere to stabilize and be gradually reduced. This stabilization and reduction, through physics involving the absorption spectra of various atmospheric molecules times the concentration of these molecules at different heights in the atmosphere with atmospheric temperature gradient factors thrown in, causes the net heat energy gain of the planet to slow, preventing or delaying global warming of the atmosphere and oceans, and preventing extreme changes in clmate.
A tax of about 40% or 50% on imports of US goods to other countries which are still in the Paris agreement, reflecting the apparent IQ difference of the countries' leadership, as evidenced by this dumbass decision.
If mass market adoption of Linux as desktop/laptop OS is to happen, Linux UX needs to adopt principles like this:
1. One way of doing something is better than many
2. The default shall be good, and easy. Then you can add configurability as long as there is a dead-simple and safe way to get back to default, even after you broke everything.
3. These days, with the complexity of OSes and updates, an OS should update itself to the latest by default. Experts can turn that off. Going along with this, it should be possible for multiple versions of whatever to run multi-tenant on the OS (e.g. Docker containers done by default).
In summary...
4. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
or more precisely "classical economics meet complexity credit" - where "complexity credit" is an asset account meant to quantify the opposite of "technical debt".
The idea is, company A has built a massively complex information infrastructure, with good design and architecture which enables scaling and adaptation/innovation. That has a kind of a compound-interest-accumulating piling of capability value upon capability value.
Consequently, they can efficiently build and rapidly improve an interworking set of best-in-class applications, providing value for end users that companies that cannot leverage the layers of google tech below cannot match, and innovating those valuable tools faster and better than other companies.
This is just a few good ideas and great execution. So that leads to market dominance based on merit and customers voting with their feet / touchpads.
How is this kind of production of a monopoly through merit in an open playing field meritocracy a bad thing? If it is a bad thing, what should be done about it that wouldn't cripple the applications/services that their customers apparently want and enjoy?
The head of the Vatican Observatory, Jesuit Brother Guy Consolmagno, says Lemaitre's research proves that you can believe in God and the big-bang theory.
But I says that Occam's razor advises that you shouldn't (believe in God and the big-bang theory.)
Don't you know it's illegal to write real facts these days, As well as totally ineffective.
What you need is a story with pizzazz, chutzpah, and legs, such as that it was the Russians who forwarded those emails onto Abedin's husband's computer.
Slashdot Mirror
reducing global warming.
The problem is, capitalism optimizes toward what people perceive and value. If people en mass cannot perceive the problem due to its scale and complexity, and if the time scale of the problem is that it will harm your unborn grandchildren (or more likely, someone else's grandchildren halfway round the world) and the harm you will personally feel will be quite dilute if any, and also unattributable in the particular case to the cause, due to the complexity and scale and stochastic nature of the mechanism, well... Then you won't value the solution will you.
No, this is the kind of problem that needs to be identified and fixed by competent, highly educated experts and generally intelligent leaders, through government policy. It's kind of too bad that mocking experts and "lefty science" is the meme of the decade at least in American populist political culture, and also too bad that the leader of the country that needs to make the biggest change is a bird-brained tweeter (with apologies to intelligent bird species).
So for example, if corn farmers exclusively used solar and wind powered electric tractors, and didn't dump fertilizers on that have a fossil-fuel intensive production process, then maybe corn ethanol would also make sense. But that doesn't happen, so it doesn't make sense.
from source code files.
i.e. Should not parse.
Problem solved.
or are you saying otherwise? Like that there are little people and big people, and big people (who live over here) are allowed to each pollute more than little people (who live over there), or something along those lines?
Yeah but the US cumulative emissions per capita to date is still 10x China emissions. Touche! ...and US current emissions per capita are still 3x China. Point!
Search results (for generic terms) are not repeatable. Web content evolves, as do search ranking algorithms, as well as google's knowledge about you.
So if I find something that is an above average quality reference on something or example of something, I want to preserve a link to that exact resource on the web, not to some average-quality page that's kind of like it.
There is supposedly a bookmarks export function in delicious, but
"We're sorry, but due to heavy load on our database we are no longer able to offer an export function. Our engineers are working on this and we will restore it as soon as possible."
They've been "working on this" for about 6 months now. In other words the message is BS by unscrupulous site owners.
They hate all moving things smaller than them, and kill them at any opportunity. Ban the evil hate-filled cat videos.
you'll be herded like one, and all your utterances will be heard as "ba-a-a-a-a-a-h".
then move (for the Great Sphaghetti Monster's sake, may his noodly appendage wave over us beneficently), or have a revolution.
or asking people who are not exactly like you what they know, value, and believe. Then your knowledge will become less limited and you will be free to choose.
The thought-police do not yet have the tools to know what you really think inside your mind.
I'm pretty sure there are a lot of secret atheists in mandatory-religion states. They can recite the words like robots, but they can ignore it and laugh at it on the inside.
Time to move out of those countries then, or change those repressive extremes of those cultures.
I mean seriously, this "circa one or two thousand years ago" kind of thought-police authoritarianism has got to go.
These cultural practices are based on "the population are infants - I am their parent" kind of bullshit extreme hierarchy.
What I'm really saying is that blaming climate change on China given that you've been 10 times worse a contributor to it is the absolute height of hypocrisy.
The US has no valid arguments as to why its velocity of emissions reduction should not be the greatest among all countries, in any agreement on reductions.
1) It has contributed by far the most CO2 per person to the atmosphere.
2) It is roughly the wealthiest and most able to move (and to help others move).
3) Its emissions per capita are STILL more than double China's and more than three times the world average.
This is the position Trump should be talking from. Humility, recognition of outsized role in causing the problem, and determination to be a world leader in correcting the problem. Instead he's pathetically mansplaining some excuse not to act, and blaming it on his little brother like a toddler. Pathetic and lame to the extreme. Dumb, counterproductive, harmful.
Robots with Bitcoins (or Ether) can biuy their products.
The reason that the Paris agreement allows for example China to take longer before putting on the brakes has to do with fairness.
Since 1850, the average US person has contributed 10 x the GHGs to the atmosphere as the average Chinese person. US economic growth has been built on that 10x bigger fossil-fuel energy consumption and emissions per person.
China starts by saying, well look, in a sense, we have as a population have a right to emit like 10x more than we've ever collectively emitted, starting from after the moment you (US) cut to 0 emissions, for our total historical emissions to be the same per person (US to China).
Then China sees itself CONCEDING from that "right" down to "ok we'll consume for 13 more years than you" then rapidly ramp down with you, or more rapidly than you.
It's all about perspective. They have a damn good point.
America was not always being laughed at. It's true that some people get laughed at occasionally because of their small "hands", but that does not extend to the international diplomatic stage. So try to get over that particular insecurity.
Because now you have a real insecurity to worry about. The rest of the world will now be both laughing at and thinking of creative ways to economically punish the USA, because of its leaderships' small brain.
Headline: America withdraws into isolated hide-and-seek "safe place". Rest of world does not bother to look for it.
With Google Home, you'll never have to say Siri.
The report doesn't mention how sucking four trillion dollars (as a tax on fossil fuel use) out of the economy actually impacts the climate in any way.
Let me read between the lines for you, using this neat trick some of us have called inference.
Taxing fossil fuel use increases price and reduces demand for fossil fuel. Because people still require the services (transport, heating, powering industry etc) that fossil fuel currently is employed for, demand is increased for alternative GHG-emissions-free means of performing those services in the economy. So the economy is on a path to de-carbonization: de-coupling of GHG emissions from the functioning of the economy. This allows CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere to stabilize and be gradually reduced. This stabilization and reduction, through physics involving the absorption spectra of various atmospheric molecules times the concentration of these molecules at different heights in the atmosphere with atmospheric temperature gradient factors thrown in, causes the net heat energy gain of the planet to slow, preventing or delaying global warming of the atmosphere and oceans, and preventing extreme changes in clmate.
A tax of about 40% or 50% on imports of US goods to other countries which are still in the Paris agreement, reflecting the apparent IQ difference of the countries' leadership, as evidenced by this dumbass decision.
Agreed:
If mass market adoption of Linux as desktop/laptop OS is to happen, Linux UX needs to adopt principles like this:
1. One way of doing something is better than many
2. The default shall be good, and easy. Then you can add configurability as long as there is a dead-simple and safe way to get back to default, even after you broke everything.
3. These days, with the complexity of OSes and updates, an OS should update itself to the latest by default. Experts can turn that off. Going along with this, it should be possible for multiple versions of whatever to run multi-tenant on the OS (e.g. Docker containers done by default).
In summary...
4. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
If the students are allowed online for the tests now, they might find this webapp helpful: https://www.wolframalpha.com/
because of this against-his-will exposure, he should crowdsource funds to sue the tabloids.
or more precisely "classical economics meet complexity credit" - where "complexity credit" is an asset account meant to quantify the opposite of "technical debt".
The idea is, company A has built a massively complex information infrastructure, with good design and architecture which enables scaling and adaptation/innovation. That has a kind of a compound-interest-accumulating piling of capability value upon capability value.
Consequently, they can efficiently build and rapidly improve an interworking set of best-in-class applications, providing value for end users that companies that cannot leverage the layers of google tech below cannot match, and innovating those valuable tools faster and better than other companies.
This is just a few good ideas and great execution. So that leads to market dominance based on merit and customers voting with their feet / touchpads.
How is this kind of production of a monopoly through merit in an open playing field meritocracy a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, what should be done about it that wouldn't cripple the applications/services that their customers apparently want and enjoy?
The head of the Vatican Observatory, Jesuit Brother Guy Consolmagno, says Lemaitre's research proves that you can believe in God and the big-bang theory.
But I says that Occam's razor advises that you shouldn't (believe in God and the big-bang theory.)
Don't you know it's illegal to write real facts these days, As well as totally ineffective.
What you need is a story with pizzazz, chutzpah, and legs, such as that it was the Russians who forwarded those emails onto Abedin's husband's computer.