Because: representation matters. There's only ever been one woman awarded a Fields Medal.
And is this vastly disproportional to the representation of the most accomplished mathematicians?
Having a living woman Fields Medal winner would make a huge difference to other women studying mathematics.
I've always found such lines of reasoning funny. Has it ever prevented women from studying mathematics when there was no Fields medal at all? Has it prevented men? Does having a living Fields medalist of my nationality help me, as opposed to all of them being foreigners? And had Mirzakhani not died, would there be less pressure to award it to Viazovska? It all sounds like a solution in search of a problem to me.
A reminder that solar and wind plants are made of tangible stuff, almost entirely manufactured and constructed with fossil energy
Actually, at the very least, solar is mostly manufactured using electricity. Silicon processing takes most of it.
Those variable energy flows also need storage, conditioning, and delivery by lengthy transmission lines, even if not by barge.
Nuclear plants might be built with fossil wealth today, but advanced designs are capable of producing process heat for industry and synthetic fuels, enabling a truly fossil-free energy system.
Ahh, so your "advanced designs" don't need any conditioning whatsoever, deliver power wirelessly, and can magically reach temperatures of 1500K or higher better than the existing electric solutions (or higher temperatures better than the existing chemical solutions).
Renewables aren't displacing fossil fuels; see Germany. At best, they reduce fossil fuel consumption a bit, and they are not a particularly cost effective method of doing so. (Compare to any of the countries that have successfully decarbonized using nuclear.)
1) You're contradicting yourself in the first part and 2) the second part is irrelevant since historical experience is almost meaningless when the prices change as quickly as they do for the technology in question. That, e.g., Germany may have overshot deployment ten years ago when the equipment was six times as expensive as it is today is irrelevant for judging the economics of the 2030s when it will cost perhaps half as much again as it costs today.
Oh please. You really think that maintaining solar power plants requires one full-time worker for every fifty panels or so? That's not how any of this works.
the combination of losing the Saturn blue prints and not having a viable ship to get to the moon and not having space suits that can allow a person to survive on the moon a pretty strong factors to consider.
It might be actually easier to cover the planet in one of the Lagrange points with some kind of sun shade and have it freeze out. That way you're initially dealing with many orders of magnitude of mass per unit of surface. Then you could, I don't know, for example send some of the CO2 to Mars. In any case, merely separating carbon and oxygen still leaves you with lethal atmosphere.
I know about CommonQt. It is very recent, though, with limited version support, quite rudimentary, and not terribly polished at the moment. And the binaries are rather huge. It is developing quite rapidly though, so I might give it a try.
Slashdot Mirror
Putting aside your perennial American interstate commerce circlejerk, why is driving *within* California "an interstate activity", too?
...no, of course it doesn't.
Because: representation matters. There's only ever been one woman awarded a Fields Medal.
And is this vastly disproportional to the representation of the most accomplished mathematicians?
Having a living woman Fields Medal winner would make a huge difference to other women studying mathematics.
I've always found such lines of reasoning funny. Has it ever prevented women from studying mathematics when there was no Fields medal at all? Has it prevented men? Does having a living Fields medalist of my nationality help me, as opposed to all of them being foreigners? And had Mirzakhani not died, would there be less pressure to award it to Viazovska? It all sounds like a solution in search of a problem to me.
We'll always have Paris. And Americans will have twenty two Parises.
Clearly it was a virtual medal and already annihilated against its antimedal.
SQL isn't "web scale"
SQL is a language. That's like saying that English isn't "web scale"...whatever that means.
The trade-off with going down the NoSQL route is that you no longer have the concept of transactions
I'm not sure how ditching SQL implies ditching transactions.
Tesla was operating during the biggest boom of the century
So you're saying that the best years between 2001 and 2013 were the years 2003 to 2013? How unexpected!
Chances are that happened a few billion years ago...
What if they just blue themselves?
But phages are viruses and evolve even faster, don't they?
Coccy buggers?
No, a Roman economist convinced the public to convert the public library into cheap housing for Amazon women.
A reminder that solar and wind plants are made of tangible stuff, almost entirely manufactured and constructed with fossil energy
Actually, at the very least, solar is mostly manufactured using electricity. Silicon processing takes most of it.
Those variable energy flows also need storage, conditioning, and delivery by lengthy transmission lines, even if not by barge.
Nuclear plants might be built with fossil wealth today, but advanced designs are capable of producing process heat for industry and synthetic fuels, enabling a truly fossil-free energy system.
Ahh, so your "advanced designs" don't need any conditioning whatsoever, deliver power wirelessly, and can magically reach temperatures of 1500K or higher better than the existing electric solutions (or higher temperatures better than the existing chemical solutions).
Renewables aren't displacing fossil fuels; see Germany. At best, they reduce fossil fuel consumption a bit, and they are not a particularly cost effective method of doing so. (Compare to any of the countries that have successfully decarbonized using nuclear.)
1) You're contradicting yourself in the first part and 2) the second part is irrelevant since historical experience is almost meaningless when the prices change as quickly as they do for the technology in question. That, e.g., Germany may have overshot deployment ten years ago when the equipment was six times as expensive as it is today is irrelevant for judging the economics of the 2030s when it will cost perhaps half as much again as it costs today.
I guess it may depend on your definition of "better results", because clearly status quo has its own set of problems.
Oh please. You really think that maintaining solar power plants requires one full-time worker for every fifty panels or so? That's not how any of this works.
The universal qualifier works on sets of any size.
the combination of losing the Saturn blue prints and not having a viable ship to get to the moon and not having space suits that can allow a person to survive on the moon a pretty strong factors to consider.
Maybe, if any of those were true. :-p
Found the Greenlander.
It's a lot, about 3kT/year gets lost. It's twice the amount of CO2 humans currently produce every year.
Heh. Where did you get this impression from? Humans produce *gigatonnes* of CO2 every year.
It might be actually easier to cover the planet in one of the Lagrange points with some kind of sun shade and have it freeze out. That way you're initially dealing with many orders of magnitude of mass per unit of surface. Then you could, I don't know, for example send some of the CO2 to Mars. In any case, merely separating carbon and oxygen still leaves you with lethal atmosphere.
Approximately 2km wide and high and 0.5 mm thick, right? But why not simply pack it into a 13 m sized cube?
Perhaps you might even say they have sinister dexterity...
I know about CommonQt. It is very recent, though, with limited version support, quite rudimentary, and not terribly polished at the moment. And the binaries are rather huge. It is developing quite rapidly though, so I might give it a try.