If I had a boat, it would be floated by "water". (Perhaps "fresh" or perhaps "salt", but water nonetheless). So should I put water on the guitar or just try to play water instead of the guitar? Because frankly I don't think that will work unless I freeze the water first. So maybe you mean I should replace the guitar and cooking with carving ice sculptures? They can float my boat after they melt.
In your case, I think it would be more appropriate to replace the water with a fairly strong antipsychotic.
- You picked Einstein to disprove that 'the most unethical people have been highly educated". Doesn't work. Einstein was highly educated and, for the purpose of this discussion, I will assume that you and I consider him an example of an ethical person. The original argument was "The most unethical people have been highly educated". The converse of that argument is "some ethical people are not highly educated" and "some educated people are ethical" - which would appear to describe Einstein. So Einstein's existence doesn't disprove the statement.
Now, the AC to whom you are replying didn't exactly posit a strong argument but you didn't really counter it.
In a fight between an Islamic fundamentalist group and the banks, who do I want to win?
Well, that's pretty easy. The Islamic fundementalists. After all, given the choice of illiterate goat herders with a two thousand year chip on their shoulders and the and the invertebrate slime who give Cthulhu the shakes, which way would you swing?
Resources aren't all that finite. Right now, what's the problem with using power? Carbon emissions. But there are lots of ways to make power that don't involve carbon-based fuels; we just need to do them.
When you're Ruler of the Planet you can probably get that done. Dealing with real politics is such a drag.
Natural gas is often described as the cleanest fossil fuel, producing less carbon dioxide per joule delivered than either coal or oil[32] and far fewer pollutants than other hydrocarbon fuels[citation needed]. However, in absolute terms, it comprises a substantial percentage of human carbon emissions, and this contribution is projected to grow. According to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (Working Group III Report, chapter 4), in 2004, natural gas produced about 5.3 billion tons a year of CO2 emissions, while coal and oil produced 10.6 and 10.2 billion tons respectively (figure 4.4). According to an updated version of the SRES B2 emissions scenario by 2030 natural gas would be the source of 11 billion tons a year, with coal and oil now 8.4 and 17.2 billion respectively because demand is increasing 1.9 percent a year.[53] (Total global emissions for 2004 were estimated at over 27,200 million tons.)
In addition, natural gas itself is a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide. Although natural gas is released into the atmosphere in much smaller quantities, methane is oxidized in the atmosphere into CO2, and hence natural gas affects the atmosphere for approximately 12 years, compared to CO2, which is already oxidized, and has effect for 100 to 500 years. Natural gas is composed mainly of methane, which has a radiative forcing twenty times greater than carbon dioxide. Based on such composition, a ton of methane in the atmosphere traps as much radiation as 20 tons of carbon dioxide; however, it remains in the atmosphere for 8–40 times less time. Carbon dioxide still receives the lion's share of attention concerning greenhouse gases because it is released in much larger amounts. Still, it is inevitable when natural gas is used on a large scale that some of it will leak into the atmosphere. (Coal methane not captured by coal bed methane extraction techniques is simply lost into the atmosphere. Current estimates by the EPA place global emissions of methane at 3 trillion cubic feet (85 km3) annually,[54] or 3.2 per cent of global production.[55] Direct emissions of methane represented 14.3 per cent of all global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in 2004.[56]
Solar is emerging, and in another 20 years will likely be viable at industrial scale.
It's already here but it's only cost comparative to $100 / barrel oil. Apple and Google have datacenters that are predominantly solar powered, but it's still expensive. Certainly a better way to go than fossil fuels.
In the US we're way behind on our power distribution networks, but there's no technological hurdle there, it's just us being cheap about infrastructure (and large centralized power consumers are by far the easiest to build new capacity for). There's just no real reason to worry about electrical power consumed industrially.
I just love statements like this. "There is no reason (other than reality) than we can't do x". There is plenty of hurdles involved in bringing our energy distribution up to speed. Just because it's not a matter of technology doesn't make the problem go away. Politics and economics are very, very powerful forces in our society.
If I'm in an accident 30 minutes after a quick romp on the hood of my car with my mistress, I sure don't want my wife seeing that video when they play it back in court.
Well then do it in the back seat. It will be more comfortable anyway.
That's sort of the way "Rango" was done. Which, BTW, is a much better movie that "Croods" (who came up with that name?). The scenes where done by live actors and then the animators took over.
AT&T couldn't care less. Their crappy coverage in my town has reached the TV and newspaper on several occasions. The biggest response has been "but we put in a tower three years ago". In the past, if you complained they would knock out part of your bill, not any more. They have even quit allowing people to leave their contracts early because of poor coverage.
Isn't this the next step in evolution as a species? We have maxed out what we can do with our 46 chromosomes. The next step is technology assisted socail darwinism. Our database helps keep track of the idiots and criminals that we can no longer ostracize because there is no place to exile them to.
Although this fear is certainly reasonable, one could argue that stratifying recidivism risk (in a valid fashion) would allow the system to concentrate treatment and surveillance efforts on higher risk persons. If you can focus on those criminals who would benefit from intensive therapy (and you could indeed find such a therapy), you might be more effective and less costly.
Of course, this requires a rather pollyanish view of the world, but anyone who has a financial position in functional MRIs ought to feel good about this.
But if I'm not mistaken, a lot of those satellites are not US satellites. I'm pretty sure that the European ones are courtesy of ESA or somebody like that.
Slashdot Mirror
At least we've gotten off of dialup.
Wait a sec. I should think it would be "Restore" day. At least for those of the various Christian persuasions.
If I had a boat, it would be floated by "water". (Perhaps "fresh" or perhaps "salt", but water nonetheless). So should I put water on the guitar or just try to play water instead of the guitar? Because frankly I don't think that will work unless I freeze the water first. So maybe you mean I should replace the guitar and cooking with carving ice sculptures? They can float my boat after they melt.
In your case, I think it would be more appropriate to replace the water with a fairly strong antipsychotic.
- You picked Einstein to disprove that 'the most unethical people have been highly educated". Doesn't work. Einstein was highly educated and, for the purpose of this discussion, I will assume that you and I consider him an example of an ethical person. The original argument was "The most unethical people have been highly educated". The converse of that argument is "some ethical people are not highly educated" and "some educated people are ethical" - which would appear to describe Einstein. So Einstein's existence doesn't disprove the statement.
Now, the AC to whom you are replying didn't exactly posit a strong argument but you didn't really counter it.
In a fight between an Islamic fundamentalist group and the banks, who do I want to win?
Well, that's pretty easy. The Islamic fundementalists. After all, given the choice of illiterate goat herders with a two thousand year chip on their shoulders and the and the invertebrate slime who give Cthulhu the shakes, which way would you swing?
You are missing the point... They are working for Microsoft. These are contractors working for Microsoft on Microsoft projects.
The proper analogy here is you call a contractor to renovate your kitchen, then charge him $50 a day for the workspace in your house.
Damn. I like that idea.....
Wait a minute. Only Chuck Norris gets to disobey the laws of physics.
"What an eccentric performance."
Imagine someone doing a long distance swim, say crossing the English Channel. This thing finds them and keep dropping life rings on their head.
Go imagine Natalie Portman swimming in a pool.
You'll have a nicer day.
Resources aren't all that finite. Right now, what's the problem with using power? Carbon emissions. But there are lots of ways to make power that don't involve carbon-based fuels; we just need to do them.
When you're Ruler of the Planet you can probably get that done. Dealing with real politics is such a drag.
Natural gas is nearly free right now, and burns quite clean.
Wait. What? Free exactly where? It's low cost compared to some other energy products, but hardly free. It's a PITA to move around and store.
And clean is relative ... (from the Wikipedia article)
Natural gas is often described as the cleanest fossil fuel, producing less carbon dioxide per joule delivered than either coal or oil[32] and far fewer pollutants than other hydrocarbon fuels[citation needed]. However, in absolute terms, it comprises a substantial percentage of human carbon emissions, and this contribution is projected to grow. According to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (Working Group III Report, chapter 4), in 2004, natural gas produced about 5.3 billion tons a year of CO2 emissions, while coal and oil produced 10.6 and 10.2 billion tons respectively (figure 4.4). According to an updated version of the SRES B2 emissions scenario by 2030 natural gas would be the source of 11 billion tons a year, with coal and oil now 8.4 and 17.2 billion respectively because demand is increasing 1.9 percent a year.[53] (Total global emissions for 2004 were estimated at over 27,200 million tons.)
In addition, natural gas itself is a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide. Although natural gas is released into the atmosphere in much smaller quantities, methane is oxidized in the atmosphere into CO2, and hence natural gas affects the atmosphere for approximately 12 years, compared to CO2, which is already oxidized, and has effect for 100 to 500 years. Natural gas is composed mainly of methane, which has a radiative forcing twenty times greater than carbon dioxide. Based on such composition, a ton of methane in the atmosphere traps as much radiation as 20 tons of carbon dioxide; however, it remains in the atmosphere for 8–40 times less time. Carbon dioxide still receives the lion's share of attention concerning greenhouse gases because it is released in much larger amounts. Still, it is inevitable when natural gas is used on a large scale that some of it will leak into the atmosphere. (Coal methane not captured by coal bed methane extraction techniques is simply lost into the atmosphere. Current estimates by the EPA place global emissions of methane at 3 trillion cubic feet (85 km3) annually,[54] or 3.2 per cent of global production.[55] Direct emissions of methane represented 14.3 per cent of all global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in 2004.[56]
Solar is emerging, and in another 20 years will likely be viable at industrial scale.
It's already here but it's only cost comparative to $100 / barrel oil. Apple and Google have datacenters that are predominantly solar powered, but it's still expensive. Certainly a better way to go than fossil fuels.
In the US we're way behind on our power distribution networks, but there's no technological hurdle there, it's just us being cheap about infrastructure (and large centralized power consumers are by far the easiest to build new capacity for). There's just no real reason to worry about electrical power consumed industrially.
I just love statements like this. "There is no reason (other than reality) than we can't do x". There is plenty of hurdles involved in bringing our energy distribution up to speed. Just because it's not a matter of technology doesn't make the problem go away. Politics and economics are very, very powerful forces in our society.
Times are tough? What are you about?
That's NASA's lucky duct tape. You'll find it on any mission.
... and considering that Oracle has engineered incredibly reliable and extensible enterprise databases...
You just gave me a hernia. Thanks.
If I'm in an accident 30 minutes after a quick romp on the hood of my car with my mistress, I sure don't want my wife seeing that video when they play it back in court.
Well then do it in the back seat. It will be more comfortable anyway.
Jeez. It's not hard.
Site doesn't load.
Probably because it's a Mac Mini on a slow microwave link.
Can anybody think of a better, more specific question than that?
What is your username and password to your internal site?
Ah, Mr. Myhrvold, can you wait until your interview to answer the questions?
That's sort of the way "Rango" was done. Which, BTW, is a much better movie that "Croods" (who came up with that name?). The scenes where done by live actors and then the animators took over.
Ah ha hahahahaha. Snort. Giggle. Wheeze. Gasp.
AT&T couldn't care less. Their crappy coverage in my town has reached the TV and newspaper on several occasions. The biggest response has been "but we put in a tower three years ago". In the past, if you complained they would knock out part of your bill, not any more. They have even quit allowing people to leave their contracts early because of poor coverage.
But thanks for the giggle.
OK dunke, I'm remembering you. Not only that, but I'm going to post everything I can find about you on Facebook.
I live in the US.
What's the EU going to do? Send me a strongly worded letter?
Isn't this the next step in evolution as a species? We have maxed out what we can do with our 46 chromosomes. The next step is technology assisted socail darwinism. Our database helps keep track of the idiots and criminals that we can no longer ostracize because there is no place to exile them to.
Is this a recursive post?
Although this fear is certainly reasonable, one could argue that stratifying recidivism risk (in a valid fashion) would allow the system to concentrate treatment and surveillance efforts on higher risk persons. If you can focus on those criminals who would benefit from intensive therapy (and you could indeed find such a therapy), you might be more effective and less costly.
Of course, this requires a rather pollyanish view of the world, but anyone who has a financial position in functional MRIs ought to feel good about this.
I feel Happy!
I am sure they are used for surveillance, too. No way the military will give that up.
You're hat's on a bit too tight.
Guess what - the technical requirements for reading license plates from orbit and spotting cloud formations is slightly different.
But I guess you're not a rocket scientist.
Thank you.
But if I'm not mistaken, a lot of those satellites are not US satellites. I'm pretty sure that the European ones are courtesy of ESA or somebody like that.
Yep. To the AC above. Been there, done that