the beauty of renewables is that they don't need refuelling. New tech is more expensive initially but thats is capital expenditure and wasteful expense in constantly buying fuel, and the renewable output is now cheaper than coal and catching upto gas. To follow your scare scenario, you'd better close all the coal stations now as they are killing off large sections of the poorest with expense and the added killer pollution. Business are now beginning to invest in their own solar as it makes sense. try following a site like cleantechnica.com or a video channel called fullychargedshow - it'll expand your knowledge of renewables and their costs/benefits
I've read what they had to say and I am unconvinced of their arguments.
I am especially unconvinced that there is a climate "crisis" on the horizon that would.lend particular urgency to renewables such that they should be pushed ahead before they are cost effective. Global temperatures have not significantly risen over the past nearly 2 decades.
Forcing adoption before they are cost effective in my view is actually counter-productive. Guess what happens when electricity and heating fuel prices get too high? Poor people will use kerosene heaters, wood-burning traditional fireplaces that exist in many homes, or even just plain burn-barrels and other more-polluting but cheaper methods to survive.
Many who push renewables do not seem concerned about the effect of higher energy prices upon the poor. They appear to hold similar attitudes as the Chinese do in that the loss of life among the poor is not of great concern as there are always more poor, just as there are always more Chinese. Not surprising, as many hold collectivist views on society and government similar to the Chinese.
No, it's a matter of who is going to pay the incredibly high costs. Increasing the cost of energy only goes so far before you start killing off large sections of the poorest that won't be able to afford the costs. It increases the cost of food, medicine, housing, and nearly everything else. The poor are least able to to absorb the additional costs.It will also shutter many businesses or cause them to move offshore to another location with lower energy costs putting more people out of a job and so neither the unemployed nor the absent businesses will be paying US taxes.
Every solar/wind strategy that's been proposed relies on steeply increasing the cost of energy to users to both pay for the infrastructure and simultaneously reduce demand.
Increasing energy costs means people will die who would not otherwise. How many needless deaths per renewable-terrawatt is acceptable? 100? 1,000? 1,000,000?
Critical thinking about the unintended consequences seems to be mostly absent in the fanatical zeal to "green" energy.
Sort of like how the Israelis "had it in" for people who worked as staff at concentration camps ?
None of the people in media and government had any real problem with what FB did while Democrats used FB data the same exact way until it came out that the Trump campaign might have benefited from FB data.
Now, suddenly, it's torches, pitchforks, and Nazi references.
The hypocrisy would be hilariously funny if it was not so frighteningly fascist.
It is too bad they won't go after Equifax to the same degree they are going after Facebook.
If the Trump campaign had some link to Equifax then they, too, would be under the gun.
The ONLY reason Facebook is being trashed is because the Left thinks FB/Zucky helped Trump knowingly or unknowingly. That's it. That's the only reason. The people screaming for investigations had no problem with Democrats using FB data for election demographics purposes, nor did they have any real issues with FB's invasiveness regarding privacy prior other than as a minor side-issue they had to make the right noises about.
I'm happy to see more people becoming aware of the importance of privacy, but the hypocrisy surrounding this shitshow is over 9000.
36 [Jesus] said to [the disciples], "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag; and the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one."
Then you must have a gistorical source to cite. I've asked several times for a source and you have failed to provide one, only repeating your assertion without evidence
Without a historical citation I'll have to call BS.
Between projects like IPFS and Sia, I suspect Drive will be under pressure for cost alone.
I wouldn't be surprised if the US government passed laws, Acts, or regulations to make those illegal if they began to receive serious adoption numbers among the US population, both to protect the politician's owners (Google, etc) and to make certain people have no way to securely communicate that government can't decrypt and read. To their way of thinking, livestock has no need for privacy or security, after all.
Hell, there's yet *another* article here on/. about the government again insisting on backdoors for encrypted smartphones after it was explained ad nauseam that there's either security or not because math.
I'm waiting to hear the first serious calls for a US 'Great Firewall'. That's where this is headed if they continue down this path.
I guess if you really want to use a cloud service such as google drive, you'll want to use an app that encrypts and changes to numeric filenames.
Thank you, I came here to say this. ^^
Is Google going to forbid uploading/downloading encrypted (by a non-Google encryption algorithm they have no keys for) numerically-named files on GD now?
It's time for Alphabet and Twitter/FB to go quietly into that good night. They are enemies of individual liberty.
"Today, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have co-sponsored and introduced the Anal Probe Equality Act (APE Act). Pelosi was quoted as saying about the importance of the bill's passage; "With the passage of this APE Act, no more will some American be discriminated against by Right-Wing UFOs anal-probing only a privileged few!"
So if I go to someone's house and they didn't lock their door I should be allowed to wander around inside touching things? Right?
So, if I'm the CIO and responsible for data security at your bank and totally fail to prevent foreign hackers from taking all your money by failing to implement the most basic security practices, I should not face charges, and the blame should *only* be placed on those Evil(TM) Bad Guys?
One would think that if any of that was legally relevant, one of the courts involved might mention it. Did they?
Maybe they used the same Magic Get Out Of Jail Free Server Cloth that HRC used to escape Federal criminal charges. Just because a corrupt US "justice" system fails to hold it's own power-players to account does not make them innocent.
If somebody empties your bank accounts, empties your retirement accounts, and misappropriates all your title to real property, should they stay free simply because they didn't commit a violent crime (and are mentally unstable and have eczema)?
Stop being an apologist for a script kiddie. It's not a good look, and doing it effectively is apparently beyond your capability.
Such a nice strawman, and you kill it so well.
What this is about is US government officials' extreme embarrassment and outing of their egregious incompetence in totally failing due-diligence in fulfilling their obligations and duty by assuring the **the most simple and basic security practices* were employed on US military/defense and other government server systems.
This was a CYA move by US government officials who totally failed in their responsibilities & duties. They are scared shitless and looking for a scapegoat because they well know that if the very rudimentary scans Love performed got him access, then Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea, and others are almost certainly deep within US defense and other government data systems, and if *that* comes to light, they themselves may be facing a Federal judge answering to criminal charges.
We can't keep adding a billion people a year across the world. The planet doesn't have an infinite amount of resources but the population still grows. As resources diminish than the fight over the resources will be epic.
Malthus' dire predictions of impending overpopulation-caused disaster keep failing year after year, decade after decade, as our technology and science advances keep enabling us to support ever more people.
I believe the same is true regarding changes to climate. We will simply become more technically and scientifically advanced, allowing us to mitigate any potential climate-related problems.
This shutting off of a few lights is just virtue-signalling.
There are areas where a gun is a useful tool...but it's not inside the cities.
I disagree. Cities pose far more risk to personal safety from others than outside cities where there are fewer people and fewer criminals.
"When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act." -- Marko Kloos
If you can't pass a parade drill, then you're not well regulated and you're all going to have to put on government uniforms and go off to boot camp with everybody else.
You keep saying that but I can find nothing that corroborates this.
The 17th amendment was repealed. So can the 2nd amendment.
But those who are, and who are attempting to expand, infingement of 2ndA Rights aren't trying to "repeal" it (FYI: Amendments are not "repealed" as in removed, another Amendment is passed to nullify or alter it) they are attempting to *bypass* the Constitutional processes set in place because they know the majority of Americans would not vote to pass an Amendment that eliminated or severely restricted or altered 2ndA individual rights to firearms.
If you can bypass or end-run one civil right, you can do the same to any or all of the others.
Aren't there any Amendments you value? Are you willing to trade individual liberty for safety?
That's what you do when you work to weaken a single Amendment you personally disagree with by bypassing the Democratic process to Amend the Constitution.
You cannot deny a service you offer to the entire world to particular people because they fall into the wrong category of person.
So an Atheist commercial mural artist must accept a job to paint a Christian-themed mural if requested? How about a print-shop with staunchly pro-choice owners, must they accept a job to print pro-life materials?
Be careful where you shit, it might just wind up on *your* shoe.
"Well regulated" meant "in good working order" in other trades, but in the military it meant that they can march as a unit.
It means your unit can pass a basic parade drill given by the military in the event that your State calls your unit up for military service. That's why the stuff about being necessary for the security of a State is in there.
Interesting interpretation, but I think we're splitting hairs here. It definitely does not mean the militia were part of the the Federal or State army or National Guard as the poster I replied to implied.
I'd be interested in seeing any citations/data you have about requirements for Revolutionary War-era civilian militias to be trained as marching units. Seeing as much of the fighting against the British was more guerrilla in nature, ambushing from cover, sniping officers, etc, I'm not certain that parade marching and order of arms drills and the like were required of volunteer ad-hoc civilian militias. To my knowledge they did not typically march together with regular army units but maneuvered and operated separately, coordinating by liaison officers and messengers.
This is why politicians are absolutely justified in thinking the masses are moronic asses.
The real problem for democracy is that those same politicians are selected from those same masses.
Oh, a stitch in time Just about saved me From going through the same old moves And this cat is nine He still suffers He's going through the same old grooves
But that stone just keeps on rolling Bringing me some real bad news Takers get the honey Givers sing the blues
The 2nd Amendment being about the well-regulated militia and all...
"Well regulated" meant "in good working order" when the Amendment was written.
"Organized militia -- consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
Unorganized militia -- composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia."
Seattle is pushing hard to get rid of Internet companies.
Nah, they'll just pass a law that businesses cannot leave Seattle if they have Seattle taxes due, and will make sure there's always a tax balance due on the ones they haven't bankrupted yet.
Slashdot Mirror
the beauty of renewables is that they don't need refuelling. New tech is more expensive initially but thats is capital expenditure and wasteful expense in constantly buying fuel, and the renewable output is now cheaper than coal and catching upto gas. To follow your scare scenario, you'd better close all the coal stations now as they are killing off large sections of the poorest with expense and the added killer pollution. Business are now beginning to invest in their own solar as it makes sense.
try following a site like cleantechnica.com or a video channel called fullychargedshow - it'll expand your knowledge of renewables and their costs/benefits
I've read what they had to say and I am unconvinced of their arguments.
I am especially unconvinced that there is a climate "crisis" on the horizon that would .lend particular urgency to renewables such that they should be pushed ahead before they are cost effective. Global temperatures have not significantly risen over the past nearly 2 decades.
Forcing adoption before they are cost effective in my view is actually counter-productive. Guess what happens when electricity and heating fuel prices get too high? Poor people will use kerosene heaters, wood-burning traditional fireplaces that exist in many homes, or even just plain burn-barrels and other more-polluting but cheaper methods to survive.
Many who push renewables do not seem concerned about the effect of higher energy prices upon the poor. They appear to hold similar attitudes as the Chinese do in that the loss of life among the poor is not of great concern as there are always more poor, just as there are always more Chinese. Not surprising, as many hold collectivist views on society and government similar to the Chinese.
Strat
It's just a matter of willpower.
No, it's a matter of who is going to pay the incredibly high costs. Increasing the cost of energy only goes so far before you start killing off large sections of the poorest that won't be able to afford the costs. It increases the cost of food, medicine, housing, and nearly everything else. The poor are least able to to absorb the additional costs.It will also shutter many businesses or cause them to move offshore to another location with lower energy costs putting more people out of a job and so neither the unemployed nor the absent businesses will be paying US taxes.
Every solar/wind strategy that's been proposed relies on steeply increasing the cost of energy to users to both pay for the infrastructure and simultaneously reduce demand.
Increasing energy costs means people will die who would not otherwise. How many needless deaths per renewable-terrawatt is acceptable? 100? 1,000? 1,000,000?
Critical thinking about the unintended consequences seems to be mostly absent in the fanatical zeal to "green" energy.
Strat
Their core fan base are the commoners.
You really should add sarcasm tags when you post obviously contrary things like that. Some people don't "get" sarcasm in forum posts without a tag.
Google's "core fan base" are governments, especially their domestic intelligence services, and Leftist political groups.
There needs to be a divestment movement started against Google, Facebook, and Twitter, and the FTC needs to break up Alphabet.
Strat
Sort of like how the Israelis "had it in" for people who worked as staff at concentration camps ?
None of the people in media and government had any real problem with what FB did while Democrats used FB data the same exact way until it came out that the Trump campaign might have benefited from FB data.
Now, suddenly, it's torches, pitchforks, and Nazi references.
The hypocrisy would be hilariously funny if it was not so frighteningly fascist.
Strat
It is too bad they won't go after Equifax to the same degree they are going after Facebook.
If the Trump campaign had some link to Equifax then they, too, would be under the gun.
The ONLY reason Facebook is being trashed is because the Left thinks FB/Zucky helped Trump knowingly or unknowingly. That's it. That's the only reason. The people screaming for investigations had no problem with Democrats using FB data for election demographics purposes, nor did they have any real issues with FB's invasiveness regarding privacy prior other than as a minor side-issue they had to make the right noises about.
I'm happy to see more people becoming aware of the importance of privacy, but the hypocrisy surrounding this shitshow is over 9000.
Strat
36 [Jesus] said to [the disciples], "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag; and the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one."
Luke 22:36
Strat
Try historical sources and not political ones.
Then you must have a gistorical source to cite. I've asked several times for a source and you have failed to provide one, only repeating your assertion without evidence
Without a historical citation I'll have to call BS.
Strat
Between projects like IPFS and Sia, I suspect Drive will be under pressure for cost alone.
I wouldn't be surprised if the US government passed laws, Acts, or regulations to make those illegal if they began to receive serious adoption numbers among the US population, both to protect the politician's owners (Google, etc) and to make certain people have no way to securely communicate that government can't decrypt and read. To their way of thinking, livestock has no need for privacy or security, after all.
Hell, there's yet *another* article here on /. about the government again insisting on backdoors for encrypted smartphones after it was explained ad nauseam that there's either security or not because math.
I'm waiting to hear the first serious calls for a US 'Great Firewall'. That's where this is headed if they continue down this path.
Strat
Andy Warhol?
I thought he changed his name and is now the mayor of Chicago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Strat
...Such that they slice the birds into easy-to-swallow bite-sized pieces instead of mostly just pulverizing them?
Summer BBQ season is nearly upon us, after all.
Strat
Wrong. It's the Trump Administration now requesting a back door into all our devices. Why are you trying to divert blame elsewhere?
BOTH Parties have been pushing this.
The one area where there is bipartisan agreement is that people have too much money, liberty, and privacy.
I simply expect the Democrats to jump in with both feet to beat the Republicans to the punch.
Strat
I guess if you really want to use a cloud service such as google drive, you'll want to use an app that encrypts and changes to numeric filenames.
Thank you, I came here to say this. ^^
Is Google going to forbid uploading/downloading encrypted (by a non-Google encryption algorithm they have no keys for) numerically-named files on GD now?
It's time for Alphabet and Twitter/FB to go quietly into that good night. They are enemies of individual liberty.
Strat
"Today, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have co-sponsored and introduced the Anal Probe Equality Act (APE Act). Pelosi was quoted as saying about the importance of the bill's passage; "With the passage of this APE Act, no more will some American be discriminated against by Right-Wing UFOs anal-probing only a privileged few!"
Strat
So if I go to someone's house and they didn't lock their door I should be allowed to wander around inside touching things? Right?
So, if I'm the CIO and responsible for data security at your bank and totally fail to prevent foreign hackers from taking all your money by failing to implement the most basic security practices, I should not face charges, and the blame should *only* be placed on those Evil(TM) Bad Guys?
Strat
One would think that if any of that was legally relevant, one of the courts involved might mention it. Did they?
Maybe they used the same Magic Get Out Of Jail Free Server Cloth that HRC used to escape Federal criminal charges. Just because a corrupt US "justice" system fails to hold it's own power-players to account does not make them innocent.
Strat
If somebody empties your bank accounts, empties your retirement accounts, and misappropriates all your title to real property, should they stay free simply because they didn't commit a violent crime (and are mentally unstable and have eczema)?
Stop being an apologist for a script kiddie. It's not a good look, and doing it effectively is apparently beyond your capability.
Such a nice strawman, and you kill it so well.
What this is about is US government officials' extreme embarrassment and outing of their egregious incompetence in totally failing due-diligence in fulfilling their obligations and duty by assuring the **the most simple and basic security practices* were employed on US military/defense and other government server systems.
This was a CYA move by US government officials who totally failed in their responsibilities & duties. They are scared shitless and looking for a scapegoat because they well know that if the very rudimentary scans Love performed got him access, then Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea, and others are almost certainly deep within US defense and other government data systems, and if *that* comes to light, they themselves may be facing a Federal judge answering to criminal charges.
Strat
We can't keep adding a billion people a year across the world. The planet doesn't have an infinite amount of resources but the population still grows. As resources diminish than the fight over the resources will be epic.
Malthus' dire predictions of impending overpopulation-caused disaster keep failing year after year, decade after decade, as our technology and science advances keep enabling us to support ever more people.
I believe the same is true regarding changes to climate. We will simply become more technically and scientifically advanced, allowing us to mitigate any potential climate-related problems.
This shutting off of a few lights is just virtue-signalling.
Strat
There are areas where a gun is a useful tool...but it's not inside the cities.
I disagree. Cities pose far more risk to personal safety from others than outside cities where there are fewer people and fewer criminals.
"When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act." -- Marko Kloos
Strat
If you can't pass a parade drill, then you're not well regulated and you're all going to have to put on government uniforms and go off to boot camp with everybody else.
You keep saying that but I can find nothing that corroborates this.
Strat
The 17th amendment was repealed. So can the 2nd amendment.
But those who are, and who are attempting to expand, infingement of 2ndA Rights aren't trying to "repeal" it (FYI: Amendments are not "repealed" as in removed, another Amendment is passed to nullify or alter it) they are attempting to *bypass* the Constitutional processes set in place because they know the majority of Americans would not vote to pass an Amendment that eliminated or severely restricted or altered 2ndA individual rights to firearms.
If you can bypass or end-run one civil right, you can do the same to any or all of the others.
Aren't there any Amendments you value? Are you willing to trade individual liberty for safety?
That's what you do when you work to weaken a single Amendment you personally disagree with by bypassing the Democratic process to Amend the Constitution.
Strat
You cannot deny a service you offer to the entire world to particular people because they fall into the wrong category of person.
So an Atheist commercial mural artist must accept a job to paint a Christian-themed mural if requested? How about a print-shop with staunchly pro-choice owners, must they accept a job to print pro-life materials?
Be careful where you shit, it might just wind up on *your* shoe.
Strat
"Well regulated" meant "in good working order" in other trades, but in the military it meant that they can march as a unit.
It means your unit can pass a basic parade drill given by the military in the event that your State calls your unit up for military service. That's why the stuff about being necessary for the security of a State is in there.
Interesting interpretation, but I think we're splitting hairs here. It definitely does not mean the militia were part of the the Federal or State army or National Guard as the poster I replied to implied.
I'd be interested in seeing any citations/data you have about requirements for Revolutionary War-era civilian militias to be trained as marching units. Seeing as much of the fighting against the British was more guerrilla in nature, ambushing from cover, sniping officers, etc, I'm not certain that parade marching and order of arms drills and the like were required of volunteer ad-hoc civilian militias. To my knowledge they did not typically march together with regular army units but maneuvered and operated separately, coordinating by liaison officers and messengers.
Strat
Oh, a stitch in time
Just about saved me
From going through the same old moves
And this cat is nine
He still suffers
He's going through the same old grooves
But that stone just keeps on rolling
Bringing me some real bad news
Takers get the honey
Givers sing the blues
-- "Too Rolling Stoned" -- Robin Trower
Strat
The 2nd Amendment being about the well-regulated militia and all...
"Well regulated" meant "in good working order" when the Amendment was written.
"Organized militia -- consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
Unorganized militia -- composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Redefining words is straight out of the dystopian novel "1984".
Strat
Seattle is pushing hard to get rid of Internet companies.
Nah, they'll just pass a law that businesses cannot leave Seattle if they have Seattle taxes due, and will make sure there's always a tax balance due on the ones they haven't bankrupted yet.
Strat