I never considered robots can also suffer from a brun-out
Probably his colleagues did not spot the early signs, like constant whining and picking up smoking
Even though is completely off topic, I find it important enough to react
I'm perfectly okay with my own culture, thank you. I'm happy with my world.
I am glad for you. Being happy is a bit of a lost trade.
I don't need some person's belief system or everyday methodologies because I don't have any desire to know anything about them
You are mixing desires and needs somehow. Without even suggesting you are either one but a heroine addict, a child molestor or a slave driver may be perectly fine with their worlds but it does not mean they do not need to consider a change in lifestyle.
I am not saying you should adopt someone elses beliefs or convictions; but it does not sound like you are making a lot of educated decissions by discarding anything you have never heard of.
I don't care about understanding someone else simply because I don't have to
It is sad to hear you do not care. Why should a doctor care about you or your family? They don't have to either.
And just because I want nothing to do with their values, beliefs, etc. doesn't mean I'm Satan or hoping they die
Personally I do not believe in the afterlife, but I respect those who do.
I just want to be left the hell alone by idiots
I respect your choice, however my personal experience is that people claiming they do not want other to fiddle in their lives usually are the first to intervene in someone elses.
Btw. I find it strange that you refer to others; who may have made an educated decission based on additional information you previously so eagerly discarded; as idiots.
I am perfectly fine living in the reality I've created for myself and if someone has a problem with that, then they need to get over their narcissistic belligerence
From my perspective, the narcissist sounds like you. You do not want, you do not need, you, you you,... what about the others? Oh, right, you do not care about others only about yourself. Maybe I am an idiot as you suggested, but what is the definition of a narcisist again?
realize that they can't push themselves or other peoples' existences onto others the way they think they can
I am a proponent of knowledge and personal freedom (with boundaries). Obviously you are free to believe and live as you want.
Iran and Saudi Arabia are both terrorist loving countries, both are bad
Being good or bad depends on your point of view as is the term "terrorist".
Without taking sides, it is quite normal that people will react to what they perceive as injustice.
I would love nothing than see a regime change in both of these countries
Why? The Saudis are already giving up their oil without much of a fuss in exchange for paper and some fictional number in a database. Why do you want to interfere in the way they live their lives except for your ease of mind? If you do not want Saudi or Iran to have that much "money", then just stop buying petrol from the crooks in power.
If you stop messing with their lives and leave them alone, they will probably do the same. But at the moment the US (and part of Europe) loves nothing better than to stick their noses where they do not belong and pretend to have higher moral standards while bullying millions of people into submission.
I think in parallel to imposing sanctions
Do you not see the arrogance in your behavior/statement? What gives you the authority, either morally or legally to "impose" sanctions on another population? You do realize that those sanctions will kill thousands of children, right (lack of medication, etc...) and why exactly? I have yet to see a good argument as to why they need to suffer for our pleasure.
I would love to see Iran get "the bomb". MAD has worked wonderfully in the past, so why would it not work now? Pakistan also has the bomb and I think they are as "dangerous" as Saudi or Iran, but I guess your TV did not make that an issue so it must be okay.
Someone has a new IT infrastructure they want to sell to the Saudis.
First create the demand with the 'cyber attack', then be ready to supply the solution.
Should be able to charge a huge price tag.
First of all they already pay a huge price tag for everything. That is the downside of having too much money and no need for anyone to actually understand anything.
Second, if you knew how things were run, you would be surprised we do not have continuous failures due to infections.
Transformers, switchgear and other control room infrastructure is built and once every 5 years someone will go there to change some filters. The whole thing runs 24/7 automatically and is being monitored remotely. After 20+ years, the substation is in need of an overhoal or it is decomissioned.
Before 2000, most "logic" components were either PLC or electrical circuitry. Nowadays more and more components are electronic (cheaper, more flexible and more accurate) and controlled by "regular" PCs running windows.
As I said before, no living soul enters the substations in 5 years and noone will update components (if it ain't broken, don't fix it). However other substations (in the process of being constructed) have the broadest range of computer illiterates, all typing stuff on their old laptops and passing around memory sticks, clicking whatever to get rid of pesky popups, running in and out of the construction yard.
Meanwhile Microsoft is the only company that has gone ahead and said "no, both platforms should run the same OS".
You can always install Linux later IF Apple turns that way as well.
Seems some Linux distros are going that way too. Yes, I am looking at you Ubuntu.
Do we think that constantly telling them how poorly (or how well) they are performing is going to actually adjust their final performance metrics
Erm, yes. That is one of the major points of a grading system.
Grades are not an education
Agreed, but that does not mean it is not important measure for education.
Telling students how they perform against a nebulous average doesn't accomplish anything
Although comparing to the average is not the greatest of measures, it may give several indications. If the person is deviating from the mean (better measure than average), it usually is an indication that there is a problem.
Maybe the person is lacking interest
Maybe the person is lacking mental/physical capabilities
Maybe the person is not sufficiently challenged (too smart)
Maybe the person is plain lazy
They are all indications that this person should be reoriented. Mind you, the purpose of an education is to be a more productive member of society.
At the moment education focuses too much on economic productivity and there should be more time for social productivity too (phylosophy, compassion, being a better spouse/parent,...)
the best performance metrics are when we test students against themselves and challenge them to improve their own accomplishments
And how is this different from the current system? If you used to have a 60%, or a C, or whatever grading system you use and then you go to 70% or a B-, you have improved your own accomplishment too.
why "divide and conquer" is so highly regarded throughout history
Because it is simple and effective? It abuses a primal function in our brain (self preservation and perceived value in scarcity). Math and logic are a higher brain function and therefor harder to abuse/control. Dumbing down is a proven way to control people, just like greed and pride.
We live in a changing world and this requires us to learn different skill sets. Teaching people how to read/write and solve analytical problems have proven themselves crucial time and time again. Just like many old sayings have proven themselves: "measure twice, cut once", "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" and "don't judge a book by it's cover".
I am not saying we should not try new ways of education, but I will not subject my child to these kinds of "experiments" until they have been proven to be more successful. I like my child too much to gamble with her future.
To come back on topic, math is integral (pun intended) to any decent education. It teaches us that most problems have a certain patterns and can be solved or optimised easily while others are impossible (e.g. human flight). Logic, pattern recognition and problem solving are key survival strategies
Probably I'll get flamed for this... but here goes anyway:
I'm not sure why there is such a fascination for Europeans to try to prove why they are better than Americans.
Because most of "us" (Europeans) grew up in a world which was dominated by the US and we did not really mind as we were thought by our fathers and grand-fathers you were benevolent (I am teaching my children something different...)
Because most of "us" see (not necessarily watch) movies coming from the US which portrays the US as the land of the "Free" and "Brave" while we know it is not the case and just propaganda for the mindless masses.
Because most (but not all) of "us" see the state of the US economic capabilities (and in case you are wondering... yes, US is in worse shape than the EU, even in this euro crisis)
Although it may sound weird and alien to you, but Europeans do care about what goes on in the world, just like you would (probably) care if your neighbor is doing something that either harms you, the community or himself. And it seems the neighbor thinks he is the best, brightest, richest, friendliest and best looking person around while in fact he is abusive, rude, dangerous, steals and destroys other peoples properties. The only way to let this guy know his behavior is unacceptable is by actually telling him. (supplying proof in some cases as he otherwise just pretends normal conversation is only an opinion)
Currently America is FAR, FAR AWAY from the utopia your founding fathers had set it out to be... The current generation is eating up the goodwill and faith, that previous generations have built up, in a record pace and either the American population in general is being kept in the dark or they lack the mentality or intellect to see what is going on.
Your comment "Most Americans couldn't give a rat's ass" is spot on because most Americans believe they are still the biggest, best, etc,... which clearly they are no longer (in a lot of areas).
Don't get me wrong. I do not have anything against Americans (otherwise I would have used it... jk). But I find it a shame that a once great nation WITH good foundations (equality) has turned from its roots and only acts in its own interest screwing whomever is on or in in their way. Maybe the US once was able to get away with it, but this is becoming less and less the case.
I am not convinced there is a problem at all.
When there is only a single "warning light", you might indeed be right that there is no problem at all. But to me there are so many and Americans are constantly trying to convince us it is Christmas all year round
Man has a nasty habbit of thinking the things he does result in unrelated outcomes... do a special dance...
And I suppose this too is all based on hard science? You probably agree, as nobody disagrees (including oil lobby), that global climate change is a fact. The only discussion is about who/what is causing it.
In your rain dance example. What scientists are saying is that we should STOP our dancing ritual because it is raining too often. Science shows the rain is not caused by the dance, but by the small ash particles coming out of the fire which go into the clouds and start forming droplets. So because YOU do not understand the science and cannot see the relation between the "dancing" and the rain does not mean you should ridicule those who actually did the research.
Any year without a winter is going to be warmer on average than any year with a winter
Yes, that is why we had the hottest decade on record with most of the extremes in the last 12 years. But yeah, you can ignore the facts and go with whatever works best in your head.
I am saying that it has been warmer and it has been much colder
Did the warming happen as quickly as it does now? What was the impact on life on earth? Are you 100% sure we are NOT causing or amplifying it? I am quite sure we are AT LEAST contributing to it without having done any hard research.
Maybe we should consider more natural reasons for the extremely recent rise in temperature and stop wondering which dance moves caused the rain
Then why bother? Why spend time/money/resources to find a cause which we can't change anyway? Or maybe you should take a closer look at the real science/big picture (fire) and not get distracted by the music and the waving feathers.
Why is it so hard for you to even consider we MIGHT be causing or contributing to it? Remember the hole in the ozone layer? Remember the acid rain? They were all natural phenomena? How many species are extinct due to human intervention? If you believe we have zero impact on our environment, I know which way the grade average of your class went when you stayed home.
I suck at spelling and Firefox's spell check is not working all of a sudden
Maybe you should not try to find what you did to break it, but find someone/something else to blame;)
Wat does this prove about the cause? Nothing really
Wrong. This proves that whatever is causing global warming is still here.
many such climate changes prior to mankind having the ability to cause it
Yes, and each time it lead to massive disruption in the way life was organised on earth. You suggest we do like the dinos and go 'meh' so in 100 million years our bones are dug up by giant intelligent insects who will be thinking what "natural disaster" caused us to disappear (warning: dramatised).
Wat is apparent that certain parties r using theories of a correlation to force change upon the masses which amounts to control
I feel like a repeat of history. Remember back in the days when it was just "mad/fearmongering scientists" who claimed tobacco and asbestos were cancerous while the nice, honourable and moral industry said everything was hanky dory and we should continue to use their products. Now when people/economies are hooked on fossil fuels, ONLY the oil industry is trying to convince us that everything is hanky dory and we should continue to use their products.
Unfortunately we do not have hundreds of thousands of planets to test/prove the theory statistically like was done with lung cancer.
There r some who r aligned in such a way to profit greatly from forcing these changes upon us
Like whom? Independent scientists all over the world are in agreement. Who gains from NOT buying/burning oil and reducing our fossil energy consumption? Perhaps you should turn around the question. Who is losing when we change our ways. At which side of the argument are they and how many (truly) independent supporters do they have?
We have absolutely no idea whether we r causing this and absolutely no idea whether there is anything we can do to stop it
When we burn oil/coal/... it is a fact that heat and CO2 is released in the atmosphere. Although I doubt the amount of energy dissipated by heat will make such a great impact, the issue with CO2 is that it traps energy in the atmosphere which would otherwise be dissipated into space. The real problem with CO2 is that its effect is compounded and amplified. When more CO2 is released in the atmosphere, temperature will rise, when temperature rises, there will be more moisture in the air which is also a greenhouse gas. On top due to the higher temperature, the polar caps are melting releasing CO2 trapped in the soil. Adding more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Additionally, since snow/ice is white, it reflects most of the light/energy. Reducing the amount of ice covered surface will increase the amount of energy the water/soil will absorb. More energy means more heat, more heat means... it is a vicious circle.
Whether you think we caused it or not, we are DEFINITELY contributing to the problem.
Analogy: When there is a famine coming and some scientist say, there will be famine because we are eating our sowing crop and we should stop wasting food and grow alternatives. You say: there were famines before, rations and less food means economical harm for restaurant holders.
stop things which ARE causing real harm
Like floods are not causing harm or hurricanes or blizzards? Droughts? Lack of fresh water? Dying bees (no pollination)?
real and significant issue for our future is simply the limited supply of worldwide oil
So how can we make sure we can go longer with our current supply? Maybe by reducing our usage of oil? Oh, wait, that is EXACTLY what everyone else is saying. No matter how you look at it, we should reduce our CO2 emissions (less burning of fossil fuels). It makes economical sense, it makes ecological sense and it makes strategic sense.
So I support any rational or irrational behaviour that leads to alternate energy research
Although I find putting a price on a human life is disgusting, there are a number of flaws in your logic even when using your chain of thought.
according to US actuarial tables, a human life is worth about $13 million... is a rough calculation that a rational liberal economist...
First mistake: These values are for a US/Western life. The values for "foreigners", especially third-world countries where most of the casualties will be, is MUCH lower. Also when there will be a famine, the first casualties will be the "weak": elderly, handicapped, children, women...
Economically speaking, some of them will be net profits.
Second mistake: The economic loss as you calculate will be in the countries of origin. This will reduce the world economy, but will have less impact on the western world. This has the pervert effect that western economy will have a greater percentage of the world wealth and as a consequence a greater influence, so why would anyone want to invest in a worse future?
Third mistake: You assume the US cares about the financial well-being of others. Investors will lay off hundreds of thousands of people to gain 3% more return on their investment. The cost of keeping a pet is greater than the cost of medication and nutrition of a few African/Asian children.
Forth mistake: You assume (the majority of) people will plan ahead and/or see the consequence of their actions. Look at all the debt we rack up. Look at how we "bury" our waste (including nuclear) like putting it in the ground will make it magically disappear. Look at how people (ab)use antibiotics.
Fifth mistake: You assume the loss of money will be evenly spread amongst all people. This is untrue as we can see in the economic crisis. The wealthy/powerful, who decide policies, will see little impact while the poor/weak will take the biggest hit.
If you want to stop me from burning whatever I want anytime I want whether it be wood or coal or petrol you are going to have to actually come to my house with weapons and arrest me.
No need. When prices will have sufficiently risen, you will have no more money to buy these products.
Can't you see how incredibly difficult it is to get so many people all over this planet to stop producing C02?
It is very easy. CO2 is mainly a by-product of our energy consumption. When there are no more cheap energy sources (oil), people will be forced to use less energy by the ever increasing prices. Between 1990-2000 1 barrel of crude oil on average costed less than $20. Between 2000-2004 it went up to $30. Now it is at $100: why do you think that is? Kyoto? Off course not. Did your income go up 3x since 2004? No? So the same amount of energy is taking up a greater portion of your available budget. This will continue until one of two things will happen:
1) People will start using less energy: either by using more power efficient technologies or by abandoning comfort because it will be too expensive
2) We find a new cheap sustainable alternative energy source (nuclear fission is definitely not viable before 2020)
If prices triple again in the next 10 years, will you continue to burn whatever you can afford or will you then start reducing your energy usage (insulating, smaller car,...)?
on my own internal network I might not bother with setting up IPV6, and instead do the equivalent of a NAT for my internal servers to give them an IPV4 address and only have my border router deal with IPV6
Good luck. You obviously never tried this and got burned to the ground by the "netfilter" guys because their "NAT IS EVIL" mantra.
AFAIK there IS NO IPv6 NAT available at all with iptables (unlike openBSD). Their suggestion: "use reverse proxies".
Heck even a single command to administer everything is too much to ask (they are separate protocols, but then again every other application which binds to:: will serve both 4 and 6). You'll have to duplicate each firewall rule set.
A DNS server is, if you will, akin to an office suite
Is this some kind of inside joke like half of the code is dead (LibreOffice) or there are many different formats doing the same?
I am totally lost and confused by your "analogy". The whole idea about an analogy is that you make it SIMPLE by using well known concepts.
Now, when I said above that a DNS server is akin to an office suite, I wasn't saying that there is a spreadsheet and a word processor included with DNS servers
So then what were you saying? It is like powerpoint? Or Outlook?
Please do not take this wrong way. It is meant as positive criticism: try to find better analogies, it helps the both of us.:)
I don't know what you make in a month and the type of finish/comfort you have in your house, but typically I would say one would spend (in EUR) 5k in sand/cement/concrete blocks (foundation, support structures), 2-3k for steel/rebarb, 3-4k in wood (roof) + 2k in tiles, 8k in bricks, 3k in wiring/electrics, 9k for central heating, 3k for insulation, 6k for windows,... And these are just raw materials and very conservative estimates, no labor, carpentry (stairs/doors) or decoration. That means you'd have to earn (net) more than 21k/month, but I would guess most (including myself) don't get anything near that amount.
You're overlooking the fact that greater efficiency drives up demand.
True, but it means higher standard of living. At current efficiency the whole world can not enjoy the same mobility we (West) have enjoyed for so long.
Why would someone in Africa or Asia not be allowed the same privileges as us? Demand will come eventually and if there is not enough to go around someone will get the short end. Ever noticed how commodities are becoming more expensive? It is the Chinese buying up resources (including food).
when people install cleaner energy/heating for their houses they will start to use more of it--so if you insulate your house, you will feel justified to heat it to a higher level, to some extent cancelling out initial benefits.
False. It is not because your house is properly insulated that you will not put it on a comfortable 21ÂC but at a blistering 40ÂC. It is not because your car is 13 times as efficient that you will drive 13 times as much.
Similarly, the efficient computer chips you mention mean that we now feel we need to carry at least two full-fledged computers with us in our pockets wherever we go, meaning the total environmental degradation goes up, not down.
We are not there yet. It is better to have 100 devices each consuming 1W than 1 device that consumes 400W.
Off course 100 devices consuming 1W is worse than no device at all... but I don't feel like going back to the stone age.
I've never seen a 240V washer or a 120V dryer... (Note, this assumes you're in the USA.)
You assumed wrong. I live in a developed country.;)
Computers use far more power than they did 20+ years ago.
Never said they didn't, but it may very well be true. I am quite sure my Atom laptop or ARM netbook uses less power than anything remotely comparable from that era.
They do a lot more with that power
Exactly what I said: "use less power for the same amount of processing capacity"
my dual 24" monitors now have LED backlighting and only use about 25W each, whereas my old 14" CRT probably used 75W or more
So what is your point? You now have a higher resolution and bigger screen using less power and probably cheaper than your old 14"?
I guess you missed my point. My point was that lower power usage does not mean loss of jobs, nor does it mean we have to compromise on "standards of living" or even on price as the
parent suggested. Look at the quote I replied to.
but the Beetle still gets better fuel economy per distance traveled
This is bullshit. I could ask for a citation too. What I found on the net is that a Beetle had an average consumption of 13 L/100km. As you took a small car, I will compare it to the BMW 1 series which has an advertised consumption of 5.8 L/100 km. In tests it shows "real" usage is about 6.8 L/100 km and when you "play" with it on the track you get about 11.8 L/100 km.
So even on the tracks, in "sports" mode using the airco and soundsystem you still consume less than normal use of a Beetle. Have you ever looked at the numbers for today's cars?
I'm not very hopeful. With some things, when you get past a certain point, then everything just collapses like a house of cards... where it's simply too late
Exactly. Fortunately for you most European and some Asian countries are doing the right things and leading the future. It is quite sad to see the US is even unable to ratify the Kyoto protocol. It shows how the US economy is no longer leading innovation, but is rusted in their old ways.
Nobody wants to cut back on emissions in any meaningful way because it will mean literal death for large numbers of people unable to be supported by non-oil-based agricultural methods, and it will also mean a reduction in the standard of living for everyone else.
That is bullshit. Insulating your house increases your living standard and reduces costs (less heating/cooling required). How does that "kill" the economy? It should even allow for cheaper oil (less demand). If you can save money and get better comfort, how is this bad?
Look at BMW and Mercedes. You think they compromised on power or comfort with their new line of fuel efficient cars? When you don't lose as much time at the gas station and reduce toxins how is this bad?
Household appliances use less power. This means I can now use both the washer and dryer simultaneously on the same circuit without losing the circuit breaker. When you can do more with less. How is this bad?
CPUs and other electronics use less power for the same amount of processing capacity in each generation. Higher efficiency means longer battery life, smaller/lighter components as less cooling is required,...
You think we would have smartphones and iPads if components were as energy efficient as they were in the 60s? 70s? 80s? 90s? 2000s (P4 anyone?)?
When you can have things which could not exist before, how is this bad?
I am not saying this is true for all branches of the economy, but get your head out of the sand.
Recycling (= renewable resources) is an increasing branch in our economy and we could no longer live without as we simply do not have access to cheap resources and the same will be true for energy.
A lot of our devices and habits are VERY inefficient. Every house wastes energy for generating heat (heating, cooking) and cooling (airco, fridge) at the same time. Increasing the efficiency means cutting back on costs and emissions while standards of living increases for everyone. Did you hear about passive houses? They use residual heat from appliances to heat the house. How great would it be if each building was self sufficient and would have "the grid" only as a fall-back option? How cool would it be if you could drive to the store on the cooking grease of the previous meal? How much better would it be if you did not need to drive to work at all (work from home)?
We are now using resources which took millions of years to form. You think we can keep this pace for another 500 years? 300 years? 100 years (this may be in the lifetime of my daughter which is 3 years old now)? 50 years (this may still be in my lifetime)? Who are we to use up all the resources for our enjoyment now and leave nothing for future generations? Our current habits are UNSUSTAINABLE and HAVE to change. Either we make changes ourselves or something cataclysmic will happen before 2150. We are at a crossroad between the responsible and the irresponsible way. Changing habits (responsible) takes effort but could preserve prosperity. The irresponsible road leads to destruction.
You remember the days when we had acid rain?
You remember the days when the hole in the ozone layer was growing?
You remember the days when nuclear waste was dumped in the oceans?
Economies and standards of living today dependent too much on cheap energy and cheap credit. Both will crumble eventually. Better prepare yourself or get wiped out and as we saw with the credit crunch (credit went away briefly), it can happen VERY fast and incur irreparable damage.
Energy efficiency (aka reduction in emissions) is essential to our way of life (short term < 70 years) and even survival (long term > 300 years).
Yeah, our downfall can only come from WMDs (Whining and Mass Delays) Fortunately we have our elite army of supranational bureaucrats... Eurostat will come back in a couple of months when they know with great certainty about our strength... Unless some of the member states have presented fraudulent numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
I never considered robots can also suffer from a brun-out Probably his colleagues did not spot the early signs, like constant whining and picking up smoking
Even though is completely off topic, I find it important enough to react
I'm perfectly okay with my own culture, thank you. I'm happy with my world.
I am glad for you. Being happy is a bit of a lost trade.
I don't need some person's belief system or everyday methodologies because I don't have any desire to know anything about them
You are mixing desires and needs somehow. Without even suggesting you are either one but a heroine addict, a child molestor or a slave driver may be perectly fine with their worlds but it does not mean they do not need to consider a change in lifestyle.
I am not saying you should adopt someone elses beliefs or convictions; but it does not sound like you are making a lot of educated decissions by discarding anything you have never heard of.
I don't care about understanding someone else simply because I don't have to
It is sad to hear you do not care. Why should a doctor care about you or your family? They don't have to either.
And just because I want nothing to do with their values, beliefs, etc. doesn't mean I'm Satan or hoping they die
Personally I do not believe in the afterlife, but I respect those who do.
I just want to be left the hell alone by idiots
I respect your choice, however my personal experience is that people claiming they do not want other to fiddle in their lives usually are the first to intervene in someone elses.
Btw. I find it strange that you refer to others; who may have made an educated decission based on additional information you previously so eagerly discarded; as idiots.
I am perfectly fine living in the reality I've created for myself and if someone has a problem with that, then they need to get over their narcissistic belligerence
From my perspective, the narcissist sounds like you. You do not want, you do not need, you, you you, ... what about the others? Oh, right, you do not care about others only about yourself. Maybe I am an idiot as you suggested, but what is the definition of a narcisist again?
realize that they can't push themselves or other peoples' existences onto others the way they think they can
I am a proponent of knowledge and personal freedom (with boundaries). Obviously you are free to believe and live as you want.
Nothing quite as romantic ...
Always remember: The shortest way to a woman's heart is through her ribcage
unsupported assumption:
Iran and Saudi Arabia are both terrorist loving countries, both are bad
Being good or bad depends on your point of view as is the term "terrorist".
Without taking sides, it is quite normal that people will react to what they perceive as injustice.
I would love nothing than see a regime change in both of these countries
Why? The Saudis are already giving up their oil without much of a fuss in exchange for paper and some fictional number in a database. Why do you want to interfere in the way they live their lives except for your ease of mind? If you do not want Saudi or Iran to have that much "money", then just stop buying petrol from the crooks in power.
If you stop messing with their lives and leave them alone, they will probably do the same. But at the moment the US (and part of Europe) loves nothing better than to stick their noses where they do not belong and pretend to have higher moral standards while bullying millions of people into submission.
I think in parallel to imposing sanctions
Do you not see the arrogance in your behavior/statement? What gives you the authority, either morally or legally to "impose" sanctions on another population? You do realize that those sanctions will kill thousands of children, right (lack of medication, etc ...) and why exactly? I have yet to see a good argument as to why they need to suffer for our pleasure.
I would love to see Iran get "the bomb". MAD has worked wonderfully in the past, so why would it not work now? Pakistan also has the bomb and I think they are as "dangerous" as Saudi or Iran, but I guess your TV did not make that an issue so it must be okay.
Someone has a new IT infrastructure they want to sell to the Saudis.
First create the demand with the 'cyber attack', then be ready to supply the solution.
Should be able to charge a huge price tag.
First of all they already pay a huge price tag for everything. That is the downside of having too much money and no need for anyone to actually understand anything.
Second, if you knew how things were run, you would be surprised we do not have continuous failures due to infections.
Transformers, switchgear and other control room infrastructure is built and once every 5 years someone will go there to change some filters. The whole thing runs 24/7 automatically and is being monitored remotely. After 20+ years, the substation is in need of an overhoal or it is decomissioned.
Before 2000, most "logic" components were either PLC or electrical circuitry. Nowadays more and more components are electronic (cheaper, more flexible and more accurate) and controlled by "regular" PCs running windows.
As I said before, no living soul enters the substations in 5 years and noone will update components (if it ain't broken, don't fix it). However other substations (in the process of being constructed) have the broadest range of computer illiterates, all typing stuff on their old laptops and passing around memory sticks, clicking whatever to get rid of pesky popups, running in and out of the construction yard.
Meanwhile Microsoft is the only company that has gone ahead and said "no, both platforms should run the same OS".
You can always install Linux later IF Apple turns that way as well.
Seems some Linux distros are going that way too. Yes, I am looking at you Ubuntu.
Do we think that constantly telling them how poorly (or how well) they are performing is going to actually adjust their final performance metrics
Erm, yes. That is one of the major points of a grading system.
Grades are not an education
Agreed, but that does not mean it is not important measure for education.
Telling students how they perform against a nebulous average doesn't accomplish anything
Although comparing to the average is not the greatest of measures, it may give several indications. If the person is deviating from the mean (better measure than average), it usually is an indication that there is a problem.
They are all indications that this person should be reoriented. Mind you, the purpose of an education is to be a more productive member of society. ...)
At the moment education focuses too much on economic productivity and there should be more time for social productivity too (phylosophy, compassion, being a better spouse/parent,
the best performance metrics are when we test students against themselves and challenge them to improve their own accomplishments
And how is this different from the current system? If you used to have a 60%, or a C, or whatever grading system you use and then you go to 70% or a B-, you have improved your own accomplishment too.
why "divide and conquer" is so highly regarded throughout history
Because it is simple and effective? It abuses a primal function in our brain (self preservation and perceived value in scarcity). Math and logic are a higher brain function and therefor harder to abuse/control. Dumbing down is a proven way to control people, just like greed and pride.
We live in a changing world and this requires us to learn different skill sets. Teaching people how to read/write and solve analytical problems have proven themselves crucial time and time again. Just like many old sayings have proven themselves: "measure twice, cut once", "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" and "don't judge a book by it's cover".
I am not saying we should not try new ways of education, but I will not subject my child to these kinds of "experiments" until they have been proven to be more successful. I like my child too much to gamble with her future.
To come back on topic, math is integral (pun intended) to any decent education. It teaches us that most problems have a certain patterns and can be solved or optimised easily while others are impossible (e.g. human flight).
Logic, pattern recognition and problem solving are key survival strategies
You're a wiseguy. Nobody likes a wiseguy
I'm not sure why there is such a fascination for Europeans to try to prove why they are better than Americans.
Because most of "us" (Europeans) grew up in a world which was dominated by the US and we did not really mind as we were thought by our fathers and grand-fathers you were benevolent (I am teaching my children something different ...)
Because most of "us" see (not necessarily watch) movies coming from the US which portrays the US as the land of the "Free" and "Brave" while we know it is not the case and just propaganda for the mindless masses.
Because most (but not all) of "us" see the state of the US economic capabilities (and in case you are wondering ... yes, US is in worse shape than the EU, even in this euro crisis)
Although it may sound weird and alien to you, but Europeans do care about what goes on in the world, just like you would (probably) care if your neighbor is doing something that either harms you, the community or himself. And it seems the neighbor thinks he is the best, brightest, richest, friendliest and best looking person around while in fact he is abusive, rude, dangerous, steals and destroys other peoples properties. The only way to let this guy know his behavior is unacceptable is by actually telling him. (supplying proof in some cases as he otherwise just pretends normal conversation is only an opinion)
Currently America is FAR, FAR AWAY from the utopia your founding fathers had set it out to be ... The current generation is eating up the goodwill and faith, that previous generations have built up, in a record pace and either the American population in general is being kept in the dark or they lack the mentality or intellect to see what is going on.
Your comment "Most Americans couldn't give a rat's ass" is spot on because most Americans believe they are still the biggest, best, etc, ... which clearly they are no longer (in a lot of areas).
Don't get me wrong. I do not have anything against Americans (otherwise I would have used it ... jk). But I find it a shame that a once great nation WITH good foundations (equality) has turned from its roots and only acts in its own interest screwing whomever is on or in in their way. Maybe the US once was able to get away with it, but this is becoming less and less the case.
I am not convinced there is a problem at all.
When there is only a single "warning light", you might indeed be right that there is no problem at all. But to me there are so many and Americans are constantly trying to convince us it is Christmas all year round
BASF, we don't make the things you use.
We make the things you use BETTER.
That was the commercial I remember for several years.
I suppose they couldn't live up to this promise any more since they changed it to We don't just make chemicals, we make chemistry
their original request to put satellite antennas on people was rejected...
I guess too many were traumatised by Cartman's satellite dish to ever make this viable option.
Man has a nasty habbit of thinking the things he does result in unrelated outcomes ... do a special dance ...
And I suppose this too is all based on hard science? You probably agree, as nobody disagrees (including oil lobby), that global climate change is a fact. The only discussion is about who/what is causing it.
In your rain dance example. What scientists are saying is that we should STOP our dancing ritual because it is raining too often. Science shows the rain is not caused by the dance, but by the small ash particles coming out of the fire which go into the clouds and start forming droplets. So because YOU do not understand the science and cannot see the relation between the "dancing" and the rain does not mean you should ridicule those who actually did the research.
Any year without a winter is going to be warmer on average than any year with a winter
Yes, that is why we had the hottest decade on record with most of the extremes in the last 12 years. But yeah, you can ignore the facts and go with whatever works best in your head.
I am saying that it has been warmer and it has been much colder
Did the warming happen as quickly as it does now? What was the impact on life on earth? Are you 100% sure we are NOT causing or amplifying it? I am quite sure we are AT LEAST contributing to it without having done any hard research.
Maybe we should consider more natural reasons for the extremely recent rise in temperature and stop wondering which dance moves caused the rain
Then why bother? Why spend time/money/resources to find a cause which we can't change anyway? Or maybe you should take a closer look at the real science/big picture (fire) and not get distracted by the music and the waving feathers.
Why is it so hard for you to even consider we MIGHT be causing or contributing to it? Remember the hole in the ozone layer? Remember the acid rain? They were all natural phenomena? How many species are extinct due to human intervention? If you believe we have zero impact on our environment, I know which way the grade average of your class went when you stayed home.
I suck at spelling and Firefox's spell check is not working all of a sudden
Maybe you should not try to find what you did to break it, but find someone/something else to blame ;)
Wat does this prove about the cause? Nothing really
Wrong. This proves that whatever is causing global warming is still here.
many such climate changes prior to mankind having the ability to cause it
Yes, and each time it lead to massive disruption in the way life was organised on earth. You suggest we do like the dinos and go 'meh' so in 100 million years our bones are dug up by giant intelligent insects who will be thinking what "natural disaster" caused us to disappear (warning: dramatised).
Wat is apparent that certain parties r using theories of a correlation to force change upon the masses which amounts to control
I feel like a repeat of history. Remember back in the days when it was just "mad/fearmongering scientists" who claimed tobacco and asbestos were cancerous while the nice, honourable and moral industry said everything was hanky dory and we should continue to use their products. Now when people/economies are hooked on fossil fuels, ONLY the oil industry is trying to convince us that everything is hanky dory and we should continue to use their products.
Unfortunately we do not have hundreds of thousands of planets to test/prove the theory statistically like was done with lung cancer.
There r some who r aligned in such a way to profit greatly from forcing these changes upon us
Like whom? Independent scientists all over the world are in agreement. Who gains from NOT buying/burning oil and reducing our fossil energy consumption? Perhaps you should turn around the question. Who is losing when we change our ways. At which side of the argument are they and how many (truly) independent supporters do they have?
We have absolutely no idea whether we r causing this and absolutely no idea whether there is anything we can do to stop it
When we burn oil/coal/... it is a fact that heat and CO2 is released in the atmosphere. Although I doubt the amount of energy dissipated by heat will make such a great impact, the issue with CO2 is that it traps energy in the atmosphere which would otherwise be dissipated into space. The real problem with CO2 is that its effect is compounded and amplified. When more CO2 is released in the atmosphere, temperature will rise, when temperature rises, there will be more moisture in the air which is also a greenhouse gas. On top due to the higher temperature, the polar caps are melting releasing CO2 trapped in the soil. Adding more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Additionally, since snow/ice is white, it reflects most of the light/energy. Reducing the amount of ice covered surface will increase the amount of energy the water/soil will absorb. More energy means more heat, more heat means ... it is a vicious circle.
Whether you think we caused it or not, we are DEFINITELY contributing to the problem.
Analogy: When there is a famine coming and some scientist say, there will be famine because we are eating our sowing crop and we should stop wasting food and grow alternatives. You say: there were famines before, rations and less food means economical harm for restaurant holders.
stop things which ARE causing real harm
Like floods are not causing harm or hurricanes or blizzards? Droughts? Lack of fresh water? Dying bees (no pollination)?
real and significant issue for our future is simply the limited supply of worldwide oil
So how can we make sure we can go longer with our current supply? Maybe by reducing our usage of oil? Oh, wait, that is EXACTLY what everyone else is saying. No matter how you look at it, we should reduce our CO2 emissions (less burning of fossil fuels). It makes economical sense, it makes ecological sense and it makes strategic sense.
So I support any rational or irrational behaviour that leads to alternate energy research
So you e
according to US actuarial tables, a human life is worth about $13 million ... is a rough calculation that a rational liberal economist ...
First mistake: These values are for a US/Western life. The values for "foreigners", especially third-world countries where most of the casualties will be, is MUCH lower. Also when there will be a famine, the first casualties will be the "weak": elderly, handicapped, children, women ...
Economically speaking, some of them will be net profits.
Second mistake: The economic loss as you calculate will be in the countries of origin. This will reduce the world economy, but will have less impact on the western world. This has the pervert effect that western economy will have a greater percentage of the world wealth and as a consequence a greater influence, so why would anyone want to invest in a worse future?
Third mistake: You assume the US cares about the financial well-being of others. Investors will lay off hundreds of thousands of people to gain 3% more return on their investment. The cost of keeping a pet is greater than the cost of medication and nutrition of a few African/Asian children.
Forth mistake: You assume (the majority of) people will plan ahead and/or see the consequence of their actions. Look at all the debt we rack up. Look at how we "bury" our waste (including nuclear) like putting it in the ground will make it magically disappear. Look at how people (ab)use antibiotics.
Fifth mistake: You assume the loss of money will be evenly spread amongst all people. This is untrue as we can see in the economic crisis. The wealthy/powerful, who decide policies, will see little impact while the poor/weak will take the biggest hit.
I will roshambo you for it. Please assume the position.
If you want to stop me from burning whatever I want anytime I want whether it be wood or coal or petrol you are going to have to actually come to my house with weapons and arrest me.
No need. When prices will have sufficiently risen, you will have no more money to buy these products.
Can't you see how incredibly difficult it is to get so many people all over this planet to stop producing C02?
It is very easy. CO2 is mainly a by-product of our energy consumption. When there are no more cheap energy sources (oil), people will be forced to use less energy by the ever increasing prices. Between 1990-2000 1 barrel of crude oil on average costed less than $20. Between 2000-2004 it went up to $30. Now it is at $100: why do you think that is? Kyoto? Off course not. Did your income go up 3x since 2004? No? So the same amount of energy is taking up a greater portion of your available budget. This will continue until one of two things will happen:
1) People will start using less energy: either by using more power efficient technologies or by abandoning comfort because it will be too expensive
2) We find a new cheap sustainable alternative energy source (nuclear fission is definitely not viable before 2020)
If prices triple again in the next 10 years, will you continue to burn whatever you can afford or will you then start reducing your energy usage (insulating, smaller car, ...)?
on my own internal network I might not bother with setting up IPV6, and instead do the equivalent of a NAT for my internal servers to give them an IPV4 address and only have my border router deal with IPV6
Good luck. You obviously never tried this and got burned to the ground by the "netfilter" guys because their "NAT IS EVIL" mantra.
:: will serve both 4 and 6). You'll have to duplicate each firewall rule set.
AFAIK there IS NO IPv6 NAT available at all with iptables (unlike openBSD). Their suggestion: "use reverse proxies".
Heck even a single command to administer everything is too much to ask (they are separate protocols, but then again every other application which binds to
Microsoft has been secretly training office workers for decades. This is why minesweeper is in the default install since Windows 3.1.
A DNS server is, if you will, akin to an office suite
Is this some kind of inside joke like half of the code is dead (LibreOffice) or there are many different formats doing the same?
I am totally lost and confused by your "analogy". The whole idea about an analogy is that you make it SIMPLE by using well known concepts.
Now, when I said above that a DNS server is akin to an office suite, I wasn't saying that there is a spreadsheet and a word processor included with DNS servers
So then what were you saying? It is like powerpoint? Or Outlook?
:)
Please do not take this wrong way. It is meant as positive criticism: try to find better analogies, it helps the both of us.
I don't know what you make in a month and the type of finish/comfort you have in your house, but typically I would say one would spend (in EUR) 5k in sand/cement/concrete blocks (foundation, support structures), 2-3k for steel/rebarb, 3-4k in wood (roof) + 2k in tiles, 8k in bricks, 3k in wiring/electrics, 9k for central heating, 3k for insulation, 6k for windows, ...
And these are just raw materials and very conservative estimates, no labor, carpentry (stairs/doors) or decoration.
That means you'd have to earn (net) more than 21k/month, but I would guess most (including myself) don't get anything near that amount.
When we tell jokes about US, they are about (E)U.
When you tell jokes about EU, they are about us.
If you don't understand, don't worry, get rid of your principles, education and .... erm ... that third thing ... ooops.
You're overlooking the fact that greater efficiency drives up demand.
True, but it means higher standard of living. At current efficiency the whole world can not enjoy the same mobility we (West) have enjoyed for so long.
Why would someone in Africa or Asia not be allowed the same privileges as us? Demand will come eventually and if there is not enough to go around someone will get the short end. Ever noticed how commodities are becoming more expensive? It is the Chinese buying up resources (including food).
when people install cleaner energy/heating for their houses they will start to use more of it--so if you insulate your house, you will feel justified to heat it to a higher level, to some extent cancelling out initial benefits.
False. It is not because your house is properly insulated that you will not put it on a comfortable 21ÂC but at a blistering 40ÂC. It is not because your car is 13 times as efficient that you will drive 13 times as much.
Similarly, the efficient computer chips you mention mean that we now feel we need to carry at least two full-fledged computers with us in our pockets wherever we go, meaning the total environmental degradation goes up, not down.
We are not there yet. It is better to have 100 devices each consuming 1W than 1 device that consumes 400W. Off course 100 devices consuming 1W is worse than no device at all ... but I don't feel like going back to the stone age.
I've never seen a 240V washer or a 120V dryer ... (Note, this assumes you're in the USA.)
You assumed wrong. I live in a developed country. ;)
Computers use far more power than they did 20+ years ago.
Never said they didn't, but it may very well be true. I am quite sure my Atom laptop or ARM netbook uses less power than anything remotely comparable from that era.
They do a lot more with that power
Exactly what I said: "use less power for the same amount of processing capacity"
my dual 24" monitors now have LED backlighting and only use about 25W each, whereas my old 14" CRT probably used 75W or more
So what is your point? You now have a higher resolution and bigger screen using less power and probably cheaper than your old 14"? I guess you missed my point. My point was that lower power usage does not mean loss of jobs, nor does it mean we have to compromise on "standards of living" or even on price as the parent suggested. Look at the quote I replied to.
but the Beetle still gets better fuel economy per distance traveled
This is bullshit. I could ask for a citation too. What I found on the net is that a Beetle had an average consumption of 13 L/100km. As you took a small car, I will compare it to the BMW 1 series which has an advertised consumption of 5.8 L/100 km. In tests it shows "real" usage is about 6.8 L/100 km and when you "play" with it on the track you get about 11.8 L/100 km. So even on the tracks, in "sports" mode using the airco and soundsystem you still consume less than normal use of a Beetle. Have you ever looked at the numbers for today's cars?
I'm not very hopeful. With some things, when you get past a certain point, then everything just collapses like a house of cards ... where it's simply too late
Exactly. Fortunately for you most European and some Asian countries are doing the right things and leading the future. It is quite sad to see the US is even unable to ratify the Kyoto protocol. It shows how the US economy is no longer leading innovation, but is rusted in their old ways.
Nobody wants to cut back on emissions in any meaningful way because it will mean literal death for large numbers of people unable to be supported by non-oil-based agricultural methods, and it will also mean a reduction in the standard of living for everyone else.
That is bullshit. Insulating your house increases your living standard and reduces costs (less heating/cooling required). How does that "kill" the economy? It should even allow for cheaper oil (less demand). If you can save money and get better comfort, how is this bad?
Look at BMW and Mercedes. You think they compromised on power or comfort with their new line of fuel efficient cars? When you don't lose as much time at the gas station and reduce toxins how is this bad?
Household appliances use less power. This means I can now use both the washer and dryer simultaneously on the same circuit without losing the circuit breaker. When you can do more with less. How is this bad?
CPUs and other electronics use less power for the same amount of processing capacity in each generation. Higher efficiency means longer battery life, smaller/lighter components as less cooling is required, ...
You think we would have smartphones and iPads if components were as energy efficient as they were in the 60s? 70s? 80s? 90s? 2000s (P4 anyone?)? When you can have things which could not exist before, how is this bad?
I am not saying this is true for all branches of the economy, but get your head out of the sand.
Recycling (= renewable resources) is an increasing branch in our economy and we could no longer live without as we simply do not have access to cheap resources and the same will be true for energy.
A lot of our devices and habits are VERY inefficient. Every house wastes energy for generating heat (heating, cooking) and cooling (airco, fridge) at the same time. Increasing the efficiency means cutting back on costs and emissions while standards of living increases for everyone. Did you hear about passive houses? They use residual heat from appliances to heat the house.
How great would it be if each building was self sufficient and would have "the grid" only as a fall-back option? How cool would it be if you could drive to the store on the cooking grease of the previous meal? How much better would it be if you did not need to drive to work at all (work from home)?
We are now using resources which took millions of years to form. You think we can keep this pace for another 500 years? 300 years? 100 years (this may be in the lifetime of my daughter which is 3 years old now)? 50 years (this may still be in my lifetime)? Who are we to use up all the resources for our enjoyment now and leave nothing for future generations? Our current habits are UNSUSTAINABLE and HAVE to change.
Either we make changes ourselves or something cataclysmic will happen before 2150. We are at a crossroad between the responsible and the irresponsible way. Changing habits (responsible) takes effort but could preserve prosperity. The irresponsible road leads to destruction.
You remember the days when we had acid rain?
You remember the days when the hole in the ozone layer was growing?
You remember the days when nuclear waste was dumped in the oceans?
Economies and standards of living today dependent too much on cheap energy and cheap credit. Both will crumble eventually. Better prepare yourself or get wiped out and as we saw with the credit crunch (credit went away briefly), it can happen VERY fast and incur irreparable damage.
Energy efficiency (aka reduction in emissions) is essential to our way of life (short term < 70 years) and even survival (long term > 300 years).
Yeah, our downfall can only come from WMDs (Whining and Mass Delays) ... Eurostat will come back in a couple of months when they know with great certainty about our strength ... Unless some of the member states have presented fraudulent numbers.
Fortunately we have our elite army of supranational bureaucrats