Why does everyone have to be a showman? For example, Reagan as a professional actor was better at looking "Presidential" than any other US President but that doesn't mean he was the best President of all time. The ideas of RMS should stand or fall on their own merits instead of being sold via a show, and I for one am happy that he's cut the condescending jokes and the time wasting "saint" skit from back when he was trying to put on a show.
but apparently too arrogant to learn how to present his argument effectively.
I don't think that's the reason because he used to try far too hard IMHO to push things, he was doing something like your advice suggests and it was less effective than what he's doing now. The show didn't work earlier so you get bald content laid out instead and hopefully he's also given up on well rehearsed attacks on people that use "free" in terms of a dictionary definitions instead of the personal definition of RMS. It's better to get content than such repetitive time wasting. For about five years every RMS interview was exactly like every other - a rant at some poor reporter who dared to use the word "free" and the "Linux? Never HURD of it!" joke. That was RMS as a showman. It's better for everyone if he's just himself laying out the information to be taken on it's merits instead of trying to sell something or put on a show.
I should have made it more clear: mercury in a form that can be metabolised is rare in nature. The problem arises when we reduce the ores (which are not "reasonably harmful") and spread stuff around in a form that can get into people and the food chain.
Your "mercury cycle" suggestion is a bit weird and is a bit like suggesting an Iron cycle or Silicon cycle.
Take a look at some case studies especially for things like large scale third world energy projects. It doesn't get much more complicated than a compound interest formula. The overseas (and some local) activities of Enron brought that into the public spotlight. Of course it could be said that such people are not "real" economists, they are just pointless "yes" men, but those pushing the large projects call them economists.
An especially spectacular failure was a cull of millions of sheep on the suggestion of an economist to drive up the price of wool through scarcity. He failed to take competition from cotton into account. He was of course in the position due to political connections but that's who you get as leading economists.
A final year undergraduate subject entitled precisely that is where I came to such a sad realisation, later reinforced when working in a mechanical engineering university department that shared a building with business studies and later again working on various projects on private enterprise. It's the task of the engineer to quantify such costs to avoid the not much more than teenage financial "wizards" going all Enron on you with their simplistic bullshit and deliberate distortions. There are plenty of case studies out there. Third world energy projects especially show the extremes of how inaccurate it can be or Enron and many others closer to home.
In Jane Q. Public's defense, you're just an innumerate savage flinging poo
It's a truly spectacular reading comprehension failure if you think I am being critical of "Jane Q. Public" in any way. Admit it, you just saw the little dot of color behind my name and decided I needed to be taken down a peg or two since I've been critical of you in the past.
As far as economists see it, it is free. Something of high value that lasts a long time just does not plug sensibly into their compound interest formula and boggles their tiny minds. Also quantifying social costs is too damn hard for just about anyone to work out so they assume such things do not exist.
Extrapolation? You have been very consistently showing your politics down our throats until we gag with a very large number of posts of that type over the last couple of years at least. This time at least it has nothing to do with the topic at hand yet you have invented a tenuous connection in order to force the entry of your politics into the comments on this story.
At least he's not doing the silly long drawn out saint joke with props or the "Linux? Never HURD of it!" joke he used to do. Just be happy with the content instead of expecting him to put on a show since it's much better when he doesn't try to put on a show.
It was there before as a reasonably harmful compound
Not as such. Metallic mercury is rare. It's a bit of work to get mercury out of various ores, many of which would probably be safe to crumble up and eat since stomach acid is not going to reduce it.
Nixon or even Daddy Bush are closer to being Democrats than Republicans in the current situation, let alone Lincoln. It's a bit misleading to compare the political parties of back then to now since the values have changed so much.
Scrubbers were not cosmetic. Ask someone who was paying attention in the US before 1970 to find out why, or ask someone in China today. Things are not perfect but writing off a major improvement in air pollution as cosmetic is somewhat misleading and unrealistic to the point which can lead to doubts about understanding and honesty.
China's mercury emissions per tonne are very low since it's mostly not from places with almost no mercury unlike US coal - however they are making up for it with volume.
You can buy thermometers with a bulb of mercury
Not as big a deal as having it in the form of vapour - it's not even a huge deal in landfill unless there's enough water moving through to get it out of the landfill, or biological activity turning the metal into some pretty nasty stuff that can get into the food chain more easily. There's nothing immediately unsafe about an open container of mercury or blobs of it all over the floor from a broken thermometer - the problems arise when it can be breathed in or metabolised into something that's part of the food chain. Mark Twain had his hands deep in the stuff while gold mining with no signs of ill effects, but hatters went mad. That's the difference between it staying completely outside the body as a liquid that cannot penetrate and breathing the stuff in as part of a process involving heat.
The reason it is difficult to handle the load swings is that coal and nuclear plants can not be quickly turned off and on
You are being too tightly focused. Think like an engineer and think of systems instead of components - for instance look at the grid as a whole and you'll see a shitload of peaking power sources already in place such as gas turbines and using a bit more hydro.
Looks like the later - I don't know the answer to that for sure, but I'm fairly certain you are not pushing this barrow out of mental illness but are instead pushing the science denial barrow out of an unholy clusterfuck of dumbed down religion penetrating deep into the bowels of extremist politics.
Fair enough - I'll assume that's true very unlikely as it is - now why on earth would it be expensive to handle the load swings? Show that the EE in the title is not a decoration and assume your audience has some limited understanding of power generation and transmission (instead of industry experience like myself from 1994 until a few years ago) - outline why the photovoltaics make it harder to keep the grid stable instead of what seems to be the obvious situation of a pile of distributed generators with whatever timing you want making everything a lot easier. You've put up the counterintuitive suggestion, show that it makes some sense instead of none.
So I'm suggesting something other than written? Easy answer for that one. I'm sure you can work that out for yourself instead of pretending to be a fucking idiot that can't.
We both know your wonderful example that works perfectly apart from disadvantaging people on mailing lists does not exist and it's somewhat insulting that you think I am gullible enough to take you at your word that such a wonderful example exists. Understand the reaction now?
...and perhaps the worst part is when you try to point it out to them, they insist you're trolling them
Your hysterical example seemed to assume I had a very low level of intelligence and no more grasp of the topic than could be picked up in half an hour - so I replied to what I saw as insulting dishonesty with an appropriate response with still some benefit of the doubt. If you don't like the consequences of your actions then don't use such hysterical examples.
It's been going on for so long that the kids given the lessons about evil scientists grew up, got their MBA or experience in horse judging, then their political contacts got them into positions of responsibility where they could do their bit in making China and India look like places where science can progress more easily that the USA.
I'll bite since you are using this to push your petty little political barrow of dismantling the secular state for a theocracy of lay preachers and the catamites they lay with. You've got it backwards and are railing against people that do not feel constrained by a dumbed down version of Genesis and an even more ridiculous extrapolation from it and instead take a look at the world for themselves.
True. Some people are quite intelligent but pretend to be stupid in order to fit in with a bunch of luddite extremists, especially if there is a chance of money or power on the table.
Is it really too much to tell people running mailing lists to find some other means to do what they do,
Yes, but also mainly due to my next point
if it will eliminate spam for everyone else on the planet?
Obviously your strawman example would no do such a thing if it was really that good because it would have been adopted and forced upon those with mailing lists. Let's please keep this an honest discussion without hysterical bullshit that insults the intelligence of the reader.
As for your suggestion, it appears I didn't repeat myself enough above where I said in several ways and giving several reasons "the spammers can send from trusted addresses". Barriers to entry are more difficult for individuals to get past than organised groups of spammers or just one with a couple of mules.
Since at least the 1970s we've had to spend a lot of time on computers to check designs, and whether it's patch cables, FORTRAN, python or even matlab, and even if they are short it's still writing programs to run on computers. "No common ground" my arse. I moved into dealing with computers full time after I spent more time wrangling a cluster than simulating heat transfer on it.
Pick up a phone that uses LTE, take a look around the net, then let me known if you hit any page where the phone's use of IPv6 crashed you into the ground with a failure to load the page.
I think we need that form of why a suggestion to stop spam is not new and is not going to be a silver bullet.
The major flaw is any new bandwagon is going to have the spammers climbing aboard as early adopters. Any barriers to entry are going to be more difficult for the general public to negotiate than the spammers, since the spammers have the means to bot, buy or mule their way around them. With so much distributed malware around, as well as various other means, the spammers can send from trusted addresses. Another barrier is legislative in that the people that pass the laws want to be able to send out political spam at election times, and the weakness built into systems to allow that to happen can be exploited by spammers with a few dollars, bots or a donation into the right pocket. While a point to point key exchange system sounds good in theory the spammers are going to be more interested in getting a key than most, so it's not going to keep them out unless you have a very short whitelist and give up on the concept of first contact by email.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that's the reason because he used to try far too hard IMHO to push things, he was doing something like your advice suggests and it was less effective than what he's doing now. The show didn't work earlier so you get bald content laid out instead and hopefully he's also given up on well rehearsed attacks on people that use "free" in terms of a dictionary definitions instead of the personal definition of RMS. It's better to get content than such repetitive time wasting.
For about five years every RMS interview was exactly like every other - a rant at some poor reporter who dared to use the word "free" and the "Linux? Never HURD of it!" joke. That was RMS as a showman. It's better for everyone if he's just himself laying out the information to be taken on it's merits instead of trying to sell something or put on a show.
I should have made it more clear: mercury in a form that can be metabolised is rare in nature. The problem arises when we reduce the ores (which are not "reasonably harmful") and spread stuff around in a form that can get into people and the food chain.
Your "mercury cycle" suggestion is a bit weird and is a bit like suggesting an Iron cycle or Silicon cycle.
Take a look at some case studies especially for things like large scale third world energy projects. It doesn't get much more complicated than a compound interest formula. The overseas (and some local) activities of Enron brought that into the public spotlight.
Of course it could be said that such people are not "real" economists, they are just pointless "yes" men, but those pushing the large projects call them economists.
An especially spectacular failure was a cull of millions of sheep on the suggestion of an economist to drive up the price of wool through scarcity. He failed to take competition from cotton into account. He was of course in the position due to political connections but that's who you get as leading economists.
A final year undergraduate subject entitled precisely that is where I came to such a sad realisation, later reinforced when working in a mechanical engineering university department that shared a building with business studies and later again working on various projects on private enterprise.
It's the task of the engineer to quantify such costs to avoid the not much more than teenage financial "wizards" going all Enron on you with their simplistic bullshit and deliberate distortions. There are plenty of case studies out there. Third world energy projects especially show the extremes of how inaccurate it can be or Enron and many others closer to home.
It's a truly spectacular reading comprehension failure if you think I am being critical of "Jane Q. Public" in any way. Admit it, you just saw the little dot of color behind my name and decided I needed to be taken down a peg or two since I've been critical of you in the past.
As far as economists see it, it is free. Something of high value that lasts a long time just does not plug sensibly into their compound interest formula and boggles their tiny minds. Also quantifying social costs is too damn hard for just about anyone to work out so they assume such things do not exist.
Extrapolation? You have been very consistently showing your politics down our throats until we gag with a very large number of posts of that type over the last couple of years at least. This time at least it has nothing to do with the topic at hand yet you have invented a tenuous connection in order to force the entry of your politics into the comments on this story.
At least he's not doing the silly long drawn out saint joke with props or the "Linux? Never HURD of it!" joke he used to do. Just be happy with the content instead of expecting him to put on a show since it's much better when he doesn't try to put on a show.
Not as such. Metallic mercury is rare. It's a bit of work to get mercury out of various ores, many of which would probably be safe to crumble up and eat since stomach acid is not going to reduce it.
Nixon or even Daddy Bush are closer to being Democrats than Republicans in the current situation, let alone Lincoln.
It's a bit misleading to compare the political parties of back then to now since the values have changed so much.
Scrubbers were not cosmetic. Ask someone who was paying attention in the US before 1970 to find out why, or ask someone in China today.
Things are not perfect but writing off a major improvement in air pollution as cosmetic is somewhat misleading and unrealistic to the point which can lead to doubts about understanding and honesty.
Not as big a deal as having it in the form of vapour - it's not even a huge deal in landfill unless there's enough water moving through to get it out of the landfill, or biological activity turning the metal into some pretty nasty stuff that can get into the food chain more easily. There's nothing immediately unsafe about an open container of mercury or blobs of it all over the floor from a broken thermometer - the problems arise when it can be breathed in or metabolised into something that's part of the food chain. Mark Twain had his hands deep in the stuff while gold mining with no signs of ill effects, but hatters went mad. That's the difference between it staying completely outside the body as a liquid that cannot penetrate and breathing the stuff in as part of a process involving heat.
You are being too tightly focused. Think like an engineer and think of systems instead of components - for instance look at the grid as a whole and you'll see a shitload of peaking power sources already in place such as gas turbines and using a bit more hydro.
Looks like the later - I don't know the answer to that for sure, but I'm fairly certain you are not pushing this barrow out of mental illness but are instead pushing the science denial barrow out of an unholy clusterfuck of dumbed down religion penetrating deep into the bowels of extremist politics.
Fair enough - I'll assume that's true very unlikely as it is - now why on earth would it be expensive to handle the load swings? Show that the EE in the title is not a decoration and assume your audience has some limited understanding of power generation and transmission (instead of industry experience like myself from 1994 until a few years ago) - outline why the photovoltaics make it harder to keep the grid stable instead of what seems to be the obvious situation of a pile of distributed generators with whatever timing you want making everything a lot easier.
You've put up the counterintuitive suggestion, show that it makes some sense instead of none.
So I'm suggesting something other than written?
Easy answer for that one. I'm sure you can work that out for yourself instead of pretending to be a fucking idiot that can't.
Understand the reaction now?
Good reason for that isn't there?
Your hysterical example seemed to assume I had a very low level of intelligence and no more grasp of the topic than could be picked up in half an hour - so I replied to what I saw as insulting dishonesty with an appropriate response with still some benefit of the doubt. If you don't like the consequences of your actions then don't use such hysterical examples.
It's been going on for so long that the kids given the lessons about evil scientists grew up, got their MBA or experience in horse judging, then their political contacts got them into positions of responsibility where they could do their bit in making China and India look like places where science can progress more easily that the USA.
I'll bite since you are using this to push your petty little political barrow of dismantling the secular state for a theocracy of lay preachers and the catamites they lay with. You've got it backwards and are railing against people that do not feel constrained by a dumbed down version of Genesis and an even more ridiculous extrapolation from it and instead take a look at the world for themselves.
True. Some people are quite intelligent but pretend to be stupid in order to fit in with a bunch of luddite extremists, especially if there is a chance of money or power on the table.
Yes, but also mainly due to my next point
Obviously your strawman example would no do such a thing if it was really that good because it would have been adopted and forced upon those with mailing lists. Let's please keep this an honest discussion without hysterical bullshit that insults the intelligence of the reader.
As for your suggestion, it appears I didn't repeat myself enough above where I said in several ways and giving several reasons "the spammers can send from trusted addresses". Barriers to entry are more difficult for individuals to get past than organised groups of spammers or just one with a couple of mules.
Since at least the 1970s we've had to spend a lot of time on computers to check designs, and whether it's patch cables, FORTRAN, python or even matlab, and even if they are short it's still writing programs to run on computers.
"No common ground" my arse. I moved into dealing with computers full time after I spent more time wrangling a cluster than simulating heat transfer on it.
Pick up a phone that uses LTE, take a look around the net, then let me known if you hit any page where the phone's use of IPv6 crashed you into the ground with a failure to load the page.
I think we need that form of why a suggestion to stop spam is not new and is not going to be a silver bullet.
The major flaw is any new bandwagon is going to have the spammers climbing aboard as early adopters. Any barriers to entry are going to be more difficult for the general public to negotiate than the spammers, since the spammers have the means to bot, buy or mule their way around them.
With so much distributed malware around, as well as various other means, the spammers can send from trusted addresses. Another barrier is legislative in that the people that pass the laws want to be able to send out political spam at election times, and the weakness built into systems to allow that to happen can be exploited by spammers with a few dollars, bots or a donation into the right pocket.
While a point to point key exchange system sounds good in theory the spammers are going to be more interested in getting a key than most, so it's not going to keep them out unless you have a very short whitelist and give up on the concept of first contact by email.
Good point. FreeBSD has the dialogs to choose options which is a different way to do it and most likely not as "fine-grained".