By contaminating the stock of non-gmo seed. Are you seriously claiming to be unaware of the cases where Monsanto has sued farmers who had nothing to do with GMO seeds, just because they were victims of cross-contamination from their GMO-using neighbor?
The real issue is that this proposed switch to GMO seeds also brings all that shit with it, because the GMO seeds are specifically engineered to require all those things.
Yes they have to go back to buy more seeds but I remember my Grandfather buying new seed in the sixties. He didn't keep seed over year to year either.
And he could use tons of petrochemical fertilizer because oil only cost $19/barrel (in 2010 dollars), and he kept pests away with DDT. And everybody thought things like suburban sprawl, processed food and gratuitious radiation were the best ideas ever.
They're probably talking about getting 100% of their net energy use from electricity. In other words, maybe they still use fossil fuels but they export enough electricity to make up for it.
(Either that, or they're talking about using syngas, biomass, biodiesel, etc. -- there's no way they're going to replace 100% of all their transportation fuels with electricity unless they shut down all their airports and start building nuclear cargo ships.)
Replacing all roofs is not that great as north facing roofs would only get indirect sunlight and east/west facing roofs would only be viable half the day. Then there are the roofs that are in the shade of other buildings or trees. Just because light is hitting a solar panel does not mean that it producing anywhere near capacity.
The point is that even if you count only "ideal" roofs, there's still so many of them that there's plenty of space for PV.
I assume the blades can withstand the wind, since they talk about shutting them down in storms rather than adjusting the pitch to be parallel to the flow. Therefore, the issue must be over-revving. In that case, couldn't they simply use gearing to increase the resistance of the turbine so it turns slower?
To use a farmer analogy, imagine farmers buying a new tractor every week because they don't know enough about their tractors to understand that you have to fill them with gasoline every so often.
Or worse, imagine that they do understand they have to fill the tractors with gasoline... but the tractors run on diesel. (And then they wonder why the tractor engine keeps blowing up.)
Not to put too fine a point on it, CS degrees matter, and the increasing percentage of self-taught developers is a big part of the problem.
I agree with the first half of your statement, but where did you get the idea that the percentage of self-taught developers is increasing? I was under the impression that it was decreasing, with the difference being taken up with people with diploma-mill (or Indian diploma-mill) pseudo-degrees.
And when that rare opportunity arises, why not just ask someone more qualified? If you have a minor stomach ache, it's an argument for visiting a health care specialist, not an argument for everyone knowing basic home remedies just in case.
With that change, does your argument still make sense?
Not all programmers need to be superhuman experts at assembly, but every single damn one of them needs to understand (for example) memory allocation.
There is a less pessimistic translation: "Please pass a law so that our competitors are forced to spend money securing their systems, so that we can justify doing so without fear of being out-competed."
I think the goal should be Star Trek holodeck computers that you can program in natural language, with general statements.
Have you ever noticed how on Star Trek, when they really need to pull off some tricky, urgent bit of programming, they quit talking to the computer and start typing?
There are two kinds of accreditation. "Nationally accredited" is the bullshit minimum standard that the diploma mills meet. "Regionally accredited" has stricter requirements and is what good schools meet.
Did you know that in America most private schools are worse at educating students than public schools?
There are two categories of private universities in the US: non-profit ones (e.g. ivy league, MIT, CalTech, etc.) and for-profit ones (e.g. DeVry, AIU, etc.). The former is vastly higher-quality than the latter, and it is disingenuous to fail to distinguish between them.
Talked to a high school math teacher and he said that the math in first year algebra was basically grade five arithmetic. And they teach "calculus" in high school! I'm not sure what a high school calculus course must teach but I'm guessing not much. Elementary school students aren't prepared for high school. Do you expect HS grads to be prepared for college in the USA?
It depends: when I was in high school I took Advanced Placement calculus BC, which is rigorous enough to let me skip my first college calculus class (at a highly-ranked engineering university, so not community-college calculus either). However, most high school students don't take AP calculus BC or even AP calculus AB -- they top out at something called "precalculus" which is just some algebra, trigonometry, and (maybe?) limits.
Divestiture didn't have anything to do with attaching 3rd party devices to the phone network; you're thinking of the Carterfone decision from 1968, which was a full 16 years before AT&T was split up.
Yep, that's why I used the word "and" to connect the two separate examples of regulation: "...by being broken up and by being forced to allow third-party devices..."
AT&T was actually more heavily regulated before its divestiture, as a nationwide telecommunications monopoly. It was prevented from getting into whole lines of business (hence why it gave away UNIX because it couldn't sell it). The divestiture was pursued specifically to strip away the heavily regulated parts (the local telcos) from the largely unregulated parts (long distance, cable, etc.)
AT&T didn't break up voluntarily; it was forced (i.e., regulated) to do so under the Anti-Trust Act.
Under that regulation, think about the degree of innovation you got out of the Baby Bells... who were still pushing ISDN as "broadband" in the late '90s.
You've got that backwards: the Baby Bells pushed ISDN because they weren't regulated effectively enough to force them to do better. And if it weren't for the little regulation they did get, they wouldn't have even bothered pushing ISDN and instead would have been content to keep everyone stuck on dial-up.
increasing competition in others (the "stick"), such as forcing the Baby Bells to allow competitive access to their DSLAMs to provide DSL service
Again, "Forcing the Baby Bells" to do that is regulation!
While the utilities have been regulated they have had almost zero innovation.
You mean, while the government failed to regulate by not breaking up monopolies they have had almost zero innovation.
The internet being unregulated for the most part has had major innovation.
You mean, after AT&T was regulated by being broken up and by being forced to allow third-party devices (e.g. modems), major innovation was able to start.
The Internet didn't happen because the government suddenly set telcos free; the Internet happened because the government stopped allowing telcos to prevent it!
Slashdot Mirror
No kidding!
By contaminating the stock of non-gmo seed. Are you seriously claiming to be unaware of the cases where Monsanto has sued farmers who had nothing to do with GMO seeds, just because they were victims of cross-contamination from their GMO-using neighbor?
The real issue is that this proposed switch to GMO seeds also brings all that shit with it, because the GMO seeds are specifically engineered to require all those things.
And he could use tons of petrochemical fertilizer because oil only cost $19/barrel (in 2010 dollars), and he kept pests away with DDT. And everybody thought things like suburban sprawl, processed food and gratuitious radiation were the best ideas ever.
In 2014, we [should] know better.
They're probably talking about getting 100% of their net energy use from electricity. In other words, maybe they still use fossil fuels but they export enough electricity to make up for it.
(Either that, or they're talking about using syngas, biomass, biodiesel, etc. -- there's no way they're going to replace 100% of all their transportation fuels with electricity unless they shut down all their airports and start building nuclear cargo ships.)
The point is that even if you count only "ideal" roofs, there's still so many of them that there's plenty of space for PV.
I assume the blades can withstand the wind, since they talk about shutting them down in storms rather than adjusting the pitch to be parallel to the flow. Therefore, the issue must be over-revving. In that case, couldn't they simply use gearing to increase the resistance of the turbine so it turns slower?
Considering that the TFA is complaining that wind power is making electricity too cheap, maybe that isn't a problem!
When someone other than a large corporation does it.
Or worse, imagine that they do understand they have to fill the tractors with gasoline... but the tractors run on diesel. (And then they wonder why the tractor engine keeps blowing up.)
I agree with the first half of your statement, but where did you get the idea that the percentage of self-taught developers is increasing? I was under the impression that it was decreasing, with the difference being taken up with people with diploma-mill (or Indian diploma-mill) pseudo-degrees.
With that change, does your argument still make sense?
Not all programmers need to be superhuman experts at assembly, but every single damn one of them needs to understand (for example) memory allocation.
There is a less pessimistic translation: "Please pass a law so that our competitors are forced to spend money securing their systems, so that we can justify doing so without fear of being out-competed."
Have you ever noticed how on Star Trek, when they really need to pull off some tricky, urgent bit of programming, they quit talking to the computer and start typing?
No shit, Sherlock. That's why I was trying to point it out to the OP.
There are two kinds of accreditation. "Nationally accredited" is the bullshit minimum standard that the diploma mills meet. "Regionally accredited" has stricter requirements and is what good schools meet.
There are two categories of private universities in the US: non-profit ones (e.g. ivy league, MIT, CalTech, etc.) and for-profit ones (e.g. DeVry, AIU, etc.). The former is vastly higher-quality than the latter, and it is disingenuous to fail to distinguish between them.
It depends: when I was in high school I took Advanced Placement calculus BC, which is rigorous enough to let me skip my first college calculus class (at a highly-ranked engineering university, so not community-college calculus either). However, most high school students don't take AP calculus BC or even AP calculus AB -- they top out at something called "precalculus" which is just some algebra, trigonometry, and (maybe?) limits.
Okay, fine: "...every president since Bush 1," then!
The point is, authoritarian unconstitutionality is a trait shared by presidents from both parties.
Yep, that's why I used the word "and" to connect the two separate examples of regulation: "...by being broken up and by being forced to allow third-party devices..."
AT&T didn't break up voluntarily; it was forced (i.e., regulated) to do so under the Anti-Trust Act.
You've got that backwards: the Baby Bells pushed ISDN because they weren't regulated effectively enough to force them to do better. And if it weren't for the little regulation they did get, they wouldn't have even bothered pushing ISDN and instead would have been content to keep everyone stuck on dial-up.
Again, "Forcing the Baby Bells" to do that is regulation!
FTFY.
You say that as if it weren't equally true for every president since -- what, Carter? Nixon? Maybe even FDR?
"Nominally" means exactly the opposite of what you were trying to say. The word you were looking for was "de facto."
You mean, while the government failed to regulate by not breaking up monopolies they have had almost zero innovation.
You mean, after AT&T was regulated by being broken up and by being forced to allow third-party devices (e.g. modems), major innovation was able to start.
The Internet didn't happen because the government suddenly set telcos free; the Internet happened because the government stopped allowing telcos to prevent it!
You must be a particularly stupid libertarian to fail to realize that the Republicans are just as totalitarian as the Democrats.