Not trying to throw my hat in behind the report, but it does say it's an interim report. So they may still be refining numbers. It's very possible that some director said "have a copy on my desk by tomorrow even if the numbers aren't completely ready, just give your best guess." That happens quite frequently in my job at least.
Part time isn't really the issue that it is made out to be. The major problem it causes is that our current grid infrastructures aren't built to handle bursty loads. So, it means there is a ton of room here for innovation in energy storage (both batteries and capacitor banks). The disruption to wind patterns so far seems to be a non-issue. It may actually slightly lengthen growing seasons for farmers nearby because it appears to hinder the formation of frost. In fact, the only actual legitimate concern about wind that I've seen was that the disruption to wind flows from a substantial wind farm makes it difficult to place farms too near one another.
The subsidies, tax breaks, etc that you're talking about? That's in the US. This is for the entire EU. But if you want to put it in US terms, maybe you should also recognize tax subisides given for oil exploration, oil logistics (keystone pipeline XL anyone?), public health concerns from smog and carbon monoxide, military protection of oil and liquified natural gas trade routes, military campaign to protect oil pipelines (Georgia most recently), cleanup efforts when some idiot decides it's a good idea to drill somewhere that no submersibles can reach, etc. In fact, the actual price of a gallon of oil in the US is somewhere in the range of $16 when all ancillary costs are factored in.
First, nice low number. Second, "waste" is subjective here. A dead bird at the site of a wind farm will most definitely feed lots of scavengers, be they bugs, foxes, whatever happens to go by. Most of nature won't turn up a free bird dinner, even if it is a little bruised.
Pretty much this exactly. People need to understand that online storage is essentially like having a stranger drive up to you in their windowless van, and offering to store stuff for you that you can get back anytime you want. You don't really know him. He promises "industry grade security!" on his van, and sleek curved corners on the van and maybe a recognizable fruit logo. You are taken in, and start storing your photos, your essays, your financial information, etc on his van. Except, what is industry grade security? What industry? How do you know he isn't looking at your stuff? How do you know he isn't parsing your stuff and selling that information? If you started reading warnings about this guy and his storage van on the news and online, would you still use his service? Because guess what - almost every single cloud storage company has had those warnings posted about them. It's not your fault if you fail to vet a service out, and give this guy $50 and he drives away and starts selling your stuff, you're right. But you're a dumbass for trusting someone you don't know blindly with things you don't want out in the public.
That is a fair point. Most of the least harm doctrine studies have pointed towards a 50% approach (at least for Australia). Those studies are a few years old, so it's likely they've had time to do more work since then.
Not at all. The original statement was that we don't need them anymore. I provided a current example of a place where they are needed. You're trying to take that example out of context.
This is actually one place that I have to actually say PETA does buck the trend. Newkirk only makes about 38k a year through PETA as the CEO. Now, that doesn't preclude her from cashing in on lucrative speaking engagements all over the place.
1 hectare of ruminant foraging pasture leads to approximately 7.5 animal deaths (about the number of cattle that can graze on one hectare). 1 hectare of plant producing land produces tens to thousands of animal deaths (depending on the study and what animals are included in it). Essentially, according to most "least harm doctrine" studies, the most ethical approach is in fact to eat MORE meat, because less animals overall are killed in its production.
Shhhhh! Don't ruin the head-in-the-clouds holier-than-thou bubble that they try to live in! That's like trying to tell a vegan that anywhere from tens to thousands (depending on which study you look at) of animals are killed per hectare in the commercial production of vegetables! Not to mention the native species that go extinct due to native vegetation being felled to make room for their kale smoothie ingredients. Tillers aren't too kind to field mice, worms, or bugs they encounter. But PETA (and vegans) only really give a damn about animals they find "cute."
This is correct. To this day if you travel to deep in the arctic/antarctic, you NEED a fur lined coat. Nothing else will provide enough warmth to keep you from freezing to death.
Babies receive positive reinforcement every step of the way as their speech patterns develop. There's a reason why they are happy when moms and dads are delighted when all of that goading with "can you say 'ma-ma!??'" or "can you say 'da da!??!'" finally gets an imitated response as early as 6 months. Cognitively though, while they can utter those items that early, they have no idea what they mean. Research suggests that at that point, it's unlikely they comprehend much more than their name and some onomatopoeia-ic vocalizations (NO! - a short, sharp sound indicating to stop what you're doing, similar to the tsh! sound made by cats and lots of other species) up until around 12 months.What drives them to develop so fast is lots of imitation and positive reinforcement from their parents and everyone they interact with. Trying to say that animal communication can be disregarded because of reinforcement or imitation disregards that almost all communication in the socially accepted manner develops based on reinforcement and imitation. All communication begins as mimicry, but given time all evidence points towards cognition developing. It's been seen in parrots, dogs, gorillas, dolphins, chimps, and more.
I think you're understating what parrots are actually able to do. It's easy to generalize as "polly want a cracker," but the very well established case study of Alex the parrot shows they're able to do significantly more AND understand what they're doing.
From RTFA men have to have pictures and answer questions, whereas women do not. So, different treatment based solely on sex. A better, non sexist, system would treat both sexes equally.
Honestly, I think most of it is because I'm a hardcore introvert in any situation where I don't expressly sit in a seat of power. Put me in a board room and I rock, I'm assertive, and I control things. Put me in a party where I don't know anyone and I pet the dog all night because even talking to strangers makes me anxious. I don't really try to project it, but somehow I do (it's not uncommon for me to be the only person on a packed train with no one sitting next to them - and I'm meticulously clean and well manicured so it's not like I smell, lol).
But either way, AC can imagine away about "how beta I am." I'm married and have a kid on the way. In pure biological terms, I'm about as successful as I can be. Financially, I'm pretty well off too. Work wise, I've owned businesses and currently have a great engineering job. So, if this is being "beta," well, beta I be. I don't really care, I'm happy where I am. Though I agree with you - usually people who have to start going into the alpha/beta thing are just really, really insecure. I got more from Dale Carnegie than I ever got from Neil Strauss.
You should reread what I wrote. I just included those photos among others. I didn't claim to be a money pot. It was intended as a counterpoint to the GP's post about "posting pictures dressed nice, with a nice car, etc." I'm saying that those things don't really help.
Take it as a counterpoint to to the post above. Not all of the photos were like that. I had some of me playing trumpet with my band, some of me in a half marathon, etc, some just hanging out drinking a beer. And none of what you described in any way warrants the nasty responses I'd get for saying hello.
I've never been a great looking guy, but at least well kempt. It was pretty common to try and say hello and get a, "Ugh, gross" or "Sick, can you believe this guy is trying to talk to me?" Maybe the northeast just has an overabundance of really stuck up women.
Well, I hate to insert sociology/anthropology here, but there is likely some subconscious bias you are seeing. Historically men tend to gain "social capital" as they age, whereas women lose "social capital" as they age. Primitively speaking, men would be assumed to have gathered resources and power over a lifetime, and still be capable of producing young with relative ease. An older woman has a significantly harder time. She is likely to either be unable to bear young or have complications doing so, and at least traditionally was unlikely to have garnered many resources of her own. The converse is that young women are sought after for fertility, while young men often have relatively little in the way of resources or power because in theory older men would have first pick. So, essentially, the dating experience for an older gentleman who is pursuing age-appropriate women is significantly different from the dating experience of a young man seeking age appropriate women. As much as we like to glorify ourselves, we're still just big bipedal apes.
And socially aware men take the implied put-down that "all men are sending dick pics in every message" as offensive, and they choose not to use the site. The dick pic guys show up anyways and just start sending dick pics, because there's no requirement to see someone's photo before you send them your dick pic. A better approach would be to block photos for everyone from the beginning. Then you'll at least have some decent guys in the mix along with the dick pic senders.
Slashdot Mirror
Not trying to throw my hat in behind the report, but it does say it's an interim report. So they may still be refining numbers. It's very possible that some director said "have a copy on my desk by tomorrow even if the numbers aren't completely ready, just give your best guess." That happens quite frequently in my job at least.
The subsidies, tax breaks, etc that you're talking about? That's in the US. This is for the entire EU. But if you want to put it in US terms, maybe you should also recognize tax subisides given for oil exploration, oil logistics (keystone pipeline XL anyone?), public health concerns from smog and carbon monoxide, military protection of oil and liquified natural gas trade routes, military campaign to protect oil pipelines (Georgia most recently), cleanup efforts when some idiot decides it's a good idea to drill somewhere that no submersibles can reach, etc. In fact, the actual price of a gallon of oil in the US is somewhere in the range of $16 when all ancillary costs are factored in.
When I was staying at the Aria hotel in las vegas, about every 10 minutes you'd hear the telltale "thunk!" sound. Nothing else makes that sound.
I had no idea that the bird mortality rate was that high. Is most of that infant mortality?
First, nice low number. Second, "waste" is subjective here. A dead bird at the site of a wind farm will most definitely feed lots of scavengers, be they bugs, foxes, whatever happens to go by. Most of nature won't turn up a free bird dinner, even if it is a little bruised.
Everything in life is a cost benefit analysis.
Pretty much this exactly. People need to understand that online storage is essentially like having a stranger drive up to you in their windowless van, and offering to store stuff for you that you can get back anytime you want. You don't really know him. He promises "industry grade security!" on his van, and sleek curved corners on the van and maybe a recognizable fruit logo. You are taken in, and start storing your photos, your essays, your financial information, etc on his van. Except, what is industry grade security? What industry? How do you know he isn't looking at your stuff? How do you know he isn't parsing your stuff and selling that information? If you started reading warnings about this guy and his storage van on the news and online, would you still use his service? Because guess what - almost every single cloud storage company has had those warnings posted about them. It's not your fault if you fail to vet a service out, and give this guy $50 and he drives away and starts selling your stuff, you're right. But you're a dumbass for trusting someone you don't know blindly with things you don't want out in the public.
That is a fair point. Most of the least harm doctrine studies have pointed towards a 50% approach (at least for Australia). Those studies are a few years old, so it's likely they've had time to do more work since then.
Not at all. The original statement was that we don't need them anymore. I provided a current example of a place where they are needed. You're trying to take that example out of context.
This is actually one place that I have to actually say PETA does buck the trend. Newkirk only makes about 38k a year through PETA as the CEO. Now, that doesn't preclude her from cashing in on lucrative speaking engagements all over the place.
1 hectare of ruminant foraging pasture leads to approximately 7.5 animal deaths (about the number of cattle that can graze on one hectare). 1 hectare of plant producing land produces tens to thousands of animal deaths (depending on the study and what animals are included in it). Essentially, according to most "least harm doctrine" studies, the most ethical approach is in fact to eat MORE meat, because less animals overall are killed in its production.
Shhhhh! Don't ruin the head-in-the-clouds holier-than-thou bubble that they try to live in! That's like trying to tell a vegan that anywhere from tens to thousands (depending on which study you look at) of animals are killed per hectare in the commercial production of vegetables! Not to mention the native species that go extinct due to native vegetation being felled to make room for their kale smoothie ingredients. Tillers aren't too kind to field mice, worms, or bugs they encounter. But PETA (and vegans) only really give a damn about animals they find "cute."
This is correct. To this day if you travel to deep in the arctic/antarctic, you NEED a fur lined coat. Nothing else will provide enough warmth to keep you from freezing to death.
Babies receive positive reinforcement every step of the way as their speech patterns develop. There's a reason why they are happy when moms and dads are delighted when all of that goading with "can you say 'ma-ma!??'" or "can you say 'da da!??!'" finally gets an imitated response as early as 6 months. Cognitively though, while they can utter those items that early, they have no idea what they mean. Research suggests that at that point, it's unlikely they comprehend much more than their name and some onomatopoeia-ic vocalizations (NO! - a short, sharp sound indicating to stop what you're doing, similar to the tsh! sound made by cats and lots of other species) up until around 12 months.What drives them to develop so fast is lots of imitation and positive reinforcement from their parents and everyone they interact with. Trying to say that animal communication can be disregarded because of reinforcement or imitation disregards that almost all communication in the socially accepted manner develops based on reinforcement and imitation. All communication begins as mimicry, but given time all evidence points towards cognition developing. It's been seen in parrots, dogs, gorillas, dolphins, chimps, and more.
I think you're understating what parrots are actually able to do. It's easy to generalize as "polly want a cracker," but the very well established case study of Alex the parrot shows they're able to do significantly more AND understand what they're doing.
From RTFA men have to have pictures and answer questions, whereas women do not. So, different treatment based solely on sex. A better, non sexist, system would treat both sexes equally.
Stereotyping and treating all members of one sex differently than the other sex is the literal definition of sexism.
I'll have to check it out! Thanks for the heads up!! :)
But either way, AC can imagine away about "how beta I am." I'm married and have a kid on the way. In pure biological terms, I'm about as successful as I can be. Financially, I'm pretty well off too. Work wise, I've owned businesses and currently have a great engineering job. So, if this is being "beta," well, beta I be. I don't really care, I'm happy where I am. Though I agree with you - usually people who have to start going into the alpha/beta thing are just really, really insecure. I got more from Dale Carnegie than I ever got from Neil Strauss.
That is very true - I think my wife and I both won on that deal :)
You should reread what I wrote. I just included those photos among others. I didn't claim to be a money pot. It was intended as a counterpoint to the GP's post about "posting pictures dressed nice, with a nice car, etc." I'm saying that those things don't really help.
Take it as a counterpoint to to the post above. Not all of the photos were like that. I had some of me playing trumpet with my band, some of me in a half marathon, etc, some just hanging out drinking a beer. And none of what you described in any way warrants the nasty responses I'd get for saying hello.
I've never been a great looking guy, but at least well kempt. It was pretty common to try and say hello and get a, "Ugh, gross" or "Sick, can you believe this guy is trying to talk to me?" Maybe the northeast just has an overabundance of really stuck up women.
Well, I hate to insert sociology/anthropology here, but there is likely some subconscious bias you are seeing. Historically men tend to gain "social capital" as they age, whereas women lose "social capital" as they age. Primitively speaking, men would be assumed to have gathered resources and power over a lifetime, and still be capable of producing young with relative ease. An older woman has a significantly harder time. She is likely to either be unable to bear young or have complications doing so, and at least traditionally was unlikely to have garnered many resources of her own. The converse is that young women are sought after for fertility, while young men often have relatively little in the way of resources or power because in theory older men would have first pick. So, essentially, the dating experience for an older gentleman who is pursuing age-appropriate women is significantly different from the dating experience of a young man seeking age appropriate women. As much as we like to glorify ourselves, we're still just big bipedal apes.
And socially aware men take the implied put-down that "all men are sending dick pics in every message" as offensive, and they choose not to use the site. The dick pic guys show up anyways and just start sending dick pics, because there's no requirement to see someone's photo before you send them your dick pic. A better approach would be to block photos for everyone from the beginning. Then you'll at least have some decent guys in the mix along with the dick pic senders.