Hey Mr Anarchist you forgot almost the entire human population of the planet that eat meat in small amounts or not at all. That society you want to overthrow is about the only one properous enough that most people can eat a lot of meat.
One of the oddest things I've seen along those lines was a robotic cow designed to help train cattle dogs. That was sometime around 2000 and I'm not sure what happened with it.
Times change and the decision not to build a nuclear reactor 20 years ago is not the same as a decision not to build one now
You can do better than that. Think! What are the differences that would influence the choices between 1996 and now? The sad thing is even the "cutting edge" reactors such as the AP1000 are the same. Time may march on but some stuff doesn't progress like others and some reasons stay constant for a long time.
Also with something like a nuclear industry once you decide to stop building new gear you lose the people with the expertise you need to build new stuff later. Germany decided long ago to give up and just live with what they had to date. Starting again would have been a very major project, larger than the UK-China nuclear collaboration that has people staggered at the cost.
I know, but the above poster was going well beyond "automation everywhere" into the currently unattainable situation of everything automated. There are still hundreds of people per shift at those mines you mentioned. One open cut coal mine I went to had close to a hundred contract mechanics alone.
Remove "renewable" to be more general, then add our "friends" Saudi Arabia as number four to the mix to depict the wider situation. The Saudi driven oil glut appeared to be deliberately designed to drive the shale oil and other marginal US energy source providers out of business. It was timed just as those producers borrowed very large amounts for plant and before they could bring things online. Even if it wasn't as deliberate as it looked it removed a chance to get increasing energy independence from the middle east. Considering how much it has hurt the Saudi economy in the short term it is almost certain that it was a deliberate move for that reason.
Perhaps. Do you know enough about farming to know that? From a few years of exposure I know enough about the topic to know I do not know enough. Are you sure you know are you guessing from afar like all the others? Put it the other way round - engineering - how difficult could it possibly be? Just press a button and get a computer to design a car. Getting it yet?
Hopefully the rest of the world will stay patient with us
China is already pushing hard for a Pacific trade treaty with many other nations to increase their influence and try to become the world's leading economy. Russia will probably take advantage of the void on the military influence side.
One teabagger is a 44 year old lawyer with less then ten years work experience outside of Party politics yet Reince is considered fit to be White House Chief of Staff. There are probably a thousand better choices just on this site.
The constraint is artificial fertilizer. Without cheap and easy to obtain hydrocarbons we are fucked as things currently stand. There is a lot of gas around and it's easier to use to make ammonia than oil but temporary supply issues can mess things around.
See also automating lawyers or your own job. Suggesting that automating your own job is easy is something that can be done with confidence if you know it could be done. Suggesting that automating tasks that you've only seen on TV is easy is a little bit different.
Oh yes, they are only farmers (or insert your own job title here) - how hard could it be? Can you see the problem yet?
A nice little anecdote in one of the "Science of Discworld" books was about barbarians coming in and conquering places, having to run a society and then finding out that for some odd reason farmers got incredibly pissed off being allocated random blocks of dirt as if there was some difference between farming different places. The Normans hit that situation in England and a massive famine in the USSR in the 1920s can be blamed directly on an insane allocation of resources by people who knew nothing about agriculture but did not care.
This automation question is a clueless barbarian versus generations of farmers question. Accountant versus Engineer is a parallel situation. We are the barbarians - we don't fucking know. It all looks easy to us from the outside. An agricultural scientist could answer this in a few specific cases but we can't.
"How would you automate tasks you can fully understand?" is a good question - this one is not. It's Popular Mechanics 1950s hype that somehow made it past an editor or maybe thrown in to "shake us up" to see if we can get a townies versus rural argument going.
Here is one example of how to do it: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/201... I think the news here is potential malware doing it instead of it being a deliberate choice by the user.
Also, with the greatest possible respect (watch "Yes Minister" for why I used that phrase), coal production costs are incredibly low as it is (due to a lot of automation) and wage costs are a tiny percentage of the total costs. I'm sure you are good are something but the above post is more than a little embarrassing, especially the crack about unions when wages of miners are set by enterprise agreements these days.
That cost will be reduced with a lot of robots. Robots in trucks at the mines to get the coal to the rail network
The funny thing is in 1990 I shared some lab space with a mining engineer working on a robotic mining solution. Despite a LOT of advances the core problem he faced has not changed and we are no closer. Mines have a very complex changing geometry which means that while robots are great on assembly lines they are going to suck for a while in a mine environment. Expect something a decade or two after self-driving cars become common since it's a more difficult problem again.
If the answer is that nothing could disprove CAGW then it's not a scientific theory any more, it's a religion.
Pretty fucked up definitions of both in my opinion if that fits in your mind. The reason it hasn't been disproved is only because nothing has contradicted it yet and the models have been changing year after year as more is understood about sea currents, cloud formation and a pile of other things. You are blaming scientists for dumbed down soundbites from politicians and economists.
As for nukes, like all massive capital intensive projects economists and bankers hate the things so that's why China and Russia are the only ones going forward with civilian nukes. The choice in the west is TMI painted green - 1970s stuff that nobody trusts and not only looks really disappointing against everything else but takes a decade to build. There was a thorium project with some promise back when Clinton was President (one of those people you are pretending are in the way) but the nuclear lobby, Westinghouse et al, lobbied to have it shut down because they saw it as a danger to their old Uranium designs barely touched since the 1970s. It may seem fun to kick hippies and "the left" over nukes but it wasn't their fault, and it's what you see as "the left" in China (really authoritarian but most people see them as the same as "the left") who are actually getting the things built!
So some of those "CAGW types" really are building nukes.
Steel from that part of the world has had an excellent reputation for over a century due to the very low sulphur content of their coal. Burning it to boil water is a waste. Also they have been replacing it anyway with tiny generators instead of the capital intensive step of new coal fired units so it's a bit of a non-announcement. It's like Germany announcing they were giving up on nukes more than twenty years after they had built their last reactor. The real choice was made many years before when it was decided not to build another one.
The same argument applies far more to Lockheed with their joint smoking fighter. Instead of going after real waste these cowards are attacking the little kid in aerospace.
Reality denial and some pretty extreme anger from another poster. It's extremely obvious what Sculley did and it has persisted to this day with Apple reaping the benefits and Ireland choosing the special deal of a few jobs over taxation. They were bullied into it. Now that it's all been ruled on beyond reasonable doubt there is all this denial and anger. Pathetic. Just blame Sculley and move on instead of wishing death on people that wish to discuss reality instead of fanboy fantasy.
Only recently. Now it's a tiny collection of personal cronies instead of what you are thinking of which was people associated with a political party with numbers around six digits.
Second, Trump is a bit different because he has very, very few "cronies"
That's why it is a problem that he's stacking the deck with those few instead of looking outside his circle. If you only have a few people to choose from some batshit insane idiot with no experience at running anything becomes a contender, as you'll see if you look at some of the people mentioned in the press so far. Heck of a job!
Trump wanting to get us into space for real is good news,
I'll bet it's like George W. Bush saying he wanted NASA to get people to Mars. Turns out you can't do it by just yelling at them and cutting their budget.
The minority Trump is going to consider when he decides things is a hell of a lot smaller than the half of the patheticly low number of people that bothered to turn up to vote. We are talking about an extreme edge of a political party here and not the voters. That's why phrases like "authoritarian minority" come up - Trump is not choosing the finest people for a role from all of the USA but instead from a tiny bunch of cronies who will act for a tiny part of New York and tell the rest of the place to go to hell. It's "heck of a job Brownie" territory instead of Reagan and most of the rest choosing people by ability.
They are the same people who honestly, sincerely voted for Trump because Hilary lies and is corrupt.
Well Donald is far better at that sort of thing. Hillary's lies are pale little squirming things in comparison the the massive and well built lies of Trump's "salesmanship".
Slashdot Mirror
Hey Mr Anarchist you forgot almost the entire human population of the planet that eat meat in small amounts or not at all.
That society you want to overthrow is about the only one properous enough that most people can eat a lot of meat.
One of the oddest things I've seen along those lines was a robotic cow designed to help train cattle dogs. That was sometime around 2000 and I'm not sure what happened with it.
You can do better than that.
Think!
What are the differences that would influence the choices between 1996 and now? The sad thing is even the "cutting edge" reactors such as the AP1000 are the same. Time may march on but some stuff doesn't progress like others and some reasons stay constant for a long time.
Also with something like a nuclear industry once you decide to stop building new gear you lose the people with the expertise you need to build new stuff later. Germany decided long ago to give up and just live with what they had to date. Starting again would have been a very major project, larger than the UK-China nuclear collaboration that has people staggered at the cost.
I know, but the above poster was going well beyond "automation everywhere" into the currently unattainable situation of everything automated. There are still hundreds of people per shift at those mines you mentioned. One open cut coal mine I went to had close to a hundred contract mechanics alone.
Remove "renewable" to be more general, then add our "friends" Saudi Arabia as number four to the mix to depict the wider situation. The Saudi driven oil glut appeared to be deliberately designed to drive the shale oil and other marginal US energy source providers out of business. It was timed just as those producers borrowed very large amounts for plant and before they could bring things online. Even if it wasn't as deliberate as it looked it removed a chance to get increasing energy independence from the middle east. Considering how much it has hurt the Saudi economy in the short term it is almost certain that it was a deliberate move for that reason.
Perhaps.
Do you know enough about farming to know that? From a few years of exposure I know enough about the topic to know I do not know enough. Are you sure you know are you guessing from afar like all the others?
Put it the other way round - engineering - how difficult could it possibly be? Just press a button and get a computer to design a car.
Getting it yet?
China is already pushing hard for a Pacific trade treaty with many other nations to increase their influence and try to become the world's leading economy. Russia will probably take advantage of the void on the military influence side.
One teabagger is a 44 year old lawyer with less then ten years work experience outside of Party politics yet Reince is considered fit to be White House Chief of Staff. There are probably a thousand better choices just on this site.
The constraint is artificial fertilizer. Without cheap and easy to obtain hydrocarbons we are fucked as things currently stand. There is a lot of gas around and it's easier to use to make ammonia than oil but temporary supply issues can mess things around.
See also automating lawyers or your own job.
Suggesting that automating your own job is easy is something that can be done with confidence if you know it could be done. Suggesting that automating tasks that you've only seen on TV is easy is a little bit different.
Oh yes, they are only farmers (or insert your own job title here) - how hard could it be?
Can you see the problem yet?
Entertaining at least:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Ten minute anime:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XPlJ7S_wgA
A nice little anecdote in one of the "Science of Discworld" books was about barbarians coming in and conquering places, having to run a society and then finding out that for some odd reason farmers got incredibly pissed off being allocated random blocks of dirt as if there was some difference between farming different places. The Normans hit that situation in England and a massive famine in the USSR in the 1920s can be blamed directly on an insane allocation of resources by people who knew nothing about agriculture but did not care.
This automation question is a clueless barbarian versus generations of farmers question. Accountant versus Engineer is a parallel situation.
We are the barbarians - we don't fucking know. It all looks easy to us from the outside. An agricultural scientist could answer this in a few specific cases but we can't.
"How would you automate tasks you can fully understand?" is a good question - this one is not. It's Popular Mechanics 1950s hype that somehow made it past an editor or maybe thrown in to "shake us up" to see if we can get a townies versus rural argument going.
Was it the "Bandersnitch" in one of the Nightcrawler comics?
Here is one example of how to do it:
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/201...
I think the news here is potential malware doing it instead of it being a deliberate choice by the user.
Also, with the greatest possible respect (watch "Yes Minister" for why I used that phrase), coal production costs are incredibly low as it is (due to a lot of automation) and wage costs are a tiny percentage of the total costs.
I'm sure you are good are something but the above post is more than a little embarrassing, especially the crack about unions when wages of miners are set by enterprise agreements these days.
The funny thing is in 1990 I shared some lab space with a mining engineer working on a robotic mining solution.
Despite a LOT of advances the core problem he faced has not changed and we are no closer.
Mines have a very complex changing geometry which means that while robots are great on assembly lines they are going to suck for a while in a mine environment. Expect something a decade or two after self-driving cars become common since it's a more difficult problem again.
Pretty fucked up definitions of both in my opinion if that fits in your mind.
The reason it hasn't been disproved is only because nothing has contradicted it yet and the models have been changing year after year as more is understood about sea currents, cloud formation and a pile of other things. You are blaming scientists for dumbed down soundbites from politicians and economists.
As for nukes, like all massive capital intensive projects economists and bankers hate the things so that's why China and Russia are the only ones going forward with civilian nukes. The choice in the west is TMI painted green - 1970s stuff that nobody trusts and not only looks really disappointing against everything else but takes a decade to build. There was a thorium project with some promise back when Clinton was President (one of those people you are pretending are in the way) but the nuclear lobby, Westinghouse et al, lobbied to have it shut down because they saw it as a danger to their old Uranium designs barely touched since the 1970s. It may seem fun to kick hippies and "the left" over nukes but it wasn't their fault, and it's what you see as "the left" in China (really authoritarian but most people see them as the same as "the left") who are actually getting the things built!
So some of those "CAGW types" really are building nukes.
Steel from that part of the world has had an excellent reputation for over a century due to the very low sulphur content of their coal. Burning it to boil water is a waste.
Also they have been replacing it anyway with tiny generators instead of the capital intensive step of new coal fired units so it's a bit of a non-announcement.
It's like Germany announcing they were giving up on nukes more than twenty years after they had built their last reactor. The real choice was made many years before when it was decided not to build another one.
The same argument applies far more to Lockheed with their joint smoking fighter. Instead of going after real waste these cowards are attacking the little kid in aerospace.
Reality denial and some pretty extreme anger from another poster.
It's extremely obvious what Sculley did and it has persisted to this day with Apple reaping the benefits and Ireland choosing the special deal of a few jobs over taxation. They were bullied into it. Now that it's all been ruled on beyond reasonable doubt there is all this denial and anger. Pathetic. Just blame Sculley and move on instead of wishing death on people that wish to discuss reality instead of fanboy fantasy.
Only recently.
Now it's a tiny collection of personal cronies instead of what you are thinking of which was people associated with a political party with numbers around six digits.
That's why it is a problem that he's stacking the deck with those few instead of looking outside his circle. If you only have a few people to choose from some batshit insane idiot with no experience at running anything becomes a contender, as you'll see if you look at some of the people mentioned in the press so far.
Heck of a job!
I think he means the evidence was far too difficult to find :)
I'll bet it's like George W. Bush saying he wanted NASA to get people to Mars. Turns out you can't do it by just yelling at them and cutting their budget.
The minority Trump is going to consider when he decides things is a hell of a lot smaller than the half of the patheticly low number of people that bothered to turn up to vote. We are talking about an extreme edge of a political party here and not the voters.
That's why phrases like "authoritarian minority" come up - Trump is not choosing the finest people for a role from all of the USA but instead from a tiny bunch of cronies who will act for a tiny part of New York and tell the rest of the place to go to hell. It's "heck of a job Brownie" territory instead of Reagan and most of the rest choosing people by ability.
Well Donald is far better at that sort of thing. Hillary's lies are pale little squirming things in comparison the the massive and well built lies of Trump's "salesmanship".