You don't have to be a space alien to want to increase global warming. You just have to have an investment strategy that will do well if global warming gets worse, and no conscience.
Yes, that's all very well and good, but have you asked the rich person what s/he will do about this? Actually, you don't need to. They're already doing it. They're trying to completely pwn our political system in order to avoid having to lose that money. Yes, it would be good for them to lose that money, but that's not what's going to happen if they get their way.
This is often depicted as the rich guys with the oil just acting crazy, but they aren't acting crazy. They are defending themselves, for good reason. If we want a good outcome here, we have to take their situation into account. An ideal outcome would be that they are given a way to dispose of those stranded assets that results in them taking a beating, but not so bad of a beating that they will do anything they can to avoid it. Just saying "let them lose" isn't really an option, because they don't want to lose, and they have a lot of power right now.
No, that's the problem. That's not the sensible thing for them to do. The sensible thing for them to do is try to perpetuate the status quo. If they start investing heavily in solar, there's no way they can avoid many trillions of dollars in losses. These are real assets that absolutely have to be devalued in the process of solar winning. So the later in the game solar wins, the fewer assets they have to write off.
It's a very real problem because the people whose oxen are about to be gored have a shitload of money, and nothing to lose by spending heavily now to prevent competition. Taking a passive attitude towards this problem (how long can the Koch brothers hold out) is a losing game, because there is a real cost associated with them holding out until all of the assets they hold have been consumed: 2800 gigatons of carbon dumped into an atmosphere that can't safely handle more than another 600.
Actually, the real worry is the $20 trillion in stranded assets that the oil companies stand to lose if solar gets cheaper than carbon fuels quickly enough. So it's crucial that they keep their subsidies and prevent anyone else from growing through subsidies. This is a very real problem—it's not just some rich people being assholes, but rather some rich people who stand to become substantially less rich if things go the way they seem to be going.
Wouldn't that be nice? Unfortunately, their technique doesn't actually work—the nerve cells die off after six weeks. Sigh. Hopefully they will figure out why and fix it...:}
Right. People should be free to drive at whatever speed they want on the public roads, because it's authoritarian to tell them to do otherwise. Who cares if they hurt someone? That's the problem. Society as a whole will not just let you die, but we will refuse to treat you when you _aren't_ dying. So this creates a really bad situation where on the one hand you can't stop the disease when it's cheap to do so, and on the other hand the people who can afford to wind up paying for your emergency diving-catch health care when you are actually dying. So by not joining the risk pool, you are creating a hazard for everyone else.
Maybe you would prefer to live somewhere where, if you choose not to pay for health care, your neighbors would collectively just let you die when your gamble didn't pay off. But you don't live there. Part of the price of living in a place where people respect human life is that we have to pay for taking care of it. ACA sucks in a lot of ways, but it beats the alternative. Refusing to participate because it's "authoritarian" is just tribalism forcing you to go against your own best interests.
And as the knowledge economy shifts to the point where non-local geeks are just as good as local, the value of that house will go back down to something sensible. You are in a bubble. It's not out of the question that it will continue for the rest of your life, but I'd suggest a wee bit of diversification, just to be sure.
You need more than a million to retire comfortably. If you start banging 20% into your 401k every year, you'll reach a million fairly quickly on a developer's salary. So I would restate that as you need to earn a million more than your run rate, because retirement isn't entirely optional. Of course, you may get hit by a truck and never get there, but that seems like a lousy outcome to plan for.
It doesn't matter who revokes the keys. Right now only Firefox and Chrome ever check for revoked certs, and Chrome at least has this disabled by default. If you are running iOS or Android, your browser doesn't check the CRL before trusting the cert. So it's great if web sites revoke certs, but it doesn't actually change anything on the end user side, for the most part. I'm not saying anything about Windows platforms because I don't have access to any; it's possible that they do support CRLs. You can check whether your browser supports CRLs by going to this test URL. If you don't get a warning from your browser, your browser isn't checking CRLs.
A properly locked-down Chromebook doesn't let you do stuff like that. You have to enable developer mode. Presumably the point of using chromebooks is that they're easier to maintain, and that won't be the case if they aren't locked down.
I am not thrilled that this is considered a good idea. In principle I suppose you _can_ learn to program on a Chromebook, but only in a very limited way. If this is the wave of the future in education, some thought needs to go into how to design a programming curriculum that can work with these devices.
No offense, but us bleeding hearts also blither on quite a bit about income inequality. I think we blither on about that a lot more than we do about gun control, actually.
No, the bombing came after they'd annexed Tibet, as part of the Destruction of Four Olds campaign. Religion as a whole was explicitly targeted for elimination. The rhetoric was explicit in targeting religion as the reason for destroying the monasteries, killing monks and nuns and sending other monks and nuns to concentration camps. Soldiers forced monks and nuns to lie with each other at gunpoint so as to break their vows. Twist and spin all you like: this was very much done in the name of atheism.
Unlikely. Easier to use video cameras to do the overlay. Less worry about matching light levels. It would certainly be cool if we could get a version of this that was more like a pair of Oakley shades than a giant set of opaque goggles, but I'm skeptical that such a thing will be useful.
I actually ordered a DK2 after the facebook announcement on the theory that it will be less likely to be broken by facebook than later models. It remains to be seen of course, but July is a pretty early timeframe for Facebook to have completely destroyed the company.
Excuse me, but suppression of religion in favor of atheism is _exactly_ why it was done. Otherwise they wouldn't have bombed the monasteries—they would have just taken over the country.
I do agree, but a communist personality cult isn't communism. It's a personality cult that uses communism as an excuse for its existence. North Korea is nominally, but not actually, communist.
Yes, they were done in the name of atheism. Marx said religion was the opiate of the masses. A lot of religious people have been killed or tortured in service of that claim. Hard to see how that's not atheism.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to be a space alien to want to increase global warming. You just have to have an investment strategy that will do well if global warming gets worse, and no conscience.
Yup. And if everybody had equal power, that would probably produce a good outcome. Unfortunately, everybody doesn't have equal power.
Yes, that's all very well and good, but have you asked the rich person what s/he will do about this? Actually, you don't need to. They're already doing it. They're trying to completely pwn our political system in order to avoid having to lose that money. Yes, it would be good for them to lose that money, but that's not what's going to happen if they get their way.
This is often depicted as the rich guys with the oil just acting crazy, but they aren't acting crazy. They are defending themselves, for good reason. If we want a good outcome here, we have to take their situation into account. An ideal outcome would be that they are given a way to dispose of those stranded assets that results in them taking a beating, but not so bad of a beating that they will do anything they can to avoid it. Just saying "let them lose" isn't really an option, because they don't want to lose, and they have a lot of power right now.
No, that's the problem. That's not the sensible thing for them to do. The sensible thing for them to do is try to perpetuate the status quo. If they start investing heavily in solar, there's no way they can avoid many trillions of dollars in losses. These are real assets that absolutely have to be devalued in the process of solar winning. So the later in the game solar wins, the fewer assets they have to write off.
It's a very real problem because the people whose oxen are about to be gored have a shitload of money, and nothing to lose by spending heavily now to prevent competition. Taking a passive attitude towards this problem (how long can the Koch brothers hold out) is a losing game, because there is a real cost associated with them holding out until all of the assets they hold have been consumed: 2800 gigatons of carbon dumped into an atmosphere that can't safely handle more than another 600.
Actually, the real worry is the $20 trillion in stranded assets that the oil companies stand to lose if solar gets cheaper than carbon fuels quickly enough. So it's crucial that they keep their subsidies and prevent anyone else from growing through subsidies. This is a very real problem—it's not just some rich people being assholes, but rather some rich people who stand to become substantially less rich if things go the way they seem to be going.
Yup, also when riding a motorcycle. Speaking from experience...
Wouldn't that be nice? Unfortunately, their technique doesn't actually work—the nerve cells die off after six weeks. Sigh. Hopefully they will figure out why and fix it... :}
Right. People should be free to drive at whatever speed they want on the public roads, because it's authoritarian to tell them to do otherwise. Who cares if they hurt someone? That's the problem. Society as a whole will not just let you die, but we will refuse to treat you when you _aren't_ dying. So this creates a really bad situation where on the one hand you can't stop the disease when it's cheap to do so, and on the other hand the people who can afford to wind up paying for your emergency diving-catch health care when you are actually dying. So by not joining the risk pool, you are creating a hazard for everyone else.
Maybe you would prefer to live somewhere where, if you choose not to pay for health care, your neighbors would collectively just let you die when your gamble didn't pay off. But you don't live there. Part of the price of living in a place where people respect human life is that we have to pay for taking care of it. ACA sucks in a lot of ways, but it beats the alternative. Refusing to participate because it's "authoritarian" is just tribalism forcing you to go against your own best interests.
Slashdot trifecta!
And as the knowledge economy shifts to the point where non-local geeks are just as good as local, the value of that house will go back down to something sensible. You are in a bubble. It's not out of the question that it will continue for the rest of your life, but I'd suggest a wee bit of diversification, just to be sure.
It's recovered for us, for the moment, but it's still pretty brittle. I wouldn't get too attached to the "recovery" if I were you.
You need more than a million to retire comfortably. If you start banging 20% into your 401k every year, you'll reach a million fairly quickly on a developer's salary. So I would restate that as you need to earn a million more than your run rate, because retirement isn't entirely optional. Of course, you may get hit by a truck and never get there, but that seems like a lousy outcome to plan for.
It doesn't matter who revokes the keys. Right now only Firefox and Chrome ever check for revoked certs, and Chrome at least has this disabled by default. If you are running iOS or Android, your browser doesn't check the CRL before trusting the cert. So it's great if web sites revoke certs, but it doesn't actually change anything on the end user side, for the most part. I'm not saying anything about Windows platforms because I don't have access to any; it's possible that they do support CRLs. You can check whether your browser supports CRLs by going to this test URL. If you don't get a warning from your browser, your browser isn't checking CRLs.
A properly locked-down Chromebook doesn't let you do stuff like that. You have to enable developer mode. Presumably the point of using chromebooks is that they're easier to maintain, and that won't be the case if they aren't locked down.
How does that contradict what the previous poster said? Segregation is a bad idea. Your anecdote supports that conclusion.
I am not thrilled that this is considered a good idea. In principle I suppose you _can_ learn to program on a Chromebook, but only in a very limited way. If this is the wave of the future in education, some thought needs to go into how to design a programming curriculum that can work with these devices.
No offense, but us bleeding hearts also blither on quite a bit about income inequality. I think we blither on about that a lot more than we do about gun control, actually.
No, the bombing came after they'd annexed Tibet, as part of the Destruction of Four Olds campaign. Religion as a whole was explicitly targeted for elimination. The rhetoric was explicit in targeting religion as the reason for destroying the monasteries, killing monks and nuns and sending other monks and nuns to concentration camps. Soldiers forced monks and nuns to lie with each other at gunpoint so as to break their vows. Twist and spin all you like: this was very much done in the name of atheism.
Unlikely. Easier to use video cameras to do the overlay. Less worry about matching light levels. It would certainly be cool if we could get a version of this that was more like a pair of Oakley shades than a giant set of opaque goggles, but I'm skeptical that such a thing will be useful.
I actually ordered a DK2 after the facebook announcement on the theory that it will be less likely to be broken by facebook than later models. It remains to be seen of course, but July is a pretty early timeframe for Facebook to have completely destroyed the company.
Excuse me, but suppression of religion in favor of atheism is _exactly_ why it was done. Otherwise they wouldn't have bombed the monasteries—they would have just taken over the country.
What the hell does this have to do with high performance 3D graphics cards? And which would you rather eat: oil, or food?
I do agree, but a communist personality cult isn't communism. It's a personality cult that uses communism as an excuse for its existence. North Korea is nominally, but not actually, communist.
Yes, they were done in the name of atheism. Marx said religion was the opiate of the masses. A lot of religious people have been killed or tortured in service of that claim. Hard to see how that's not atheism.