We have to replace coal fired power plants with nuclear ones. All other technological options are not ready to start solving the problem (at the scales needed) right now.
I am actually frustrated that there is not a nuclear plant being built now near my city. I live in a very sparsely populated area that is geologically stable. We already have much of the power infrastructure in place for windmills and a natural gas power plant. Nuclear would be a sensible addition and expansion.
If you say you want to solve global warming and you say that we can't build nuclear power plants, you're a hypocrite.
Ironically the same people the argue with "deniers" about the problem argue against nuclear as part of the solution. So switching to working on the solution actually doesn't end the argument, it just creates a reactionary hypocrisy that makes your head hurt.
Population density in from the coastlines is much lower than it is on the coastlines. So yes as oceans rise there will be places for people to move to.
This line of reasoning always makes me fee a bit uneasy. What if we do all the hard work of fixing the climate, only to get hit by an asteroid and have it all go to shit anyway?
I mean really, it'd be global scale Murphy's law to fix the climate and then get hit.
But in all seriousness, it does bother me to see near Earth asteroid detection projects loose funding, IMHO they are as important as climate change projects.
Your claim that printing money to have the government spend doesn't affect the poor or middle class is ludicrous. The inflation this causes affects the poor and the middle class quite a bit. And if interest rates ever go up again this house of cards (debt) will come crashing down on us all.
Yes there has been stagnation in the rate of increase. The rate of change in not increasing. As the gp post states, increasing rate of change is the definition of a positive feedback loop. Right now warming due to carbon dioxide is being seen, but a positive feedback loop is not.
You got one thing right. The state is evil. And by state I mean the government itself, not Wyoming per se.
If, in order to solve this problem, the liberty and freedom of the people in Wyoming to run their own lives and government needs to be sacrificed, then I will never agree with your "solution" to this problem.
If we must give our liberty in order to survive, then count me as your enemy. What good is life without liberty?
Oh and your all powerful government you require to solve this problem, if it's at all like all the all powerful governments that have come before, it'll have to destroy the environment in order to save it.
I think its fun to watch a company that built its fortune on tiny margins move into a industry that has enormous customer hostile margins.
Google is going to fucking destroy the big ISPs everywhere they go. Its good to see them fearing for their survival, because the big ISPs are truly evil.
And here is the greatest irony. Self-driving cars, if widely adopted, will save THOUSANDS of lives, but its the edge cases like this that will slow our ability to have this new technology because lawyers are salivating at the potential to sue Google because a tiny number of their autonomous cars will face unavoidable crashes.
Initially I thought that might not be true because tape will still be linear and you would still need to move it past the read heads.
But, if you work to make the read heads (and the tape) wider you could still have the same velocity of tape, but write more data (on top of the more data you're writing because of density increases) and actually achieve very good throughput.
The margins that the big ISPs operate at are obscene.
The "EVIL" oil companies make billions on tiny margins, around 8%.
The are article quotes nearly 40% margins for the big ISPs. This is a sign of a monopoly market, of collusion, of protective government regulation, basically is a sign that the big ISPs are really really fucking evil.
It a true market a 40% margin would not stand.
The FCC needs to either work for the citizens of this country and make the internet common carrier, or they might as well disband. Outside of making the internet common carrier, almost every action they are taking is as bad than doing nothing at all.
What I love about this is the focus on the fact that the poor don't have smartphones.
From the administration perspective, if they don't have smartphones, then how the hell is the NSA going to track them? This problem needs to be solved.
Personally, looking at Tesla, how the company is run and the products they make, I predict that within the next 20 years Tesla will sell more cars per year than Mercedes.
Yeah, we should go back to the Fairness Doctrine, that requires BOTH sides of every issue to be covered.
I find it massively insulting that we are consistently led to believe that issues only ever have TWO solutions. The structure of the Fairness Doctrine reveals its fatal flaw, and in fact the fatal flaw of American Democracy today; that we're all supposed to line up behind one of TWO teams.
The Fairness Doctrine was an evil impediment to free speech, as far as I'm concerned it should never return.
There is the concept that the fact that she knows what the NSA did and how they operate would be a valuable thing for a company like Dropbox to know.
Its like how a coach for one team leaves to go to another team, they bring with them the knowledge of the plays and schemes that their previous team employed.
I don't know why women don't want to go into computing as a field.
I DO know that both of my daughters do not want to go into computing like their Dad. I have asked them this directly.
For whatever reason, they do not have an interest in computing. This is not for lack of effort. I have never withheld resources from them from using and working on any of our computers, and in fact they participated willingly when I coached the lego robotics team in our town. But programming just isn't their thing. They just weren't interested in it.
I'm not going to force them and I'm not going to blame society. Boys and Girls are different and no matter how long people try to pound out those differences they aren't going away.
I have worked with many women who work in IT and programming and many of them have been excellent coders/engineers/analysts.
Is it possible that all the women that want to be in computing choose computing and its just a fact that women don't choose to do computing as often as men do, and could it be possible that that really isn't actually a big deal?
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. Now imagine that everyone be required to have one of those in their car. There would be a huge backlash from the general law abiding populace.
â¦. and no one has more firepower than they do.
What to do about it is easy.
We have to replace coal fired power plants with nuclear ones. All other technological options are not ready to start solving the problem (at the scales needed) right now.
I am actually frustrated that there is not a nuclear plant being built now near my city. I live in a very sparsely populated area that is geologically stable. We already have much of the power infrastructure in place for windmills and a natural gas power plant. Nuclear would be a sensible addition and expansion.
If you say you want to solve global warming and you say that we can't build nuclear power plants, you're a hypocrite.
Ironically the same people the argue with "deniers" about the problem argue against nuclear as part of the solution. So switching to working on the solution actually doesn't end the argument, it just creates a reactionary hypocrisy that makes your head hurt.
While reading you post I imagined giving a lecture and then in the middle yelling "STOP. Hammer Time!"
I'll have to try that next semester, although the closest I came to teaching about hammers was explaining the $5 password security exploit.
Except we'd have to solve the OPPOSITE problem.
Population density in from the coastlines is much lower than it is on the coastlines. So yes as oceans rise there will be places for people to move to.
This line of reasoning always makes me fee a bit uneasy. What if we do all the hard work of fixing the climate, only to get hit by an asteroid and have it all go to shit anyway?
I mean really, it'd be global scale Murphy's law to fix the climate and then get hit.
But in all seriousness, it does bother me to see near Earth asteroid detection projects loose funding, IMHO they are as important as climate change projects.
Your claim that printing money to have the government spend doesn't affect the poor or middle class is ludicrous. The inflation this causes affects the poor and the middle class quite a bit. And if interest rates ever go up again this house of cards (debt) will come crashing down on us all.
Yes there has been stagnation in the rate of increase. The rate of change in not increasing. As the gp post states, increasing rate of change is the definition of a positive feedback loop. Right now warming due to carbon dioxide is being seen, but a positive feedback loop is not.
You got one thing right. The state is evil. And by state I mean the government itself, not Wyoming per se.
If, in order to solve this problem, the liberty and freedom of the people in Wyoming to run their own lives and government needs to be sacrificed, then I will never agree with your "solution" to this problem.
If we must give our liberty in order to survive, then count me as your enemy. What good is life without liberty?
Oh and your all powerful government you require to solve this problem, if it's at all like all the all powerful governments that have come before, it'll have to destroy the environment in order to save it.
I think its fun to watch a company that built its fortune on tiny margins move into a industry that has enormous customer hostile margins.
Google is going to fucking destroy the big ISPs everywhere they go. Its good to see them fearing for their survival, because the big ISPs are truly evil.
And here is the greatest irony. Self-driving cars, if widely adopted, will save THOUSANDS of lives, but its the edge cases like this that will slow our ability to have this new technology because lawyers are salivating at the potential to sue Google because a tiny number of their autonomous cars will face unavoidable crashes.
Wish I had some mod points. Well said.
No, they only have to say they're throttling their own services the same way they throttle dropbox.
Just like they say they're spending all those government fees they've taken in to improve their service, when they're really just pocketing them.
I'm guessing because half is better than none and that this fix addresses the evil that the big ISPs are doing right now.
Initially I thought that might not be true because tape will still be linear and you would still need to move it past the read heads.
But, if you work to make the read heads (and the tape) wider you could still have the same velocity of tape, but write more data (on top of the more data you're writing because of density increases) and actually achieve very good throughput.
Thats too true.
The margins that the big ISPs operate at are obscene.
The "EVIL" oil companies make billions on tiny margins, around 8%.
The are article quotes nearly 40% margins for the big ISPs. This is a sign of a monopoly market, of collusion, of protective government regulation, basically is a sign that the big ISPs are really really fucking evil.
It a true market a 40% margin would not stand.
The FCC needs to either work for the citizens of this country and make the internet common carrier, or they might as well disband. Outside of making the internet common carrier, almost every action they are taking is as bad than doing nothing at all.
What I love about this is the focus on the fact that the poor don't have smartphones.
From the administration perspective, if they don't have smartphones, then how the hell is the NSA going to track them? This problem needs to be solved.
Personally, looking at Tesla, how the company is run and the products they make, I predict that within the next 20 years Tesla will sell more cars per year than Mercedes.
Yeah, we should go back to the Fairness Doctrine, that requires BOTH sides of every issue to be covered.
I find it massively insulting that we are consistently led to believe that issues only ever have TWO solutions. The structure of the Fairness Doctrine reveals its fatal flaw, and in fact the fatal flaw of American Democracy today; that we're all supposed to line up behind one of TWO teams.
The Fairness Doctrine was an evil impediment to free speech, as far as I'm concerned it should never return.
There is the concept that the fact that she knows what the NSA did and how they operate would be a valuable thing for a company like Dropbox to know.
Its like how a coach for one team leaves to go to another team, they bring with them the knowledge of the plays and schemes that their previous team employed.
I don't know why women don't want to go into computing as a field.
I DO know that both of my daughters do not want to go into computing like their Dad. I have asked them this directly.
For whatever reason, they do not have an interest in computing. This is not for lack of effort. I have never withheld resources from them from using and working on any of our computers, and in fact they participated willingly when I coached the lego robotics team in our town. But programming just isn't their thing. They just weren't interested in it.
I'm not going to force them and I'm not going to blame society. Boys and Girls are different and no matter how long people try to pound out those differences they aren't going away.
I have worked with many women who work in IT and programming and many of them have been excellent coders/engineers/analysts.
Is it possible that all the women that want to be in computing choose computing and its just a fact that women don't choose to do computing as often as men do, and could it be possible that that really isn't actually a big deal?
No, no, no. First you vilify your opponent then you Godwin them!!
You've done it completely backwards!!
If you read the article, they leveled the playing field by adding just a 350 microsecond delay.